Ryan Tannehill in a new system.

[Spiff]

In any level of football, good passing offenses throw decisively over the middle and weak passing offenses throw timidly down the sideline. We need more rushing attempts and play action, enabling Tannehill to plant and throw confidently down the middle. Some schemes to open those zones wouldn't hurt. As Nick Saban emphasized tonight, Malzahn runs simple plays but all the window dressing makes them look complicated and allows things to bust wide open.

If we continue to sit back in the shotgun and ask Tannehill to throw deep lobs down the sideline, nothing will change. He'll be jumping around and throwing his hands to his helmet after yet another near miss, the 903rd of his career.

I firmly believe there is a lot of truth to this. During the season I read an article about how Tannehill was not really comfortable throwing over the middle. That might have handcuffed the offensive play calling. I am not 100% sure about this, would have to go back and watch some games but at least I can agree with Awsi that good passing offenses throw over the middle of the field.

 

[MD]

RT has displayed every attribute you want to see in a young QB. He's smart, learns quickly, adjust his mistakes, is athletic thus making his ability to transition to a new play caller relatively easy. Where he needs to improve is consistency in big moments. He has been bad there and it's a concern. If reports are true that he had lost confidence in Sherman, my gut tells me that is likely, a new set of hands on could be exactly what he needs. No doubt the mental portion of his game should improve.

 

[ChambersWI]

I think people need to realize that even if it's just one coach, the scheme can be the same but the actual plays could be different. I mean when Joe Philbin was the OC in Green Bay there was much more focus on multiple TE sets while Tom Clements prefers more use of the WRs, and both were different from Jeff Jagodzinski as OC. Or look at the difference between Bill O'Brien, Josh McDaniels, and Charlie Weiss as OC of the Pats. Same systems but all have their own little twist that made each a little different.

The question here is if you believe that Sherman was holding Tannehill back a bit. If you believe Jeff Darlington, the feeling among those close to the team (including the players) is that Ryan Tannehill had to get away from Sherman. While Sherman is not the reason why Tannehill missed Mike Wallace deep so much, there were other factors that I feel hurt the team, and I feel if they are true Sherman is responsible for (and by proxy, Joe is too).

I've seen new coordinators come in both in the NFL and in college with little to no position coach changes and have extremely positive effects on their teams right away. Of course, I've seen the opposite happen as well.

 

[Dick Pepperwood]

Two points seem most important to me:

1. Any change to the predictability of our offense will be a good change. Defenses not knowing run vs. pass and not knowing the snap count will help a lot. Flexibility with things like screens and multiple formations and receivers changing spots will help. So, there is a very real and substantial upside to a new OC.

2. Tannehill is still a bit inexperienced and he hasn't yet mastered THIS system, and I'm sure learning a new system will take a while. He's very bright and a hard worker, so he'll get there, but the early season isn't likely to be smooth and consistently pretty if the system is a major change. He's still getting used to Wallace, now their timing may be more off.

There are a lot of innovative OC candidates out there these days, and if we can get one to take the hot-seat job, it could work out very well. But, most will want to wait for a more stable coaching environment.

Talent-wise, fixing the OL should do wonders for the running game and Tannehill's excellent play-action off of that.

I disagree with "he is still getting used to Wallace" he is just used to under or over throwing Wallace.

 

[Awsi Dooger]

I am not 100% sure about this, would have to go back and watch some games but at least I can agree with Awsi that good passing offenses throw over the middle of the field.

It is valid. I wish I had saved the numbers from the stats office where I used to help out. The confident and successful passing offenses work on exploiting the middle of the field while the bail out pass offenses essentially default to deep alley oop type plays. It's like a cop out. There is only one defender the vast majority of the time since the safety can't get there, but the coordinator over values the single coverage aspect in relation to the low percentage of the call in general.

Andy Dalton makes that throw all the time. Go back and watch our game against the Bengals. He threw deep down the sideline at least 4 or 5 times when there was no reason for it. They were in third and manageable yet he wings it deep. Same in the playoff game against the Chargers. It's a poor design. That's why I'm not sold on Jay Gruden. He runs a bully attack, with schemes that are ideal for arena football but don't always transfer to high percentage NFL requirements. If the Bengals are terrorizing the opponent those deep sideline throws are the dagger but when the opponent is competent those throws are a waste. That's one of the reasons Cincinnati has such a vast dispersion in results. They don't do a good job in the middle of the field. As hoops pointed out, Gruden uses Eifert on ridiculous short outs when he's capable of much more than that. Dalton is ridiculed here but if we paid full attention to Cincinnati's offense we'd understand that the designs aren't ideal. Too many throws to the outside. Grimes and Patterson picked off those plays in our game and San Diego got a couple last weekend.

As a bettor, one thing that constantly frustrates me is when I need a first down and the quarterback wings it deep down the sideline on third and short or third and manageable. The connect percentage is next to nothing.

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

It is valid. I wish I had saved the numbers from the stats office where I used to help out. The confident and successful passing offenses work on exploiting the middle of the field while the bail out pass offenses essentially default to deep alley oop type plays. It's like a cop out. There is only one defender the vast majority of the time since the safety can't get there, but the coordinator over values the single coverage aspect in relation to the low percentage of the call in general.

