The Phininsider: Ryan Tannehill Is NOT The Problem--Great read !!

[fisi]

The Miami Dolphins appear to be on the verge of another disappointing season. While there are issues that need to be addressed to get the team back to the playoffs, the quarterback is not one of those issues.


In Tannehill's first game, he had Legadu Naanee, Brian Hartline, Davone Bess, and Anthony Fasano as his targets. Let that sink in a moment. Luck had Wayne, Kaepernick had Davis, Dalton had Green and Tannehill had LEGADU FREAKIN' NAANEE!!!

That was awesome!!




http://www.thephinsider.com/2014/12/17/7406633/ryan-tannehill-is-not-the-problem

 

[Sons Of Shula]

After three years the majority and intelligent fans already know this. This article will do nothing for the small minded percentage of ignorant ones that are to enamored with self-centered attention seeking posts to accept reason and to intoxicated with their fabricated fantasies to sit on a bar stool without falling off.

 

[Rev Kev]

We have to move on from having to defend RT ~ He is the choice for the next season and very likely 9 more after that...

 

[Awsi Dooger]

Apparently the intelligent ones predicted 11-5.

Per usual, no clue of the burden. I ate that type for dinner on the Las Vegas radio programs. The host actually laughed and told me that one fellow handicapper asked not to appear when I was on. I wouldn't allow his simplistic garbage to remain unchallenged. Not much has changed.

I didn't inherit yards per attempt a year or two ago, with no prior idea that the category existed. That's the comical reality on this forum. So many posters attack the relevance merely because they don't hear it weekly from the CBS, Fox or even ESPN announcers. Therefore it's meaningless and we can happy adjust away. What a party!

Tannehill looks like a 7.2 guy. That's what I don't understand, after following this aspect for more than a quarter century. Based on his stature and arm strength and ability to hit the short and intermediate line drives, he should consistently manage at least 7.0 to 7.2. That's the range I expected and predicted this season. He's not a high 7s or low 8 type, which requires special playmaking ability and an ideal variety of pace and loft to fit the evolving requirement of the play.

For whatever reason he never manages that 7+ level. Sacks are blamed. Even in the games minus sacks his numbers are not what they should be. I'll continue to believe it links to his background, that he wasn't special enough to play early as a collegian and now that naturally translates to later stages of his career. Something missing. Something wrong. Others are content to wait and wait. I think we are waiting for more of the same, within a relatively narrow window. But I realize we're stuck with him. That wait continues. The key with this type of quarterback is to avoid him in the first place, not to spend every offseason wondering how to locate that vital missing 5 or 10%.

BTW, am I supposed to be surprised at an apologetic slant from a site called phinsider? Now I need Andy Cohen's version.

 

[J. David Wannyheimer]

In Tannehill's first game, he had Legadu Naanee, Brian Hartline, Davone Bess, and Anthony Fasano as his targets.

Actually, two things I don't like about this statement:

1. Legedu Naanee was cut after the fourth game of the season. We had a revolving cast of receivers that included Anthony Armstrong, Jabar Gaffney, and Marlon Moore. Gaffney, Moore, Armstrong, Binns, and Rishard Matthews all had more receptions than Naanee. You can say that our weapons sucked in 2012 because of Naanee, but the truth is that the problem that year went deeper than that. We were fielding a different guy opposite Brian Hartline every four games or so. That's simply insane.


2. We had one very good weapon that year on offense. His name was Reggie Bush, and he was a good player for us for two years. Unfortunately, in 2012, the coaching staff decided not to use him as a pass-catching target.

Despite having a rookie quarterback behind a poor offensive line, and what was widely considered to be the single worst receiving corps in the NFL, the Miami Dolphins stubbornly refused to use Bush as a pass catching target. He had just 35 receptions despite starting all 16 games that year.

Ultimately, we can say this and say that about the quarterback, but I believe that everyone will agree that regardless of their feelings on the quarterback, the Joe Philbin era has not been characterized by great offensive coaching, great offensive talent, or great utilization of what talent there is.

Now, since I've said my fill on this topic for one lifetime, I'll just add that anyone who disagrees with me is a dolt, as evidenced by my incredible professional pedigree. God bless, I'll hang up and listen.

