Erik Frenz: Tannehill emerging from '12 rookie pack

I got a little wood on that play.

 

Looks worth a read, any idea when it's going to be available?

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

 

This play is an excellent example of what Aaron Rodgers was talking about in an article from a year ago or so. The pass concept and coverage dictates where the ball is going. Notice the safety rolling his coverage to the strong side of the formation, leaving Mike Wallace in one on one coverage. Ryan sees this in his presnap look and knows that Mike will be where he goes with the ball before he snaps it. There is probably a built in sight adjustment as well. If Cromartie is playing tight, I bet they have Wallace run a go route. With him playing off, it is a slant. The numbers show that Ryan gets the ball out quicker than any other quarterback in the league.

 

KB looking back at that draft, where would you have taken each QB knowing what you know now?

Some say Wilson first, but IMO he isn't asked to carry his team or do the things Luck and Tannehill do.

 

Good question. You know what's interesting? Wilson's coordinator in Seattle is Darrell Bevell, who was Mike Sherman's quarterbacks coach in Green Bay. So, the two teams are running similar base offenses. Seattle obviously emphasizes the run more while Miami emphasizes spreading the field.

From a metrics standpoint, I would take Russell Wilson. I agree that he's not being asked to carry his team the way Ryan and Andrew have been asked. I think when you combine the metrics and the physical talent of the player, I'd still take Andrew Luck #1.

 

WHOAH now. I thought safeties always always followed Mike Wallace around...

But seriously...Tannehill is our guy. No doubt in my mind. The question for me is whether Sherman is the long-term OC to keep with Tannehill. On the one hand, I kind of hate his play design sometimes; on the other, Tannehill has clearly made strides under him. So do you risk possibly stunting his growth with his first new OC going all the way to college? Tough call, imo.

Tannehill's gonna make a statement this weekend against our division leaders. This is our time.

 

Clearly those photos are wrong. They must have been photoshopped. That's Mike Wallace on the bottom of the field. The safeties can't be rolled to the other side of the field. They have to be on Wallace's side crapping their pants while quivering in fear of the possibility that he goes deep. Everyone knows that if a S is 20 yards off the LOS it has to be because of Mike Wallace and only Mike Wallace.

 

I was waiting for this post or something like it... saw it coming.

 

There's probably a 12th guy on the field the Jets slipped in there and he's 30 yards down the field.

 

I don't think anyone has argued that Wallace impacts the safety every play. If they have, they are wrong. I think its equally silly to say he never impacts the safety though.

 

Wow, look at how Brian Hartline is changing coverages!

 

Type of respect Brian Hartline commands.

 

I was not very impressed with the way Tannehill had played for the first half of the season. But he has really stepped his game up lately. Hopefully the trend continues.

 

A lot of people have argued that any indication fo the deep safety being on Wallace's side or any movement by the safety to Wallace's side of the field is out of fear/respect for Wallace.

The free safety is generally in zone coverage. The vast majority of coverage schemes either have multiple DBs covering deep zones or one centerfielder S positioned deep in the middle of the field. When there are multiple deep zones, by definition the DBs playing them are tasked with defending the zone and not any particular receiver. When there is one deep safety, his job is to help on any deep pass, no matter who the WR is. Sometimes the deep safety is rolled to the strong side. It happens that Wallace is almost always on the right side of the dolphins offense, which happens to usually be the strong side. Defenses are playing the coverage schemes they have in their playbooks -- they are not creating newfangled schemes specially for Mike Wallace.

 

Yeah, it was low hanging fruit. But low hanging fruit can be just as sweet.

 

Brian hartline, Charles clay, AND rishard. Kind of shows the length we have to go through to get Wallace in single coverage.

 

That looks like triple coverage to me.

 

Seems like all you need to do is let the formation dictate it.

 

I really agreed with the article's point that having about three potential runs called for RT a game and the freedom (and decision ) to scramble a couple of times a game would make RT's job much easier and the D's job much more difficult.

