Fantastic Tannehill Talk

I agree completely with the article. Tannehill has lacked instincts throughout his career, but there were some encouraging improvements toward the end of last season. Let's hope he can continue to build on that and improve even more next year.

Sent from my F3111 using Tapatalk

 

Eh. We all want him to be better. He needs to show up and actually do it. Sure, I saw the improvement. We all did. He just needs more of it. Tired of defending him to everyone I know like all the time. Looking like dog do in the Thursday night Bengals game didn't help either.

 

Terrible article.

They think he miraculously turned around but completely ignore the fact they got rid of Thomas & Turner. All of a sudden our passing game AND running game explode....nah, it's not Turner & Thomas, that's a coincidence. It must be Thill turned into a real boy and Ajayi remembered how to run.....

Lombardi is an idiot and Schad's article is bad and he should feel bad.

 

I enjoyed the article. It basically listed every argument people have made for him to be benched, and every argument of how that changed last season. Sure, the line did play a factor but it wasn't an article about the line...it was about Tannehill's instincts when the drive (or the game) was on the line. The same could be said about the improved receiver corps. Last year he was fantastic in seeing developing routes, connecting on deep passes and escaping pressure- that was the entire difference. And it was a pleasure to watch.

I'm still a huge Matt Moore fan...Matty Ice should be starting somewhere. But I'm also very excited to see what Tannehill does in 2017. If he grows half as much as he did last season, we're going to have one heck of a QB for the next decade.

I just hope we can put the arguing behind us. The folks who said Tannehill had horrible pocket presence and choked under pressure were right all along. The folks who said he had huge potential to be an elite QB were also right. But there's no losers in this argument- he took huge strides last year and it's a big reason why we were in the playoffs.

 

It's really very simple.

A few of us argued for years that if you make the oline decent instead of all world terrible, commit to the run and let Thill audible, there will be a drastic improvement.

Gase comes in, gives Thill control of the offense (took a few games to get int eh swing of a new offense), then gets rid of Thomas and Turner and commits to the run that Sunday and literally....Top 10 QB numbers till he was hurt. An instantaneous turnaround by doing what a few have said for years.

That proves Thill wasn't the problem. Proves it.

 

If Tannehill only had that fabled quarterback gene. Maybe he can pay to the Unicorn Quarterback God to change his DNA.

 

I'm not so sure it's an "instinct" thing, as much as it is a comfort thing. I think it's more the later. As the OL has been a disaster his entire time here, he was restricted in previous offenses, I'm just not so sure there was a comfort factor there, which IMO can severely limit the effectiveness of your QB. I don't think that all of the sudden you can say it's instinct now. I think it's an improvement of the team around him with good coaching, the loss of two clowns on the OL who didn't belong in the league, and the support of a new system, new coach, and new offense that has led to him being more comfortable in the offense. Yes, that offense was changed and even stripped down a bit as the season went on to account for the early offensive struggles, but that lead to a much more comfortable, relaxed QB who was more in control, more comfortable. I think that can definitely allow for play to seem more "instinctual", but to me it's just that he's more comfortable with it, allowing him to process it quicker, and make quicker decisions for himself to make a play. In the past, it definitely felt like he just froze up at times when things broke down. That could simply have just been a lack of comfort, the lack of ability to change a play he knew wasn't going to work, the lack of blocking, etc, etc.

To me there's just factors and situational elements that allow instincts to take over. If that level of comfort isn't there within the offense, and the system and the guys around you, it's still difficult to function at a level you're capable of. Maybe the two go hand in hand, and I'm just nitpicking over the term, but I think what we saw as the year progressed wasn't an improvement of his instincts as a QB, it's more his comfort in the offense. Knowing it better, knowing and trusting your OL is going to give you better protection, knowing your playcall, being able to change that playcall if you see something, it just all came together allowing him to play more naturally, comfortably, and yes, I guess therefore instinctually.

 

Okay, and in Moore's first few games starting in that same offense with those same solutions, he puts up numbers better than any game Tannehill had in 2016. He also had a higher rating on the year DESPITE facing a tougher strength of opponent. Does that prove Moore was the right man for the job all along?

I'm not going to get baited into yet another argument over nothing, but you need to learn what proof actually is. Anyone can easily grab a few arbitrary facts from a small sample size and make it "prove" anything they want.

You're measuring Tannehill on 8 games and saying the last 5 years were a fluke. Yet Moore outperformed him in 5 games- does that mean he's the best QB in the history of football? Hopefully you can catch the irony in both of those statements.

 

Oh ok, it must be a coincidence.

Un-****ing-believable.

 

Typical of RT defenders always making excuses for his poor performance. Thomas and turner were not the reason tannehill has been inconsistent and bad in the cluch throughout his career. The line is never going to be perfect, recievers are never going to be perfect, the offense is never going to be perfect. Great QBs show their greatness regardless of bad circumstances. RT will have no excuses next season, he now has a QB friendly coach, a great reciever corps, an oline with 3 first round picks and an offense with which he is now familiar. It's time to put up or shut up.

Sent from my F3111 using Tapatalk

 

Let's not get carried away. Moore had one game where he "outperformed" RT. And that was against the Jets while playing them the 2nd time around. And how were Moore's opponents a tougher strength of schedule than RT's when they both played the exact same teams...Jets, Bills, Steelers, and Pats?

And yes, Moore was "STARTING" in those games, but he was just as familiar with that offense as RT was at that point.

