Why is everybody so quick 2 4get that tannehill was supposed to sit for 2-3 years | Page 11 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

Why is everybody so quick 2 4get that tannehill was supposed to sit for 2-3 years

Other than being benched?

How about this:

There are certainly times where Tannehill could get rid of the ball more quickly, but a video breakdown of his pressures and sacks from Weeks 1 through 4 of the 2013 season paints a grim picture for the offensive line.

Tannehill has regularly had far less time in the pocket than he needs to reasonably go through his progressions.

The defenders are often found to be closing in on Tannehill within 2.5 seconds of the snap. That is not nearly enough time to go through progressions.

According to ProFootballFocus.com (subscription required), Tannehill has often been under pressure very quickly after the snap. He's spent 2.5 seconds or less in the pocket on 64.9 percent of his dropbacks, which is the second-highest percentage of such passes in the league.

His 4.3 seconds to scramble on average and 3.6 seconds to be sacked on average are both the sixth fastest in the league in those categories.

As mentioned above, though, it's not about his inability to get the ball out quickly. His 2.28 seconds to attempt a pass on average is the second fastest.
None of the variables in the above portion of your post are even moderately correlated with the percentage of sacks taken on pressured dropbacks by quarterbacks league-wide. In other words, it's implied that they're related to (or cause) sacks in the article, but they are not (and do not).

How about this article?

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/film-room/2013/film-room-tannehill-haden

"Tannehill was officially sacked just twice, but his ability was the primary reason why the sack number was so low and why the offense was able to put points on the board. Tannehill, a former wide receiver in college, is quietly a very athletic player who can escape pressure with his feet or throw strikes deep down the field even when throwing from tough body contortions."

"The Dolphins' biggest play of the day showed off Tannehill at his very best. The Bills defense shows a single-high safety look before the snap, but that safety is shaded to one side of the field. This leaves Wallace at the bottom of the screen in single coverage against Stephon Gilmore. Although Gilmore is an excellent man cover cornerback, he is still rusty after missing much of the season recovering from injury.

Even though he has a receiver to that side of the field, Tannehill doesn't look directly at his receiver or at the deep safety. Instead he looks towards the sideline on the opposite side which draws the safety slightly over the hash mark. He looks at the safety and back to the sideline twice before looking back to the other direction for Wallace. Meanwhile, Wallace is struggling to get into his route.

Gilmore initially has excellent coverage by jamming Wallace at the line and then turning so that he is in perfect position to run with him down the field. However, at that point Gilmore’s concentration inexplicably seems to go as he drifts infield while eyeing the quarterback too long. That failure by Gilmore combined with Tannehill's manipulation of the deep safety creates a huge window for Wallace to run into.

While Wallace is getting open, Tannehill is unable to step into the throw because of a defender pushing his blocker into the backfield, and then putting his hand in Tannehill's face as he releases the ball, while his blocker knocks into Tannehill’s feet during his throwing motion. Regardless, Wallace is still given a near-perfect pass to run under as he sprints down the sideline. Plays such as this showed off his poise, but also his athleticism, anticipation, velocity and ball placement."
Why do you suppose that view is in disagreement with that of a would-be Hall of Fame wide receiver who played in the same offense, here?

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-playbook/0ap2000000269528/Playbook-Dolphins-vs-Patriots
 
Enough this all the passive aggressive back and forth... Thill is a bum and will end up costing everyone their jobs.
 
None of the variables in the above portion of your post are even moderately correlated with the percentage of sacks taken on pressured dropbacks by quarterbacks league-wide. In other words, it's implied that they're related to (or cause) sacks in the article, but they are not (and do not).

Not relevant when evaluating what is actually happening.

Why do you suppose that view is in disagreement with that of a would-be Hall of Fame wide receiver who played in the same offense, here?

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-playbook/0ap2000000269528/Playbook-Dolphins-vs-Patriots

Because he only covered 2 plays rather than all of the sacks.

---------- Post added at 12:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:42 PM ----------

Polls typically don't include a majority of the people whose attitudes they're thought to reflect. Polls are thought to work by sampling what's likely to be true of the larger population, in this case the entire membership of the forum.

Nonetheless, we certainly don't have evidence to indicate that the majority of the forum didn't think Henne would be successful in 2011. If anything, the evidence we do have suggests the opposite.

Still doesn't make your assertion true or relevant.
 
Well, keep in mind that the majority of people here thought Chad Henne was only a "number-one receiver" away from greatness at about the same point in his career. The natural inclination (or said differently, "bias") is to blame other parts of the team for the negative aspects of performance of someone we all know our future hopes are hinging on.

