Ryan Tannehill was about 20% on passes thrown 30 to 40 yards down the field and about 25% on passes thrown over 40 yards down the field.

The NFL averages for this were 30% and 28%, respectively.

The average NFL quarterback completed 1.6 passes on 5.8 attempts at 40+ yards and completed 3.4 passes on 11.4 attempts at 30 to 40 yards.

If Ryan Tannehill had been average he would have complete 2 more passes at a depth of 30 to 40 yards, and no more passes at 40+ yards.

On the other hand if Ryan Tannehill had thrown deep as often as the other QBs in the pool, even if you bump his accuracy up to the average he would have only completed only 5 "deep balls" on the season instead of the 7 deep balls he did complete.

 

I agree that his "deep ball troubles" are blown way out of proportion, but I would say that he also has opportunity that most QBs don't have. By that I mean we have the best deep-threat in the league. So, in my opinion, while Tannehill is not bad at throwing deep balls, he has the opportunity to do something really special with Wallace if he can become proficient at doing it.

 

Is it unreasonable to expect a QB with the best deep threat in the League to be above average at throwing deep? If every QB had Mike Wallace doing what he did last year (getting open alot), I'd guess that the League average comp% would be a bit higher.

 

Unless someone wants to give us their first rounder I'm not interested, there were many mitigating factors that effected the deep passing game, oline being a sieve, design on the timing and set up of those deep passes, a Qb who struggled a bit on placement, those are three pretty big factors to success to that play.

I think he is a good teammate, I thought his diva-ness was pretty minimal, and I would like to give him another year to show us how well he can work on the game, improve his technique, and become stronger..

Most importantly, imo this is a player that demands attention by more than just the guy who is covering him..

 

Is it unreasonable to expect a WR to make a play for a catchable ball? Especially if the WR just got $60m?

If Wallace had caught balls he should have (thrown perfectly or not), we wouldn't be having this conversation weekly on here.

 

Disagree with that assessment first off.

Second, as I said elsewhere (perhaps I forgot to put it in the Mains), Ben Roethlisberger's completion percentage on 40+ yard passes from 2011 to 2013 was only 25%. He had Mike Wallace for two of those seasons. Tannehill's completion percentage on 40+ yard passes was 25% in 2013.

 

Let's also not forget the fantastic O-Line we have that gave Tannehill time to make these plays happen.

There are a lot of factors that play into Tanny's %. I'm not too concerned - hopefully next year we see some more explosive plays.

 

Mike Sherman was fired for poor performance and both Joe Philbin AND Mike Wallace pointed to Tannehill's accuracy being only one of SEVERAL issues that prevented completion on deep balls.

And so have I, for that matter.

 

This! As fans we need to keep in mind a player's impact on an offense isn't always measured in his individual stats. You have to factor in his impact on the rest of the offense. The 2013 passing game was miles ahead of 2012. Wallace played a big part in that.

 

It's AN issue. One of several. And personally I believe that Wallace's own shortcomings in 2013 were an even bigger issue.

[video=youtube;dNLTdNxhFvw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=dNLTdNxhFvw[/video]

Something else to consider. The following is Mike Wallace's production on passes that went 40+ yards down the field over his career:

2013: 3 for 159 yards, 1 TD
2012: 3 for 179 yards, 2 TD
2011: 5 for 268 yards, 2 TD
2010: 6 for 287 yards, 5 TD
2009: 5 for 257 yards, 3 TD

A few key points to note about that.

1. His production at that depth was near identical in 2013 as it was in 2012 when he had Ben Roethlisberger throwing the football.

2. There's a clear pattern of diminishment happening and this seems to support tape-based observations that Wallace is not fighting for the football in the air the same way he has in the past, and he's also not facing the powder puff coverage he had faced in the past back when he wasn't yet known as the #1 guy.

For those curious here also is his production at 30 to 40 yard depth:

2013: 1 for 46 yards, 0 TD
2012: 1 for 40 yards, 1 TD
2011: 3 for 163 yards, 2 TD
2010: 5 for 189 yards, 2 TD
2009: 1 for 35 yards, 0 TD

 

Conversely, if every qb had the OL and lackadaisical pass pro that Tanny had, they wouldn't have had time to throw, much less complete passes effectively (timely, accurately)...

We keep coming back to the root problem of this team, which has been prevalent for multi-years, the OL is simply NOT adequate for the QBs to be successful...albeit, I think that Tanny is the best of the bunch we've had over the years, but how can we throw stones at Tanny when he struggle to get 2 secs in the pocket ??

 

As far as the video goes there are numerous interpretations that can be made for any given throw but here are some of my thoughts on them. This is my honest assessment, every single thing that goes through my head when I'm watching these plays. I don't hold back on anyone.

