Miami Dolphins Ryan Tannehill: Judge me on wins

Here's a good link to some QB metrics. May have already been posted.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2015/2014-incomplete-pass-breakdown-passers

Rarely underthrows his man. More overthrows. Ranked 4th best in overall bad throws. according to STATS, on deep throws, Wallace only caught 12 of 36 but didn't drop any. The rest of the team, however, dropped 6 of 28 of passes deep. That's ridiculous. 5.9%. League average is 4.2% on passes deep (which I think here, is 15 yards not 20).

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/miamis-gamble-what-does-tannehills-new-contract-mean/

In 2013, Tanny's air yards per attempt was 8.7, 12th highest in the league. Which is surprising, considering the oline mess we had. In 2014, his air yards per attempt dropped to 7.4, 28th highest.

 

Man, it is time for the season.

 

This is a perfect example of your problem.

You are given evidence and instead of excepting it, you'd rather pretend there's other evidence (that doesn't exist) that I won't except. And not only are you not excepting the evidence that exists for hypothetical evidence that doesn't exist, but you're acting like I won't except it if it did exist, knowing damn good and well, that not only have I changed my opinion based on evidence, I have actually done it about Mike Wallace. You know it, I know it, everyone else knows it. When he started fighting for the ball last year, I was the FIRST person (who blasted him for his effort) to acknowledge it and make a public concession. This is inarguable. Now, let's see if you actually acknowledge you're wrong about me, or if you won't change your opinion in the face of actual evidence, like you accuse me and others of.

Also, your last line doesn't prove your stance. In fact, its been explained a billion times, with empirical evidence, common sense, and football knowledge and all from posters as football stupid as myself to the complete other end of that spectrum like CK & KB and yet, you still cling to this notion based on that simple sentence above.

Now be honest, who exactly is not admitting they are wrong and clearly has an agenda.

 

lol, I love how you literally stop the bold before the part of the quote that quantifies the quote. Talk about being intellectually dishonest.

Just because someone says X is the weakest part of someone's game that doesn't mean he's weak at X. That X could still be pretty good. As was pointed out by the author, in the quote, right after you stopped your bolding: "but it's unfair to say he is bad at it."

 

Yep, I also came out and said that Wallace had done a better job at fighting for balls, and was a better overall receiver. I even said I was fine with them keeping Wallace on the team after last season.

 

So you agree that you throw it to a place, ie, a spot, that the receiver runs to? Not sure why you're arguing this. If Wallace runs bad routes, which he did, and Wallace couldn't adjust his speed while tracking a ball, which he couldn't, it makes it very difficult to pick which spot to throw it to 50+ yards downfield. I agree, Tannehill wasn't just letting it fly...but I think that had to do with how hard it was to know where Wallace would be...so, Tannehill was throwing it tense, trying to be perfect. Was just a bad fit.

 

Does that 12/36 count balls like the one he caught, but stepped out of bounds?

 

No wonder you are such a rockstar round here, there has been countless articles and blogs saying Ryan has struggled with the deep ball!! Have you acknowledged a single one of them as "evidence"??? Nope.

Here is a link to a thread that showed about 15 passes to Wallace that were deemed inaccurate by this guy http://www.thephins.com/forums/show...+tube+Ryan+tannehill+overthrows+Mike+Walllace

Now...I remember myself even thinking about half of those plays were debatable on who was really to blame, just as that kids blog certainly has some questions on the 5 plays he laid out on who REALLY deserved the blame if anyone.

Basically over the last couple of seasons we have seen many plays given forth as "evidence" to make a claim either way, and naturally in your own pretentious way claim "well this blog should end ALL debates" is a perfect example of what you are around here.

Also if this deep ball agenda was some invented strawman by Wallace lovers why is it the constant buzz and such a story nationally that Ryan has been throwing such a good deep ball thus far in camp?? I mean it's a non issue and has been according to you and a few others?? Why is it garnishing so much attention?? Oh, I get it....most people haven't been afforded the luxury of that 5 play blog to prove them otherwise.

 

There was one like that vs the Ravens in 2013 near midfield, too. Would have been a game changer probably.

 

No one is shocked you won't admit you're wrong. You never have and never will.

 

Guess those 4 plays (the GB complaint was quite optimistic and a slant at that) just didn't do enough to dismiss the other examples ive seen. Must be a "me" problem.

 

The truth always lies somewhere in between.

1) Ryan Tannehill is (or was? we'll see..) not a good deep ball thrower, but not as terrible as the media and some others make him out to be.

2) Mike Wallace is not good at tracking and catching the ball down field, but is great at getting open.

Put 1 and 2 together and you get bad chemistry.

Why is it so hard for people to accept this?