In the Wallace slant it was notable b/c they didn't have a S over the top or anybody in position to provide help. It doesn't happen most of the time. I remember a play that CK highlighted where Wallace inexplicably stopped on the same route leading to an incompletion. I've lamented that RT hasn't taken advantage of the big cushions often enough this season. There have been many situations where I felt he could have called a smoke (quick pass on a called run play) that would have netted an easy 5 yards minimum and maybe more just due to how much space the CB was giving up.

 

That was against Carolina. He stopped on a slant route where he coverage was behind him. Ryan threw a slant. Mike ran something between a slant and a hitch. The result was a near interception.

 

Nice to see the kid starting to get some love from the media!

 

The media and most fans just tend to look at wins. If Miami had made the playoffs (exact same level of play, but a couple of more favorable calls or bounces) then RT would get a lot more love. Actually you can say that about everybody on the team, Ireland, Philbin, the assistant coaches and the other players. Everybody would be seen more favorably with that on their resume. It wouldn't matter whether they were actually any better. The perception would be different.

 

One of my biggest concerns with Tannehill was whether he'd be clutch… I love this quote:

He is really changing my mind about him in clutch situations. Would love to know how that stat of 50% scores inside of 2 minutes compares to the top QBs in the league, and the other 2012 draft class QBs.

 

I know you're joking a bit, but it did get me thinking.

When you don't play a safety over Wallace, it forces the DB to play a big fusion on Wallace, and pretty much concedes a short 5-7 yard pass to us. I love that. That's what speed can get you. A slower receiver like Bess would not have gotten a cushion, and not been gifted short yards.

The other upside is that Wallace can occasionally turn a slant into a big play with his speed.

 

I think his point was that this was done on purpose. And you essentially agree, because the coaches choose the formations and game plan. It doesn't just happen spontaneously and 'get dictated'. It's actually a conscious choice.

So, in that regard, the coaches (on that play) overloaded a sideband made the defense pick their poison: cover Wallace with no safety, or have inadequate deep coverage for three possible deep threats.

 

I somewhat agree. But those bounces, imo, are not luck. They are about whether your team created an opportunity for something good to happen or an opportunity for something bad to happen. I think wins-losses tell most of the tale.

Now, referees calls are a different story.

 

exactly.

 

That's really not true. The cushion a DB gives at the snap is not necessarily correlated the WRs speed. A lot of factors go into that. On most of the plays that have been discussed on here oon the issue of Wallace's impact on the other WRs, the guys covering Hartline has given a bigger cushion than the guy covering Wallace.

Some examples:



They are giving Hartline a bigger cushion than they are giving Wallace.




Same thing above. The cushion on Hartline is bigger than the cushion on Wallace.

 

philn when asked, is very happy with our two minute offense.

 

Yeah, but on those plays, though the S is playing straight in front of the QB, he is also closer to Wallace's side and could more easily get to Wallace than get to Hartline. Hartline appears to be split out wider. It may be the photo.

 

I can't believe that people in this thread actually used THAT PHOTO to argue that Mike Wallace "has no impact" on coverages.

Just Hilarious.

All I ask is that people THINK before trying to be funny or "claim" that they are going to go after low hanging fruit.

 

Mike Sherman said vs San Diego Mike Wallace had an excellent game. Mike had 43 yards receiving, Sherman explained how Wallace's presence dictated coverages that created mismatches in other areas of the offense.

Our OC said this. Kinda holds some water if you ask me.

But carry on trolls, you makin me giggle.

 

The S is playing on the hash, directly across from the ball. That's how the coverage is designed -- it is not a Mike Wallace thing. And obviously, the S doesn't stay where he is at the snap. Sometimes a S lines up short and retreats to the deep zone. Sometimes he lines up deep and comes in to a shallower zone while another DB takes the deep zone. Sometimes he starts on one side fo the field and immediately moves laterally to the center of his zone.

 

There is nothing in that photo that suggests any special effect by Wallace. The cushion on Hartline is bigger and you can see that same basic alignment in dozens of generic zone defense schematics. Teams played similar alignments against us last year without Wallace.

But I'm certainly more than curious to be enlightened by you as to how that particular defensive alignment is only played against Mike Wallace.

 

And Wallace scoffed at that comment by Sherman. Yes, there's all kind of coachspeak out there about stretching defenses, etc., but there is little substance to it.