How can we possibly balance that natural inclination? Objective information.

However, I don't care who is convinced by it and who isn't. You're free to believe whatever you want. :)

Just as you don't care who "is convinced" and who isn't, I don't care what a majority of people here thought about Chad Henne. However, I don't think you can accurately claim your information to be objective. It is clear what your opinion of Tannehill is, as you've made it obvious in several posts. You've declared he is current below average, and have made several threads and arguments to support your beliefs. If all of the stats were laid out in front of us, on a sheet of paper, that would be objective statistics, but when you choose certain stats to build a case suiting your opinion it is no longer objective. It is the opposite.
 
Just as you don't care who "is convinced" and who isn't, I don't care what a majority of people here thought about Chad Henne. However, I don't think you can accurately claim your information to be objective. It is clear what your opinion of Tannehill is, as you've made it obvious in several posts. You've declared he is current below average, and have made several threads and arguments to support your beliefs. If all of the stats were laid out in front of us, on a sheet of paper, that would be objective statistics, but when you choose certain stats to build a case suiting your opinion it is no longer objective. It is the opposite.
Well, think that as you might, but the statistics I'm choosing to weight heavily are the ones strongly correlated with winning, since I figure that's the goal of all this. ;)
 
Well, think that as you might, but the statistics I'm choosing to weight heavily are the ones strongly correlated with winning, since I figure that's the goal of all this. ;)

And there boys and girls is the giant flaw. Choose the stats to focus on, not by their relevance to individual performance or even the performance of the offense but to winning. No chance for that to go wrong......
 
I figured. Did you manage to see what Sterling Sharpe did here when you were watching?

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-playbook/0ap2000000269528/Playbook-Dolphins-vs-Patriots

;)

Sharpe put out 2 plays...you could do that with every qb if it's what you are looking for...every one of em...just like you could put up stills of qbs missing open guys in the progression...it happens

If it happened all the time then we'd have something to dig into...but it doesn't...

More agenda driven bs as usual...

And wv before the season and even at 3 and o you sure weren't saying the oline sucks...I'm glad you realized that some time in the last month...flipped the switch on that one too...pretty funny how before the draft and this offseason you were the one leading the cornfed jokes and now your seasons been done in by just that isn't it
 
And there boys and girls is the giant flaw. Choose the stats to focus on, not by their relevance to individual performance or even the performance of the offense but to winning. No chance for that to go wrong......
Well I'm happy to hear a better case for which stats to choose. You got one? ;)
 
Sharpe put out 2 plays...you could do that with every qb if it's what you are looking for...every one of em
And we know that's what Sharpe was "looking for," because he, too, has an agenda. :lol: ;)
 
And we know that's what Sharpe was "looking for," because he, too, has an agenda. :lol: ;)

I thought you were never talking to me again...please stick with that plan...

When you post dumb **** I will be sure to call it out
 
Not relevant when evaluating what is actually happening.
Well when the omniscient being who knows "what is actually happening," whose perspective we can check the objective data against, shows up, let me know.

Or is that you? ;)

---------- Post added at 12:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:11 PM ----------

I thought you were never talking to me again...please stick with that plan...

When you post dumb **** I will be sure to call it out
Everything is dumb **** except what you think. :)
 
The point is every qb has plays like those...let alone a 2nd year one...

Hell they banged kaepernick for only going to his first read or taking off in the latest play book...and I could tell that last year watching him play...why it took em so long to figure it out who knows...

But tannehills not a one read or poor decision qb and it is laughable that anyone can watch his play and come away with he's played below average in 2013...as laughable as that blatant moronic Matt moores a top 12 qb crap shouwrong dropped on us a few seasons ago...

Ha ha your such a clown...
 
The point is every qb has plays like those...let alone a 2nd year one...

Hell they banged kaepernick for only going to his first read or taking off in the latest play book...and I could tell that last year watching him play...why it took em so long to figure it out who knows...

But tannehills not a one read or poor decision qb and it is laughable that anyone can watch his play and come away with he's played below average in 2013...as laughable as that blatant moronic Matt moores a top 12 qb crap shouwrong dropped on us a few seasons ago...

Ha ha your such a clown...
Everyone is a clown except you. :)
 
Don't make this about everyone this is about you...the alpha clown
Everyone you're debating is the "alpha clown" during that particular debate. You're never the "alpha clown." :)
 
Back
Top Bottom