Beat me to it, Silverphin. Similar piece.

Tannehill Excited To Be Working With Gase - Gase VIDEO
http://www.miamidolphins.com/news/a...ith-Gase/39174ca6-3a5e-462d-8d5c-a7585adca2c3

 

This is good information guys. I want to see more on this in the coming months.

 

he said he’s fully healthy after taking a heavy beating late in the season and that he’s no longer urinating blood.

“No issues there,” he said. “It took me a few weeks to get healthy, aches and pains. I took a few weeks off, did rehab and things to get better and I feel 100 percent.”

the guy is tough as nails, i don't think people realize how banged up he was last year.

this also speaks volumes
Former Dolphins receiver Greg Jennings said recently that Tannehill was babied by former offensive coordinator Bill Lazor.
Tannehill didn’t have the ability to audible under Lazor, something he will be able to do under Gase.
Tannehill pushed back on the babied comment but admitted that he wishes he had more freedom in the past.

“I don’t know if I’ve been babied,” Tannehill said. “There were situations where coach Lazor thought it should be done a certain way so that’s what you do.
“There are a lot of different ways to skin a cat and that’s the way (Lazor) thought was best and now we’re moving to a different way. Hopefully you see a lot more success this way. That doesn’t mean this way is exponentially better, but I am excited to be working with Adam."

 

When you look at the difference in Tannehill's QB rating when behind and when in front under Lazor, it's pretty clear that Lazor's play calling in adverse situations was a serious problem.

Under Sherman there was a slight drop between being in from and being behind, which is what you expect. The stats I've seen suggest that there's about 3-5 points difference in QBR for the average QB when playing ahead -v- playing from behind. But under Lazor there was something like a 15+ point difference between being ahead and being behind (both in '14 and '15), which is by far the biggest difference of any starting QB I've seen.

 

I wonder what percentage was ryans fault..

i wonder if his game will slow down the more responsibility he gets.

 

I like that he's confident in his ability to read defenses at the LOS.

 

Dolphins have private workout scheduled for Connor cook..maybe a smokescreen..or if he falls to the 2nd round..

 

Uggg...not Cook

 

The game doesn't need to slow down for him, the pass rush does. Being able to audible out of a play the defense lined up perfectly for, ought to go a long way towards that.

 

In so many situation last year I had exactly the feeling that the opponents defense knew what play is coming. But I just can't understand why Lazor shouldn't have allowed his meanwhile veteran QB to react and audible out of it. I also almost can't believe that Philbin as a former offensive coach didn't stop his OC and let all this happen (sure, I know Philbin was the master of let it happen).

 

Lazor, like Philbin, is a system oriented coach. He's spent a lot of time formulating his system over the years. His system takes precedence over the players' strengths. There have been instances of that being successful throughout the league, but a coach whose system is adapting to his players' strengths is typically more successful, but the good ones of this type are rare.

 

I knew Philbum was a cancer ever since he took that timeout in GB. I mean seriously, you want them to draw up a play when the clock is running out. That would be like taking a timeout in basketball when the opposing team has 3 seconds left in the game, an inbound pass, and no timeouts left. Very low football IQ that man had.

 

Many people defended that call.

 

Lazor modified his system a little to suit Tannehill's strengths, and Tanny went on to have the best stretch of his career. People were afraid to lose Lazor to a HC job.

In year 2, everyone jumped ship on Tanny and Lazor said eff it, do it my way.

 

And I'm sure when Grant Hill threw an uncontested in-bounds pass to Christian Laettner a lot of people defended Rick Pitino's decision as well. They were wrong too.

 

Philbin got hammered almost universally on here for that call. That timeout was the rotten cherry on top of a pathetic defense collapse.

 

No he didn't. He modified Wallace.

 

He did. But there were a few that defended it. It was insane. It wasn't universal that's for sure.

 

Umm, no.

In before ad hominem on Beasley.

 

Sooo...not throwing deep to Wallace, but more short game to Wallace, isn't modifying the use of Wallace?

 

1. As res, pointed out...um yeah about that.....
2. The field was shortened because of the line.
3. The deep ball improved without Wallace.
4. Normally when a sports writer says that and its not an opinion, he'll attribute it to something generic like "an unnamed source", "a source close to the team", etc. He doesn't do that because its all opinion.

Soooooooooooo, that's 4 ways you were wrong.

 

No, not Wallace again!! :favre:

 

I can never not take the bait. LOL

 

You guys make it sooooooooo easy.

Game 2 of that year:

One deep pass to Wallace. 4 to others not named Wallace. 5 deep attempts in game 2, and they missed on all 5. NO wonder they stopped doing it.

Game 3, he also threw to Wallace deep twice, and to Gibson and Landry. In Oakland, Hartline, Hartline, Wallace, Sims.

The only person he kept throwing to deep in those games, were Wallace once Lazor shrunk the field. I mean, this is really common knowledge Lazor shrunk the field in the middle of 2014. Why is this even being debated.

