Ryan Tannehill Tier 3 according to ESPN

The other teams have a threat of it. I don't see any teams just throwing 10 yard passes. If that were the case all defenses would just play with in a 10 to 15 yard box.

 

better be hoping that red zone offense is the bomb!

 

Just for comparison sake.



TD/INT Ratio: QB1- 2.25 QB2- 13.5

QBR: QB1- 92.8 QB2- 119.2

Sack %: QB1- 7.2 QB2- 8.1

RB: QB1- 5.1 ypc QB2- 5.1 ypc

DEF: QB1- Ranked 12th QB2- Ranked 27th

Rushing (not including QB's rush) QB1- 341 attempts on 1040 plays ran QB2- 399 attempts on 1054 plays ran (basically same %)

QB1 8-8 QB2 8-2 (Division Champions)

This shows a QB that appears to have a worse defense, an OL that blocked worse, roughly the same amount of rush % on the season or as some call it "abandoning the run". Now can anyone NOT consider QB2 to have had a successful season? Did this QB NOT have some unideal conditions with his surroundings? Is this not him overcoming them and being successful?

I think we can add another bad excuse for Ryan not playing up to his potential so far to the collection in THEPHINS.COM toilet bowl.



















...Oh I forgot one thing...


QB1 is Tannehill and QB2???







Nick Foles, his QB coach was Bill Lazor (OC Pat Shurmer)....it was a gripe that he wasn't allowed to "audible" just allowed a run/pass combo at the LOS (sound familiar)



Game. Set. Match.

 

Bill Lazor was the QB coach for the Eagles, not OC, in that 2013 season.

 

That is correct, they had Pat Shurmer. But I think many understand Lazor brought a similar style to Miami and the same audibling concepts from PHI. Doesn't change my narrative at all but I do stand corrected.

 

The defense has to respect the downfield throws though. Unless you have the genius of BB and precision of TB, if all you are capable of are those short passes the field will compress. The league might live under 10 yards (because they've replaced the running game with it) but he never said, you can live exclusively under 10. Tannehill was respectable deep last year.

 

We had no problem with #1 in 2014, and a huge problem with #3 that year. The two kind of go hand in hand. The best way to solve red zone woes is to score from outside the red zone. We literally had 1 or 2 passes from outside the 20, go for a TD that year (up until very late).

 

Please explain the rest of Foles career, where he's been awful, pretty much worse than Tannehill has ever been?

One miracle season is really meaningless.

 

I think the more interesting question isn't the impact of Lazor or comparing Tannehill to Foles, but how good Chip Kelly really is. Very interested in seeing how he works out with the 49ers. Either that guy was a flash-in-the-pan or he could potentially be a great HC. We'll see.

 

It was easy to tell that Nick Foles was fools gold. Problem with looking at stats

 

Yea, it was a Chip Kelly run offense.

Turns out Lazor did not have his ability to create space for the wide receivers like Kelly does.

 

Listen guys, Nick Foles is not even a starter in this league. I'd take Ryan any day of the week.

That was just an example of the jibberish "show me a QB who...."

That's it and that's all in regards to comparing the two.

It's simply an example of a QB who thrived despite X. It was asked for and it was easy to find.

So it's possible. But hopefully those ****ty surroundings are behind us anyways.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I did not think Foles played in bad surroundings. He was playing in an offense that defenses weren't ready to defend yet. They caught up to it the next season. Foles came back to reality when he actually had poor surroundings.

 

This is for those who take Luck's passer rating, compare them to Tanny's, then declare them similar:

Nick Foles has a higher passer rating than Tanny.

 

His defense sucked. His Off had a similarly poor run pass ratio...Foles was sacked more.

Again, with football things that you mention about the newness of the offense is absolutely relative. But we can dissect many factors to the core. Problem is only some posters have that capability without an agenda.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Foles doesn't fit the question that FinD posed months and months ago, as the coaching staff was clearly better that one season than Tannehill's coaches, due to the new innovative system. Given that Foles has never even sniffed coming even close to that one season again, I don't see how is even remotely applicable.

The question being, which QB has had success without the things that have been identified many times. Success is not one miracle season, only to fall back into abject mediocrity.

 

People can't answer the question because its a non-sequitor.

How many great QBs haven't made those things look better?

 

He also has a whole lot less attempts.

 

Of course it's a non-sequitur (although I don't think the term "non-sequitur" applies here).

I've found that those who were never happy with the Tannehill pick always explain everything away. Everything is an "excuse," or doesn't apply in this situation.

Yet other QBs seem to get the benefit of the doubt from many of you.

 

So what, we are not here to discuss forum posters. Not sure why we are discussing other posters. Maybe you should start thephinsforumposters.com.

 

Not sure why you get all passive aggressive with this stuff. This started with my disagreement of you dismissing things as "non-sequitor." I made the observation that many people simply dismiss things in regards to Tannehill, and we get mired in these debates, mostly because people, yourself included, simply dismiss other people's opinions.

It was merely an observation, stemming from your statement. That is how conversations work.

 

"That one season"?

I remember after 2014 many wanting Bill Lazor to be named HC to avoid "losing a great young talent''

Nick had a fantastic season under poor conditions, a successful season and that can't be denied. Was it a mirage? Obviously. But it doesn't change the facts. A silly question was asked...and then answered.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

A successful QB is not a QB who has one miraculous season, unless we're going to redefine "successful" on this board now.

No one could foresee Lazor being a stubborn dick who wouldn't adapt his gameplan to the personnel or actual game situations.

 

Right, which is the point to debate here. If a QB plays bad, the OL plays bad, and the running game isn't effective, how can it be concluded that the OL and running game failed the QB, not vice versa? How many great QBs didn't also make their OL and RB better? Its a chicken or the egg argument.

