He's more than a blogger and his analysis is backed up by RT's stats. And there are numerous NFL coaches, evaluators, etc etc who agree with what he wrote. RT has never been a bad deep ball quarterback. He has been surrounded by inferior ball catchers and linemen nearly his entire career, however.
Ryan Tannehill Accuracy on 20-Plus Yard Throws 2012-13 RECEIVER CATCHES DROPS ATTEMPTS ACCURACY % Mike Wallace 3 1 17 23.5 Brian Hartline 15 1 33 48.5 Everyone Else 11 3 35 40.0 Pro Football Focus As you can see from the above data, Tannehill seems to be much more accurate when throwing deep to Brian Hartline as opposed to Wallace. He is also much more accurate with his deep passes thrown toward the likes of Davone Bess, Charles Clay, Rishard Matthews, Brandon Gibson, etc. In fact, going back to the group of passers isolated above, if one were to tally only Tannehill’s accuracy statistics from players not named Wallace, the resulting percentage (44.1 percent) would rank sixth in the group of 31 quarterbacks. Conclusion Quarterback Ryan Tannehill does not have the most accurate deep ball in the league. His deep ball accuracy in his short career has been mediocre. The same can be said for a surprising number of the best quarterbacks in the league. Worse can be said of several accomplished quarterbacks, such as Super Bowl winner Joe Flacco. Heading into the 2013 season, Tannehill's deep-ball accuracy (as measured by Pro Football Focus, cited above) was statistically among the best in the league. Those numbers have come down considerably as Tannehill attempts to gain chemistry with an unfamiliar player. At times, the coaching staff and play design have worked against the two players as they attempt to get on the same page. However, film study shows that when you strip away extraneous noise such as "Hail Mary" plays, defensive penalties and plays severely influenced by pressure in the backfield, Tannehill is throwing catchable deep passes to Mike Wallace at an acceptable rate. This should give Dolphins fans hope that, in the long run, the noise of a small sample pool will give way to longer-term results that reflect the film. http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...olphins-quarterback-ryan-tannehills-deep-ball
The problem with your assessment is, and always has been, that you disregard what Wallace was doing that negatively affected Tannehill, and instead, make the argument that Tannehill threw a bad deep ball. The truth is, Wallace was bad for the deep ball for several reasons: poor route running, inability to track the ball well, and tiny catch radius since he was not comfortable catching with his hands. The first two things were evident in both seasons here. Those first two reasons also made it incredibly hard to connect with Wallace on deep balls because Tannehill could never depend on Wallace being where he was supposed to be. BUT HE WAS WIDE OPEN!!! Yes, but, Tannehill had to throw the ball early in routes, therefore, just being wide open is meaningless. Who cares if he's wide open, if he's 15 yards away from where he's supposed to be? Yes, Tannehill was throwing to spots...cause that's exactly what you do in a timing based offense. It was the same in Pittsburgh, when they ran sandlot football, with BB scrambling and letting Wallace create, they were successful...but when they switched to timing based, he struggled.
I dont expect to change the minds of those of you who have spent years telling us why everyone on the team is the reason Ryan struggled. I get it. It's how you feel. No need to rehash it.
Your argument would have more credibility to it if wallace were not very successful at catching deep balls from every other qb not named tanehill that he has played with. Sent from my F3111 using Tapatalk
Hmmmm...but he hasn't been. He even struggled with Ben when they switched to a timing based offense. He did not do well with Bridgewater, even though people on here thought he would light it up with Bridgewater, since Bridgewater supposedly threw a better deep ball than Tannehill.
Still in denial. I'm not saying Tannehill was perfect...obviously there were balls that he missed. However, to act, still, like Wallace wasn't a large portion of the problem is silly.
He wasn't though. He was excellent at catching the deep ball in certain offenses. The proof is in his last year at Pitt with Big Rapist.
Stop with the insults. Did you hear me say anything about how we are on two different levels in regards to understanding what we are watching? No. Please be polite, I don't want to bother anyone. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Did you miss post #84? RT's completion percentage, in regards to passes over 20 yards, with Wallace was 23%. With Hartline it was 48%. With the rest of the team is was over 40%. In that same post it goes into detail as to why RT and Wallace had problems. Some of it was bad play calling, a lot of it was Wallace's inability to track the football, and some of it was RT. Once more: Heading into the 2013 season, Tannehill's deep-ball accuracy (as measured by Pro Football Focus, cited above) was statistically among the best in the league. Those numbers have come down considerably as Tannehill attempts to gain chemistry with an unfamiliar player. At times, the coaching staff and play design have worked against the two players as they attempt to get on the same page. However, film study shows that when you strip away extraneous noise such as "Hail Mary" plays, defensive penalties and plays severely influenced by pressure in the backfield, Tannehill is throwing catchable deep passes to Mike Wallace at an acceptable rate.