 

Moore was terrible against the Bills. That is one game where it proves how much quarterback stats are team based.

 

Moore also was playing without those two dumpster fires on the line. Moore was also playing after the offense had gelled. Comparing what Moore looked like at the end of the season with how Tannehill looked on the year is not fair, as Tannehill had to get through the early part of the year, with the garbage guys on the line, and the players still learning the offense.

 

The part of the article that basically proves it's just words and not a real indepth look at RT is:

As for criticizing Tannehill for completing 58 percent of career passes on third down? Even the legendary Tom Brady, who clearly is more consistent on all downs and a better player than Tannehill can ever hope to be, has completed 59 percent of third-down passes.

Basically, Lombardi is just making up what's good and bad and attributing these so called "bad" things to RT and trying to use these to show that RT wasn't "born to be a QB". It would be like if I took some random stat, called that stat bad, and claimed it was because that player wasn't "born" to be a good player.

That's just stupid, IMO.

 

But the sentence is the basis of his "born to be QB" nonsense. How can he criticize RT for being bad on 3rd down when he's the same as Brady?

 

If you watch him play in college he was neither robotic or non instinctive. Those were learned traits from past coaches.

RT is the same QB he was when drafted, except now he has more experience, a better O-line, and better coaching.

 

lol...I thought it was pretty funny.

 

Yup, Moore had the same 4 games RT17 did- two easy ones, two tough ones. Tannehill had 10 easy games, 3 tough ones. I fully agree 100% with what everyone has said though except for-

In other words, he's saying that Gase didn't do a thing but fire two linemen. Ajayi was a non-factor. Stills, Landry and Parker were lucky. But Tannehill, he's been a superstar for six years now...it just took that long for the bums around him to get out of the way. We continue to hear that everyone else around Tannehill was the problem.

I'm just tired of hearing it and having every conversation turn into the same thing. So every time it starts, I'm just going to remind that person that Moore has consistently outperformed Tannehill...including RT17's "breakout year".

Consider this-
- Moore has never had a losing year as the starting QB in Miami.
- Gase has consistently improved every quarterback he's worked with in the NFL.

Both statements are unquestionably true- just look at basic stats and you have the answer. Yet we still have one person creating 30+ page arguments on how Tannehill has been so elite for 6 years and how it's everyone else's fault for leading the league in sacks, poor TD/INT ratios, low yards per catch, fumbles in the pocket, etc.

Tannehill had a great year in 2016. People are excited about 2017. Why can't we put this ridiculous notion behind us?

 

How is this helping the mains?

 

I have whoever posted on 19 on ignore, so all is good

 

That is how to make Mains great again.

 

You may be tired of hearing it, but the FACTS are clear.

Did the line improve, yes or no?
Was there a commitment to the running game, yes or no?
Was Thill finally given the ability to audible and even help gameplanning, yes or no?

How do you just ignore all of that? Of course, Gase helped, no one but no one is arguing that. In fact, some of the ways he helped was...you know....letting Thill audible, improving the line and committing to the run....why do you think he was so eager to take this job after binge watching Thill tape?

 

Agenda of helping the mains and seeing someone just completely derail the conversation, all because someone just disagreed with a little rudely.

 

It hits a lot of my pet peeves when it comes to grading quarterbacks. Siting things that are not in their control and creating this silly idea that some people are just born to be quarterback.

It is a flawed article that is well written because Schad is awesome, however, the source he sites doesn't have a NFL job for a reason.

 

While true there are many paid NFL execs who got paid millions who let the game pass them by and stuck by their old ways. Heck there was an entire movie about it in baseball, where someone was like, "hey, why don't we look at reality rather than the fact his throwing style is a little weird."

 

I won't deny that. However, I will believe in "born to be a qb" or "killer instinct" when there is actual proof. IMO, that is the NFL version of vaccines cause autism.

 

Again, Moore's performance came AFTER we cut the dead weight on the oline AND the entire offensive unit was playing better than the beginning of the year.

I didn't think Moore had a winning record when he played a couple seasons ago...

 

I believe 2011 he went 6-7. He didn't start game 4, but he came into it, threw 26 passes, and lost.

 

Why did we need a better line in the first place? Because the QB couldn't deal with pressure and fumbled 1 in every 4 times there was any penetration.

Why did we switch to more of a balanced attack? Because our offense was consistently among the lowest scoring in the league four years straight.

Why wasn't Tannehill allowed to audible? Because he couldn't handle a simple three-step drop back and throwing the ball to a set read on a 4 yard route. We were among the worst on 3rd down as-is...now you want to add an audible to that mess?

Anyone that's actually paying attention can see that Tannehill made huge strides in 2016- his footwork was better, his decision-making was better, he scrambled better, he was more accurate with deep passes....I could go on and on. A better line didn't make those thing happen. A running game didn't make those things happen. The audible didn't either- Tannehill simply gained confidence under Gase, polished up his fundamentals and played better.

And here's why you're dead wrong for the 1,946th consecutive time- what was Tannehill's best game of the season? Anyone? Anyone? How about the clinic he put on in the 2nd half of the New England game? That was with a crap line, no running game, very few audibles and it was the best performance of his entire career. How could that happen though if it was everyone else's fault EXCEPT Tannehill?

A blind squirrel could see that he vastly improved in 2016. So go catch one and ask him if he can teach you the fundamentals of football.