Sure, you made an observation about forum posters and tried to start a conversation about them. I have no idea why, but for the sake of actually discussing the topic at hand I'll defer to your judgement on other forum posters.

 

There's no debating the oline, dude. The oline was bad. Tannehill didn't make them turnstiles. He didn't make them whiff on blocks. He didn't. They were bad. It's not a non-sequitur, it's not a chicken or the egg thing.

I'm not addressing specific posters, I'm addressing an attitude. If you're not interested in helping change the issues on the board, then continue to act like I'm being ridiculous.

 

Nick Foles Pro Bowl season that is being touted as proof of something?

Yeah, Philly lead the league in.........rushing yardage.

They were 4th in rushing attempts.

Shocking.

A QB with a **** oline and can't audible can still succeed with a running game?

Very, very shocking.

 

Of course not! Funny how it always is a topic in Ryan Tannehill threads.

So you're discussing other posters as an attempt to change the issues on the board?

What issues would those be?

 

K.

Have a great day.

 

Michael Vick and Nick Foles accounted for over 500 yards rushing. That means the Eagles had a very similar situation except their QB's were using that aspect of their game.

The Rbs had about 220 more yards than Miami's...certainly not the difference maker regarding QB 1 and QB2. Anything else you would like to discuss regarding this?

 

That is because Nick Foles was given the direction to make his first read, second read, and then run.

 

Do you feel like this is the difference between the two players seasons?

 

Tannehill had his best years when he wasn't allowed to audible.

Now that he's allowed to audible again, he may actually do worse.

 

I whole-heartedly agree with your point about some of Ryan's averages in certain areas (what you call percentages). Then again, there are a few positives such as his interceptions-per-attempt in 2014 which if I recall correctly was very impressive. I think he was behind Aaron Rodgers and Alex Smith but pretty much ahead of most of the league. That was an area where I thought he did well. I was surprised to see his interceptions go up last year but it was a rough year.

In general I'd like to see his yardage total bump up from around 4.2k to something like 4.5 or 4.6k. That'd bring his average to something around 7.9 or 8.0 yards per attempt. I think he could get that this year if the offense is run more like it should be. I also don't see why he couldn't add 5-8 TDs given the weapons he has. He's got to step up and be the leader of the offense however. He's got to prove to the coaches that he's the focus. At this point, he should be slinging it around a bit more like we've seen Flacco and Stafford do. He should be running a bit more. To this point we've not seen him use his mobility at all really. That's an entirely different attitude. There's a lot to improve on but the foundation looks fairly solid to me. Enough so that I cringe at the thought of starting over with somebody else who takes 5 more years to prove he's not that much better.

What I do appreciate about Ryan now though is his ability to give you relatively consistent production over 16 games. I don't think the NFL is a league where you can bank on just anyone to step in and give you 4k yards, 25 TDs and 60% passing. Ryan seems to provide a level of competency noticeably above the average plug-in. While his numbers aren't "elite" they represent a standard that only starting-caliber QBs can hit consistently. As I've said, I think the Dolphins now have a decent QB who's coming into the prime of his career. We've now seen Ryan hit that 2 years in a row on a very bad team that's last place in it's division. To me, that kind of bodes well for what we might expect under better coaching.

To know that you have a guy that will stand in there and deliver that kind of production, puts the focus on the rest of the team. Why isn't this team winning? To me, last year showed that the defense wasn't very good and the running game wasn't strong enough. Whether it's coaching or players I don't know but the fans have to come to terms with the fact that the Dolphins problems aren't at QB right now.

This is a ****ty team. Real talk.

 

I love how the the crappy FO and coaching were the ones who picked Tanny, and produced his half decent season. So he persevered despite them? We will find out soon enough won't we.

 

Ive always laughed this notion of a QB with a blank being able to succeed....but it turns out John Elway wasn't changing plays at the LOS but rather had some "built in the play" options we keep hearing about like Tanny/Eagles Qbs (and many more we do not know about I'm sure) but he was a pretty good QB.

After reading about the audible aspect it appears it is not as uncommon to have a QB not given that luxury (seems silly to me). Gary Kubiak for example does not allow his QBs to change plays simply exercise the "built in script" play. Matt Ryan was not able to audible until he built trust etc.

Chip Kelly also does not allow audibling in his schemes.

I think if you invest a high pick and pay a QB a lot of money you should give him that luxury and live with the results. I realize Sherman allowed Ryan to dabble in this initially, but he obviously was not ready. BUT....its year 5....his career as a starter is at stake along with 20M dollars. He better take this oppurtunity and run with it or Lauren is going to end up taking their new kid and moving in with Brandon Doughty.

 

Other than we were both told not to respond to each other?

 

I'm not asking this to be facetious. I legit want to know - do you think that Philbin should have stayed as our head coach?

 

He just wants to argue that if you believe they made a good decision on Tannehill, that we should trust them because they wanted to go away from him. Problem with that, is if you trust that they were right to want to go away from him, then you have to say that they were completely wrong to draft him to begin with.

I think he has been a good player, and coaching hasn't really helped him. I think Philbin was looking for a scapegoat, and went with the easy target, the young QB. I think he was trying to get another couple years of head coaching by trying to fool Roads into letting him draft a new QB.

Queasy was a train wreck, and I question whether he was a very stand-up guy.

 

It is one of the many.

The other difference is that Chip Kelly's offense was more unknown to the NFL, defenses were still adjusting to the tempo, as well as the fact that Chip is much better at creating routes that create space.

 

Problem is, Foles had Riley Cooper, Jason Avant, DeSean Jackson, and LeSean McCoy. That's hardly a crappy circumstances.