Thanks for the chart. However, when in this timing based offense, where a QB throws to a spot, does he not at least take a cursory glance at the WR to determine if he's deviating from the "set path" or exact route? There is always going to be variance. Was the receiver jammed, etc. It's never going to be perfect. So, although yes there are areas where the ball should be, I'd imaging the QBs are making constant adjustments to ball placement. We're talking specifically about the Tannehill's ability to throw the deep ball. Not all the receivers you mentioned fall within that category, and past stats to Wallace are relevant to discuss what level of effectiveness Stills will have with Tannehill in the same capacity.
I believe it was CK that wrote that piece. It's been cited a number of times, with almost no success of getting the conversation going further than "Tanneblow sucks at the deep ball!!!" phase.
I was about to say this... CK himself doesn't even get into this discussion, because he wrote an entire article on it and probably is tired of repeating it over and over.
When you're going through progressions of three or more receivers, you don't have time to really examine if they're on their route. You throw to the spot. Of course, the more you say some of these things, the more it starts to make sense why Tannehill had such struggles to connect with him on deeper routes. Tannehill couldn't simply throw to a spot. He had to make a split second choice on where to throw, not based on the play, but he had to try to guess where Wallace would be. DJ has said so many times that it didn't look like Tannehill was making a "pure throw" to Wallace. These are the reasons why he wasn't. He couldn't simply throw it. He had to try to guess where Wallace would be, and then guide it into a perfect spot.
This is really where good coaching would help. The coaches should notice how fast Wallace is, and design deeper pass plays where Tannehill can throw to a spot without caring about where Wallace is at the time the ball is thrown. That is, even on deep balls, Tannehill (at least with Wallace) should have been coached to throw to a spot.
1 - There's a clockwork aspect to football plays which only become all the more important the longer the throw/play, this is primarily because... 2 - ...There's more than one receiver to throw to AND you can't be staring down a receiver, and.... 3 - ...Everything in football moves extremely quickly and with longer plays the pressure only increases, unless you've got a legendary OL. Both of these mean that a receiver must know that he has to be as accurate as possible so that everything stays on plan. One interesting but often neglected aspect in all of this that was brought out in that article I just referenced and that's the affect of play design. The author cites one big example where the coaches' play design was just poor and didn't factor in Wallace's speed properly. That might be another reason why Wallace wasn't deemed a fit at Miami.
Drops and catch radius tell part of the story, OBVIOUS lack of effort and fight to go after a ball tells the rest. This includes over AND underthrown passes that could have been caught with a slight bit of awareness and effort. There was a ton of people on this board (including myself) who were actually at games last year and made comments about Wallace not finishing plays where he should have (from our own live observations). Sure, not everything is catchable, however the amount of catches that COULD-HAVE-BEEN but WEREN'T was alarming. Then of course you have the drops. Although I think Tannehill needs to work on his deep ball accuracy (info in this thread shows MOST QBs do), I also think it's being stupidly overblown like a few of you have said.
Wallace =/= Stills. different players. If you want to talk about his deep ball it's fine to all players not named wallace but, no-one cares about that. Wallace is gone end of story. Can't use his stats to say tannehill sucks anymore. Now if Tannehill sucks throwing to laundry cammeron stills mathews hazel and sims make a post about that.
Why are you bothering to post in this thread, if it bothers you so much? The thread exists because of tweets between individuals. Don't like it? Don't post in the thread. Pretty simple. The rest of us will continue to post what we want, as long as it applies to the topic.
then why not use one of the billion other wallace tannehill threads? how is this useful to describe our team as of today? by talking about a WR connection that doesn't exist... whats the point of talking about something that doesn't matter. do ya'll need to stroke your epeens that much? sorry that i'm interested in current news not something that is 6 months old.
You've made 4 posts in a 3 page thread. That is the worst way to kill a thread you think is stupid. Just saying.
Because one of the other "billion" Wallace/Tannehill threads wasn't about the tweets? Again, if you don't want to engage in the topic, then don't click on the topic. Make your own thread. Pretty simple. Has nothing to do with "epeens", but thanks for getting insulting and ridiculous.
That or you can get over yourself and realize that, strangely enough, Thephins doesn't revolve around you and your whining. Did anybody force you to open this thread? You read the header and knew what was included, yet continued...just to b*tch. Useless.
Tannehill to Wallace is certainly a relevant discussion. It will be all of next year also. Because we're going to see a completely different set of WRs, and we'll be able to compare the looks and stats of the 2015 offense to the 2014 offense. We'll be able to compare the Tannehill/Stills stats to the Tannehill/Wallace stats and finally determine just what went wrong in 2014, and likely why it went wrong. That's like the best part of sports....to see the outcomes and to be able to look back and determine why those outcomes happened. To get an answer to a 2 year feud. This is one I'm looking forward to.
Captain Hindsight is useless because the o-line is so atrocious. That said, he's gotta be more savvy getting rid of the ball.
Does it matter? Why does this mythical deep ball need to happen? We scored many times through shorter passes and runs so why does it actually matter? This obsession that tannehill dinked and dunked his way upfield is surely entirely irrelevant. How you get there doesn't matter, just getting there does.
I think it's going to be interesting to see how things work out with Stills. It's been said that Wallace's speed was part of the reason T17 couldn't hit him. Stills didn't have quite as fast a 40 but he's younger than Wallace and so perhaps will be running as fast now as Wallace was these last two years. The big difference, supposedly, is that Stills catches everything and Wallace has a reputation for needing the ball right on the money. If speed was the issue then it might well still be an issue with Stills, unless we see that a bit more awareness and fight from Stills makes the difference (although to be fair to Wallace, this last season he showed plenty of fight both in going up and in carrying it through). On the other hand, coaching/play design has also been identified as a possible cause of issues - that the speed was poorly handled by the coaches rather than T17. If that's the problem then it's again possible we'll see more of that, unless they've learned a lesson. Trying to understand what happened between Wallace and T17, as far as it's possible, is helpful because it might help to understand how T17 and the coaches might relate to the new receivers. Especially if Stills is used in a speed package.
