The major offensive failure is with Bill Lazor, not Ryan Tannehill

The problem isn't that Tannehill has always played poorly. The problem is he went from acceptable/pretty good/promising to bad. The idea that he secretly sucked all along isn't really a valuable one.

"Disgustipate wrote:

The problem isn't that Tannehill has always played poorly. The problem is he went from acceptable/pretty good/promising to bad. The idea that he secretly sucked all along isn't really a valuable one.

Tannehill came into the league with "training wheels" (his college system and coordinator) and played no better than average for two years. He didn't "secretly suck," but he had advantages that few early-career NFL QBs do, and he played no better than average overall despite them. Now that the training wheels have been removed, he's faltering considerably.

Now, should we blame that on a coordinator who had Nick Foles going off like gangbusters in a similar system right out of the gate, or should we blame it on Tannehill?

Bill Lazor had a very large hand in the design of the gameplans that launched Nick Foles career. he was also the guy that communicated with Foles the most during a game week.

The circumstantial evidence is.......he's good at his job.

Now, for our Quarterback.....

"Dolphans Unite! wrote:

Tannehill came into the league with "training wheels" (his college system and coordinator) and played no better than average for two years. He didn't "secretly suck," but he had advantages that few early-career NFL QBs do, and he played no better than average overall despite them. Now that the training wheels have been removed, he's faltering considerably.

Now, should we blame that on a coordinator who had Nick Foles going off like gangbusters in a similar system right out of the gate, or should we blame it on Tannehill?

His "training wheels" was a legitimate pro-style offense that he was asked to execute in a reasonable capacity. It's not "training wheels" in any meaningful sense. An example of that would be the kind of stuff the Jets did with Mark Sanchez to make him into an effective enough prospect for them to advance. Miami hasnt remotely approached that kind of thing with Tannehill, and if your point is that they need to or that we're suffering because they haven't, that's on Lazor.

Lazor isn't running Chip Kelly's offense. He's cribbed some aspects of that offensE, but it looks more like crude mimicry than it does a well executed installation.

"Section126 wrote:

Bill Lazor had a very large hand in the design of the gameplans that launched Nick Foles career. he was also the guy that communicated with Foles the most during a game week.

The circumstantial evidence is.......he's good at his job.

Now, for our Quarterback.....

Do you think it's just a matter of Tannehill still trying to figure the new offense out? Learning on the fly? Because I'm with D-pate that it's hard for me to believe that all of a sudden the dude just sucks.

My thought was that the offense would be better after the bye week once everyone started getting more comfortable in it.

Part of me feels like Ryan Tannehill is, or would be similar if he showed a propensity to run once in a while, to Alex Smith. Smith had coaching changes and never really got good teaching in SF until Harbaugh got there. Next thing you know he's "game managing" his way to the NFCCG. To me, it seems like Ryan Tannehill needs to have the offense tailored to what he's good at. While Lazor might be good at his job, this system, to me, seems to be pretty foreign to Ryan Tannehill in terms of what he's been asked to do as a QB both in college and in the NFL.

Not saying he's going to be an elite QB by any means, but I just don't think he fits what Lazor is trying/wanting to do.

"Section126 wrote:

Bill Lazor had a very large hand in the design of the gameplans that launched Nick Foles career. he was also the guy that communicated with Foles the most during a game week.

The circumstantial evidence is.......he's good at his job.

Now, for our Quarterback.....

Well no, he didn't. Chip Kelly and Pat Shurmur did. Lazor was pretty far down that totem pole. It looks like he did a good job in regards to QB coach stuff with Foles, but when there's a glaring problem when he's doing so in a new place it's on him. If Tannehill was a two-read former option quarterback that had below average intelligence, then that would be an excuse for the problems.

Furthermore, we know it isn't just the quarterback. The wide receivers aren't running routes correctly and there are issues on the coaching end there as well. Part of that falls on Ken O'Keefe, but again it's Lazors offense.

"Disgustipate wrote:

His "training wheels" was a legitimate pro-style offense that he was asked to execute in a reasonable capacity.

...and in which he had already played in college, with his former head coach coordinating it, rather than stepping into an entirely new system, with a coach who was unfamiliar with him.

I'm sorry but I can't put it all on Lazor. Tannehill just isn't playing well. I don't know how you can watch the tape and come to any other conclusion. That said, Lazor certainly isn't the savior everyone anointed him. Pretty clear this offense should be a run heavy unit, even without Moreno.

"jinx wrote:

I'm sorry but I can't put it all on Lazor. Tannehill just isn't playing well. I don't know how you can watch the tape and come to any other conclusion. That said, Lazor certainly isn't the savior everyone anointed him. Pretty clear this offense should be a run heavy unit, even without Moreno.

I think it's going to be pretty difficult to tell how good a coordinator is when he doesn't have adequate play at the QB position. The problem we're running into now is that Lazor is shortening the field due to Tannehill's downfield throwing problems, which is allowing defenses to cram the short field and defend those plays better. Soon defenses will have nearly all of their personnel up near the line, which will do a better job of defending the run game, too. At that point we'll have little or no offense. Should we blame Lazor for that?

