Ryan Tannehill

"PhinFan1968 wrote:

40 yard DIME.

yep it was. But In terms of overall game that was the worst one tannehill has played as a starter. Still as accurate and placement wise as he’s been all season but a couple times that internal clock didn’t come on to escape the pocket til it was too late. A tick late which is something we’ve seen throughout his time in tbe league.

difference is he’s no longer surrounded by hot garbage so he can be picked up by the players around him sometimes. Like just about any damn qb needs from time to time.

again he has to feel like he’s died and gone to heaven.

"Hoops wrote:

keep moving the needle dj.

I’m surprised you aren’t sitting this one out after your emphatic tannehill will do nothing but carry a clipboard in Tennessee behind mariota nonsense.

that mariota will have a rebirth in tennessee. Lol.

Hes banking on Tannehill having one bad playoff game to justify his entire outlook.

What he doesnt realize is that Tannehill having a bad playoff game wont = Tannehill is a bad QB.

"AGuyNamedAlex wrote:

Hes banking on Tannehill having one bad playoff game to justify his entire outlook.

What he doesnt realize is that Tannehill having a bad playoff game wont = Tannehill is a bad QB.

Exactly

And I will say this so people don’t think I’m just a tanny homer. Tannehill was a minus grade qb for Miami in 2018.

I know that. I saw it on the tape even. But no one ever accounted for all that game time missed and potential for rust even.

I know one thing. The timing of ball out of hand relative to route combo is spot on pre injury form. So is the placement.

I’ve seen him a tick late on a square in and that’s about it.

I do think the tackle play is a big thing for him in Tennessee too. Lewan and Conklin are very solid tackles. Lewan especially is damn good.

One thing I haven't heard mentioned in this thread is that this is the first time in Tannehill's career that he hasn't been designated the starter and has had to compete for his job.

If that's in fact an active ingredient in how he's playing, then it probably would've behooved the Dolphins to give him solid competition long ago.

"The Guy wrote:

One thing I haven't heard mentioned in this thread is that this is the first time in Tannehill's career that he hasn't been designated the starter and has had to compete for his job.

If that's in fact an active ingredient in how he's playing, then it probably would've behooved the Dolphins to give him solid competition long ago.

He competed for the job in Miami several seasons across three different coaches...and he won the position every time. The problem is that there's no real pressure in practice so it doesn't always simulate what he'll do in a game.

"The Guy wrote:

One thing I haven't heard mentioned in this thread is that this is the first time in Tannehill's career that he hasn't been designated the starter and has had to compete for his job.

If that's in fact an active ingredient in how he's playing, then it probably would've behooved the Dolphins to give him solid competition long ago.

I think it is more that the Titans are letting him be free and to play his own style of football.

From a playcalling perspective Philbin and Gase abandoned the run at the first sign of adversity. When opposing defenses can tee off knowing it’s a pass play they can send in exotic blitzes and coverages that confuse Tannehill and rack up the INTs and sacks. The Titans are preventing opposing Ds from doing this by applying a heavy dose of Derek Henry.

Philbin and Co. straight jacketed him and forced him to play the way they wanted him to play, which was away from his strengths. Gase set him up in a gilded cage where he was immune from criticism, and as we’re seeing him do in New York with Darnold. Both approaches cut him off at the knees as a team leader. Now he’s free to be himself and the Titans are playing the type of football that suits his ability the best.

"Hoops wrote:

keep moving the needle dj.

I’m surprised you aren’t sitting this one out after your emphatic tannehill will do nothing but carry a clipboard in Tennessee behind mariota nonsense.

that mariota will have a rebirth in tennessee. Lol.

I hope the guy can get it done, he’s a nice person and a good family man, I’m not really partaking in this recent debate because I never said that Tannehill couldn’t play, my position has been clear from the beginning, I think he’s flawed and gets exposed when protection breaks down and I can’t stick with him as my Qb, which is a Qb that can lead the team to a championship..I know he can play and win some games, but when the playoffs begin, a Qb has to be able to make individual plays to win games on the road, sometimes big plays, sometimes subtle movements that allow him to reset..so like I said, once he does that and proves that part of his game, I don’t have much to say..not sure anyone can say too much until he does..

But it’s all good, I was very wrong on Mariota, no doubt.

"PhinFan1968 wrote:

40 yard DIME.

Ryan has thrown many dimes in his career, dimes much better than that one

"AGuyNamedAlex wrote:

Hes banking on Tannehill having one bad playoff game to justify his entire outlook.

What he doesnt realize is that Tannehill having a bad playoff game wont = Tannehill is a bad QB.

no sir, Tannehill has to prove himself, I think most rational folks would agree, he has to prove he can get it done.. protection on the way to a Super Bowl is going to inevitably break down, once he proves he can make those individual plays then I will think differently about him..

"AGuyNamedAlex wrote:

Hes banking on Tannehill having one bad playoff game to justify his entire outlook.