 

I never mentioned Wallace. Only Tannehill. Notice it's the two usual suspects who keep trotting Wallace out.

Even though in Game 2, he threw once to Wallace and 4 times to everyone else deep. But yea, Wallace.

The failure to let any criticism, even if fact (Lazor shrunk the field) and not all that incriminating, be lobbied at Tannehill is amazing to me.

 

Of course its easy when you miss the point. I mean hell, if you can reject the other person's argument and just substitute what you want them to be arguing, then I'd imagine its pretty easy to win internet points. Since you do that on the regular, I hope you at least got enough points to get that super special lifesize My Little Pony behind the counter you've had your eye on all this time.

No one said we didn't shrink the field. In fact, res said:

And I said:

Both of us saying the field was shortened, so when you say incredible ridiculous crap like:

It makes me wonder what planet you're on.

 

http://miamiherald.typepad.com/dolp...eat-on-surface-but-has-issues-deep-down-.html

This is even't controversial. Every observer, especially those paid to follow the game, all saw the difference in offense after the first few games.

 

You said that he changed Tannehill, but he changed Wallace. When was Wallace ever a red zone receiver?

Who claimed that the field wasn't shrunk? Why is it you can't accept that Wallace's shortcomings played a pivotal role in the field being shrunk?

It's crazy. Literally everything you accuse us of doing, you do with Wallace.

 

The thing you quoted says what we've been saying for two seasons. Line can't block, receivers can't catch. Not to mention, not sure how you think you're strengthening your case with that quote. Of course you shorten the field when receivers can't catch and your line can't block.

Which is what we've been arguing for years now.

 

LOL ..... so true man.

 

Seattle doesn't have a problem with Russell Wilson as QB and a bunch of nobodies at WR and a worst oline. And if you were to ask Lazor who he thought was the problem, guess what he would tell you?

This is tough to debate because you are quite literally, operating with less information than some of us (not a knock on you). But this part is public, so guess who Philbin tried to replace after Tanny's most successful year. He wanted Derek Carr right after Tanny's best season and everyone wanted to crown him a rising star.

Let's just say the OC and HC were in agreement here.

Lazor changed the offense to mask Tanny's deficiencies and emphasize his strengths.

Again, you guys need to grow thicker skin when people lob criticism at Tannehill. You think he's Joe Montana or Dan Marino with this vehement defense of any sort of criticism.

 

Lazor and Philbin both proved to be bad coaches, hence they both got fired. Lazor wanting to go after Carr is pretty meaningless to me.

Frankly, I don't care what Wilson can or can't do. Tannehill doesn't have Barry Sanders escapability like Wilson does, so comparing what he can do behind that line is pointless. And I'll raise you his worthless receivers with Hartline and Bess.

 

Further, you say that the offense was changed to mask Tannehill's deficiencies. Even if true, that's what every good coach does. However, prove that the offense wasn't changed because the receivers and the line couldn't function properly.

 

I'm not sure why people are so certain that Seattle's O-line is worse than ours.

According to Football Outsiders Seattle had the 4th ranked run blocking line in the NFL and Miami had the 28th ranked line. In 2014 the rankings were 4 and 9 respectively.

I couldn't find the 2015 stats, but PFF did a deep dive on QB stats for 2014. Considering both O-lines were crappy pass blockers in 2015 and 2014 I think it reasonable to use that as a basis for comparison.
- In 2014 Russel Wilson faced QB pressure 44% of the time and from what I can piece together from data from 5 spreadsheets average time to pressure was 2.23 seconds
- In 2014 Ryan Tannehill faced pressure 38% of the time, but his average time to pressure was 2.09 seconds.

Basically Seattle's line leaked a bit more pressure, but slowed down the pass rush more. To my mind that's more or less a wash.

 

lol, Lazor thought Thill was the problem last year yet we ran the ball THE FEWEST times in the league last year. So Lazor thinks Thill sucks but didn't put the ball in the hands of the 4.7 ypc back.

Either he's an idiot or you're taking the word of a madman.

 

Yep. Classic logic. Tannehill is the problem, so let's have him try to lead the league in attempts.

 

ranked run blocking line in the NFL and Miami had the 28th ranked line.

Yet, people still think Miller was not all that................

 

I think Dang also factored in the "no he didnt" that some fella put before he said he modified Wallace. Which suggests he DIDNT modify Tannehill, which is laughably wrong as usual.

Carry on gents, its not your fault...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Looking at Tannehill and Wallace, there's no denying that Wallace was modified, and the deep ball was taken out of use. The issue is when people ignore the play of the oline, and they ignore the poor route running of Wallace, and come to the conclusion that it was modified because of Tannehill. The far more likely conclusion is that the passing game was modified because the oline couldn't hold blocks long enough to support the deep passing game. Look at the Patriots this year: their oline was suspect, and everyone raved about how smart they were for going to the short, quick passing game.