1. Cleveland. This is not a ball he should've thrown and is probably example 1A (literally) of Tannehill forcing the ball downfield more than most QBs would because he's trying to accomodate Wallace's skill set.

2. Indianapolis. About 43 yards thru the air with low trajectory to get the ball there in a hurry to take advantage of a coverage mistake and get the ball into the hole between the safety and corner coverage. Tannehill chose the right kind of throw (low trajectory) because you needed to not allow the safety in the area to get involved, however at 43 yards distance you can expect Tannehill to reasonably get a little more distance even on a low throw to make life easier on Wallace. But catching the football and not being contacted until reaching the 4 yard line, you can also reasonably expect Wallace to punch the ball that one extra yard into the end zone for a touchdown after the catch. Ball came out late after an extra pat on the football that became necessary because left tackle lost his sh-t and allowed his man to swipe at Tannehill. Tannehill had to pat the football an extra beat and step up before he could throw.

3. Baltimore. Nice play design. Fake screen to Hartline with Gibson streaking above him potentially getting open if the defenders had bit hard on the screen fake. Didn't work though, Baltimore's safety stayed home. Tannehill made a good choice to just chuck it deep to Wallace after the primary inent of the play was accounted for by the defense. About a 51 yard throw, with air under it. Chose the right trajectory as you want Wallace to run under the football as there's no safety threat. Tannehill didn't get under the ball as much as he should've. He could've thrown this 55 yards and Wallace still would've had to slow for it but he might have had a chance at running the rest of the way for the score. Wallace did a good job catching the contested ball. You've seen players break the tackle and run for the score after catches like this, but it would've been a highlight reel play if he had. You wish the ball would've come out sooner but given the intention of the play (to work the screen fake) the timing is understandable. However it appears Wallace faked a decoy route and then put on the after burners to get behind the defense and I'd be curious if he hit the button too quickly. Good play overall, by all parties...coaches, quarterback and receiver. A big play.

4. Buffalo. Another example of a ball that probably was meant to go elsewhere but that Tannehill threw to Wallace because of Wallace's unique skill set. Tannehill had Hartline in single coverage on the dig route. He chose instead to chase after the low percentage play into an area of the field where there was a roaming center fielder, trusting that the center fielder wasn't cheating toward Wallace. The safety should've been, but wasn't. Ball travels about 51 yards thru the air, with a lower trajectory which is correct because of the deep center field threat. You can't let this ball float, otherwise you let the safety back into the play. Tannehill could have gotten the football a little bit farther on low trajectory, I've seen him do it, but it would have been a pretty incredible throw. Especially consider that rewinding back to the point of the throw, Tannehill is unable to step fully into this throw because the left tackle failed to pick up a stunt and a defensive pass rusher was about to barrel into Tannehill's liver. He got WHACKED on this play. HARD. You don't criticize a 50 yard low trajectory throw for not being 52-53 yards when the QB can't step into the throw because he's about to take a shot that could've ruptured his spleen Chris Simms style. Wallace does a good job adjusting to the throw and securing the ball on the run. Borderline incredible play from Tannehill, and a good play by Wallace, but really this was not ever meant to be a touchdown with the safety where he was and with the play's design.

5. San Diego. Throw is about 48-49 yards down the field. Why is there a play-fake here when Wallace is running a straight up vertical? The play-fake adds timing and Wallace doesn't need it. Adding extra timing is bad because it exponentially increases the distance you need to throw a ball in order to hit a man in stride. It's not 1-for-1 like some people think it is. The longer you throw a ball the more time it's in the air and the more time the ball is in the air the more distance a streaking Wallace can cover. This ball needed to be out quicker. Tannehill's timing and execution of the play-fake seems to flow naturally but he shouldn't have to throw a 53-55 yard ball just to make this play work. Also, where's the fight from Wallace? He doesn't go for this ball at all. Probably example 1A from Wallace's detractors of the kind of ball they wanted him to show some fight for. You make $12 million a year. No excuses. Tannehill needed to get more air under this ball. He went for a low trajectory throw even though there was no threatening safety.

6. Carolina. Probably the quintessential example of poor play design. Mike Wallace is running an out-and-up which is a lot more up than out. He barely pauses his vert with a head fake to the outside. It works beautifully and he gets wide open. But the casual fan never really thinks about what the backfield action does to the timing of this play (destroys it). You've got a full play-fake from under center with Tannehill's back turned to the defense, along with a little half-roll action that results from the off-center mesh point with the back, and Wallace is running a vertical at high speed with only enough pause to give one little head fake to the outside. That's how you screw up a play on the chalkboard. Tannehill gets the ball out but this ball would've needed to be distance competition quality (i.e. no pads, no helmet, take your time, no pressure, run up to the throw, etc) for it to be complete in stride. Tannehill got Mike Wallace a 47 yard completion here. Why isn't it complete? That's on Wallace. That's a very catchable situation. Wallace's route was good enough for a 71 yard touchdown. Tannehill's throw was good enough for a 47 yard completion. The play design made the former impossible and Wallace's inability to finish plays made the latter impossible as well. Incomplete.

7. Carolina. Nice little improv from Tannehill here, even though ultimately incomplete. Offensive tackles are losing it a little, forcing Tannehill to step up. That's fine. He should be expected to do that when he needs to. First reads to his left are covered so he comes back to the right. I've seen so many quarterbacks opt for the checkdown here to the flat, and he was pretty open for a good gain that would have made for a makeable 3rd down (this was 2nd & 19). Tannehill went for it all though and he REALLY went for it all. That ball's out there 57 yards or something along those lines, from off leverage because he's on the run. Yikes. Just barely missed. Every quarterback misses this throw more often than not, by a good margin. If you don't think so, you're naive IMO. Really a pretty incredible throw and you can see he's trying not to be conservative.

8. Pittsburgh. Why is this throw in an "underthrow/overthrow" clip? Wasn't overthrown. Wasn't underthrown. Just covered really well. Wallace was not open on this for more than a very small window and that very small window was once again wrecked by the backfield timing and play design. Tannehill really gets under this one too. We're talking a good 58 yards through the air. Woof. The backfield timing suggests that Wallace was not running a straight up streak. Or at least he shouldn't have been. That means it's up to Wallace to sell his fake enough to get open, and he didn't.

9. New England. Tricky move by Tannehill here. You've got a play-fake in the backfield, but at least it's not an off-center mesh point so there's no need for a little half-roll. Tannehill's goal here is to get the center fielder thinking about Hartline's double-move and then hit Wallace on the streak. Problem is once again you're inserting so much goddamn timing into the backfield action that Wallace is going to be waaaay up field before the ball can get out. As I said every fraction of a second exponentially increases the depth needed to get a guy in stride. And the further the depth of the throw necessary the lower percentage the play becomes, I don't care WHO is throwing the ball a 55 yard throw is lower percentage than a 45 yard throw. Tannehill gets PLOWED from his blind side right as he's throwing this ball. Probably part of the reason the ball only gets 51 yards. Gotta remember also this is a low trajectory throw on purpose because there IS a safety on patrol. Hopefully you've got him faked by having eye-****ed Hartline's double-move but if you don't and you float this football it's an interception. Primary blame for this play being unsuccessful is poor timing and for that I point to the play design. Play-fake, staring down Hartline and coming back to Wallace who is running a simple streak route...just too much. The timing is poorly synchronized.

10. Jets. Pretty simple overthrow here. Nothing really to nitpick about the play design or timing, and certainly nothing to criticize about Wallace as he was open. FAR more often than not when you throw a football to a receiver 40+ yards beyond the line of scrimmage, this is the result...a ball that misses the guy too far overthrown. Simple fact of life here.

 

There weren't any hail mary plays in that video.

 

Develop feel for depth..game needs to slow down..design on the play needs to cut out fluff..more attempts..

 

There's some basic physics that have to be taken into account on these deep throws. The amount of time the ball is in the air is a function of how high the pass is thrown, not how far it is thrown. All objects fall at the same rate and a pass will take as long to get to its peak point as it will to fall from that point. The longer you wait to throw it the lower the trajectory will have to be because a high trajectory pass will have to go too far. Of course, it is very hard to throw a frozen-rope 55 yard pass. So if you have a play fake, a pump fake and a roll out and are trying to throw to someone as fast as Mike Wallace, you can't put a lot of air underneath it because by the time that pass goes up and comes down Wallace will be 70+ yards downfield and the ball won't get to him. At the same time, a 55 yard laser is pretty damn hard too. The deep passes that Roethlisberger completed to Wallace after scrambling didn't start as deep plays or go-routes, they started as shorter routes that Wallace then broke deep when Ben started to scramble. If you are going to run Wallace on go-routes, IMO you need to release it quickly (before Wallace actually has any separation) and put enough air under it to let Wallace run to it. You have to have faith that he will beat the defender to the ball. I think those problems to the extent they are problems) are pretty fixable.

 

His "deep ball issues" were am easy way for people to ignore the issues the team had and continue their decade long "blame the quarterback" dog and pony show.

Thankfully, we have people like CK doing to leg work to put some of that rubbish to bed. If Mike Wallace actually attacks a few balls in the air (something I don't think he is capable of doing" Tannehill's deep ball percentage is likely well above average.

 

And if the ball is not PERFECT he isn't going up to get it.

 

Since when was average the measuring stick?


- you're welcome

 

Depending on the population variance, average can very much be the measuring stick. People confuse statistical average with colloquial average too often.

Sent from my GT-P3110 using Tapatalk

 

What do you think he meant by population variance?