Personally I think that if he improves, it'll be due more to the acquisition of an offensive coordinator who's able to build a system around his strengths while hiding his weaknesses, rather than to significant individual improvement in his own right. I think he probably is what he is at this point. He now has over a thousand pass attempts in the NFL.
That's the best paragraph in this thread, or any Tannehill thread, IMO.
Tannehill lacks great feel for the game and his passes are too often on the same arc, not the ideal requirement for the play. He's passive and not a leader. I happened to watch Texas A&M vs. Duke tonight in the Peach Bowl from a few weeks ago. I was in Orlando at the time and missed many of the bowls, but taped them on DVR. I've been catching up. After watching that tape tonight, the posters who prefer Tannehill have got to be kidding. j-off-her-doll is far too kind to them. Manziel can make every throw. I can't identify one thing Tannehill does better, other than helping the under bettors. Manziel dropped a deep ball perfectly in the receiver's lap for a touchdown with 5 minutes remaining and A&M trailing by 10.
The good news is we ran the ball only 21 times per game. That's like trying to lose. If Tannehill performed at the same level while we averaged 25 or 26 rushes per game, I'd hold less hope that a changed offense could significantly benefit him. Kubiak's offense made the most sense to me, with all the attacking runs and play action off stretch plays.
I don't know what to expect from Lazor but I'll post the same thing as last offseason, that we need fewer shotgun snaps, more play action, virtually zero empty sets, and greater commitment to the run. Those are aids to any quarterback on Tannehill's level, not merely him.
A year from now I suspect I'll be able to copy and paste the same paragraph again.
