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

[NCFINFAN13]

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).

Spreading the blame, and acknowledging reality just doesn't fit some peoples anti-tannehill obsession. It just shows their ignorance.

---------- Post added at 10:04 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:03 AM ----------

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 the ordinary."

Nope. He said what he said. Your expert meant what he meant.

 

[Shouright]

Shouspam being shouspam

Whoever you are being whoever you are, offering nothing of value to the forum or the topic, offering instead a useless and uninteresting commentary on a nobody who calls himself "shouright" on a message board. :)

 

[Xbrett82us]

They are both valid points. Tannehill needs to get rid of the ball quicker, but the line do a better job as well. There's no one person to blame here. It's a combination of Tannehill's indecisiveness and the oline getting manhandled at the same time.

 

[Shouright]

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).

Sure, however, what we still have here is a highly inordinate number of sacks, amidst no greater percentage of pressured dropbacks than the league average. While there have certainly been plays that are the fault of the offensive linemen, it's perspectives such as this one by Sharpe that offers some insight into perhaps why the percentage of sacks is so great despite the fact that Tannehill has no less time to throw on average than the average QB, and isn't pressured any greater percentage of the time than the average QB.

In other words, if you gathered together all the plays such as the ones highlighted by Sharpe, you might find that if Tannehill had gotten rid of the ball when he could have as Sharpe pointed out, his number of sacks could be a great deal fewer, perhaps without changing the offensive line play at all.

 

[NCFINFAN13]

They are both valid points. Tannehill needs to get rid of the ball quicker, but the line do a better job as well. There's no one person to blame here. It's a combination of Tannehill's indecisiveness and the oline getting manhandled at the same time.

Ding, ding, ding .... we have a winner

 

[JerryWrasse]

It's Sterling Sharpe not Shannon. Shannon is the no nothing at cbs. Sterling is half way intelligent.

 

[NCFINFAN13]

Sure, however, what we still have here is a highly inordinate number of sacks, amidst no greater percentage of pressured dropbacks than the league average. While there have certainly been plays that are the fault of the offensive linemen, it's perspectives such as this one by Sharpe that offers some insight into perhaps why the percentage of sacks is so great despite the fact that Tannehill has no less time to throw on average than the average QB, and isn't pressured any greater percentage of the time than the average QB.

In other words, if you gathered together all the plays such as the ones highlighted by Sharpe, you might find that if Tannehill had gotten rid of the ball when he could have as Sharpe pointed out, his number of sacks could be a great deal fewer, perhaps without changing the offensive line play at all.

Or if our o-line holds their blocks for 0.1 or 0.2 seconds longer ..... see how that works? I can do this ALL DAY.

 

[Shouright]

Nope. He said what he said. Your expert meant what he meant.

And you're certain of what he meant how? Do people never mean anything different from the words they use? Have you never heard anyone ask someone else "what do you mean?" after something is said? Why ever ask that question of anyone when we can always tell what they mean from their words exclusively?

---------- Post added at 09:17 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:15 AM ----------

Or if our o-line holds their blocks for 0.1 or 0.2 seconds longer ..... see how that works? I can do this ALL DAY.

Well have fun. I'll just go back to the tape Sharpe highlighted and see for myself that there was no additional time needed. :)

 

[KTDolphins]

T-Hill gets a share of the blame, but you cannot put this all on him. Last I checked this was a team game.

 

[NCFINFAN13]

And you're certain of what he meant how? Do people never mean anything different from the words they use? Have you never heard anyone ask someone else "what do you mean?" after something is said? Why ever ask that question of anyone when we can always tell what they mean from their words exclusively?

I'm certain about what he meant because of the passionate and determined way he said it, then tried to back it up with film and the explanation of his own cred with this offense.

It is what it is.

 

[NCFINFAN13]

And you're certain of what he meant how? Do people never mean anything different from the words they use? Have you never heard anyone ask someone else "what do you mean?" after something is said? Why ever ask that question of anyone when we can always tell what they mean from their words exclusively?

---------- Post added at 09:17 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:15 AM ----------

Well have fun. I'll just go back to the tape Sharpe highlighted and see for myself that there was no additional time needed. :)

Two plays .... yeah, lets just not mention the other 24. Real in depth analysis designed to suit your agenda. Have fun with that.

 

[ANUFan]

/Sigh!

Honestly, I think the coaching staff isn't doing him any favors. Also, by not running the ball consistently they're putting that much more pressure on him to make plays and protect the ball. You have to be variable in leadership and FB is no different. If you're pressing(He's a second year QB and SHOULD be able to do this now) but the results are consistent and growing errors then you gotta be smart and scale things back. Get the running game going, thereby taking some of that pressure off Tannehill and additionally, setting-up huge gains with the Play Action.

Why is that so hard to understand and execute?

 

[J. David Wannyheimer]

Sometimes, analysts like Sterling Sharpe are shouwrong about things like this.

I certainly don't agree with him if he says that #17 is responsible for the sacks or all of the offensive problems. But is he missing plays? Well yeah, yeah he is.

 

[rent this space]

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. :)

some Junc-worthy spin

 

[Shouright]

Two plays .... yeah, lets just not mention the other 24. Real in depth analysis designed to suit your agenda. Have fun with that.

I keep struggling to figure out what "an agenda" would do for anyone here? Is there really any benefit to be derived from convincing people you've never met and never will meet to think some certain way and not another way? :unsure: