Every Tannehill dropback against Tampa

On that deep ball miss to Wallace he clutched twice. I think he if just throws it up right away it's a TD or at the least a completion.

Edit: My god do we suck at throwing WR screens to Wallace. Screens in general actually.

Think Tannehill hits the slant really well.

The lack of RAC on that video is kinda depressing. The only real catch-and-run was the TD on that screen/pick. Because no one does much after the catch, it always looks like our offene is just stuck in a box. A short passing offense with no RAC does very little to help the QB, and the explosive plays just never happen.

Is that a scheme issue, a personnel thing, a ball-placement thing? I'd guess it's largely scheme with allllll these comeback type things, but I don't know enough about typical play design. I just wish we'd hit some more guys as they're running downfield instead of at a stop as they square up to Tannehill.

What I do know is that the play that got me most excited about Wallace was a slant that he housed against the Giants - looked like he was dead-to-rights when he caught it, but the good angles the defenders had couldn't even contain his speed. We need some of that.

I missed this game....Is Ryan getting taunted at 0:34? If so...was it called?

Thanks as always Mainge!

"Tannehill wrote:

I missed this game....Is Ryan getting taunted at 0:34? If so...was it called?

Looks congratulatory to me

"Limbo wrote:

The lack of RAC on that video is kinda depressing. The only real catch-and-run was the TD on that screen/pick. Because no one does much after the catch, it always looks like our offene is just stuck in a box. A short passing offense with no RAC does very little to help the QB, and the explosive plays just never happen.

Is that a scheme issue, a personnel thing, a ball-placement thing? I'd guess it's largely scheme with allllll these comeback type things, but I don't know enough about typical play design. I just wish we'd hit some more guys as they're running downfield instead of at a stop as they square up to Tannehill.

What I do know is that the play that got me most excited about Wallace was a slant that he housed against the Giants - looked like he was dead-to-rights when he caught it, but the good angles the defenders had couldn't even contain his speed. We need some of that.

Hartline and Matthews are not yac guys, Matthews has some potential but not our starters.

"djphinfan wrote:

Hartline and Matthews are not yac guys, Matthews has some potential but not our starters.

We've got Charles Clay. He's all the YAC we need!

"finsincebirth wrote:

On that deep ball miss to Wallace he clutched twice. I think he if just throws it up right away it's a TD or at the least a completion.

Edit: My god do we suck at throwing WR screens to Wallace. Screens in general actually.

You have think twice about throwing it up to a WR who won't fight for the ball for you.

"Shamboubou wrote:

You have think twice about throwing it up to a WR who won't fight for the ball for you.

I didn't know throwing a screen meant, "throwing it up".

"Nappy Roots wrote:

I didn't know throwing a screen meant, "throwing it up".

Throwing a screen usually mean me throwing up, but I was talking more about the "Double clutched on the deep ball part"

Oh. In that case, if Ryan would lead his WRs then maybe they wouldn't have to come back and force our 6'0 WR into constant jump ball scenarios.

"finsincebirth wrote:

On that deep ball miss to Wallace he clutched twice. I think he if just throws it up right away it's a TD or at the least a completion.

The ball was fully catchable. On a 50 yard throw, that's what you want. It's not productive to obsess about 3 feet of ball placement on a 150 foot throw. Reality isn't what people imagine in their minds. Reality isn't a trick shot video. If you put quarterbacks 50 yards away from a 5 foot wide garbage bin and asked them to drop the ball into it, they're going to miss it at a rate that might alarm you.

Tannehill placed the ball well enough that no defender was going to get involved in that play. He hit the hole between the corner and the safety and the ball was within range to be caught in-bounds. The problem is that Mike Wallace did not get his head around and locate the football in a timely fashion (note: he does that A LOT) and so by the time he really located the football and saw where it was going, he had to put on the air brakes very suddenly, putting him off balance and resulting in his stepping out of bounds.

Other receivers if they get their head up and locate the football in a timely fashion, they adjust their speed and run through that catch and many onlookers wouldn't even realize the receiver had done a lot of adjusting on the play.

I know its a hailmary, but man Id like to see Mike Wallace give a **** and fight Revis for that ball.

My biggest problem with Ryan Tannehill is the mistake factor. It's just too high. It isn't the same mistakes over and over, IMO. He just keeps inventing new ways to put a fly in the ointment. And I don't think it's a coincidence that in his college and pro career he has a high percentage of 3+ turnover games.

There are SOME mistakes he seems to make with consistency. One of them continues to be bad decisions with the clock ticking as he's running to the sidelines on a roll-out. You're running to the sidelines, you're probably behind the line of scrimmage, and you know that if you go out of bounds it's basically a sack. But the sideline keeps coming at you because you're rolling toward it. You've got to figure out something to do with the ball before the clock is up. In that situation he seems to have a consistent tendency to panic and make a bad choice. We've seen repeated bad mistakes in that situation.

The only other bad tendency I think is somewhat consistent is his tendency to eye-bang his receivers before he throws it.

"ckparrothead wrote:

My biggest problem with Ryan Tannehill is the mistake factor. It's just too high. It isn't the same mistakes over and over, IMO. He just keeps inventing new ways to put a fly in the ointment. And I don't think it's a coincidence that in his college and pro career he has a high percentage of 3+ turnover games.

There are SOME mistakes he seems to make with consistency. One of them continues to be bad decisions with the clock ticking as he's running to the sidelines on a roll-out. You're running to the sidelines, you're probably behind the line of scrimmage, and you know that if you go out of bounds it's basically a sack. But the sideline keeps coming at you because you're rolling toward it. You've got to figure out something to do with the ball before the clock is up. In that situation he seems to have a consistent tendency to panic and make a bad choice. We've seen repeated bad mistakes in that situation.

The only other bad tendency I think is somewhat consistent is his tendency to eye-bang his receivers before he throws it.

Do you think this is because of how raw he is? That a lot of what he sees when he looks at the defense is still new to him?

"Frumundah Finnatic wrote:

Do you think this is because of how raw he is? That a lot of what he sees when he looks at the defense is still new to him?

Doesn't strike me as that. I think it's a concentration issue.

Not saying he can't become a great player. He could be a great player and still have this same mistake factor. Other things could improve. The fit and chemistry and talent level of the players around him could improve. The system could certainly improve. But he's probably always going to have a brain fart factor that keeps him from being consistently elite.

"ckparrothead wrote:

The ball was fully catchable. On a 50 yard throw, that's what you want. It's not productive to obsess about 3 feet of ball placement on a 150 foot throw. Reality isn't what people imagine in their minds. Reality isn't a trick shot video. If you put quarterbacks 50 yards away from a 5 foot wide garbage bin and asked them to drop the ball into it, they're going to miss it at a rate that might alarm you.

Tannehill placed the ball well enough that no defender was going to get involved in that play. He hit the hole between the corner and the safety and the ball was within range to be caught in-bounds. The problem is that Mike Wallace did not get his head around and locate the football in a timely fashion (note: he does that A LOT) and so by the time he really located the football and saw where it was going, he had to put on the air brakes very suddenly, putting him off balance and resulting in his stepping out of bounds.

Other receivers if they get their head up and locate the football in a timely fashion, they adjust their speed and run through that catch and many onlookers wouldn't even realize the receiver had done a lot of adjusting on the play.

Also, if your going to have your QB miss a deep pass you would want it to be short. That gives you a chance to make the catch, PI call, or just an incomplete. If you overthrow the guy, all you get is the incomplete pass. Your WR should be able to adjust to the ball in the air and at least give a good fight to protect you from the INT. I dont care if he has to horsecollar the guy and pull his helmet off a the same time to do it. There is no reason a player just quits on a pass like that.

That's exactly right. I've heard Chad Pennington and others talk about it as well.

If you overthrow by 5 yards...incomplete.

If you overthow by 5 feet...incomplete.

If you overthrow by 5 INCHES...incomplete.

But you can underthrow a guy by 5 yards and he might still catch the thing.

I think Ryan just has to throw the football without trying to hit the guy in stride and just put some whip behind the throw and move on, whatever happens happens, it's probably in his head now and he's trying to take something off or aim, if you overthrow it so be it, better to do that then under throw..

"djphinfan wrote:

I think Ryan just has to throw the football without trying to hit the guy in stride and just put some whip behind the throw and move on, whatever happens happens, it's probably in his head now and he's trying to take something off or aim, if you overthrow it so be it, better to do that then under throw..

I cannot come up with any objective justification for the above statement.

"ckparrothead wrote:

I cannot come up with any objective justification for the above statement.

In the Bills game, EJ Manual severely underthrew his wide receiver. Some of that was due to the ball getting caught in the wind. It looks like it was underthrown at least 5 yards. Wide receiver adjusted, scored a touchdown.

If he overthrew him, that touchdown would be impossible. I find it hard to believe that an incomplete pass is better than a touchdown.

"Dol-Fan Dupree wrote:

In the Bills game, EJ Manual severely underthrew his wide receiver. Some of that was due to the ball getting caught in the wind. It looks like it was underthrown at least 5 yards. Wide receiver adjusted, scored a touchdown.

If he overthrew him, that touchdown would be impossible. I find it hard to believe that an incomplete pass is better than a touchdown.

That's what I think. I understand that an underthrow risks an interception, especially a severe underthrow. But an overthrow risks an interception in some situations too, especially a severe one.

"ckparrothead wrote:

I cannot come up with any objective justification for the above statement.

Back shoulders aside, you think the under throw in this particular case would be more effective than letting Wallace catch up to it?