http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...ortunities-in-miamis-week-12-loss-to-carolina

My latest.

 

I imagine Tannehill had to be thinking exactly that as he's watching Wallace after he's released the football.

Someone is going to have to explain to me why it was correct of Wallace to stop like that. But this isn't the first or fifth time he's seemed to get that decision wrong on those in-breaking routes this year. Consistently has a problem reading the coverage and being on the same page with the quarterback as to whether he needs to sit or continue running through the route.

 

Like I said in the piece, it's hard to say. Wallace stopped on the play so it's difficult to evaluate whether Tannehill had placed the football right on the front shoulder to where Wallace could've run through it at full speed or not. Even though the corner seemed like he back pedaled way too much he really did a good job breaking on Wallace after that and if there was even a small slowdown as Wallace caught the ball then I think he's brought down for maybe like a 13 yard gain. And even if not then the centerfielder could have brought him down for maybe like a 20-25 yard gain.

But then again if it's perfectly in stride and Wallace is blazing with his 4.28 speed, like I said it also wouldn't be surprising if he doesn't stop until he gets to the locker room.

 

It was 1st & 10 so the 13 yards may have given Miami the ability to rip another 30 to 40 seconds off the clock. That may have been enough. Also may not have been enough.

 

Manning's pass wasn't play-action. It's really as simple as that.

 

I was just asked about this on Twitter. I don't know that I want to go down it point for point but I will say these things:

1. I absolutely appreciate the detailed approach.

2. I think it's kind of irresponsible to perpetuate the myth that the deep ball to the right sideline against Tampa Bay was "thrown out of bounds" as he says in the narrative. It was underthrown a bit, but it was not thrown out of bounds.

3. The Saints ball was NOT underthrown.

4. His tracking of throwing distances is suspect as he seems to be tracking only the distance beyond the line of scrimmage, which does not take into account distance behind the line or horizontal distance.

5. Tannehill is not waiting for Wallace to gain a step before he throws the football. That's not part of his read. He's reading the safety and then reading the corner's leverage.

6. I don't see why it is unreasonable to expect Wallace to adjust to the football in the air, and finish contested catches. It comes with the contract. If you paid Ted Ginn $12 million a year you'd expect him to do the same as well.

7. Discussing the timing of the throws (which is a step in the right direction) without discussing sources of the timing delays (play-action) makes for an incomplete analysis.

8. Not a big fan in particular of perpetuating the myth that Ryan Tannehill underthrew EITHER of the complete passes against the Panthers. It's just not accurate given what was going on in the backfield from a timing and rollout perspective. The first completion traveled a fantastic distance considering Tannehill was at a dead run. The second completion traveled a fantastic distance period. You do no conclude from watching those throws that Tannehill underthrew them. You conclude that they were late, and then you start to dig into some of the reasons why they were late.

9. I know that my own analysis lacked this as well but it WOULD be nice to start getting a little perspective on league norms as far as these deep passes are concerned. That's what is missing. Everyone is pretending as if hitting 55 yard passes (through the air) perfectly in stride is pretty much the norm around the league and it's awful that Tannehill isn't doing that. Nothing could possibly be further from the truth.

10. I see absolutely no reason to exclude the final deep throw against the Panthers. It was a fantastic throw. Could have been a nice catch given the level of difficulty Wallace set for himself by misjudging the ball in the air.

 

I wouldn't say he's getting open deep because of play-action.

 

The problem is, teams generally don't win a lot more than they lose when games are close. Some do, the Colts last year being a great example. The Patriots back when they were winning Super Bowls are another example. But it's a catch 22 because winning a lot of your close ones is usually indicative of you secretly having a great team, or at the very least a great (as in potentially elite) quarterback. And if that's really the case then a lot of the time you're not playing opponents to the bone anyway, you're just going out there and beating them.

When you get into a bunch of close games, say you've played seven of them, you should really only expect to win three or four. There's too much that can go right or wrong. Miami should be good enough to not have to play so many damn games that come down to the wire.