Sharpe: "Dolphins' Problems on Offense Can be Laid at Tannehill's Feet" | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

Sharpe: "Dolphins' Problems on Offense Can be Laid at Tannehill's Feet"

Phinatic8u said:
http://www.footballoutsiders.com/film-room/2013/film-room-tannehill-haden
Click to expand...
Wait, are you sure you shouldn't be putting me on trial for not including every other possible slant on this issue available on planet earth, rather than just adding another slant as you see fit? :unsure:

That said, I'll take Shannon Sharpe's opinion over Cian Fahey's (who?) anyday, even though I'll give you the "thumbs up" for providing additional, relevant information as a positive contribution to the forum. ;)
 
Phinatic8u said:
No, I trust those guys over guys at a cable network.
Click to expand...
Well don't look now, but Shannon Sharpe was actually a player in that offense at one time, and I suspect he analyzed hundreds if not thousands of hours of film in the course of doing the standard game review with his coaches and teammates.

That said, of course everyone here, including me, is going to have his own opinion. :)
 
shouright said:
Well don't look now, but Shannon Sharpe was actually a player in that offense at one time, and I suspect he analyzed hundreds if not thousands of hours of film in the course of doing the standard game review with his coaches and teammates.

That said, of course everyone here, including me, is going to have his own opinion. :)
Click to expand...

Being a player doesn't mean anything to me.

You can't look at this team and say all of the problems are on Tannehill..once you go there your opinion to me is useless.
 
I saw the segment last night. Shannon sharpe picked the dolphins to good things this year.

He did provide video evidence that RT17 is taking sacks that should be 10 and 15 yard gains. So it isn't all the line although they have been horrible.

Shannon played in this offense, so he knows when plays are there to be made.

The camera roll of pictures showing RT17 being pressured doesn't show where the receivers are 1 second before. In Shannon examples he stops the film show where RT17 should have thrown the ball then winds the film and shows the sack.

To me Shannon's work is much more complete then a bunch if pictures with no receiver routes included.
 
Fins1971 said:
I saw the segment last night. Shannon sharpe picked the dolphins to good things this year.

He did provide video evidence that RT17 is taking sacks that should be 10 and 15 yard gains. So it isn't all the line although they have been horrible.

Shannon played in this offense, so he knows when plays are there to be made.

The camera roll of pictures showing RT17 being pressured doesn't show where the receivers are 1 second before. In Shannon examples he stops the film show where RT17 should have thrown the ball then winds the film and shows the sack.

To me Shannon's work is much more complete then a bunch if pictures with no receiver routes included.
Click to expand...

Those pictures are showing that the tackles are horrible..not showing Tannehill. It's about the tackles. It clearly states this.

:lol:

We all know Tannehill needs to get better at certain things. Every young qb does. That's not new, so there's no need to post a thread every time somebody says something about it.
 
Can't we say that both are valid points? Both analysts are merely picking and choosing which plays Tannehill could have have gotten rid of the ball quicker (Sharpe) and which plays Tannehill either made great plays despite the poor o-line play or made bad plays because of the o-line play (the other guy). The fault of the bad play changes depending on the play (sometimes it's Tannehill's fault, sometimes it's the o-line's fault, sometimes it's an unfortunate interaction of both).
 
Retnuhrace said:
Can't we say that both are valid points? Both analysts are merely picking and choosing which plays Tannehill could have have gotten rid of the ball quicker (Sharpe) and which plays Tannehill either made great plays despite the poor o-line play or made bad plays because of the o-line play (the other guy). The fault of the bad play changes depending on the play (sometimes it's Tannehill's fault, sometimes it's the o-line's fault, sometimes it's an unfortunate interaction of both).
Click to expand...

Agreed, we have some stubborn people on here. All areas of offense need to improve.
To me, that is easy to see.

Btw, I don't agree with Shannon that it is all on RT17.
 
Phinatic8u said:
Those pictures are showing that the tackles are horrible..not showing Tannehill. It's about the tackles. It clearly states this.

:lol:

We all know Tannehill needs to get better at certain things. Every young qb does. That's not new, so there's no need to post a thread every time somebody says something about it.
Click to expand...

Again where are the receivers 1 second before those pictures. A qb can make tackles good or bad by getting rid of the ball or holding it.

A hall of fame receiver that played in this offense for a long time backs the OPs observations. How is that any different from the camera roll of tackle play being posted in new thread?
 
Phinatic8u said:
Being a player doesn't mean anything to me.

You can't look at this team and say all of the problems are on Tannehill..once you go there your opinion to me is useless.
Click to expand...
Well then it sounds like your mind is already made up. I'm not sure any of us here should have his mind already made up from our vantage point. Given what we're able to know for certain about the team, which is little if anything IMO, we should probably leave ourselves open to any perspectives and information we come across.
 
NCFINFAN13 said:
Then moment he says ALL THOSE SACKS are on Tannehill, he lost ALL credibility. Agendas are agendas I don't give a damn how much of an expert someone is.
Click to expand...
I think it's quite possible that what he meant was that the inordinate number of sacks, i.e., the number of sacks over and above the league norm, is, in his opinion, on Tannehill. I doubt "all those sacks" means for him "every one of them." I suspect it instead means "the number of them that are over and above what's typical." Of course I could be wrong, however. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom