1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Another Ryan Tannehill Review

Discussion in 'Miami Dolphins Forum' started by UCF FINatic, Apr 6, 2012.

  1. alen1

    alen1 New Member

    52,811
    20,365
    0
    Dec 16, 2007
    I do factor it in. I'm not as sold on Tannehill as others are. I don't think he's top 10 material as many are suggesting.

    Reiff is worthy of top ten in my opinion.
     
    MrClean likes this.
  2. MrClean

    MrClean Inglourious Basterd Club Member

    For how many plays, quarters or games have you actually watched each of these players, to arrive at your feelings?
     
  3. alen1

    alen1 New Member

    52,811
    20,365
    0
    Dec 16, 2007
    Kellen Moore of Boise State? I saw a tweet the other day from Matt Miller, a (quality) draft writer, who stated that not a single team has worked Moore out. Not one. And honestly, I can see why. Never been a fan of his.
     
    MrClean likes this.
  4. ToddsPhins

    ToddsPhins Banned

    29,125
    7,721
    0
    Mar 15, 2009
    Sheldon BRown played well last year and was a reason for some of that dynamic. Unfortunately he's 33. If you remove him from the equation without a replacement, they're no longer a 5th ranked scoring D. Being the 5th ranked scoring D should be a reason to strive for the #1 scoring D, a reason to cross over from very good to elite.
    There are still plenty of rounds (including another 1st) in which they can address offensive needs. If their defense has a chance to replace the 33 year old Brown with a potential Revis type corner opposite Haden, then they'd be crazy to pass up that opportunity. Does Cleveland have a passing game to scare defenses away from gearing up to stop Richardson? Not in my eyes they dont. On the other hand, with Claiborne & Haden on opposite sides of the defense, can an OC game plan against them? In a pass-oriented league, you're gonna have to throw at one of these guys if you want to succeed. Minimizing the passing threat with Claiborne & Haden would have a bigger impact on success than sticking a great running back not name Barry Sanders onto a crappy or mediocre offense.

    Here's this from BrownsReport.wordpress.com:
    One great corner isn't enough anymore if you're looking to use dominant corner play to help shut down WRs b/c of all the spread formations and dangerous receivers in the league. When Sheldon Brown hits the wall this year, teams can throw away from Haden all game and minimize his impact and playmaking ability. What's the point of using a 7th overall pick on a player if you can't maximize his playmaking ability? By drafting Claiborne, you maximize BOTH of their abilities b/c they'll both see action. Teams won't be able to throw away from Haden anymore. That type of corner play can allow more freedom for their safeties and more opportunities to bring extra pressure without worry of getting burned for a big play.
     
  5. MrClean

    MrClean Inglourious Basterd Club Member

    I basically put Keenum in the same category. I wonder if any teams have worked him out.

    If we didn't take Tannehill, I wouldn't mind taking Harnish in the 4th round or later. He is sort of a poor man's Tannehill. IMO. Very good runner and strong arm.
     
  6. smahtaz

    smahtaz Pimpin Ain't Easy

    Any team that needs 3 1st round OL draft picks in 5 years to build a serviceable unit isn't worth following in my opinion.
     
  7. alen1

    alen1 New Member

    52,811
    20,365
    0
    Dec 16, 2007
    Agree on Keenum.

    I think you can get Harnish later, but I like him too. Just don't think he's going to be a starter type. I like BJ Coleman though. I think he can be a starter if scheme fit is right. I also think Jarrett Lee should get more discussion than he has, but many will disagree with that I think. As a 7th rounder or free agent, I like him. Take him and develop 'em.
     
  8. MrClean

    MrClean Inglourious Basterd Club Member

    I don't think we will take an OL in the 1st this year. Not to worry Mr Foley. Jim Turner knows how to get our OL back on the right track. :up:

    I expect we may take one OL, but not really high. In my latest mock draft, I guessed Ryan Miller in the 6th.
     
    smahtaz likes this.
  9. smahtaz

    smahtaz Pimpin Ain't Easy

    That's good news Mr C. Any 1st round pick that isn't a QB, WR, DB or pass rusher would push me over the edge at this point. I'm going back to by van now to smoke a little weed.
     
  10. UCF FINatic

    UCF FINatic The Miami Dolphins select

    5,783
    1,931
    113
    Apr 17, 2008
    Haden basically allows the Safeties to slide their coverage and zones towards Sheldon Browns or another CBs position on the other side of the field in order to help them out. Haden is a top 10 CB and can hold his own on an island. So they could draft a lesser CB in the 2nd or 3rd round and have the safeties help out the CB on the other side, so that they can still have a great defense. The point I keep getting to is opportunity cost. If Trent Richardson and Morris Claiborne are both elite players like most people think they are then Richardson's impact to the offense will be greater than Claiborne's would be to the defense. Thus, Richardson is the better pick for them. Richardson makes them a better team offensively and all around (like I mentioned before more yards, first downs, time that the defense is off the field, etc.).

    Lets say you draft Claiborne at #4 and other top defense prospects like you want them to do and you improve their defense to #1 in the NFL. Then the offense is still going to be one of the worst in the league... And by the time you get decent offense through the draft or whatever your defense will be too old to hold their own anymore. The teams that win Super Bowls are the best overall teams. Teams the score more points then they give up. I will try to break it doe via math:

    Current Browns PPG Allowed = 19.2
    Steelers (#1 D) PPG Allowed= 14.2
    Overal Difference = -5.0

    And that's assuming that adding Claiborne makes them the number 1 defense in the League, which I am not sure it does because they were already ranked #2 against the pass. I, seriously doubt Claiborne helps the run defense which ranked #30 improve that much...

    Current PPG Scored = 13.6
    Minnesota PPG Scored = 21.2
    Overall Difference = +7.6

    I used the Vikings because in my opinion they are the most similar to the Browns. They ranked 28th in passing yards (Cleveland ranked 24th) and they ranked 4th in rushing yards with Adrian Peterson and Toby Gerhart. I feel like Richardson could have a similar impact. Even if you subbed in the Broncos PPG which is the other team I was considering you get similar numbers.

    So all in all, Richardson over Claiborne would add more PPG to their offense compared to how much less PPG their defense would allow. The difference was about 2.6 points difference, which is considerable.
     
  11. UCF FINatic

    UCF FINatic The Miami Dolphins select

    5,783
    1,931
    113
    Apr 17, 2008
    I really like Ryan Miller. Another guy to look out for is Nate Potter from Boise State. He does everything well, but nothing amazing. He is the kind of player that could be a value pick late in the draft and I think he fits the new mold of OL we are bringing down here.
     
  12. ToddsPhins

    ToddsPhins Banned

    29,125
    7,721
    0
    Mar 15, 2009
    how many snaps will Richardson see vs Claiborne? Not nearly as many IMO. Therefore, if both are equal talent, you take the one that will be on the field more often and for a longer duration. Plus you have the compounding effect with Claiborne (added to Haden) that you don't really have with Richardson.

    With Jamal Lewis (who I'd argue as a #5 pick is about equal to Trent Richardson), Baltimore's offense went from 14th in scoring (pre Lewis) to 14th, 18th, 23rd, 8th, 20th, 25th, 12th. That's not the impact you're looking for IMO, and it's not as big an impact as keeping your defense in the top 6.

    Also, as you can see by Balt's history, ranking 6th in scoring one year doesn't mean you'll stay there the next as they fluctuated from 6th in 1999 to 1st, 4th, 19th, 6th, 6th, 10th, 1st, 22nd, 3rd, 3rd, 3rd, 3rd. So you can't just assume Cleveland's D will stay ranked 6th. You gotta put some effort into it if you want it to stay there.
    .In their first 4 seasons they used 7 of 9 1st & 2nd rounders on defense. They built up the defense quickly and then continued to reinforce it.
    In 2001 Baltimore had the #2 yardage D and #4 scoring D, meanwhile the offense was 19th in scoring. What did they do? They ignored their offensive weakness and drafted Ed Reed to bolster an already solid D, ensuring that it would stay solid.
    That year, 2002, their offense dropped to 23rd in scoring while the defense dipped to 19th, so they again ignored offense to help solidify their defensive strength and drafted Suggs.
    2003, the defense was back to 3rd in scoring, meanwhile the offense crept up to 8th. Despite the defensive play, Balt used their first pick on defense (Dwan Edwards).
    2004, offense saw a drop to 20th in scoring despite Jamal Lewis at RB; however the defense was 6th.
    2005, offense saw an even bigger drop to 25th in scoring (Jamal Lewis couldn't do it on his own); defense was a respectable 10th. Despite such a poor offensive showing, they again went defense in the 1st (Ngata).
    By ignoring a huge weakness on offense and going D, they improved their defense to #1 (12.6 ppg), took a great deal of pressure off the offense, and went 13-3.... and in the past 6 years have had seasons of 11, 12, 12, and 13 wins b/c they kept their focus on maintaining their defensive strength.
    They continued to bolster and solidify their defense over the years despite there being obvious weaknesses on offense, weaknesses that a #5 pick on Jamal Lewis couldn't overcome.




    ..... yeah, a philosophy based on "sticking with your strengths" b/c they know that staying with and bolstering them translates to success. Respectfully, I'm not gonna debate it any further. You can spin it how you want. Playing to your strengths (even to the extent of ignoring weaknesses) isn't some radical philosophy, and it's not "coincidence" that great teams like the Steelers, Ravens, Giants, and Packers seem to do it. The 49ers & Harbaugh are soon to follow suit. Companies fail all the time b/c they spend too much time working on weaknesses at the expense of building up their strengths; NFL teams are no different.
     
  13. MrClean

    MrClean Inglourious Basterd Club Member

    And eat some government cheese? :D
     
  14. ToddsPhins

    ToddsPhins Banned

    29,125
    7,721
    0
    Mar 15, 2009
    Having an elite franchise defense is like having a franchise QB, so I really don't understand how so many people can emphasize the importance of getting that elusive franchise QB but at the same time will intentionally ignore a potential franchise defense in order to take a player who has less of an impact on overall success. You win in this league with a franchise QB or a franchise defense, not a franchise RB. Adrian Peterson shows us that. If you don't have a franchise QB but have a solid defense, then a team deserves what it gets by ignoring the opportunity to create a franchise defense b/c they'd rather build up an offense that has a terrible QB.

    Franchise QB
    Franchise Defense
    Franchise RB in a mediocre offense

    Rank the above in order of impact on success.
     
  15. MrClean

    MrClean Inglourious Basterd Club Member

    I like Nate too, in that it's possible he could be a serviceable left tackle down the road. I think Miller is ideally a right guard, and in a zone blocking scheme. He's tall, but really short arms as I recall. Nate has vines for arms, and a little better feet I think. Though also ideally a right side player in a zone scheme.
     
  16. MrClean

    MrClean Inglourious Basterd Club Member

    I'd say BJ would be my 7th overall QB. Then Harnish, followed by Foles, Lindley, and then Darron Thomas. I like Harnish's mobility even though Foles and Lindley have stronger arms. Harnish is a poor man's Tannehill IMO. I could see taking him in the 7th after Tannehill in the 1st and if Matt Moore and Garrard move on to other teams after this season, Harnish could be a nice backup for Tannehill down the road.

    I'd put Russell Wilson 7th, except the only sub 5'11" QBs who've had any NFL success the past 55 years have been Doug Flutie and Eddie LeBaron. Unless I am overlooking someone.
    I think Kellen Moore, Case Keenum and Wilson could all be starting CFL QBs though if they want to head north. Wilson could an All Pro in the CFL.

    If we forgo drafting Tannehill or Weeden early, I would say Coleman would be a nice developmental QB to take on the 3rd day too.

    However I am no draft guru, though I did play it as a child... No wait, that was doctor I played as a child...with the neighbor girls. When we weren't playing house on the kitchen floor... ;)
     
  17. MrClean

    MrClean Inglourious Basterd Club Member

    1 and 2 are a tie, with #3 a very distant 3rd.
     
    ToddsPhins likes this.
  18. Killer Bees

    Killer Bees Bringin' the Ruckus

    3,187
    1,030
    113
    Aug 14, 2011
    In the van down by the river?
     
  19. ToddsPhins

    ToddsPhins Banned

    29,125
    7,721
    0
    Mar 15, 2009
    no it wont.
    1. Jamal Lewis. reference above. Balt's offense was ranked 14th in scoring when they drafted him #5. Only 2 times did they exceed that 14th ranking in 7 seasons; however, 3 times they finished 20th or worse.
    2. Adrian Peterson. How well does he impact the win column w/o a QB playing at a franchise caliber level? The Vikings were more successful when they had a great defense and could throw the ball.
    3. How did DeAngelo Williams & Jonathan Stewart help Carolina's win column when that offense was crappy?