 

It's so ridiculous that we're still arguing this stuff. Wallace was a chest catcher. Wallace ran bad routes. Wallace ran super fast...until he stopped...I would say that Wallace lacked touch on his speed/route running much like a QB that can throw really hard but can't throw catchable balls lacks touch. These things all combined to make for a terrible fit for a QB with terrible oline, who was also still learning how to play in the NFL, and who was playing in a timing based offense. I don't really care what the "national narrative" has been. The argument, all along, has been that the national narrative was wrong. It's again a case of the QB getting too much blame when stuff doesn't work, and too much credit when things go as planned.

As far as that guy "deeming" passes to be inaccurate...they may have been inaccurate. Or, they may have been inaccurate because Wallace wasn't where he was supposed to be, at the time he was supposed to be there. There is literally no way of knowing, unless you're one of the coaches. That being said, the article posted a couple pages back is better, as it looks at balls that were definitely good balls, but were not caught due to poor plays by receivers. The problem isn't receivers failing to make spectacular plays...every QB deals with that. The problem is that the receivers, as a whole, messed up on the gimme plays that usually offset the missed connections where receivers have to make spectacular plays.

 

There's also the fact that Tannehill (from a passer rating, ypc, and points standpoint) was more efficient and productive when throwing to Mike Wallace than he was to any other WR. What to make of that.

 

I make of that, that when Tannehill was actually able to connect with Wallace, it was for big plays and tds (how many redzone tds did Wallace have? More than his norm, I'd imagine). That, however, does not mean that Wallace was easy to connect with. Also, let's not forget, Wallace did change alot from the receiver he was the year before. Wallace was much, much improved at fighting for balls.

 

With all the evidence that's been posted it seems obvious to me that Tannehill is more accurate than most overall. He was way above average on the short passes, average or slightly above on the medium passes, about average on the long passes to anybody not named Wallace and way below average on long passes to Wallace. That doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement. Of course there is. I doubt there's any QB in the league who wouldn't say he has to improve. (Rodgers famously worked on his deep ball, specifically increasing his arc, before being known as one of the better deep ball throwers in the league). But how much of an issue is has been heavily skewed by the large percentage of throws to one player. I find it ridiculous that people claim he has accuracy issues. I just assume they don't watch other QBs or only take notice of other QB's highlights.

It's also obvious that his short throw percentage is about the league average (just slightly above) and that he throws short less than many of the most successful QBs in the league. That's simply the way the league has gone. Despite the low percentage of long completions he was still above a 7.00 YPA for most of the season, basically after those first three games when the offense was obviously and expectedly being installed/adjusted to. And basic math tells you that if just a few of those long completions that should have been caught had been, his stats and averages would be among the best in the league. I find the criticism that he throws too many short passes as completely without merit.

I don't think Tannehill is perfect, but I do think he's obviously already very good and well ahead of any reasonable expectation for a QB that we all knew was so raw and inexperienced coming in. I think that he needs to improve the arc on his deep passes, which we're seeing evidence of in camp. I never worried much about the deep pass b/c it is one of the easiest things to fix. Unlike most passes, the QB throws to a very general area and success is largely dependent on the WR. More arc and a little better timing is about all the QB needs to do. That along with receivers who are better at adjusting to the ball, catching contested passes and have better catch radii should more than address what was a very minor issue. I also believe that he needs to improve his pocket awareness. This is incredibly common and should be expected for any young QB. Tannehill was sacked about once every 12.8 times he dropped back to pass. For comparison sake, Rodgers was sacked about once every 9.5 attempts his first 3 seasons (a small sample size) and about once every 12 attempts in seasons 4 through 6. That's pretty similar to where Tannehill is now. Obviously now Rodgers is one of the best in the league in that category (and overall). Last year Rodgers was sacked about once every 18.5 attempts. That's obviously excellent, but it was something Rodgers developed into, not something he came into the league doing.

I really don't get the amount of criticism and nit-picking that I read about Tannehill. You basically have a QB that is showing a very similar progression to what the best QB in the league and some would argue one of the best ever had. Obviously we don't know if that progression will continue or what ceiling he will eventually reach, but clearly Tannehill is out-pacing every reasonable expectation. We should be over the moon with his progress thus far.

 

Just drop it. He cited an article that originally said Tannehill's deep pass is his weakest area, as evidence his deep pass is not a weakness. It's pointless.

 

114 rating throwing to Mike Wallace, 4th highest combo IN THE LEAGUE.

http://miamiherald.typepad.com/dolphins_in_depth/2015/01/15/

Subtract Wallace, replace him with the average of the other WRs and Ryan doesn't crack a 90 in rating ....


If we restrict all of his deep passes only to the right, he'd be fine.

 

You really are gonna double down on the intellectual dishonesty aren't you?

 

You really didn't read that part right, or are simply ignoring the phrase that came after.

 

Hint hint, jdang, READ THE BOLD.

 

Why are you ignoring all the other evidence Ryan struggled and giving merit to this blog??

It's elementary Watson, you have sour grapes because you are constantly owned on this site being POFO or the mains. You constantly lose arguments then back track, you are the bud of our jokes.

 

Again, I'm on record changing my opinion and admitting I'm wrong when sufficient evidence was presented....you? Never happened. So, please, keep spewing your crap about which of us is stubborn or has an agenda.

