[video=youtube_share;HZourGM6KRo]http://youtu.be/HZourGM6KRo[/video]

 

Just watching the Cleveland sacks alone, I'm not sure how anyone can fault Tannehill for those.

 

I only got to the Colts game, couldn't finish watching. Just some horrible line play. If I want to torture myself, I'll listen to some Justin Bieber music. I'm sure it'll be less painful than watching this.

 

Embarrassing tackle and guard play coupled with poor and predictable play-calling. When you have Daniel Thomas blocking Kyle Williams, there's a problem.

 

Long *** video

 

It's surreal to me the change in the tenor of the conversation that has happened (not isolating anyone in particular, speaking globally) when it comes to this issue and whether it's a product of the offensive line being terrible or Ryan Tannehill being terrible.

I think you'd be surprised how many people were convinced the sacks were more on Tannehill than on the protection.

 

I had to stop watching around the 4:20 mark. Those two Bills sacks that ultimately lost is the game are sickening. Tanny had about 2 seconds combined on both plays to get rid of the ball.

Also I noticed him stepping up into the "pocket" much more than I thought he did. The issue is that after maneuvering past the defenders who beat the tackles has was bombarded by defenders who beat the guards. Pathetic display of offensive line play right there. Deer lord.

 

That's just the sacks. Imagine all the pressure and hits that didn't result in a sack and its easy to see Tannehill might just be special with protection.

 

The two don't need to be mutually exclusive.

 

DJ probably read "sacks" and came running...

Well...

 

I didn't say they were. But it would be absolutely foolish not to acknowledge there's been a massive change in the general feelings about the mix of blame to be shared.

For example, all of those people that claimed Jonathan Martin wasn't actually doing that bad...suddenly became silent after his whole quitting ordeal, leaving only the voices that had been insisting he sucked the whole time. And now even those people who defended him are agreeing that he sucked and was terrible.

There were a lot of people at the time claiming that Tannehill was getting sacked so much because he was holding onto the ball too long. Many of them acknowledged the line play was not good, but that's a far sight from the language you hear commonly now where the line was "awful" and "the worst in franchise history".

 

Pretty gruesome seeing them all on one video, one after another. I see only 5-7 there that could reasonably be said were Tannehill's fault.

 

I could see a couple of times when Tannehill would get happy feet and those were on him. but...by and large it was a race to the QB in those vids. 3-5 defensive players just rushing past the OL hitting Tannehill as he sets and even just before. no question the OL was the primary culprit here.

 

My point is that these conversations don't need to be centered around "the mix of blame". You can't look at a sack and say "the OL was responsible". You can look at a sack and say the OL did a bad job blocking. You can't look at a sack and say the QB was responsible. You can look at a sack and say the QB didn't manipulate the pocket and/or didn't get rid of the ball quick enough, etc.

If you want an explanation for the change in rhetoric, it centers around who is still around. The people on the team are usually absolved of their failings, and those that are gone are the ones perceived as primarily responsible. Jeff Ireland, Mike Sherman, Jon Martin, Richie Incognito, et al are the ones that were holding back everyone else that is still here.

 

What's amazing though is that Tannehill was in the Top 10 among QBs who played 50% of snaps in terms of lowest pressure % at 33.6%. 18 QBs were pressured more frequently. And although there are few sacks on that video that were Tannehill's fault, it is strange that his sack% is very high relative to his pressure%, i.e., he is sacked when pressured far more often than any other of the qualifying QBs.

 

What I'm looking for while knowing that our oline and Martin sucked real bad is how Ryan reacts to the pressure, I don't consider it very good regardless of how much he was under..

 

I got to the Bengals game, and I thought the exact same thing. Only on a few of those could I possibly see how you could blame Tannehill. I also confirmed my theory that Clabo is a turnstile.

 

I think a possible explanation for that is that he does have a good feel for the pocket but when he was sacked it was more like a jail break.

 

So many times, Tannehill evades pressure form one side put the other side broke down. Or he steps up in the pocket and one of his lineman instantly lose their guy. You talk about Wilson and CKap, but they had half the field to read and a running game, two things Tanny did not have.