    Why would you purposefully want to have your coverage shift to the other side and help the corner opposite Haden when you can instead leave both corners on an island and free up your safeties to help out vs all the talented TEs and slot receivers, which in turn allows you to blitz your LBs and safeties more?
    Putting Haden on an island only maximizes part of his potential and ability. Don't you want turnovers, too? Isn't that a plus to his game--- that he's a ball hawk? Don't you want to put opposing QBs in situations where they have to throw at your turnover creators?


    That's why there's 7 rounds and FA. You can still add pieces to the offense while developing your defense into a franchise caliber one. Like Philbin says, in a WCO you don't need that true #1 WR; plus, Cleveland has a franchise LT & franchise C, so there really isn't a major need to use a 1st on offense unless it's a franchise QB or he represents absolute BPA, and an elite RB with a greater potential for injury, shorter career, and less snaps played does not trump a potential Revis type corner who will play longer, see virtually 100% of the snaps, and be less prone to career ending injury. Not to mention it's a WCO, not a power running one built around the running back.

    why will claiborne not help the run D? Having both he and Haden can allow the safeties to aid more in run support. They were #2 vs the pass, but they won't be if they don't replace Brown.

    If Cleveland solidifies their defense this year, they spend their entire 2013 draft trying to fix the offense, including trading up for a franchise QB if needed which trumps anything Richardson can do.

    Yes, the SB teams are the best overall. They're not average teams. Adding Richardson doesn't make them a SB team. He never will unless there are pieces added around him. However, a team with a franchise defense can make a playoff run and even 2 straight AFC champ appearances (see Jets). The Jets also show you how quickly that defense can dry up if not properly maintained as they went from 1st in scoring to 6th to 20th.... and their record dipped from 11-5 to 8-8 because of it. However, ironically, their scoring went from 17th to 13th to 13th. So with the 17th ranked offense and the #1 defense, the Jets beat both Brady & Manning en rout to the AFC champ game in 2009.

    If you go back through all the SB teams, you'll find that they were all elite in 1 aspect of the game, typically either an elite passing game with a franchise QB or an elite playing defense (or sustained franchise caliber defense like the Steelers, Ravens, Bucs).

    Here are the SB teams and their defensive scoring ranks:


    2011: NY #25. NE #31. (however down the home stretch & post season, NY was extremely stingy. Neither had a franchise RB.)
    2010: GB #2. Pitt #1.
    2009: NO #20. Indy #8
    2008: Pitt #1. Zona #28
    2007: NY #17. NE #4
    2006: Indy #1. Chicago #16
    2005: Pitt #3. Seattle #7
    2004: NE #2. Philly ##2 (tied)
    2003: NE #1. Carolina #10
    2002: TB #1. Oakland #6
    2001: NE #6. St Louis #7
    2000: Balt #1. Giants #5
    1999: St Louis #4. Tenn #15
    1998: Denver #8. Atlanta #4
    1997: Denver #6. GB #5
    1996: GB #1. NE #14
    1995: Dallas #3. Pitt #9
    1994: San Fran #6. SD #9
    1993: Dallas #2. Buff #5
    1992: Dallas #5. Buff #14
    1991: Wash #2. Buff #19
    1990: NY #1. Buff #6.
    1989: San Fran #2. Denver #23
    1988: San Fran #3. Cincy #7
    1987: Wash #26. Denver #20
    1986: Giants #13. Denver #7
    1985: Chicago #1. NE #6
    1984: San Fran #1. Miami #7
    1983: Raiders #13. Wash #11
    1982: Wash #1. Miami #2
    1981: San Fran #2. Cincy #12
    1980: Raiders #10. Philly #1
    1979: Pitt #5. Rams #11
    1978: Pitt #1. Dallas #3
    1977: Dallas #8. Denver #3
    1976: Raiders #12. Minne #2
    1975: Pitt #2. Dallas #9
    1974: Pitt #2. Minne #3
    1973: Miami #1. Minne #2
    1972: Miami #1. Wash #3
    1971: Dallas #7. Miami #3
    1970: Balt #7. Dallas #4

    **29 SB winners had a top 6 defense.
    **13 SB winners featured the #1 defense.
    **8 SB winners featured the #2 defense.