What are the stats this season for Tannehill on balls thrown over 20 yards? What are the stats to receivers other than Wallace? How many balls over 20 yards have been dropped when they shouldn't have been?

Well when you have not only the QB regressing significantly, but also the receivers and pass catchers struggling with routes and drop balls and overall offensive execution, you've got to question what the OC is doing. Last 2 games have been rather poor in the offensive execution and play-calling department. Lazor has to be held accountable.

However I'll also say that Tannehill has rather failed to improve his weaknesses throughout his 3 pro years. His weaknesses today are still as prominent as they were when he entered the league. Maybe this offense is exposing them more rather than masking them, maybe that's Lazor's worst mistake, but Tannehill isn't helping at all. I'm really down on him since the pre-season.

"Dolphans Unite! wrote:

I think it's going to be pretty difficult to tell how good a coordinator is when he doesn't have adequate play at the QB position. The problem we're running into now is that Lazor is shortening the field due to Tannehill's downfield throwing problems, which is allowing defenses to cram the short field and defend those plays better. Soon defenses will have nearly all of their personnel up near the line, which will do a better job of defending the run game, too. At that point we'll have little or no offense. Should we blame Lazor for that?

When another offensive coordinator(who wasn't very good) handled the situation with much better results then yes.

"resnor wrote:

What are the stats this season for Tannehill on balls thrown over 20 yards? What are the stats to receivers other than Wallace? How many balls over 20 yards have been dropped when they shouldn't have been?

Deep Passing



#

Name

Team

Att.

Comp

Drops

Yards

TDs

INTs

Att. %

Acc. %



1

Drew Stanton

ARZ

19

7

0

202

2

0

30.6

36.8



2

Matt Ryan

ATL

16

10

0

267

1

1

14.4

62.5



3

Joe Flacco

BLT

11

3

2

142

1

1

9

45.5



4

E.J. Manuel

BUF

10

3

0

75

0

0

11.5

30



5

Jay Cutler

CHI

10

3

0

90

1

0

12

30



6

Andy Dalton

CIN

10

2

0

100

1

0

11.9

20



7

Brian Hoyer

CLV

11

5

0

213

0

0

11.5

45.5



8

Tony Romo

DAL

9

3

0

144

1

1

10.1

33.3



9

Peyton Manning

DEN

11

5

0

190

1

0

9.9

45.5



10

Matthew Stafford

DET

15

7

0

252

2

2

13.2

46.7



11

Aaron Rodgers

GB

9

3

0

136

1

0

8.8

33.3



12

Andrew Luck

IND

12

7

1

180

0

1

9.5

66.7



13

Chad Henne

JAX

9

3

1

134

1

0

11.5

44.4



14

Alex D. Smith

KC

8

3

0

73

0

2

7.8

37.5



15

Ryan Tannehill

MIA

9

1

2

22

0

1

7.3

33.3



16

Tom Brady

NE

13

1

0

44

0

0

11.3

7.7



17

Drew Brees

NO

7

2

1

66

1

0

6

42.9



18

Eli Manning

NYG

9

1

1

23

0

1

9

22.2



19

Geno Smith

NYJ

7

1

1

29

1

1

11.7

28.6



20

Derek Carr

OAK

10

3

0

101

1

1

9.3

30



21

Nick Foles

PHI

26

9

1

250

4

1

21

38.5



22

Ben Roethlisberger

PIT

7

3

0

105

1

0

6.9

42.9



23

Philip Rivers

SD

15

5

1

185

1

0

15.3

40



24

Colin Kaepernick

SF

12

5

0

131

1

2

12.8

41.7



25

Austin Davis

SL

12

7

1

219

1

1

12.8

66.7



26

Josh McCown

TB

7

3

0

84

1

0

10.3

42.9



27

Jake Locker

TEN

19

4

1

153

1

1

18.8

26.3



28

Kirk Cousins

WAS

12

6

0

230

2

1

14.8

50

Also, before anyone goes and points out Tom Brady, it should be noted that Tom Brady is sucking major butt this year.

"Disgustipate wrote:

When another offensive coordinator(who wasn't very good) handled the situation with much better results then yes.

Well I think that depends on how you define "the situation." If the situation is that the QB needs to be catered to at the expense of having an offense that can win more effectively in the NFL, then yes. If "the situation" is that you're going to go with an offense that's more likely to win the NFL, despite what that may do to your QB, while finding out whether he can truly play in the process, then the current coordinator may be handling it quite a bit better.

"Dolphans Unite! wrote:

Well I think that depends on how you define "the situation." If the situation is that the QB needs to be catered to at the expense of having an offense that can win more effectively in the NFL, then yes. If "the situation" is that you're going to go with an offense that's more likely to win the NFL, despite what that may do to your QB, while finding out whether he can truly play in the process, then the current coordinator may be handling it quite a bit better.

Improved quarterback play is not going to occur at the expense of winning. They're fundamentally related concepts.

Seeing if he can "truly play" is not a thing that requires bad play on the field if you can avoid it. You are responsible for making the assessment that Tannehill can or cannot do what you want before you get on the field. You knew there were issues in camp. Your job is to win games, not experiment.

