Dolphins hire Colts QB coach Clyde Christenson as OC

Jack move!

 

[video=twitter;688531067511394304]https://twitter.com/FinsInsider/status/688531067511394304[/video]
good hire

 

Also spent time as Tight Ends Coach, Quarterbacks Coach, and Offensive Coordinator of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers.

 

I imagine we'll be running Gase's stuff, and that Gase will call plays. Christensen will probably be a super position coach type of guy, probably involved with some gameplanning too.

 

They're doing it to me again... Getting me excited...

 

This pleases me. Christenson should be a nice extension of Gase and is far and away better than Taylor. About time they give Tannehill some proper coaches

 

Folks should be excited because this is the first time Ryan's had a veteran position coach. He's been stuck with Zac Taylor since college.

 

But Clyde is going to be the OC, not QB coach. Has the QB coach even been hired yet, by the way?

 

Adam Gase?

 

Ryan's about to get double teamed in training and held accountable now. This will be good for his career and progress.

 

True, it's possible he won't even hire one. Gase and Christensen might actually be the "QB coaches".

 

Christensen is more like an aOC, so I don't think he'll have much impact, but once Gase said that he would be calling the plays from his own offense, this was going to be the case.

 

I agree with what a lot of others have said here. I don't think he will be an OC in the traditional sense because Gase will be calling plays and most likely game planning. I think we should think of him as the position coach manager which is good because he is an experienced position coach.

 

Yeah not much impact. Only the guy the Colts used to work directly with Luck for his entire short career and who Pagano called (not a direct quote) the best QB coach he's ever been around.

People need to ask themselves why these ultra intelligent coaches with options are coming here to coach a bum like Tannehill?

http://www.indystar.com/story/sport...-dolphins-offensive-coordinator-job/78918498/

 

I really like the moves that have been made thus far. Hopefully we can get Tannehill some protection and a defense that cab stop somebody.

 

Not sure that Clyde counts as young. Isn't he pushing 60?

 

Fixed...

 

He'll be involved in game planning, and with Gase calling plays on the sidelines, someone needs to be his eyes up in booth. That could likely be Clyde. This is one reason I'd expect a QB coach to be hired too. Someone to interact with Ryan on the sidelines during the game. Gase's primary focus will be on the field. When we interviewed Clyde, we also interviewed Frank Reich. He'd be a good choice as QB coach, IMO. I sure hated him when he was the Bills backup QB though. Seems like he played well against us a few times in relief of Kelly.

 

Of course it might also prove whether or not he should be the QB of the Dolphins for the long term. 2016 is a make or break year for Tannehill and the year where the excuses end.

 

The "reasons" will end if the problems are addressed.

 

I don't know about that. If he plays like Brees or Rivers did this year yet we win about 5 games people will use that as empirical proof that Tannehill needs to go.

 

If he plays like Brees no. Brees put up franchise QB stats except in the W/L column. He had a 7.8 Y/A, 32:11 TD/INT ratio and a 101 rating. Put up those kinds of numbers and W/L doesn't matter, the QB isn't the problem.

 

Is Andrew Luck really a feather in his cap? I don't think he's developed all that much.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

 

With Gase calling plays and Clyde's experience as a QB coach I don't think this is really an issue. Ryan now has two guys with a great track record developing Qbs. Good news for a rookie if we draft one or sign one too.

 

I seriously wonder if people on Saints or Chargers boards completely devalue their QB's stats by calling them "empty stats" or claim that almost all of their stats were in "garbage time".

 

I don't think either of us know the answer to that question being on the outside. BUT Pagano had the highest praise you could possibly give the guy.

 

Not sure.. but just glancing through some message boards one thing you do notice is the near absence of discussion about whether to replace the QB:
http://saintsreport.com/forums/f2/index2.html
http://forums.chargers.com/forumdisplay.php?f=140

The only real mentions are about contract matters, when to start thinking about a replacement because the QB's are getting old, etc.. In Brees' case you see multiple mentions of how he's a HoF QB. So the big difference is they don't think the QB is or could be a problem except through retirement.

 

because he has talent and things to fix..

 

Where is the Captain obvious smiley (jk).

Exactly. These coaches are willing to bet their reputations on Tannehill when a lot of people here are concluding Tannehill isnt clutch, isn't a winner, full of garbage stats, has bad 3rd down %, can't run, isn't a leader etc....and should be thrown to the curb.

There is something to be said about that.

 

Excuses won't end because then it's his first year in a new system...plus I doubt we are all the sudden going to have a good offensive line. Even with an average OL Tannehill isn't going to thrive IMO.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

those are the things he needs to fix Duff.