 

This is an argument of semantics.

This on the other hand is straight up truth.

 

It is true that for the most part, when there was pressure it came fast and often came from multiple rushers. Not sure why that would have been the case more for us than for other teams, but . . . .

 

argh....i got fooled, i thought it would be our sacks on defense....i have no intention to see those 58 sacks again

 

I think Tannehill's ability in the pocket is average. I don't think being average in the pocket is a deal-breaker. Tom Brady, for example, is average in the pocket. But Ryan Tannehill has the athletic ability to be much better than he is. Thats the disappointing part.

 

Well, It's a whole lot of Sacks!!

 

Maybe the play design allowed for less help to go to the oline? I think we had 2 horrible tackles. Martin got most of the help, so Clabo didn't get the help he needed. Then you have Jerry next to Clabo who needs help himself, then Cogs was probably caught between Martin's ineptitude and his assignment. Or am I looking at this too simplistically?

 

We hear about QBs who are staring at the rush and not reading downfield, well there are also QBs who stare down the coverage while not paying enough attention to the rush. Tannehill doesn't have the Andrew Luck brute strength to shake off defenders or the Russell Wilson quickness to sidestep and evade. He has to be able to anticipate pressure a beat earlier than those guys and I didn't see much of that from him, especially early in the year.

Obviously the OL was a problem, but that doesn't absolve RT completely. He needs to do a better job handling pressure whether it comes once a game or 30 times. The backs and TEs need to do better. The OC needs to be more creative, draws and screens are a key element of pass pro that was criminally underused last year. The receivers need to do a better job getting separation too. 58 sacks don't happen bc of one player or unit, it's a team issue and anyone who says different is plain wrong.

 

Tannenhill still needs to put in some serious work on knowing when to get rid of the ball and scramble.
I know a lot of that is instinctual, but practicing those outs can only help...

 

Right, but every QB gets sacked and every QB is responsible for some of those sacks. I look at those sacks on that video and I don't see an inherent flaw in Tannehill at all. Few QBs can absorb hits like Luck and Wilson has an easier assignment and a better OC than Tannehill.

In the end, even if Tannehill was responsible for a third of the sacks, the line was inexcusable and owns the majority of the blame.

 

U

I thought our offense was very predictable, often keying the D as to what was coming based on the alignment. Sherman never really moved his WRs around to get matchups. The backs were never used as a weapon out of the backfield. The screen game was atrocious, draw game ditto, it wasn't until week 17 that either of them became a major aspect of the game plan. Moving the pocket was rarely done, RTs launch point was static throughout the year. And yet I'm told that Philbin knew Martin couldn't play, knew the OL was an issue etc etc etc. The play calls and game plans say different IMO.

 

Correct...the difference I see between Ryan and the guys a Fin mentioned is they have the ability to do two things at once, I'm not seeing that yet with Tannehill, now that may be because of lack of experience, or being coached to stick in the pocket, at least that's what I'm hoping, but it's been two years, we can get a barometer on his agility in the pocket, knowing that, the fact that we didn't scheme around that and get him purposely out of the pocket where we know he is lethal is just unprofessional and quite disturbing that a pro coach would be so blind.

 

I think Brady is far ahead of Tannehill in working within the confines of the pocket.

 

"Mind bottling"

 

I disagree. I think the blame goes all around. From the OL to the backs, TEs, WRs, QB, OC and ultimately the HC.

 

The blame going around is implicit in what I said.

I guess you mean the blame is equal amongst those parties?

 

Soooooo true. My best guess is that they were just stubborn bc I can't imagine a high school coach failing to see what I myself see. I have to believe there's a reason outside of they just "didn't know".

 

I think he is really good when there is pressure on the outside, however when pressure is up the middle Brady is mostly useless unless he can just throw the pass.

 

He's ahead in terms of a lot of things, but he just lacks so much athletic ability that he really is limited. He's good at feeling pressure and climbing the latter, but he can't move and make throws.

 

Absolutely horrifying.

Still baffles me that people actually defended Jim Turner through all of this (leave out the JM/RI garbage).