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

The one question I would like to ask Mike Sherman.

Discussion in 'Miami Dolphins Forum' started by djphinfan, Oct 25, 2014.

  1. djphinfan

    djphinfan Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    111,651
    67,546
    113
    Dec 20, 2007
    I can't stop thinking abut it..

    Did Mike Sherman sacrifice his livelihood and dolphin wins for ryan tannehills big picture development.?

    I was reading a quote from coach Dan Mullen, he said, when developing a qb, you must get him as many reps from the pocket as possible..of course, thats common sense to a degree..but lets look a bit deeper.

    now if we consider the lack of experience Ryan had coming into the pros, could this be true, could mike sherman gave up his reputation, could he of given up teams wins, and could he of given up his job in order to develop this qb with a big picture in mind.?

    I say that because ryan always had the ability to run to both sides and throw the football, and to run the read option, so the lack of those very plays within our system the past two years when sherman was here was quite bizzarre, so the question i pose is, the obvious tactic to not use the full skill set in the first two years was because of _______?

    a}wanted to develop the inexperienced qb for the betterment of his long term development

    b} Stupidity...as in how could you not use the full arsenal when you know damn well he throws well on the move to both sides, can run the read option, and the fact that we had a historically bad oline, and no running game.

    c} stubborness..as in he didn't think he needed the read option or rollouts to win games, and playing from the pocket is what his scheme at the pro level is all about..

    if indeed it is A, and there are a lot of signs that it is, then whatta you think about that?..I mean if he did do this, he did it in the face of a sieve of an oline.
     
  2. Unlucky 13

    Unlucky 13 Team Raheem Club Member

    51,930
    63,009
    113
    Apr 24, 2012
    Troy, Virginia
    Its an interesting theory. A lot of what Sherman did seems to fly in the face of common sense if the objective was to both win games and make the game easier for RT in the moment. However, not only was last years offensive line bad, but they were "reverse-clutch" bad; coming up with their worst play at the absolute worst time, game after game it seemed.

    Despite the detractors though, I've been happy with RT's play almost the whole season. He's only thrown a handful of dumb passes through six games, and only two of them )first half, Green Bay) were picked off. Last week's game plan, when we let him play to he strengths and quit trying to force a square peg into a round hole, was a thing of beauty. Get first downs, move the chains, put points on the board, and don't force the deep ball when its not there. I loved it.

    I think that Sherman was either just really stubborn, or acting on Philbin's orders - and we know that Joe is as stubborn as they come. Maybe that stubborness will help Tannehill in the long run, and maybe it won't. I think that its definately made him look worse in the eyes of the general public though and has cost the team wins.
     
    Phins_Fan_87 likes this.
  3. roy_miami

    roy_miami Well-Known Member

    1,385
    560
    113
    Oct 11, 2013
    I have always felt they forced him to stay in the pocket to a degree, or I should say avoided designed runs with him, for his long term development. That theory makes sense because year 3 and 4 are where its all on the line for everybody, you would prefer Tannehill to peak this year but had he been injured and forced to miss significant time that wouldn't have done anybody any good.
     
  4. Boik14

    Boik14 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    75,121
    37,641
    113
    Nov 28, 2007
    New York
    D) Mike Sherman didnt realize Tannehills QB Rating inside the pocket (bottom 5 last year) vs outside (top 5 last year).
    E) All of the above (Including DJ's options).

    I vote E. :)
     
  5. roy_miami

    roy_miami Well-Known Member

    1,385
    560
    113
    Oct 11, 2013
    I will add that if Tannehill had shown awareness on that long run vs the Saints and slid or scampered out of bounds instead of stiff arming a tackler we may have stuck with it more last season. I think at that moment the staff realized it was more valuable to keep Tannehill healthy for the year than the extra yards gained on the read option.
     
    Boik14 likes this.
  6. vt_dolfan

    vt_dolfan Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    Im pretty sure Sherman knew Tannehill could already do all the running aspects of the game...it was the reading NFL defenses...throwing players open....all the small nuances that make an elite QB ...elite. Thats where he needed the experience. I dont think Sherman could foresee how bad our line was going to be, and really, the line is what killed all of last season for everyone, including 17s development.
     