    **20 SB loser had a top 6 defense.

    A team should be striving for either a franchise QB or a franchise defense (while trying to find their franchise QB). Those are the 2 goals. Franchise QB. Franchise defense. An elite defense trumps an average offense with a great RB. If you already have a franchise QB and the offense is your strength, then sure, take Richardson.
     
    MrClean likes this.
  20. BuckeyeKing

    BuckeyeKing Wolves DYNASTY!!!!

    25,411
    5,743
    113
    Dec 6, 2007
    I'm pretty convinced Tannehill at 8 is going to be the pick. Hopefully Mike Adams is there in round 2
     
  21. ToddsPhins

    ToddsPhins Banned

    29,125
    7,721
    0
    Mar 15, 2009
    that's what I think, too, although IMO it'd be easier to go the franchise QB route if you have the choice since you're only dealing with one player, but as a whole I think a franchise D can battle it out with franchise QBs, no.
     
  22. UCF FINatic

    UCF FINatic The Miami Dolphins select

    5,783
    1,931
    113
    Apr 17, 2008
    I can't keep going back and forth on this because I have 3 exams this coming week and need to study, but I still don't see your point. You can't compare the Browns and Richardson to Jamal Lewis and the Ravens because the 14th ranked offense and the 30th ranked offenses are way too far apart.

    I am still confident on my stance though. Cleveland will not take Claiborne, it will be either Tannehill, Richardson, or Blackmon (not likely in my opinion). I say we put a friendly wager on it. If the Cleveland Browns take Richardson you have to put "I am UCF FINatic's b*tch" in your signature for the month after the draft lol. If they take Claiborne I will happily make my signature, "I am ToddsPhins b*tch" for a month lol. If they end up picking Tannehill or someone else neither of us have to do anything to our signatures. Deal? lol
     
  23. ToddsPhins

    ToddsPhins Banned

    29,125
    7,721
    0
    Mar 15, 2009
    Franchise defense = greatest chance at a SB when a team doesn't have a franchise QB.
    Cleveland can polish that offense up with Richardson, but until they get a major improvement at QB and some other complimentary pieces, it's still a turd. Just sayin.
    The only way Richardson makes a true impact on success is if the Browns land a franchise QB and the complimentary pieces at WR, TE, and Oline. However, that's a big "if" and a gamble. Plus, if they land a franchise QB and the surrounding pieces, do they really need an elite back?

    :lol:
    Sure, why not.
    If they surprise everyone with Coples over Richardson, then you still need to sport the "I am Toddsphins b*itch" signature... :shifty:
     
  24. UCF FINatic

    UCF FINatic The Miami Dolphins select

    5,783
    1,931
    113
    Apr 17, 2008
    I'll throw in Coples for you if you throw in Tannehill for me haha.
     
  25. ToddsPhins

    ToddsPhins Banned

    29,125
    7,721
    0
    Mar 15, 2009
    yeah, I dont see that as being very fair. :tongue2:
     
  26. MrClean

    MrClean Inglourious Basterd Club Member

    Have him take Richardson and Blackmon and you take Claiborne and Tannehill.
     
    ToddsPhins likes this.
  27. UCF FINatic

    UCF FINatic The Miami Dolphins select

    5,783
    1,931
    113
    Apr 17, 2008
    Hey it was worth a shot. So just Richardson and Claiborne then... And if anyone else gets picked by them no one has to change their signature. Also the signature must be clearly legible. This should be fun haha
     
    ToddsPhins likes this.
  28. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    This is horse****.

    Todd presently belongs to me. There's no way he can be your ***** unless I receive compensation.

    This is an outrage. AN OUTRAGE!
     
    ToddsPhins likes this.
  29. ToddsPhins

    ToddsPhins Banned

    29,125
    7,721
    0
    Mar 15, 2009
    Tell you what sir. If I win, I'll supplement it by saying "FinD is allowing UCF Finatic to be my b*tch. :shifty:




    PS, you have to write yours in pink, UCF. I called first dibs so you can't request it, too.
     