What he doesnt realize is that Tannehill having a bad playoff game wont = Tannehill is a bad QB.

and yes, if Ryan falls short individually in the playoffs then my position will be justified unfortunately

"djphinfan wrote:

Ryan has thrown many dimes in his career, dimes much better than that one

Ya but a big knock on Tannehill has always been, "can't do it when it matters...can't close out a game." And THAT dime did...with an exclamation point.

"KeyFin wrote:

He competed for the job in Miami several seasons across three different coaches...and he won the position every time. The problem is that there's no real pressure in practice so it doesn't always simulate what he'll do in a game.

I don’t think there’s any doubt that the difficulty he experienced in becoming the starter in Tennessee this year was significantly greater than the difficulty he experienced in being the starter in Miami.

And again, if that’s an active ingredient in his current performance, then obviously Miami should’ve made it more difficult for him to be the starter in Miami.

"Pauly wrote:

When opposing defenses can tee off knowing it’s a pass play they can send in exotic blitzes and coverages that confuse Tannehill and rack up the INTs and sacks. The Titans are preventing opposing Ds from doing this by applying a heavy dose of Derek Henry.

While theoretically that’s certainly plausible, one would think, then, that the following three things would be true: 1) his current sack percentage would be significantly lower than his career number, 2) his current interception percentage would be significantly lower than his career number, and 3) there would be a strong correlation between running game variables and his performance in Miami. None of those three things are true, however.

"The Guy wrote:

I don’t think there’s any doubt that the difficulty he experienced in becoming the starter in Tennessee this year was significantly greater than the difficulty he experienced in being the starter in Miami.

And again, if that’s an active ingredient in his current performance, then obviously Miami should’ve made it more difficult for him to be the starter in Miami.

Except he didn't win the starting job in Tennessee. Mariota was injured, and Tannehill then started.

I thought they just flat out benched Mariotta.

"resnor wrote:

Except he didn't win the starting job in Tennessee. Mariota was injured, and Tannehill then started.

And that was my original point:

"The Guy wrote:

One thing I haven't heard mentioned in this thread is that this is the first time in Tannehill's career that he hasn't been designated the starter and has had to compete for his job.

If that's in fact an active ingredient in how he's playing, then it probably would've behooved the Dolphins to give him solid competition long ago.

And I'm disputing your assertion that he had to compete. He did not have to compete to be the starter.

"resnor wrote:

And I'm disputing your assertion that he had to compete. He did not have to compete to be the starter.

Sure he did. He competed in camp and lost. That made him the default starter in the event of injury. Either way, he had to show up and compete.

"The Guy wrote:

Sure he did. He competed in camp and lost. That made him the default starter in the event of injury. Either way, he had to show up and compete.

Please just stop.

"resnor wrote:

Please just stop.

Sure thing. The point was made long ago.

In no universe is what Happened with Tannehill considered winning a job.

"resnor wrote:

In no universe is what Happened with Tannehill considered winning a job.

This is why you feel like your points are ignored or dismissed. You take some sort of peripheral aspect of someone else's point -- far from the thrust of what they're saying -- and argue it. Then when the person clarifies the thrust of their point, you feel as though they're dismissing yours. In reality you're dismissing the thrust of their point.

In this case the thrust of the point is that Tannehill didn't win the starting job out of camp for the first time in his career. He wasn't designated the starter.

Now, you can agree with that, since it's an incontrovertible fact, or you can take some piece of language I've used in communicating that point and disagree with it, thereby spinning us off on some tangent that 1) dismisses and ignores the thrust of my original point, and 2) ends up with you feel like your (peripheral and tangential) point has been dismissed or ignored, as I repeatedly clarify my own in the effort to help you achieve understanding.

"The Guy wrote:

This is why you feel like your points are ignored or dismissed. You take some sort of peripheral aspect of someone else's point -- far from the thrust of what they're saying -- and argue it. Then when the person clarifies the thrust of their point, you feel as though they're dismissing yours. In reality you're dismissing the thrust of their point.

In this case the thrust of the point is that Tannehill didn't win the starting job out of camp for the first time in his career. He wasn't designated the starter.

Now, you can agree with that, since it's an incontrovertible fact, or you can take some piece of language I've used in communicating that point and disagree with it, thereby spinning us off on some tangent that 1) dismisses and ignores the thrust of my original point, and 2) ends up with you feel like your (peripheral and tangential) point has been dismissed or ignored, as I repeatedly clarify my own in the effort to help you achieve understanding.

Your point was that Tannehill showed improvement due to having competition. I don't think that had anything to do with. Hence I was pointing out that he didn't win the starting job, he again got it by default.

"resnor wrote:

Your point was that Tannehill showed improvement due to having competition. I don't think that had anything to do with. Hence I was pointing out that he didn't win the starting job, he again got it by default.

Whether he won the job at first or not, he did still have competition. The injury may have given Ryan the starting position but if he wants to keep it he has to earn it with every game...because he has competition.

Is I think the point.