 

What exactly is the "bud of our jokes"?

We're not ignoring other evidence. We ARE saying that other evidence doesn't point solely to Tannehill, no matter how much you want it to...or claim you don't want to, depending on the day. This evidence was there purely to show that the national narrative, coincidentally, the same one on here, is flawed, and sites not really reflect accurately where Tannehill is with regards to the deep ball.

 

This thread belongs in the soap box.

 

You considering that blog as sufficient evidence explains alot.

Go Phins

 

With all due respect Res, you constantly sight Mike Wallace, the OL, the play calling, the defense before you say anything critical about Ryan. Its hard to respect your opinion when all i ever see out of you is excuses apologizing for RT, and thanking posts from one of the biggest hoofballs this site has ever seen.

Alot of the things you say hold water in some respect, but you rarely blame everyone besides Ryan Tammehill for too much of anything. He isn't perfect, we all get that...so why become enraged when a
Comment is made in regards to an area he needs to improve on?

 

I don't.

I consider that blog, Wallace's last year in Pitt, CK's numerous posts with facts, numbers and video/pics, KB's numerous posts with facts, numbers and video/pics, Rafael's posts with facts and observations, numbers to other receivers not Wallace from Tannehill, Tannehill's "improvement" thus far after Wallace left and my own two eyes to be sufficient evidence.

 

The word is "cite." Just trying to better our fanbase in the eyes of others.

Here's the thing, FinO...It's not that I don't fault Tannehill at all. It's that for so long, you and some others held Tannehill solely responsible for the deep ball issues WITH WALLACE, that my arguments about that cast me as somehow thinking that Tannehill bears no blame. Not true. Further, when people try to paint Tannehill as having a terrible deep ball, and I argue it, it again paints me as thinking that Tannehill is perfect. I don't. These discussions have turned into one or the other discussions, but I see myself in the middle. I think Tannehill is very talented, and I think that the issues with Wallace were on both (although, I do think Wallace had a larger share in the deep ball issues than Tannehill). I think we ate on the verge of having a top 5 QB on our hands. Further, while the deep ball may be Tannehill's biggest weakness, that doesn't mean that he throws a bad deep ball. He's basically average on deep balls. So, while it may be the part of his game being the most work, I don't see it as something that should be as harped on as it is.

Further, not so much recently, but early on in these debates, the deep ball issues were used as a reason why Tannehill was not a good QB. That was also why I got so heated...it wasn't the criticism of a part of his game, it was the conclusions drawn from those criticisms...and I've voiced that numerous times.

 

no, a place is his catch radius, you measure the lead, only way to do that is to see your target, and by target I dont mean real estate.

 

They didn't say he was good at it either. They call it his biggest weakness. Let me quote what you wrote:

My font is bigger than yours. I win.

And what they wrote:

What you wrote:

Again, with extraneous noise taken out:

What you wrote:

This is from the article, you touted. Just pointing it out.

 

There are facts to support both sides of the fence, so why carry on about it when one of the culprits is far from Miami? Everyone is excited to have Ryan breakout this year, his deep ball has been the talk of camp. Why water the excitement down trying to prove something that will always be opinion and never fact?

Go Phinz

 

I responded to someone who was using the word "weakness" to describe that Tannehill was deficient at the deep ball. The article says he is not deficient at the deep ball.

What you are doing is intellectually dishonest and typical. I could play the exact same game of being intellectually dishonest and point out, that you are wrong, it is not from the article. It shows up nowhere in the actual article.

 

Says the guy who couldn't let what I said go. Notice how you keep doing the things you accuse others of doing, like having an agenda, being stubborn, etc.?

And no, there hasn't been compelling evidence to say it was Tannehill. There's been mental gymnastics and a quote form Philbin. That's about it.

 

Pretty good read regarding Tannehill's perceived accuracy/deepball issues (some GIFs in there too).

http://www.sportsonearth.com/articl...hill-training-camp-reviews-true?tcid=tw_share

 

All this talk of it being the weakest part of his game...yet IT IS UNFAIR TO SAY THAT HE IS BAD AT IT. You're grasping at one tiny phrase in the entire article, and trying to use that one phrase to nullify everything else the article says. That is being dishonest.

 

Im not going to waste my time googling articles because once you see it you will flip it around because that's what you do quite regularly.

Props to those mental gymnasts though....they had the majority of sports figures in the country thinking Ryan struggled with the deep ball, hence the over the top excitement on a national level since he has been better in camp. How could they all be fooled so badly....props man, you took a page out of another former phsyicologists book who ironically has already gotten TP boot.

You guy's have it all figured out. Im envious.

 

Everyone is grasping and giving a helluva lotta credence to some blogger who highlight 4 deep passes and picked them apart. Anyone with a smart phone could start a blog and copy paste and have an insight.

 

man, tell you what, ryan certainly has worked hard transforming his body since entering the league.

 

That's simply not true.