  30. ToddsPhins

    ToddsPhins Banned

    29,125
    7,721
    0
    Mar 15, 2009
    ..... and if Cleveland trades back and takes a CB, you have to write "I'm ToddsPhins b*tich on friday's and tuesday's." since I'd still be partially right. :shifty:
     
  31. sports24/7

    sports24/7 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    32,924
    41,461
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    For me, a RT just isn't worth it when there are other players there that are just as good and can fill more impactful position.

    On, Tannehill do you think he's a top 20 talent? QB is so important that IMO a top 20 talent is justifiable going in the top 10.
     
  32. ToddsPhins

    ToddsPhins Banned

    29,125
    7,721
    0
    Mar 15, 2009
    The only 3 reasons I'd go with Reiff are if:
    1. Tannehill is gone.
    2. we're concerned about Long's durability.
    3. whether or not we'd rather pay Reiff $15.0M or Jake $85.0M next year.
    Reiff would start at RT this year, then move to LT in 2013.... and the $70.0M savings could easily pay for a 2013 free agent RT and the re-signings of other key players or big FA acquisition. Financially it wouldn't be the worst idea.... and we'd also get a high compensation pick.
     
  33. BuckeyeKing

    BuckeyeKing Wolves DYNASTY!!!!

    25,411
    5,743
    113
    Dec 6, 2007
    If Tannehill is gone Miami will trade down. I don't see them staying at 8.
     
  34. ckparrothead

    ckparrothead Draft Forum Moderator Luxury Box

    79,599
    159,162
    113
    Dec 1, 2007
    As I said before I really think Miami manipulates this Draft to get a significant quarterback. They don't even have one on roster in 2013 and no I'm not counting Pat Devlin.

    This is a serious question. Aside from Ryan Tannehill and Brandon Weeden, which QBs in this Draft do you think they can count on to start by 2013? Serious question. Brock Osweiler? No. Nick Foles? Big stretch. Kirk Cousins? Maybe THEY feel that way, but I don't.

    Only one I see as a possibility is Russell Wilson, and he's 5'11".
     
    ssmiami likes this.
  35. ToddsPhins

    ToddsPhins Banned

    29,125
    7,721
    0
    Mar 15, 2009
    I think Cousins is the wildcard.... but not the QB they have prioritized. Something tells me they go into the draft thinking like you're saying-- that they'll manipulate the draft to get a QB if necessary (if we can do it for running back then I don't see why Ireland wouldn't for a QB, right), but IMO we'll play Cleveland's [hopeful] bluff on Tannehill first.
     
  36. alen1

    alen1 New Member

    52,811
    20,365
    0
    Dec 16, 2007
    No.
     
  37. Laces Out

    Laces Out Well-Known Member

    3,428
    937
    113
    Aug 4, 2011
    Omaha, Ne
    Cousins is a wildcard himself. Too streaky IMO. Here is hoping that Miami passes on Cousins if Tannehill is gone and fills a different need by either dropping back or going with another T


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  38. alen1

    alen1 New Member

    52,811
    20,365
    0
    Dec 16, 2007
    I would not take Cousins until late but he'll go way before because someone will deem his intangibles awesome.
     
  39. rafael

    rafael Well-Known Member

    27,364
    31,261
    113
    Apr 6, 2008
    I see Cousins as a wildcard but probably more for a team like Cleveland. My guess is that Cleveland will look to take a combo of either Richardson and Weedon or Wright or a combo of Blackmon and either Weedon or a back or Fleener. They will then see Cousins as the guy they could take with their #37 if they choose to pass on Weedon.
     
  40. ckparrothead

    ckparrothead Draft Forum Moderator Luxury Box

    79,599
    159,162
    113
    Dec 1, 2007
    Cousins not an option for me at all. Highly questionable vision/awareness/decision making on the football field. Some decisions are just flat inexcusable. I seriously counted no less than 10 poorly executed throws that either were picked off, should've been picked off, or easily could've been picked off, in his game against Georgia. A few of them were just "What planet do you live on where this is OK?" throws. I mean, there are risky throws and then there are just plain stupid throws. He's guilty of the latter much more than anyone I see rated in the Day 1/Day 2 area.

    I don't think he's got good instincts in the pocket either. I think his sense for the rush is slow, and it leads to panicked decisions. The slow sense for the rush also leads him to float right into pressure.
     

Share This Page