Most of Tannehill's deep throws are along the sideline. As you say, low % plays. I am glad Sherman is gone.

Andy Dalton makes that throw all the time. Go back and watch our game against the Bengals. He threw deep down the sideline at least 4 or 5 times when there was no reason for it. They were in third and manageable yet he wings it deep. Same in the playoff game against the Chargers. It's a poor design. That's why I'm not sold on Jay Gruden. He runs a bully attack, with schemes that are ideal for arena football but don't always transfer to high percentage NFL requirements. If the Bengals are terrorizing the opponent those deep sideline throws are the dagger but when the opponent is competent those throws are a waste. That's one of the reasons Cincinnati has such a vast dispersion in results. They don't do a good job in the middle of the field. As hoops pointed out, Gruden uses Eifert on ridiculous short outs when he's capable of much more than that. Dalton is ridiculed here but if we paid full attention to Cincinnati's offense we'd understand that the designs aren't ideal. Too many throws to the outside. Grimes and Patterson picked off those plays in our game and San Diego got a couple last weekend.

Substitute "Tannehill" for "Dalton" and "Sherman" for "Gruden" and you'd be accused of making excuses.

As a bettor, one thing that constantly frustrates me is when I need a first down and the quarterback wings it deep down the sideline on third and short or third and manageable. The connect percentage is next to nothing.

For everybody or just Tannehill? Because most of the haters on this forum want everyone to believe it is just Tannehill.

The Fins are worse, they call the predictable run into the back of a stonewalled guard on 3rd down, then call the wing down the sideline on 4th down, TWICE in the same game (which they lost).....

 

[hoops]

It is valid. I wish I had saved the numbers from the stats office where I used to help out. The confident and successful passing offenses work on exploiting the middle of the field while the bail out pass offenses essentially default to deep alley oop type plays. It's like a cop out. There is only one defender the vast majority of the time since the safety can't get there, but the coordinator over values the single coverage aspect in relation to the low percentage of the call in general.

Andy Dalton makes that throw all the time. Go back and watch our game against the Bengals. He threw deep down the sideline at least 4 or 5 times when there was no reason for it. They were in third and manageable yet he wings it deep. Same in the playoff game against the Chargers. It's a poor design. That's why I'm not sold on Jay Gruden. He runs a bully attack, with schemes that are ideal for arena football but don't always transfer to high percentage NFL requirements. If the Bengals are terrorizing the opponent those deep sideline throws are the dagger but when the opponent is competent those throws are a waste. That's one of the reasons Cincinnati has such a vast dispersion in results. They don't do a good job in the middle of the field. As hoops pointed out, Gruden uses Eifert on ridiculous short outs when he's capable of much more than that. Dalton is ridiculed here but if we paid full attention to Cincinnati's offense we'd understand that the designs aren't ideal. Too many throws to the outside. Grimes and Patterson picked off those plays in our game and San Diego got a couple last weekend.

As a bettor, one thing that constantly frustrates me is when I need a first down and the quarterback wings it deep down the sideline on third and short or third and manageable. The connect percentage is next to nothing.

yep...i'm with you on gruden...daltons got too much tunnel vision on aj green though but there's no doubt they dont work the tight ends down the field enough...but i also see times where they have a good look down the seam and dalton just goes away from it like you said down the sideline...i guess aj green trumps proper decisions at times...

i have to think there's a lot of skill position frustration on that team...there's definitely tons of talent skill guys wise on offense

 

[JTC111]

If Sherman is the only change, I don't anticipate all that different of a system.

what is this new system stuff everyone is talking about? if joe philbin is the head coach there will be no new system. they will run the same offense. what is called and when it's called may change but the system wont.

Exactly. If Philbin came from the defensive side of the ball, I'd anticipate a new system, or at least some major modifications. But as Philbin is an offensive guy, if the team isn't running HIS offense, what function does he actually serve? Schedule maker?

 

[SCOTTY]

So when do we start working on new excuses for Tannehill sucking under a new OC??? The Tanney homers are amazing. He is nothing more than an average QB...no matter what system, no matter what OC. The guy was a total reach as a first round pick. There are 5 QBs in this draft I would take in an instant over Tanny.

 

[Phinatic8u]

I disagree with "he is still getting used to Wallace" he is just used to under or over throwing Wallace.

Even Big Ben struggled his first year with Wallace.

---------- Post added at 04:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:14 PM ----------

I don't remember a deep pass in the middle f the field all year.

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

So when do we start working on new excuses for Tannehill sucking under a new OC??? The Tanney homers are amazing. He is nothing more than an average QB...no matter what system, no matter what OC. The guy was a total reach as a first round pick. There are 5 QBs in this draft I would take in an instant over Tanny.

Brilliant and insightful.... :rolleyes2: Who wouldn't be swayed by that argument?

 

[LANGER72]

To use a music analogy Sherman was tone deaf. When we needed more brass he was doing himself with the piccolo.
His timing and choice of play was the problem not the WCO system