Ryan Tannehill looks forward to more 'freedom' in Dolphins' offense

There's 2 ways to modify Thill, use him differently then he was used prior to Lazor's arrival or use him differently then his skill set.

From the moment Thill joined the league he's been used different then his skill set. Sherman did it and Lazor did the exact same things with him which was keep him in the pocket. Thill was NOT used differently then he had been.

So if you want to say Lazor modified Thill then on the most technical level I guess its right because he just continued the misusage of him that Sherman started. But the way most meant it and especially in this thread, is that Lazor used Thill differently then he had been used, which isn't true.

Wallace, on the other hand, was used as a completely different receiver in 2014 then he was in 2013.

 

Only 30% of the deep balls thrown to Wallace were catchable when he was here, which tells a person all they need to know on the subject.

 

To me, someone who has posted a lot less than normal? The rare occasion I log on I have to shake my head at the same ole people doing the same ole thing.

-Who cares about Mike Wallace at this point? Shouldnt we be more worries about our offense that cant put up 20ppg?

-When someone makes a statement then is called out on it, why is the deflecting overlooked?

-Why are certain people allowed to throw around word like Stupid and Dumb? And why are SOME dup accounts forgaven while others are overlooked?

-Why cant we embrace the future and hope for improvements rather than act as if we've never had a QB problem at all?

"I embrace solutions, not excuses"


Taking a step back and evaluating whats happened to this site is seriously heartbreaking.

 

Where in this thread has that happened, Fin-O? Maybe I missed it, but I just went back through all 3 pages, and didn't see what you were referring to, other than the poster who got rebanned.

But, to answer a couple of your points:

1. Wallace was brought up in response to the argument that Lazor modified Tannehill, and only Tannehill, due to his deficiencies. How is that unreasonable?

2. Not sure who your accusing of deflecting in this thread.

3. Who called anyone "stupid" or "dumb" in this thread?

4. Why should people accept what they believe are faulty arguments about Tannehill? Is he perfect? No. Doesn't mean he's been the problem that so many want to make him seen.

 

Link, and definition of deep ball? Also, how do we know the deep ball wasn't where it was supposed to be, but Wallace wasn't in the correct place? Yes, there were some bad balls to Wallace, no denying. But we get back to the argument that Wallace's poor route running and inability to adjust to balls in the air negatively affected the placement of many deep balls.

 

Bullsheets. Utter bollocks. This is the exchange

All I said, was Lazor modified his system a little, to suit Tanny's strengths. As if it was controversial that the deep pass was NOT a strength of Tannehill. But anyway, it wasn't even that big of a criticism of Tanny, and in fact, produced the best stretch of his career.

I didn't say Lazor modified Tannehill, I said Lazor modified HIS SYSTEM, to suit Tannehills strengths. It wasn't just shrinking the field by the way. People noticed more read option and intended runs.

In direct response to my observation, Fin D, the first person to bring up Wallace in the thread, argued Lazor didn't modify Tannehill, but he modified Wallace, and only Wallace. The only person in the thread to argue Lazor modified a single person, was Fin D. My statement, that Lazor modified his system, implies the whole system was modified. The whole thing, all 11 players.

So you're about as completely wrong as one can get. The posting history is pretty black and white, and it's right there.

 

It is controversial, as the deep ball was only "bad" when throwing to Wallace.

I still believe that the system was modified more to accommodate the line and receivers far more than for Tannehill.

 

First, Tannehill wouldn't need to change his "arch" and trajectory if it was fine. All they need to do was subtract Wallace. After Lazor saw Tannehill miss 5 deep passes in week 2, only one of which was to Wallace, you think he's saying, hmm, he looks fine to everyone but Wallace? We can disagree how much of a weakness it was but it wasn't just fine. At one point the Dolphins late in 2014 had only scored ONE Td outside of the red zone, and that was to Wallace. If it was FINE to everyone else than there would have been long TD scores to everyone but Wallace, but there were none except to Wallace. It's simple logic. Tanny only completed 9 passes 21+ yards, and Wallace had 4. If it was that bad only to Wallace, why the rest of the corps only caught 5 such passes all year is beyond me.