 

[zach attach]

I'm all for a site called the phinsider writing a compelling article on Thill. There are many facts , percentages, and cases made for him, but in the fairness of objectivity where is the percentages on deep balls completed or passes over 20 yards or the percentages of if he hits receivers on target, behind them, or overthrown balls?

Another point is naming the players he had in his first season. The author was surely trying to show lack of talent. Well this season he has Wallace, Hartline, Gibson, Sims (No lightweight in catching), and an awesome Landry, and we have the possibility of going 7-9 like his first year.

The author also points to the defense, the o-line, and receivers being to blame for the qb's stats and wins. Why not count special teams and the coaching staff who calls the plays he runs. That was a bit of a stretch I thought. Turned around, the defense could blame the offense and Thill specifically (Sometimes) for the defenses lackluster play due to being put back on the field all the time after a quick 3 n out.

Thill is a great player at times, and makes me scratch my head in others. Like the team, we need to see consistency from him.

 

[LDaniel7]

Apparently the intelligent ones predicted 11-5.

Per usual, no clue of the burden. I ate that type for dinner on the Las Vegas radio programs. The host actually laughed and told me that one fellow handicapper asked not to appear when I was on. I wouldn't allow his simplistic garbage to remain unchallenged. Not much has changed.

I didn't inherit yards per attempt a year or two ago, with no prior idea that the category existed. That's the comical reality on this forum. So many posters attack the relevance merely because they don't hear it weekly from the CBS, Fox or even ESPN announcers. Therefore it's meaningless and we can happy adjust away. What a party!

Tannehill looks like a 7.2 guy. That's what I don't understand, after following this aspect for more than a quarter century. Based on his stature and arm strength and ability to hit the short and intermediate line drives, he should consistently manage at least 7.0 to 7.2. That's the range I expected and predicted this season. He's not a high 7s or low 8 type, which requires special playmaking ability and an ideal variety of pace and loft to fit the evolving requirement of the play.

For whatever reason he never manages that 7+ level. Sacks are blamed. Even in the games minus sacks his numbers are not what they should be. I'll continue to believe it links to his background, that he wasn't special enough to play early as a collegian and now that naturally translates to later stages of his career. Something missing. Something wrong. Others are content to wait and wait. I think we are waiting for more of the same, within a relatively narrow window. But I realize we're stuck with him. That wait continues. The key with this type of quarterback is to avoid him in the first place, not to spend every offseason wondering how to locate that vital missing 5 or 10%.

BTW, am I supposed to be surprised at an apologetic slant from a site called phinsider? Now I need Andy Cohen's version.

It's pretty easy. RT has never learned to block well. He gets eaten up by good DTs inside and the pass rush outside? He's a freakin' turnstile.

Not to mention that he sucks at throwing the ball and then making the catch. Especially on the passes 15+ yards down the field. One might expect better, but he's horrid not only at blocking but catching it.

And, to put things in total perspective, he's horrible at the TE seam routes and red zone plays. As soon as he fixes that, Miami will improve in the red zone.

Essentially, if RT can improve his blocking, catching and red zone routes, Miami might -- just might -- get back to playoff football.

Until he does so, though, everyone saying he's a good QB is simply a happy adjuster.

LD

 

[phinasota]

Apparently the intelligent ones predicted 11-5.

Per usual, no clue of the burden. I ate that type for dinner on the Las Vegas radio programs. The host actually laughed and told me that one fellow handicapper asked not to appear when I was on. I wouldn't allow his simplistic garbage to remain unchallenged. Not much has changed.

I didn't inherit yards per attempt a year or two ago, with no prior idea that the category existed. That's the comical reality on this forum. So many posters attack the relevance merely because they don't hear it weekly from the CBS, Fox or even ESPN announcers. Therefore it's meaningless and we can happy adjust away. What a party!

Tannehill looks like a 7.2 guy. That's what I don't understand, after following this aspect for more than a quarter century. Based on his stature and arm strength and ability to hit the short and intermediate line drives, he should consistently manage at least 7.0 to 7.2. That's the range I expected and predicted this season. He's not a high 7s or low 8 type, which requires special playmaking ability and an ideal variety of pace and loft to fit the evolving requirement of the play.

