I was too harsh on Ryan Tannehill | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

I was too harsh on Ryan Tannehill

mega-fin-love

mega-fin-love

Just trust me
Joined
May 11, 2010
Messages
2,255
Reaction score
153
Age
46
Location
Colonial Beach Virginia
I was a little to hard on Tannehill last night. I was likely the most drunk I have ever been in my 3 1/2 decades of existence and got a little carried away. Reading my posts from last night today I can see why I was catching flak. I was/am a bit disappointed in the offense and targeted Tanney more than needed. His play was fair considering the shape of the o-line and Gibson not being there. I'm glad he did not turn the ball over and he made a couple of big time throws. So just wanted to throw that out there to all who participated.....I do however still believe that the offense as a whole was pretty disappointing though. Am I being to hard on them? I mean I saw them go 3 for 14 on third down. I saw them only score 13 points ( our defense scored 9 ). I'm not happy about only scoring 13 points in 4.5 quarters of play especially since the Defense gave us 4 turnovers to work with. The running game was doing well, Tanney didn't turn the ball over, the o-line was better than recent weeks for sure. So why only 13 points? I mean we did have a fumble and missed field goal but that is pretty typical NFL stuff right there. Our defense of course stayed on the field longer than needed due to us giving up big 3rd and longs for first downs ( damn I hate that )....but in my opinion those things don't add up to us only getting 13 points. Is our offense just to banged up to put up a good amount of points? It seems to me that if Tanney doesn't turn the ball over and the o-line and running game are playing well then there is no reason we couldn't have put up more points considering what our D gave us. Would like to here every ones thoughts. Anyways....sorry T-hill. You're still my boy!!
 
mega-fin-love said:
I was a little to hard on Tannehill last night. I was likely the most drunk I have ever been in my 3 1/2 decades of existence and got a little carried away. Reading my posts from last night today I can see why I was catching flak. I was/am a bit disappointed in the offense and targeted Tanney more than needed. His play was fair considering the shape of the o-line and Gibson not being there. I'm glad he did not turn the ball over and he made a couple of big time throws. So just wanted to throw that out there to all who participated.....I do however still believe that the offense as a whole was pretty disappointing though. Am I being to hard on them? I mean I saw them go 3 for 14 on third down. I saw them only score 13 points ( our defense scored 9 ). I'm not happy about only scoring 13 points in 4.5 quarters of play especially since the Defense gave us 4 turnovers to work with. The running game was doing well, Tanney didn't turn the ball over, the o-line was better than recent weeks for sure. So why only 13 points? I mean we did have a fumble and missed field goal but that is pretty typical NFL stuff right there. Our defense of course stayed on the field longer than needed due to us giving up big 3rd and longs for first downs ( damn I hate that )....but in my opinion those things don't add up to us only getting 13 points. Is our offense just to banged up to put up a good amount of points? It seems to me that if Tanney doesn't turn the ball over and the o-line and running game are playing well then there is no reason we couldn't have put up more points considering what our D gave us. Would like to here every ones thoughts. Anyways....sorry T-hill. You're still my boy!!
Click to expand...

It is? What % of games do you think feature a long run for a td and a fg both negated due to a fumble near the goal line and a miss on the field goal.
 
Harry_Bagpipe said:
It is? What % of games do you think feature a long run for a td and a fg both negated due to a fumble near the goal line and a miss on the field goal.
Click to expand...

I think those kind of things happen quite a bit. Maybe not a fumble after a long run but fumbles occur in damn near every game. Missed field goals are pretty typical as well.
 
mega-fin-love said:
I think those kind of things happen quite a bit. Maybe not a fumble after a long run but fumbles occur in damn near every game. Missed field goals are pretty typical as well.
Click to expand...

Fumbles that costs tds and 36 yard field goals in the same game? Don't think they are that typical. It wasn't just a fumble.....it was a fumble that cost a td.
 
Harry_Bagpipe said:
It is? What % of games do you think feature a long run for a td and a fg both negated due to a fumble near the goal line and a miss on the field goal.
Click to expand...

Agreed. It wasn't even a 40-50 yarder. Sturgis should've made that. And Miller had an easy TD and ran the wrong way. That's 10 points that should've been ours.

But it IS concerning that our offense goes 3 and out so often. Especially in the second half. We need to score more points if we want to win enough games to make the playoffs, that's for sure.
 
JJM_7 said:
Agreed. It wasn't even a 40-50 yarder. Sturgis should've made that. And Miller had an easy TD and ran the wrong way. That's 10 points that should've been ours.

But it IS concerning that our offense goes 3 and out so often. Especially in the second half. We need to score more points if we want to win enough games to make the playoffs, for sure.
Click to expand...

Yeah Sturgis started out like he was gonna be our golden kicker. He has missed to many as of recent. At least he some what redeemed himself later on. Hope he get it together. He's got a big leg
 
Its not all Tannehill's fault but the offense is still ****ing pathetic and they only scored 10 points last night. Third and ten or longer feels exactly like 2008 when we had Pennington who couldn't throw it further than 8 yards, so we were always forced to try something conservative and almost always punt. Hopefully they can get some **** figured out during this mini-bye.
 
1972fins said:
Are you sober now?
Click to expand...

Not sure....lol. I'm sure there is still some alcohol in me. but on to the point. Have we not had a missed field goal or a fumble in damn near every game this year? Have we not had games where we fumbled and missed a field goal in the same game multiple times this year? So how is that not pretty typical?
 
mega-fin-love said:
I do however still believe that the offense as a whole was pretty disappointing though. Am I being to hard on them? I mean I saw them go 3 for 14 on third down. I saw them only score 13 points ( our defense scored 9 ). I'm not happy about only scoring 13 points in 4.5 quarters of play especially since the Defense gave us 4 turnovers to work with. The running game was doing well, Tanney didn't turn the ball over, the o-line was better than recent weeks for sure. So why only 13 points?
Click to expand...
I think you have to consider the fact that 14 points were likely erased by fairly unusual defensive plays (Miller's fumble and Wallace's PI call).

When you factor that level of potential offensive explosiveness into the more limited role they had Tannehill (appropriately, IMO) playing in, I don't think you have to be so dismayed. :up:

Remember that Miller and Wallace are explosive 4.34 and 4.33 weapons, respectively, and if they can allow them to help carry the offense while taking some of the burden off of Tannehill, I think the offense as a whole will be better off for it. I think Sherman has to work to get the ball in those guys' hands rather than playing so aggressively with Tannehill and having him carry so much of the offense at this stage of his development.
 
shouright said:
I think you have to consider the fact that 14 points were likely erased by fairly unusual defensive plays (Miller's fumble and Wallace's PI call).

When you factor that level of potential offensive explosiveness into the more limited role they had Tannehill (appropriately, IMO) playing in, I don't think you have to be so dismayed. :up:

Remember that Miller and Wallace are explosive 4.34 and 4.33 weapons, respectively, and if they can allow them to help carry the offense while taking some of the burden off of Tannehill, I think the offense as a whole will be better off for it. I think Sherman has to work to get the ball in those guys' hands rather than playing so aggressively with Tannehill and having him carry so much of the offense at this stage of his development.
Click to expand...

agreed mostly. While not great I think Sherman called a better game this week. We were still in the shotgun to damn much but he mixed it up more and ran the ball more and that really helped Tannehill. We shall see if that continues.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom