And he wasn't even involved in gameplanning or allowed to audible. He would have to be one of the greatest QBs of all time to overcome all of that supposed wretchedness and still get our offense into the top 10.
I think its odd, that so many criticize him harshly even though he was as shackled as a QB can be, but to suggest we actually achieved anything while he was shackled that bad gets met with incredulity.
I forgot to add Zach Taylor to the list, I remember many a homer felt like he was the coach MOST responsible for holding Tannehill back early in 2014.
Its not like you can say unequivocally that "unshackling" him is guaranteed to have better results. When you make changes simply to make changes the results can be positive or negative. I remember mentioning that on the directive to simplify the defense. The defense was average and when we simplified it became terrible. I guess its not surprising that fans will always look to the bright side of changes but I don't believe its reasonable to say our offense should have been better than it was in 2014. Especially considering the same people complaining about the "shackles" now were also making excuses for the QB having to learn a new offense. Again, every offense ranked above ours had an elite QB at the helm, and I don't think any of them had to learn a new offense to boot. So how much higher do you think we could have been had Tannehill not been "shackled?"
How is learning a new offense an "excuse"? It's simply a fact. Teams struggle when new offenses are implemented.
I think its pretty simple, no QB that I can think of has ever thrived under ALL the following circumstances: - Horrible oline. - Abandoning of the run game. - Not allowed to audible. - Horrible OCs. - Poor WR unit overall (until this year) No one has provided a QB that has had to endure ALL of those things and thrive. We never guaranteed that he would improve if those things were corrected. We think he will. The only guaranteeing has been that he's not good, from the side opposite mine.
I`m still not ready to throw in the towel yet on this guy either. Sometimes his play gets me to the point where I say to myself he`s not the answer , then he`ll throw some really beautiful passes and put together a really good offensive drive and it lures me back in. I KNOW Thill has the tools and talent, he`s shown it in the past , so I`m still all in at this point . I really hope he delivers consistently with Lazor gone now and with him being more involved in the game planning - I expect him to let it fly and have fun and produce. I KNOW he can do it, I sure has hell hope he proves me right.
Franchise QBs don't hibernate for 4 years and then suddenly appear as really good. If a guy doesn't produce a really good season in his first four tries, odds are he just isn't of that caliber.
Good to know. What is even less likely, is that a QB that has been shackled by ALL of those things mentioned will produce a really good season.
Not really. Philip Rivers is doing it this year. He's been terrific with a team and staff that's an utter disaster. 68pct comp, 7.6ypa, 100+ passer rating, 23TD to 8int.
No he hasn't. He is not shackled by ALL of these: - Horrible oline. - Abandoning of the run game. - Not allowed to audible. - Horrible OCs. - Poor WR unit overall (until this year) That is fact.
I have no idea how people on our forums have the energy to continue debating the 500th Tannehill sucks/doesn't suck thread.
Whats wrong is that we always end up hiring these assistant coaches that are trying their own agenda as part of an audition for a head cosching job in either college or professional.. Ive said it for weeks even last year that i wasnt fond of Lazor and i never thought he was any better or worse than Daboll.. Called for his firing since Week 3 of this season.
That analogy doesn't fit because Manning already proved he was an elite QB; Year 1) 5th in TDs, and 3rd in yds year 2) 3rd in TDs, and 3rd in yds, 4th in QB rating Year 3) 1st in TDs, 1st in yds, 5th in QB rating Tanne hasn't proven anything like Manning had.
Do you know what the word "efficient" means? QB Efficiency in football is about not making errors, and it's extremely convenient that the statistic doesn't include leading the league in sacks, fumbles, batted passes (our boy led all 3 categories in 2014). But when a QB can throw a 2 yard pass and gain 11 yards off of it, his numbers looks pretty darn efficient from an outsider's perspective. The same goes for him being the all-time completion leader with 25 in a row- that looks awesome on paper. But when you look closer and see that only 2 of those throws were for more than 3 yards "in the air", it paints a much more complete picture. Because the other 31 teams in the NFL would never dream of calling 22 consecutive screen passes with an expectation of actually winning the game.
Lazor wasnt a problem last year but just like the wildcat opposing defenses figured his system out and he was unable to counter.
I'm not sure it was figuring out things as much as it was just not having the horses to execute an offense. I'm biased having played OL in HS and college but I just don't think your offense is going to be good when you have Thomas, Douglas/Turner and Fox starting on it. We haven't been able to consistently establish the run which has put more pressure on Tannehill. Furthermore, we are constantly in 3rd and long situations where the defense gets to be aggressive rushing the QB. That is just not Tannehill's game. I think the high frequency short passing game was to try and overcome those deficiencies. To your point, maybe that's what defenses figured out how to stop.
Our back ups are really bad on the oline. But imagine having to play against 3 of the better defensive minds in the league in Rex, Bowles and Belichick (and they play you multiple times a year) and you can't audible out of a play based on the defensive look.
May surprise a lot of people that Tannehill's air yards percentage are higher than Rodgers, Flacco, Brees, Stafford, Cutler and Rivers. http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/stats/quarterback-air-yards/2015/
+1 this also magnified the issue with Lazor not being able to come up with answers against this quality of defensive minds.
Those threads are pretty popular on the internet lol. It baffles me that people can watch Tannehill play every week and still think he has franchise QB potential.
The offense was ranked 15th before Tannehill got his mitts on game plans. Now we're dropping like a stone in the rankings despite playing nothing but terrible defenses...
Yeah, cause the turnover of the coaching staff and the oline problems have zero to do with it. Sprinkle in that it certainly looks like the team has quit, and you come up with the answer is that the offense is bad because Tannehill has a part of gameplanning now? It certainly has nothing to do with Zach Taylor again being in another position which he has no business being in. I literally couldn't make up these arguments if I tried to create fanciful anti-Tannehill arguments.
thats because we have to watch the offensive line every week and come out amazed that he throws over 100 yards per game with that putrid mess in front of him. we realize that if he gets what other QBs get, a decent line and a decent coach he will be a successful QB even if you guys cant
I know. I've heard it all about Tannehill. If he gets a quality OL, his accuracy, footwork, and pocket presence will suddenly improve. Even the times when he's had decent to good protection, there's always another excuse.
I believe that was Dan Campbell's decision. He's just trying to save face, like he stands a chance at a HC gig.
Yeah, I mean, I think Lazor had to go, he was clearly showing no desire of changing or adapting his gameplan. But if anyone thought that the offense would drastically change was fooling themselves. It wasn't like they could install a new offbeat...although, I was sure we'd see a commitment to the run.