Lack of Mike Wallace deep ball is because Ryan Tannehill can't make that throw. | Page 7 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

Lack of Mike Wallace deep ball is because Ryan Tannehill can't make that throw.

Considering he has been playing QB for a grand total of four years between college and the pros compared to most who have a total of 7+, being where he is at is more of a compliment than people want to even acknowledge. He's a top 15 QB in the NFL with less experience than those above and below him...

first "top 15" is the weakest argument i've seen in a while. he's #14 overall according to nfl.com. Whoopedie doo. Just like the franchise, the QB is mediocre.

Also, FYI Tannehill was #10 last year...so whats that say?
 
first "top 15" is the weakest argument i've seen in a while. he's #14 overall according to nfl.com. Whoopedie doo. Just like the franchise, the QB is mediocre.

Also, FYI Tannehill was #10 last year...so whats that say?

Considering that the offensive line last year was actually giving Tannehill more time to throw than he has had this year, it doesn't say much that the argument is there that offensive line play affects QB play. But hey don't mind me. Just keep carrying that torch and pitchfork marching onward...
 
I think RT is misunderstood with his identity as a QB.

He is more like a Alex Smith clone, which is not a bad thing. He can make plays on his feet, and is showing great ability to complete most of his passes. RT is just not a deep ball throwing QB.

Unfortunately, our former GM didn't sign the right personnel at WR (M. Wallace, im looking at you) to go along with RT's strong QB traits. However, M. Wallace can thrive with teams like PIT, BAL, SD, etc., but teams like KC, MIA, NYJ., you just wont see very good production from him.

Good news is, J. Landry looks like the real deal and is a perfect complement to RT's characteristics as a QB. A guy who can get strong YAC, and run clean short to intermediate routes in the middle of the field. Not a fan of Hartline (think he is a little overpaid) or Wallace (like I said, not a good pair for RT). I like Matthews (needs more opportunity) and Gibson is a good at running routes when pocket breaks down on RT (a trait I LOVE in a WR).

In the draft, we should grab an OT (for depth) a BIG WR (there will be plenty to choose from), a BIG seam TE would be nice, but, in all honesty, I would love to get M. Gordon or T. Gurley, They would do exactly for us what J. Charles does for A. Smith. And if we cant grab any of those RB's, try to grab Ingram or AP in FA. (Possibly M. Lynch if he would consider moving to east coast)
 
What Tannehill needs is a Megatron or a Randy Moss type receiver. A guy you can literally "throw it up there" and have the receiver go get it.

We need a receiver who can beat defenders off jump balls.

Something. I'm not ready to bail on Tannehill just yet though. Just put talent around him that may work to his talents more.,
 
RT is the least of this teams issues. The chemistry of the deep ball isn't going to come if we never call the plays that generate the throws and if the QB only has 2.5 seconds or less to throw the ball.

RT is good QB. Not great at this point....but good. Bitching about him not being elite is absurd.

If you want to focus on legit stuff...try this...

Fix the O-line! If not for RT....then do it for the running game.
Where is our defensive pass rush when we need it. It disappears
Find some secondary help. We are literally out of players
Perhaps a run stopping linebacker or two? Just a thought
A consistent kicker
An OC that that doesn't abandon the run when it is being successful (1st half against the Jets and 2nd half against the Ravens)
A DC that isn't afraid to be aggressive instead of playing all of this prevent crap that loses us games
A HC that uses time out properly and doesn't panic at crunch time.
Some depth at all of our key positions! Please!!!!

Some of these items can be addressed through more experience and some will require changes.....but these are much bigger issues than RT's ability to hit the long ball or not.
 
Back
Top Bottom