As for your second point, you can believe that, but it's just not entirely true. Is it the line and receivers? Sure, nobody is out there on a vacuum. But I can say with the utmost certainty, it was modified mostly for the QB. The head coach tried to replace the QB after the end of that year! Let's just say the offensive coaches were certainly in agreement with that.

Third, you admit the thread didnt go down the way you said it went down? I need closure.

 

Given that both Lazor and Philbin were fired, I put very little credence to whether or not they wanted to change QBs.

Secondly, given your history of posting regarding Tannehill, your post certainly seemed aimed at Tannehill. I mean, you could have said, "Lazor tailored the offense to maximize Tannehill's strengths and minimize the weaknesses of the line and receivers." But you didn't. You specifically said Tannehill. It is your belief that Tannehill is the problem, isn't it?

 

Nobody asked if they were credible. The original issue was whether they modified the system because they perceived weaknesses in Tannehill. The evidence shows they perceived a BUNCH of weaknesses in tannehill. Doesn't matter if they were 100% right, 100% wrong, or somewhere in between. They viewed Tannehill as a weakness. That is a FACT. So the notion they modified the system mainly to suit Tanny's strengths, eliminate weaknesses, is not out of the question. Yet the very first post mentioning Wallace denies that.

Then ask me to clarify. Don't go posting some nonsense.

Arguing lazor didn't modify Tannehill but he modified Wallace is nonsense. And that was posted. Right above. Check it out.

There was more read-option and intended runs dialed up. Tell me again how that is modifying Wallace. See? It's silly.

There is only one person who handles the ball on every play. When you are shrinking the passing field, designing bootlegs and read options, how is that not targeting his strengths. You're so intent on reading negativity you fail to see, that a strength of Tannehill is his legs, and they took advantage of that. That's a positive thing. I'd love to see more of that. It's an advantage we don't make use of enough (Hey DJ where you at).

My posting history of Tannehill is what I view not as pro or con but realistic. I want him to be that guy, but he hasn't shown me yet. I friggin rostered the guy on all 3 of my dynasty teams, over $1000 in league fees, hoping he was the guy. Confident he was the guy.

It just seems con- because I'm always battling crazy stuff from the pro-side. Like this thread. I just spent how many posts defending my post which wasn't even overly critical of Tannehill. Don't you see?

 

Im with Dang....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Damn I opened this thread thinking it was going to be about them empty the backfield so he had more room to run for his life

 

Meh... who cares? New season, new coaches, new players. Philbin, Lazor, and Wallace are all gone and good riddance.

Hoping to see more of this going forward.

 

Yeah, I don't believe that the deep ball was shelved because Tannehill couldn't throw it. I believe the deep ball was shelved because the oline couldn't block and Wallace ran poor routes, making it hard to connect with him on timing patterns. I have the evidence of Wallace his last year in Pitt, two seasons in Miami, and a season in Minnesota to back up my belief. You base your assertion that it was modified to offset Tannehill's supposed deep ball problem on Lazor and Philbin, who both got fired, wanting to draft a different QB.

Whatever man. You talk about "crazy stuff" from the Pro side, but what we've been saying for years is pretty simple, and not crazy:

1. Tannehill isn't the problem
2. Tannehill's oline is a massive problem
3. Wallace, and other receivers, limited the offense
4. Playcalling, coaching, and scheme were bad.

I've been called a Tannehill lover, and worse, mostly because I've argued stupid stuff that people post blaming Tannehill for everything.

 

I'm with res....

 

From presnap reads website

http://presnapreads.com/2016/03/24/the-mike-wallace-effect-deep-ball-accuracy-and-ryan-tannehill/

Bottom line the Dolphin7s deep ball problem is on the receivers not the passer.
Tannehill was accurate on 54.4% of balls thrown 20+ yards past the LOS. equal 4th best in the NFL.
Tannehill's overall accuracy % was 80.8% good for 6th in the league

The receivers dropped 64 catches (tied for first in the league)
On deep balls they dropped 11, which is about 1/3 of the catchable deep balls

 

I don't agree with the way they interpret who is at fault. Look at those clips. I do not agree Tannehill has no blame in those clips. It seems like whoever put those stats together is looking at catch radius at the time the ball gets to where the receiver is, and NOT whether the ball was placed correctly given the route run.

In some of those clips the reason the defender was that close was precisely because Tannehill's ball placement was off. Doesn't mean there is no blame on a WR that drops a ball that hits his hands, but to say Tannehill isn't at fault in those cases is just wrong.

So I don't like the method it seems like they're using in "Quarterback Catalogue charting" to determine accuracy.

 

Brilliant play by both QB and WR yet some people are adamant the ball was overthrown. Team game, if the opportunity's there to make the catch even elite QBs need their receivers to make a play.

 

The words from the article
It’s very difficult to be perfectly precise on downfield throws for any quarterback because of the distance and the speed of his targets.

clip 1 ... Tannehill’s pass was slightly underthrown but still accurate ...
clip 2 He(Stills) does everything perfectly on this play except establish control of the ball. It was a perfect throw from the quarterback regardless.
clip 3Tannehill releases the ball just before his pocket collapses around him. Williams watches the ball arrive over his shoulder and attempts to pull it in with both hands extended in front of him.
clip 4 Tannehill doesn’t lead him downfield but puts enough on his pass for Landry to catch it cleanly
clip 5 is of Brandon Marshall catching a difficult deep ball where Fitzpatrick doesn’t slightly miss the throw, he completely misses it.
clip 6 On this play, Tannehill fits the ball over a linebacker and between two safeties while his left guard is rapidly pushed back into his lap. His pass is slightly high but arrives in a spot and at a time when his tight end should catch the ball. Dion Sims drops the ball long before either defender arrives.

The point wasn't that Tannehill was putting perfect placement on every ball, the point was that the receivers weren't catching balls that hit them in their hands or chest.

The author of the article has another article showing how better support from the receivers would have helped in 2014. http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/142017354/ryan-tannehill-training-camp-reviews-true

 

Yep. We've seen deep balls dropped by receivers since Tannehill's rookie year. I don't remember them all now, but I distinctly remember talking about these drops basically weekly in GameDay threads, as people would be crapping on Tannehill, and if be sitting there wondering if we were all watching the same games.

I remember last season, or the season before, early in the year against the Pats, receivers dropped like 3-5 deep balls. In one game.

 

Yeah, like I said I don't agree. If you have a scoring system where you give 0 points to the QB for a pass that wasn't catchable at the time the ball got to the receiver, 1 point where it was but the QB arguably placed the ball in the wrong place, and 2 points where the ball was (close to) perfectly placed, I bet you do not get anywhere near the rankings they show. No way can I accept a deep ball ranking of Tannehill being way above Brady or some others. What that to me suggests is that the way they were ranked is flawed.

And as far as a clip-by-clip description, clip 1 is not "slightly underthrown but still accurate". That's severely underthrown but still catchable (NOT accurate IMO, because accurate and catchable aren't the same). Clip 3 is actually a well-thrown ball but NOT catchable IMO given the intended receiver. Look at it in slow-mo and you will see the ball is barely at the fingertips and doesn't go through the hands, with Damien Williams in full stride. It's hard to fault Tannehill there but for the intended receiver I don't think that was technically "catchable". And clip 4 is also another missed TD because of a serious underthrow.

Point is, the rankings just look fishy.. they don't pass the smell test. And when I see the explanation, it's clear to me why: they are only looking at whether the ball was within some radius of the receiver at the time the receiver tried to catch it. This isn't a good way of ranking how well QB's throw deep balls IMO. Take ball placement into account in some way and I bet the rankings look way different. None of this absolves the WR of his responsibility of course.

 

cbrad,

Fair points. I agree the D Williams pass in particular is a bit of a reach to include as a genuinely catchable ball, but it is close enough to say that with better tracking Williams could have given himself a better opportunity to catch the ball.

