Did you watch the game? If so, you saw that our OL is an abortion. We gave up 6 sacks, 9 official hits, a dozen hurries, and 7 tackles for a loss. Tannehill had little time to throw it short, let alone long. Anyone unable to process that really shouldn't be spouting off. Honestly, I don't know if this OL is any better than last year at this point. The D is missing impact players on a consistent basis. OL and LB was what cost us another game. Throw in the injuries too. Flacco had no pressure most of the game. We registered 1 hit and 1 sack (OV) all game.
So I guess the answer is we're stuck with him. What are the odds and consequences of trading him? Any chance of that during the offseason?
http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-.../Mike-Wallace-drops-potential-game-winning-TD [video=youtube;dNLTdNxhFvw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNLTdNxhFvw[/video] Man, if only Tannehill could teach Mike Wallace how to adjust to throws, they might actually have something going. That's the most frustrating part of this whole experience, is that the QB was a WR. He has to throw to a WR who lacks fundamentals. What do I mean by fundamentals? I mean making an effort to keep both feet in bounds. Making an effort to go full speed each play. Making an effort to FIND THE BALL IN THE AIR and COME BACK TO THE BALL. Do you want to know the difference between a lot of "good deep ball QBs" and Tannehill is? It's wide receivers THAT ADJUST TO THE BALL IN THE AIR.
If we drafted Mike Wallace 2 years ago and he had never been what he was in Pittsburgh, I think we'd all agree on it being a problem with 1 guy and not the other. However, the truth is that Wallace was of course really good in Pittsburgh. In my eyes, Wallace is still that same guy. He really hasn't gained or lost anything. He wasn't a good possession receiver then. He isn't now. He wasn't physical then. He's still not. He couldn't out jump DBs then and he never will. While both Tannehill and Wallace could both be doing a lot more to make things work, there's no question that we'll never get a chance to see it blossom in Miami like it did in Pittsburgh if we cannot start to provide some real time in the pocket. I'd love to see Tannehill evade the rush and get outside the pocket more often and just uncork it downfield. We don't really ever see Ryan do that. I still don't really have a gauge on how far Ryan can throw it. He seems to be able to sling it 40-50 yards in the air while on the run so you would think he'd be rather good at generating those occasional deep shots during a game. It's as if the coaches have instructed him never to do that though. The sad thing is that we'll never seen any improvement or any realization of Wallace's true ability if we don't start taking those unjustified risks. It's part of football I think that has little to do with strategy and everything to do with letting a star shine.
Brian Hartline was top 10 in deep yardage in 2012, Tannehill's rookie season. The problems began when a guy who has nothing except "fast" is getting funneled all the deep targets when he was in reality a product of circumstances that couldn't even be reproduced in Pittsburgh, much less here. If Brian Hartline can be an top producing deep target, it's logical that someone with useful traits like "body positioning" and "effort" could also produce good, if not better results. hey but Mike Wallace is fast
What I wouldn't give to bring a Malcolm Floyd in this offseason. Sent from my Transformer TF101 using Tapatalk 4
Wallace has the skills to be a game breaker, always has, and he's proven it. When your QB cannot throw a deep ball, you eliminate that option. In yesterdays game against a very bad Baltimore secondary, we were 2nd and 1, a perfect time to let one air out and we did not. We very rarely even try. I personally find it hard to blame Wallace for his gifts. He has been the same guy here that he was when we signed him, we just are missing the other piece to make him work better.
Wallace has the skill to run really fast if he catches a deep ball. He doesn't have the ability to do anything leading up to that particularly well. Also again, if we're blaming this on Tannehill why did Wallace put in basically the same performance in 2012 with Big Ben?
Different offense, different coverages hard to say exactly. When you are dealing in hypotheticals you kind of should consider that one guy (Wallace) has been successful on deep plays and the other guy (Tannehill) has not. We have all watched Ryan like a hawk since he was drafted, I can't count on one hand how many times I've seen a good deep pass.
All I remember from that year was the outstanding Arizona game during which Hartline had some 250 yards. What else did they do that year? I can't recall. I will say this...if anyone thinks Tannehill isn't capable of throwing some dime passes, go watch the Hartline footage. Those two had an undeniable connection up until this year. It's amazing what trust can do.
Hartline had 11 receptions for 421 yards on deep targets in 2012. Not "The busted coverage deep play". Just as a comparison sake, Mike Wallace's Dolphins career is on pace to match that season sometime in 2015. What happened to Hartline was that Wallace got his deep targets, and Lazor basically decided to fix what wasn't broken in regards to removing plays he and Tannehill executed very well.
Here is a quote I found... It was a disappointing day for Tannehill in a plus matchup. The Ravens boast one of the league's most-vulnerable secondaries, but Tannehill refused to challenge it with deep balls. He also missed a wide-open Mike Wallace in the end zone in the second half. Tannehill played worse than the numbers suggest, delivering zero big plays while failing to make things happen with his feet. He won't be on the QB1 radar for next week's trip to New England. Dec 7 - 4:55 PM
a dual threat who isn't..would be nice to see the full skill set on display you know, just to do everything possible to win games..ya know, so we can make playoffs and sh^% QB/OC don't believe in the dual threat.
A dual threat has to be more than a 1 read QB though... http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap30...n-kaepernick-symbolic-of-running-qb-struggles This seems to be the tact taken by Sherman and Lazor with Tannehill - forcing him to make plays from within the pocket and live and die there with the occasional run option.
That video was painful to watch. Especially that last one against the Jets. If that's TD maybe that's playoffs. No it's not Wallace. It's Tannehill. The only ones that were caught were under thrown and it gave time for the DB to catch up to Wallace. He never hit Wallace in stride. If Wallace burns the DB by 5-10 yards why should Wallace have to slow down and catch a jump ball? I like Tannehill and like his progression but a glaring need for improvement is his deep ball throws. Granted we need to improve at the guards position but a lot of those throws he had plenty of time. A lot of those throws should have been TDs. Next year there will be no excuse after the Dolphins get better guards and Albert is back. They need to use Wallace for why they brought him here, the deep ball.
Cooch, A lot of what i talk about when it comes to this topic comes from none other than steve young..hes the one that said that every game, early, that he would test a defense by dropping and running for yardage, and I quote, '' to set the tone of the game, to get myself into a rhythm, to give them an extra dimension to think about, to let my teammates know I'm here to do whatever it takes to win'' He also said, he would continue to do so until he saw them not turn their backs to him, then, he knew he had them...cut em up real nice.. also said that regardless of the play that walsh sent in, if it was there when he dropped, he was gonna take it. needless to say, ryan has not gotten the memo.. the scary part is there is no conscious awareness.
Tannehill always takes the blame upon himself. I've never seen him say anything was on someone else. FWIW it wasn't a great throw, but he was hit just as he released. He couldn't position himself properly to make the throw. The effort by Wallace was flat out embarrassing either way.
It's very much a baby steps situation in regards to the poster in question. Reposting Rotoworld is at least some attempt at an evidence based discussion, no matter how rudimentary