For whatever reason he never manages that 7+ level. Sacks are blamed. Even in the games minus sacks his numbers are not what they should be. I'll continue to believe it links to his background, that he wasn't special enough to play early as a collegian and now that naturally translates to later stages of his career. Something missing. Something wrong. Others are content to wait and wait. I think we are waiting for more of the same, within a relatively narrow window. But I realize we're stuck with him. That wait continues. The key with this type of quarterback is to avoid him in the first place, not to spend every offseason wondering how to locate that vital missing 5 or 10%.

BTW, am I supposed to be surprised at an apologetic slant from a site called phinsider? Now I need Andy Cohen's version.

What's your job? Are you a sports writer or on radio? Serious question. Just wondering, that's all

 

[pags77]

Tannehill has the ability to become a top 10 QB in this league IMO. From his draft class only Luck and Wilson are better QB's. I know we never had a shot at Luck, but how many more wins does he put up if he was on our team? I think we easily have 2 more wins and would be playoff bound. Gotta hope Tanny has the drive to continue refining his game, because without a top QB it is tough to win consistently in the NFL.

 

[roy_miami]

Keep ****ing drafting QBs. If the ****ing Patriots and ****ing Seahawks can keep ****ing drafting them then we can keep ****ing drafting them. "Wasting" draft picks on QBs never seems to cost any team anything. Either you already have a QB that can perform without that draft pick or you don't have a QB, in which case the draft pick isn't going to make a significant difference anyway. Look at the Rams, they could have taken RGIII or the extra draft picks, either way it didn't make any difference, not without using those extra draft picks on QBs anyway. Which they didn't.

The Redskins doubled down on QBs in 2012. Thats what we should have done too. That second QB picked could have just as easily been the Russell Wilson for them. Regardless though, no matter who they picked there instead of Cousins, it wouldn't have mattered.

The 2014 draft was the perfect opportunity to take one, or even two QBs at great value, especially considering we owed Moore $5 million to warm our bench. What a ****ing gigantic colossal **** up that was to stand pat.

 

[foozool13]

Coaching sucks.

 

[SCLSU Mud Dogs]

Keep ****ing drafting QBs. If the ****ing Patriots and ****ing Seahawks can keep ****ing drafting them then we can keep ****ing drafting them. "Wasting" draft picks on QBs never seems to cost any team anything. Either you already have a QB that can perform without that draft pick or you don't have a QB, in which case the draft pick isn't going to make a significant difference anyway. Look at the Rams, they could have taken RGIII or the extra draft picks, either way it didn't make any difference, not without using those extra draft picks on QBs anyway. Which they didn't.

The Redskins doubled down on QBs in 2012. Thats what we should have done too. That second QB picked could have just as easily been the Russell Wilson for them. Regardless though, no matter who they picked there instead of Cousins, it wouldn't have mattered.

The 2014 draft was the perfect opportunity to take one, or even two QBs at great value, especially considering we owed Moore $5 million to warm our bench. What a ****ing gigantic colossal **** up that was to stand pat.

And how well did that work out for them?

Also, just because teams have picked mid-to-bottom tier QBs in the draft doesn't mean it's a great approach. Especially with how Miami has been talent acquisition wise. Jeff Ireland was so hell bent on this Bill Parcells "a player has to fit this specific mold" mindset that he often passed on superior talent because they had four checkmarks next to their name instead of the possible five.

As we can see with our top two picks in this year's draft, it's not measurables that makes a player.

Back to the point, uhh, you're likely not going to find a QB in rounds 3 and after that will be worth a damn. There's even a lot of first and second round quarterbacks who are complete flops.

A very small amount of teams in the NFL have elite quarterbacks.

Ben Roethlisberger won super bowls in Pittsburgh and the fan base still talks **** about the guy not being worth a damn.

AKA we're sticking with Tannehill because the alternative options are no bueno.

 

[j-off-her-doll]

The article is very poorly done.