"Disgustipate wrote:

Improved quarterback play is not going to occur at the expense of winning. They're fundamentally related concepts.

Seeing if he can "truly play" is not a thing that requires bad play on the field if you can avoid it. You are responsible for making the assessment that Tannehill can or cannot do what you want before you get on the field. You knew there were issues in camp. Your job is to win games, not experiment.

Where is the evidence of that? All I remember hearing was that in camp Tannehill appeared to be making a stride forward.

"vt_dolfan wrote:

Wtf..did RT steal your HS GF Shou? Yes..We know your Shouright...its the same tired act minus your use of stats. Youve done the same thing over and over..

this poster has an opinion and hasn't don't anything to suggest he is trolling.

Quote Originally Posted by Dolphans Unite! View Post
How do we know the issue isn't that Ryan Tannehill has been stretched too far beyond his Texas A&M/Mike Sherman comfort zone?

There is nothing wrong with that statement..don't kill the guy for having his own opinion VT.?

17 is missing some throws and failing to react to pressure in time, receivers are dropping passes, those are relatively small issues compared to last season. The pass pro and run game are miles ahead of 2013, 26 had his best game as a pro, 11 and 17 seem to have improved their timing. DT looked good in limited action. When 51 and 28 get back the run game will be even better, opening up more opps for 17 to make plays. Not facing elite DL units like Buffalo and KC will help too.

Take a chill pill guys, it's week 3.

"Disgustipate wrote:

Bill Lazor's job first and foremost was to install a system to fit the players on the field. A large portion of his hiring was centered around his coaching of a related offensive tree, and his work with quarterbacks, and he's failed in both regards.

Even if Ryan Tannehill is a failed prospect that will have to be replaced, Lazor's job is to get the most out of him. He's totally failed in that regard, and instead we've got a player who is regressing at a critical part of his career. We're watching Ryan Tannehill handle multiple aspects of his job markedly worse than he did with the Dolphins in the past, and that's on Lazor.

For some reason, we've tossed wholesale a wide variety of passing concepts, route combinations, and plays that worked well in the past. If they were things that violated the orthodoxy of the offensive system we chose to install, that'd be one thing, but they're not. The out-breaking routes that Tannehill excelled at are de-emphasized. Bread and butter WCO concepts that shouldn't really be off the table for schematic reasons are missing. Charles Clay and Brian Hartline are missing in action.

Ryan Tannehill is struggling with his new footwork. The receivers are struggling to properly run there routes. The quarterback and receivers are quite frequently having issues where they're both not making the right reads. Those are teaching issues, and that buck ultimately stops with Lazor on that. He's essentially the quarterbacks coach, with the Dolphins choosing to retain Zac Taylor, whose qualifications are based more on marriage than skill.

Whether Lazor or Tannehill is worse at their jobs is a pretty silly debate to have. Neither have done anything to indicate much competency at their jobs.

Year 1 excuse: "He doesn't have anyone to stretch the field." Solution: a 12-million dollar deep threat.

Year 2 excuse: "Well sure he has a deep threat but now he has no OLine or run game." Solution: huge investments in the OLine and run game, both of which much improved.

Year 3 excuse: "Well sure he has a bunch of good players around him now, but hey his first OC sucked. We fired him and RT is still struggling? Well I guess this new OC sucks too."

Every Year excuse: "Well he did play WR for a while in college..."

It's pretty tired. He's not getting it done. The offense has been bad since he took over as our QB. Again, I thought there should be a big focus on YPA, a good sign of W/L success, a sign of chunk yards and taking shots, hitting guys in space for yac yards, etc. Well, it's a paltry 5.08, which is pathetic really. Maybe we can blame that on Lazor? But oh wait his YPA was bad with Sherman too. And hey it was also in the bottom of the FBS during his college career. Maybe this is who he is.

I'm not saying we should bench him. That would be foolish. Give him time to settle into this system in year 3. But when looking for reasons why the offense is struggling people need to stop looking at everyone around the QB and focus on the guy who is, you know, the most important player on the field.

"Stringer Bell wrote:

Whether Lazor or Tannehill is worse at their jobs is a pretty silly debate to have. Neither have done anything to indicate much competency at their jobs.

First sentence is spot on. 2nd sentence is silly IMHO.

"Stringer Bell wrote:

Whether Lazor or Tannehill is worse at their jobs is a pretty silly debate to have. Neither have done anything to indicate much competency at their jobs.

Except that Lazor apparently had a strong hand in making Nick Foles take off like a rocket in Philadelphia, whereas Tannehill has done nothing sustained above the average level in the NFL. There is at least some evidence of coaching success in the NFL for Lazor, whereas there is no evidence of sustained success for Tannehill.

"Dolphans Unite! wrote:

Where is the evidence of that? All I remember hearing was that in camp Tannehill appeared to be making a stride forward.

There was a stretch where he was struggling and it was justified by the coaching staff by them trying to push him. They tested what he did and didn't do well, and haven't appropriately reacted to it.