I do think that the other 4 should have been caught. They weren't flat out bad drops, but catches you expect NFL quality receivers to hold on to. Also I agree that with clip 4 with a better throw it should have been a TD, but it's still a pass that gave the receiver a decent chance of catching.

As for the 'smell test' the way to check it is to queue up on video all of the deep passes by QBs in the NFL. I'd actually prefer to do that than rely on someone else's opinion but I don't know of a resource that would allow me to do it.

 

I'm with stupid.

 

The Williams one was overthrown, but I think he catches it if he lays it for it. The first clips of Stills, that was a good ball, and a terrible drop by Stills.

 

Watch the entire play on the Williams "overthrow". Williams stopped his route while still in the flat for some reason, then realized his mistake and tried to catch back up to the ball. It was still off his fingertips.

 

Well he needs to be more accurate. That is all. As he is really just needs to be accurate on the money.

 

Parker could have run and caught the ball without needing to jump. By jumping he denied the covering corner and closing safety an opportunity to disrupt the catch.I think its a perfect example of a good pass into a tight window that was helped by the receiver making a great play on the ball.

 

Yeah, you're right. I remember arguing with people that week who said it was a bad throw.

 

It gets glossed over constantly, by those who dislike Tannehill, but it needs to be pointed out, AGAIN, that the crappy play of the oline certainly negatively affects throws. It's hard to be confident, and really step into throws when you're constantly surrounded by defenders in the backfield, and trying to throw with guys draped all over you.

 

Man reading these Tannehill threads, particularly the Tannehill Deep Balll threads makes me miss threads about switching Zach Thomas to safety.

 

Unless you're name is Russell Wilson

 

Tannehill had a noticeably better deep pass this past year. There was more arch in the trajectory. A specific criticism of his deep passes from the previous years was, the arc on his deep passes. He just needs to adjust that a little. When you got Tannehill arch enemy #2 Omar Kelly (#1 be Miko) saying Tannehill's deep passes are improved, with more arc, and is more catchable, that's saying something. It was much improved over previous years.

 

The one with Landry. It gets broken up because Tanny doesn't lead him. Landry had a step on his guy and had to hold up waiting for the pass that gets broken up. They use this to defend Tannehill and bash Landry? I think Landry is overrated but that's a stretch.

 

The further the pass, the more "catchable" and "accurate" become the same. Its not like guys who have good deep ball numbers don't benefit from their receivers catching merely "catchable" deep balls. remember these throws aren't used that much and even few caught "catchable" balls can skew the numbers.

Thill can't step up into the pocket either, cause you know, guard on roller skates and everything.

 

What does that have to do with anything? I guess Brady or Palmer aren't good because they can't escape like Wilson either? I guess Parker isn't good because he isn't as fast as Wallace? I guess Gase can't be good because he's not BB?

And let's just ignore scheme and playcalling in regards to Wilson while we're at it.

 

And yet, in this thread I believe, people were arguing that Tannehill's deep ball was so bad that Lazor modified the offense because it was so bad.

 

Totally agree, but that first clip pass isn't accurate. There's too much of a difference between where the ball should've been and where it was given the defender's position. Obviously we don't have solid definitions for these terms but when I see a WR that already beat his defender having to slow down to such a degree that the defender ends up being in position to interfere with the play, it's not an accurate throw IMO. Catchable, yes, and of course the WR should have still caught that.

 

I really think we're splitting hairs here. On a deep ball, if it hits the receiver in the hands, it's catchable, and accurate. I think we're really discussing varying degrees of accurate

 

Yeah I don't agree but it's no big deal either. I mean you do have to admit there is a difference between hitting the receiver in stride where the defender can't make a play vs. throwing it where both the receiver and defender can make a play. That's actually not a small difference IMO, which is why I make the distinction.

 

Just like the clip from earlier, you have no idea if Thill could have stepped into the throw or not. And again regardless, that was a catchable ball that would have improved Thill's stats.