It's been well documented by more than several strong NFL writers that Tanny's deep ball issues involving Wallace was largely due to MW's poor route-running. As it's been explained already, this has been demonstrated through RT's deep ball success with other receivers, Stills being the most recent.
Yes. This is the age of protesting if I don't get my way. Expect me at your house about 10:30 tonight. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Please bring your clown shoes, rainbow hair, red nose, and pizza. We'll take turns shooting each other, then stuff our faces. I'll provide drinks of your choice.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2017/03/01/john-harbaugh-i-want-mike-wallace-back/ How bow dat!? Jus what I said Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm not sure what that article proves? Sure, the Ravens want him back. Great. Doesn't mean that the things we've been saying are untrue. We're simply saying that Wallace has deficiencies, and those deficiencies made Tannehill look worse at the deep ball than he actually was. You may recall, my tune on Wallace changed significantly after his second season here. I wanted him back, not for the deep ball, but because he did much better running the shorter routes, and in the redzone. Nothing in that article, though, refutes any of what we've been saying.
Who is "we"? You're right, Ryan struggled because he had such a ****ty deep threat. I finally see this now.
Mike Wallace had strengths. Those strengths were go routes. And those Tanny struggled with earlier in his career. How many go routes were those other receivers running when Wallace was here? It wasn't a deficiency necessarily in Wallace. He's super fast in a straight line. The hardest throw to make in the NFL. I love how everyone ignores the concerted effort Tanny made to change the arc on his deep pass but that's not the reason the deep passes did not connect.
What's funny is that you guys ignore that Wallace objectively had a problem running precise routes, tracking the ball in the air and had a small catch radius...all things that make it harder to complete deep balls in a timing offense. Not too mention the how little time Thill had to actually throw the ball. Let's not forget you were one of the biggest proponents of rewriting the definition of a deep ball from 20+ yards to 40+yards. So how fast was Wallace? Could he run 40 yards in less than 3 seconds?
http://www.phinmaniacs.com/news/breaking-down-film-of-dolphins-qb-ryan-tannehills-deep-ball-part-1 Here is a good breakdown with stills (no pun intended) of the miscues in the Tanny/Wallace connection. I don't know who matthew knowles is, so look at the photos and decide for yourselves.
Forget the money for a second, is the Stills' role that of a #2 or #3 WR. Does anyone have faith in Parker or Carroo? This is what scares me the most on losing Stills. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You need to stop thinking of #1, #2, #3 Wrs in the traditional sense. You need to think in terms of varying skillsets.
Is it true that the number on Stills is starting to decline a little bit? I think I read somewhere it's down to the $8M/yr range? Maybe he stays in Miami after all.
I think that was just a speculatory article from Joe Schad, I don't know if there was any sourced information in the piece, but I could be wrong.
Heck of a deal/steal at that price point if it happens IMO Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S5 using Tapatalk... ignore the typos!
I think money does need to come into it to an extent. Landry is going to get paid. If we pay Stills, can we realistically pay Parker in a couple of seasons time? Not many teams pay significant contracts to three receivers. That could mean us letting Parker walk in two seasons time, or trading him away for a player in another position of need or picks. Putting money to the side: Landry, Stills and Parker are a good trio of receivers. That give us different skill sets and strengths to make the offense tick. So it does make sense to bring back Stills, though paying him and Landry could result in Parker departing, unless of course we do pay three receivers. As for having faith in Parker and Carroo, well, I think they have potential to be contributors. Parker has shown some signs of development and perhaps a greater role could speed up his deveopment and increase his contributions. I'm not sure he'll ever be a star receiver, but he could certainly be a solid #2 receiver. As for Carroo, he's barely seen the field, the departure of Stills and no further additions could see Carroo pushed up the depth chart and given greater opportunities to play. Would I feel more comfortable with a Stills? Yes, but at the same time, a greater role for our existing players could lead to them breaking out if they take their opportunity. True, as a trio Landry, Stills and Parker do offer different skill sets. However, the traditional way of looking at #1, #2, and #3 still has merit because generally speaking teams don't often pay three wide receivers. With Landry likely to get a new deal, if we pay Stills, will we sign Parker and spend a chunk on our receiving core or let another draft pick walk? I'm not suggesting we shouldn't re-sign Stills, I personally would at the right price, but we would have to consider whether Stills can offer any more than he currently does and potentially command a role as the team's number 2 receiver (working on the basis that Landry is the number 1). Paying him long term I have no issue with, though we have to be aware that could cost us Parker unless we are happy to pay three receivers and have the cap space to do so.