As mentioned, only 17 out of 124 quarterbacks are current starters for the teams that drafted them from the last ten drafts. That's roughly 13% of them. All 17 were out of the 55 picks drafted in the first three rounds which around 31%. Exactly zero picks from any pick past the 4th round in the last ten drafts have retained a starting job, excluding rookies. Of the 124 picks used on quarterbacks, only 6 are currently considered long term franchise players. That's about a 5% success rate. Of that group, only Russell Wilson wasn't a first round pick, but let's be honest about it; if Wilson was 6'4" instead of 5'11", he would likely have been a first round pick.

After noting that all all 17 come from the first three rounds, the writer goes back to the 124 number. If you're looking for a QB to replace your current QB, you're obviously going to draft him in the first three rounds - probably the first two, and ideally in the first. So with just a pinch of common sense, you'd disregard that 124 and focus on that 55. That's the "real" number. 17 of 55 is right around 30%; 6 of 55 is about 11%. He then notes that of the 6, only Wilson wasn't a 1st RD pick . . . but he never gives the number of QB's drafted in the 1st RD. It's 27 (if you're curious). So the hit-it-big rate on 1st RD QB's is 19% - about 1 in 5. Those aren't great odds, but they're much better than the writer implies. Cam Newton has been severely hampered by a terrible Panthers offense. Terrible WR's (outside of an inconsistent rookie), terrible O-line. Prior to this season, he would have been regarded as a one of those franchise QB's. With the injuries, and lack of support from the D, he just hasn't been able to overcome that mess in Carolina. Did I mention how bad their OC is? Should also note that Bridgewater

I'm not making an argument for getting rid of Tannehill, but this article lacks intellectual integrity. Either that, or the guy's just that daft.

Should also be noted that of the top 21 QB's in the NFL in passing yards, Tannehill is one of two with a YPA under 7.0 - Cutler being the other, and he has a better YPA than Tannehill. For people blaming drops, Miami is tied for 8th in the NFL in drop rate (4.9%), but they're within 1% of 20 of the 32 NFL teams. But how does that affect YPA? Tannehill averages 10.15 yards per completion. So say you give him an extra catch out of every 100 pass attempts (1%). That brings up his YPA from 6.73 to 6.83. So you can blame the line, but the WR's dropping passes excuse doesn't hold water - unless you think 6.83 YPA is significantly better than 6.73 YPA.

http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/stats/team-receiver-drops-percentage/2014/

As Awsi said, we're looking at another year with Tannehill, and I'm not thrilled but OK with it. The article, though, doesn't do a good job of defining and utilizing relevant information.

 

[Bob512]

Apparently the intelligent ones predicted 11-5.

Per usual, no clue of the burden. I ate that type for dinner on the Las Vegas radio programs. The host actually laughed and told me that one fellow handicapper asked not to appear when I was on. I wouldn't allow his simplistic garbage to remain unchallenged. Not much has changed.

I didn't inherit yards per attempt a year or two ago, with no prior idea that the category existed. That's the comical reality on this forum. So many posters attack the relevance merely because they don't hear it weekly from the CBS, Fox or even ESPN announcers. Therefore it's meaningless and we can happy adjust away. What a party!

Tannehill looks like a 7.2 guy. That's what I don't understand, after following this aspect for more than a quarter century. Based on his stature and arm strength and ability to hit the short and intermediate line drives, he should consistently manage at least 7.0 to 7.2. That's the range I expected and predicted this season. He's not a high 7s or low 8 type, which requires special playmaking ability and an ideal variety of pace and loft to fit the evolving requirement of the play.

For whatever reason he never manages that 7+ level. Sacks are blamed. Even in the games minus sacks his numbers are not what they should be. I'll continue to believe it links to his background, that he wasn't special enough to play early as a collegian and now that naturally translates to later stages of his career. Something missing. Something wrong. Others are content to wait and wait. I think we are waiting for more of the same, within a relatively narrow window. But I realize we're stuck with him. That wait continues. The key with this type of quarterback is to avoid him in the first place, not to spend every offseason wondering how to locate that vital missing 5 or 10%.

BTW, am I supposed to be surprised at an apologetic slant from a site called phinsider? Now I need Andy Cohen's version.

I'm guessing you rehearse these posts to yourself in front of a mirror........

 

[hoops]

Authors late to the party