  7. TooGoodForDez

    TooGoodForDez Deion Sanders for GM

    3,840
    636
    0
    Feb 26, 2013
    There is no doubt they kept him in the pocket for 2 years to develop him for the system he needs to run, so a). This is not disputable, it's a fact.
    The b and c options are just fan opinions on that coaching decisions.
     
  8. Boik14

    Boik14 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    75,121
    37,641
    113
    Nov 28, 2007
    New York
    Good point. People forget that Tannehill had a few years at wr at the college level. His first instinct may not be to slide, its to gain yards...
     
  9. heylookatme

    heylookatme Well-Known Member

    902
    438
    63
    Sep 12, 2012
    I still think you can roll him out or run boots on 10% of your pass attempts while developing him. The Seahawks do it more often than that and are still developing Wilson just fine.
     
    DPlus47, Unlucky 13 and djphinfan like this.
  10. Califin

    Califin Well-Known Member

    2,050
    403
    83
    Nov 26, 2007
    Plain, old, stubborn pigheadedness, which reflected much of the stale, predictable, lack of innovation exhibited during his tenure as OC.
     
  11. Alex13

    Alex13 Tua Time !!! Club Member

    25,809
    39,060
    113
    Dec 21, 2007
    Berlin,Germany
    yikes
     
  12. djphinfan

    djphinfan Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    111,651
    67,546
    113
    Dec 20, 2007
    so you think it was blatant disregard? seriously?
     
  13. djphinfan

    djphinfan Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    111,651
    67,546
    113
    Dec 20, 2007
    So Cali, you just think he wanted himself a pocket passer and that was it?, completely ignored the strengths and weaknesses of his qb?, just believed that pocket passing is the only way to win?
     
  14. djphinfan

    djphinfan Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    111,651
    67,546
    113
    Dec 20, 2007
    absolutely, but I'm sure some here will tell you that if you took wilsons legs away whatta you got? lol

    I mean I can understand what Mullen was saying but I can't believe it seems possible that the mike sherman completely misused the qb he knew more than anyone..unless, he did this with the big pic in mind....nahhhh, he wouldn't let us lose those last two game last year would he?
     
  15. djphinfan

    djphinfan Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    111,651
    67,546
    113
    Dec 20, 2007
    to ignore the skill set of your top 10 pick off of one play is ludicrous, and it was not more valuable keeping him in the pocket, obviously, we lost a whole season, no'one can tell me that if we would of used tannehills strengths we wouldn't of won one more game, unless, he sacrificed football games by curtailing the game plan, not caring about losses, all in the name of a training principle to make this qb the best he could be big pic.
     
  16. Unlucky 13

    Unlucky 13 Team Raheem Club Member

    51,930
    63,009
    113
    Apr 24, 2012
    Troy, Virginia
    I'm not sure that anything Sherman did could have prevented that loss at Buffalo. Perfect storm of crap. The Jets game was a failure on the coached and players though. The final nail seemed to be when Hartline got hurt and the air just completely deflated from the offense. It was like they gave up.
     
  17. Unlucky 13

    Unlucky 13 Team Raheem Club Member

    51,930
    63,009
    113
    Apr 24, 2012
    Troy, Virginia
    I think that you're right, for sure. How many times did the game plan / play calls go against RT's strengths in a close loss? At least four last season, including home losses to Baltimore, Buffalo and Carolina. The team bypassed the chance to keep moving the ball in smaller chunks in order to force the deep ball and either left points on the board or turned it over, far too often. And thats not even including coming out flat and playing like crap against the Bucs and Jets.
     
  18. roy_miami

    roy_miami Well-Known Member

    1,385
    560
    113
    Oct 11, 2013
    Calling plays that keeps him in the pocket does not guarantee losses, it merely increases variance. I'm sure there were plays to be made, Tannehill just had to work harder, be smarter and be more accurate to make them. We may have taken a path the resulted in being a half game or a game worse than we could have been but I look at it as more of an investment, and the hope is that one game investment last year nets us a one or two game gain this year.

    Russell Wilson has always been smart when running. RGIII hasn't been, and look at where the Redskins are right now. I absolutely believe that had Tannehill been smart on that one play, and demonstrated he was more of a Wilson than a RGIII we'd have kept using the read option more. I'm sure they drill him over and over to be smart when running, to never sacrifice your body for a meaningless yard. "Touch down, first down, get down." Tannehill demonstrated on that one play he just couldn't be trusted. It doesn't matter anymore, the development should be far enough along that whatever is going to happen will happen. Its time to let it all hang out.
     