 

You saying he needs to fix that Tannehill isn't clutch, isn't a winner, had garbage stats, bad 3rd down%, can't run, and isn't a leader?

If he had to "fix" those things, I think he'd be drafting a QB. Thankfully, I think many of those will fix themselves with a better oline.

If Tannehill gets a decent oline, and still doesn't see improvement in wins, 4th quarter comebacks, and perceived clutchness, then I'll agree that we need to move on from him.

 

he needs to improve his game in every one of those areas or he will not be a top 10 qb..has nothing to do with the line, better oline should get him into top 15..

until he learns how to win and convert in situational football he's gonna struggle when protection breaks down, protection always breaks down in the playoffs, and you better know what your doing, and be fast at it...and yes, since he was in college, he struggles with leadership, as in its not natural for him..so he must continue to find ways to become more aggressive.

 

During an interview a member of the Chicago media said that Gase and Cutler were constantly interacting on the sideline and it was one of the things that helped make Cutler better last season. I fear as a HC Gase won't have the luxury of spending that much time with RT on the sidelines so it is imperative to have a trusted QB coach on the sidelines. I was also hoping that we would sign an experienced DC so that Gase could focus more on the offense. Despite the lack of experience as a DC, Joseph seems to be very well regarded so hopefully that isn't an issue.

 

Interesting. 'Better OL should get him to top 15' ... well, that would be worth a try. Where can we buy a better OL?

'when protection breaks down' ... How did/does Brady do when his protection breaks down? That sucks for everybody.

'more aggressive' ? Like when and how? Do you mean personally/socially?

Smith couldn't get plays called quick enough in a critical situation.
Wilson threw some bad passes and interceptions that put the Seahawks in a deep hole early.

Our QB OK
Our D horrible
Our OL even worse

Our play-calling was terrible
Our coaches didn't have a clue

I don't understand all the people fussing over the one (or few) thing that is 'ok' on the team.

Would Rodgers be better... well, yes. We don't have him and there are not any in this draft IMO.

 

Isn't clutch, isn't a winner, 3rd down % and isn't a leader all fall under one intangible, leadership, can't run falls under a different intangible, situational awareness, and garbage time stats aren't a problem nor are they an intangible, he's just had his stats padded by them this year.

Do you realize that you and your buddies are arguing against all the collective minds in all of sports? Seriously, you guys are arguing arguing against every coach and player in every sport, past and present, and all the sports psychologists, past and present, that have made it their life's work to ascertain and identify intangibles, because every great player in every sport has intangibles, if their was one thing that sets the greats apart from the rest it's intangibles.

This argument goes way beyond pointless.

 

Isn't clutch? hasn't had the opportunity very often

OL fix = better on 3rd downs, win more, don't have 'padded' stats, look more confident

Once you win = leadership falls into place

Do you think Mariota has good leadership? do you think there are 'complaints'?
How about Winston?
Leadership is next to worthless on a super-crappy team. They lead to another loss.

 

"Clutch" gets thrown around too much in football IMO and I agree with you. It implies that a player is not playing at his highest level the entire game and has an extra gear. As my coaches used to say "If you played well the first 59 minutes of the game, that last 1 minute you lost in wouldn't have mattered." In other words...every minute and play is just as important as the last.

It's not like basketball where with the clock winding down a single player can walk the ball up and shoot from 30 feet in someones face for the win. In basketball there is a very tangible way to measure what "clutch" is. Not so much in football. Its impossible to know how many times Tannehill was about to throw a TD if protection held but ended up on his ***. It could be 0 times or 100 times, but due to the nature of football being a team sport...we will never know.

Also on the subject of Wilson since I know DJ loves him, how clutch was he throwing an INT in the superbowl? Or was the corner just more "clutch?"

End of the day, great players make great plays but only if the cards are set up right.

 

In Tannehill's case the clutch argument does work if you use the right stats. I've always used the "trailing" vs. "tied" stats with <2 or <4 minutes left to make the case Tannehill statistically isn't "clutch" whether you define that as playing at that person's highest level or having an extra gear.

The argument works because you're comparing the drop-off in performance from "tied" to "trailing" for Tannehill to across the league. There is no fundamental reason why the drop-off should be significantly different from the distribution you see across the league. When it is, you have a statistical argument that Tannehill isn't "clutch" as measured by that stat.

So I agree "clutch" may be harder to measure in football than in basketball, and it might be thrown around more than it should, but there's no question you can get statistical evidence a QB is or not clutch when you compare increases/drop-offs in performance (as opposed to absolute levels of performance) under different conditions relative to the rest of the league.