Ryan Tannehill's Deep Ball Hasn't Improved Since Texas A&M

[Shouright]

That is completely valid. Someone posted a video of all of his TD passes this year. Watch it. You don't need a stat sheet or a bunch of percentages to see that he hits the others almost perfectly most of the time

Do you really think you should determine the frequency with which Tannehill hits receivers in stride from a video of his touchdown passes?

but just cannot hit Wallace in stride. It was horrible all season. This speaks totally to chemistry. Just based on watching tape it appears that he just cannot judge Wallace's speed properly. The guy is amazing fast, but doesn't look like he's going as fast as he is.

With whom was the chemistry problem at Texas A&M, when his downfield accuracy was no different?

 

[Shouright]

Well so did you....just a few posts ago. You stated that if he does better it will be because of a new OC that set up the proper system for his strengths. So you too believe that his play was undermined by an outside factor, or your short term memory is not as good as your understanding of math equations.

Here's what I said:

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.

There is nothing in that post that indicates a guarantee that, even if the optimal external factors are around him (assuming they aren't there already, which is nothing but an assumption), he would play adequately. It's entirely possible he's maxed out at his ceiling at the present time, and there is no change in his external factors that could bring about significantly better play on his part.

 

[Sarnics13]

Do you really think you should determine the frequency with which Tannehill hits receivers in stride from a video of his touchdown passes?

ummm...yeah? I wasn't using them to determine the frequency of misses throughout the season. I was using them to compare his throws to Wallace as opposed to every other person in the video. I don't need 1000 examples to determine that the sample size I DID see was example enough. Plus, I watched every single snap of every single game this season. The exact percentage is completely irrelevant to me. I could see with my own 2 eyes that for the most part he blew when throwing deep to Wallace.

 

[Shouright]

ummm...yeah? I wasn't using them to determine the frequency of misses throughout the season. I was using them to compare his throws to Wallace as opposed to every other person in the video. I don't need 1000 examples to determine that the sample size I DID see was example enough. Plus, I watched every single snap of every single game this season. The exact percentage is completely irrelevant to me. I could see with my own 2 eyes that for the most part he blew when throwing deep to Wallace.

Well I sure agree with that, and in this case the numbers agree with us.

However, unless there was another "Wallace" to whom to attribute the same problem with downfield accuracy at Texas A&M, then the problem is more likely than not Tannehill's, given his history in this area.

 

[Sarnics13]

Here's what I said:

There is nothing in that post that indicates a guarantee that, even if the optimal external factors are around him (assuming they aren't there already, which is nothing but an assumption), he would play adequately. It's entirely possible he's maxed out at his ceiling at the present time, and there is no change in his external factors that could bring about significantly better play on his part.

Huh?? You have a future in politics. Completely ignored the point and proceeded to spout what appeared to sound profound and well thought out nonsense....when all the while you stated in that post that if he improved it would be because of a new OC putting a system in place for him. Which means:

-You believe that the system employed in 2013 was not a system set up for him to succeed
-a system exists in which he would improve in
-he possesses the ability to improve under a different system

 

[Shouright]

Huh?? You have a future in politics. Completely ignored the point and proceeded to spout what appeared to sound profound and well thought out nonsense....when all the while you stated in that post that if he improved it would be because of a new OC putting a system in place for him. Which means:

-You believe that the system employed in 2013 was not a system set up for him to succeed
-a system exists in which he would improve in
-he possesses the ability to improve under a different system

It sounds like we disagree on the meaning of the word "if."

 

[Sarnics13]

Well I sure agree with that, and in this case the numbers agree with us.

However, unless there was another "Wallace" to whom to attribute the same problem with downfield accuracy at Texas A&M, then the problem is more likely than not Tannehill's, given his history in this area.

Then how do you explain his deep ball throws to everyone else being very solid?

 

[Shouright]

Then how do you explain his deep ball throws to everyone else being very solid?

When we have the objective data for that, along with the depth of those throws, on average, in comparison to the ones made to Wallace, I'll offer an explanation.

 

[Sarnics13]

When we have the objective data for that, along with the depth of those throws, on average, in comparison to the ones made to Wallace, I'll offer an explanation.

So you actually don't even watch the games? In all seriousness....your only point of reference are numbers on a piece of paper? Watch the tape man....you can see all of this plain and simple!!!!

 

[Shouright]

So you actually don't even watch the games? In all seriousness....your only point of reference are numbers on a piece of paper? Watch the tape man....you can see all of this plain and simple!!!!

Well then it should be easily found in the objective data, too, correct?

 

[Sarnics13]

When we have the objective data for that, along with the depth of those throws, on average, in comparison to the ones made to Wallace, I'll offer an explanation.

Maybe you misunderstood, or I wasn't clear. It was really rhetorical. Yours nor anyone else's stat driven view of what we all can plainly see is of any interest to me. I'm not seeking your self proclaimed wisdom since it's clearly agenda driven, and quite frankly at this point
totally redundant. Your ongoing review and self serving stat sheets mean nothing to anyone other than a platform for everyone to grow to despise your posts.

 

[Shouright]

Maybe you misunderstood, or I wasn't clear. It was really rhetorical. Yours nor anyone else's stat driven view of what we all can plainly see is of any interest to me. I'm not seeking your self proclaimed wisdom since it's clearly agenda driven, and quite frankly at this point
totally redundant. Your ongoing review and self serving stat sheets mean nothing to anyone other than a platform for everyone to grow to despise your posts.

Sounds like you need to get out of the habit of clicking on the threads I start, and/or put me on your ignore list.