  19. rafael

    rafael Well-Known Member

    27,364
    31,261
    113
    Apr 6, 2008
    IMO it's obvious that Sherman kept RT in the pocket b/c he believed it was the best way to win. I see almost zero chance that it was some altruistic motivation.
     
  20. djphinfan

    djphinfan Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    111,651
    67,546
    113
    Dec 20, 2007
    well then, he deserved to be fired, and cost our team and franchise millions of dollars.
     
  21. djphinfan

    djphinfan Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    111,651
    67,546
    113
    Dec 20, 2007
    ignoring the strengths of your qb in the face of your biggest weakness is a recipe for losses, not incorporating the read option and a rolling pocket on a consistent basis amidst having an absolute joke for an oline is the very definition of being counter productive in football terms.


    so none of us think that he went the mad scientist route and adhered to the philosophy of dan mullen, which is, when you have an inexperienced qb you must get him as many pocket reps as possible?
     
  22. pmj

    pmj New Member

    381
    168
    0
    Nov 1, 2010
    This coaching staff has done too many stubborn things to list... The answer should be obvious. Why did they get Dion to gain weight and force him to be a DE?
     
  23. roy_miami

    roy_miami Well-Known Member

    1,385
    560
    113
    Oct 11, 2013
    Here's an example of trading off short term variance and a slightly worse winning percentage for long term benefit:

    I believe Tannehill's knee was a big factor to his poor play week 17, chances are Moore gave us a better chance to win that game. Lets say Moore gives you a nice steady performance and wins 60% of the time whereas Tannehill is all over the place and only wins 50% of the time. In a vacuum it makes sense to play Moore because that gives you the best opportunity to win the game. But for the longer term it may be worth sacrificing a lower winning percentage week 17 to give Tannehill the experience of playing in a playoff type atmosphere. You also avoid any type of QB controversy. And Moore isn't going to do much in the playoffs anyway, you don't need nice and steady, you need high variance and the ability to score a ton of points.

    When you're developing a QB with a 3 or 4 year plan in mind you should definitely think about doing things that might look bad in a vacuum for the benefit of the long term strategy. Again, look at the Redskins, how are they ever going to make the decision on what to do with RGIII as far as a contract extension goes? They are about to be put in an impossible situation.

    And I'm not trying to say one way is better than the other, both strategies have merit.
     
  24. Vertical Limit

    Vertical Limit Senior Member

    12,162
    5,057
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    You're too obsessed with the read option, in the NFL that is a gimmick to hide the flaws of a quarterback that can't make plays in the pocket and defensive coordinators are catching on with the read option, that offense is good enough at high school and college (in certain conferences), but not in the NFL.

    Last week we saw St. Louis and the Broncos trap two read option quarterbacks and forced them to make throws in the pocket and they could not hit anything accurately. The same applies with Tannehill in the pocket.

    This is a copycat league and teams will catch on to that strategy, create a cage around the read option quarterback and see him try to win by throwing in the pocket.
     
  25. rafael

    rafael Well-Known Member

    27,364
    31,261
    113
    Apr 6, 2008
    The read-option isn't a gimmick. It's value is that it makes the D have to defend an extra person. If they put a cage around the read-option it just makes the passing game easier for that QB. The easy example is CKap. He's not a great QB from the pocket, but the D has to honor his run ability. So how do they do that? They play more zone and have DEs or LBs stay at home more or at least hesitate before dropping into coverage. So CKap gets more vanilla looks in coverage and extra space to pass. That's a big part of why SF has been successful. A QB can't win consistently without being able to pass but having that extra weapon to threaten the D makes it easier to pass.
     
    djphinfan and Stringer Bell like this.
  26. Stringer Bell

    Stringer Bell Post Hard, Post Often Club Member

    44,356
    22,480
    113
    Mar 22, 2008
    Its no more of a gimmick than the shotgun formation.

    Creating a "cage" inherently provides an advantage. It isn't a good strategy, and you're basically ignoring the fact that teams have made and won Super Bowls because of that advantage.
     
    djphinfan likes this.

Share This Page