Were Bess & Hartline's Number of TDs an Issue?

IMO.

He needs to improve his pocket presence/awareness considerably.
Did not find a lot of open receivers,not a huge amount but enough to throw beer at the fence
I am not convinced, like some may be, that he can be consistently accurate on his long ball. I admit we did not have receivers that got any mass seperation so on this I kind gotta almost probably give him a pass.
The kid HAS TO STOP changing plays at the LOS as often as he does. I know its used a lot but the first half of the season I can honestly say he changed 70% of the plays. That alone brought the total number of plays run down.

"Aqua4Ever04 wrote:

How do you know Ryan doesn't?

To me he is a young man that has complete respect for authority, would never talk back to his coaches, does EVERYTHING they tell him, and truly wants to be our next Dan Marino.

Not saying this is what Ryan is or will be, but Chad Henne was thee exact sad way. And he was "coached" into the ground. His QB play became a mirror image of Sparano and Hennings philosophy. Conservative.

I just want too see him act and play like HE is in charge and he is the oil to our engine.

It's not something every rookie has right away, I would just like to see him develop IT.

Shouright:
Your so off on this topic, it's 100% Laureen Tennehill fault here. How can Tennehill expect to learn how to be a NFL QB & play well on sundays. When his hot wife distracts Ryan all the time? It's unfair to the Dolphins fanbase. Only reason RG3, Luck & Wilson played better is because there girlfriends look like crap. I think we need to find a QB in this year's fraft with a ugly girlfriend or wife.

I thought Tannehill struggled with his deep ball.

"smahtaz wrote:

I thought Tannehill struggled with his deep ball.

I'm more concerned with our inability to make plays on the ball down field than RTs ball placement. Rarely is a ball dropped in the bucket 30 plus yds down field, gotta have some guys who can gear up for the overthrow, throttle down for the under throw, go up and catch a ball or two in traffic. We don't have anyone like that.

Too many times against a speed rush, he would flush out of the pocket to his right side and retreat too far away from the LOS, making just about any chance for a successful play non-existent. He developed and got a lot better at avoiding this as the season progressed. Instead he would step up in the pocket more often and we saw it pay dividends against Seattle, for example.

I do believe he was a tad slow on his reads, as mostly all rookies are. I think a big indicator of this was that our checkdown receiver was always covered rather well. The linebackers were able to get into position to cover the RB and TE closely by the time Tannehill had looked off his primary targets.

Accuracy was an issue at times, but I'm not sure he was necessarily more inaccurate than the average NFL QB, so I'm not overly concerned about this yet.

I could probably think of more as he is a rookie and they probably demonstrate many flaws that a top veteran QB doesn't. But those are just off the top of my head.

I saw progress in key areas throughout the season, so I'm optimistic. I know Chad Henne is irrelevant here, but I just can't remember seeing any progress from him after the beginning of that 2nd year. We naturally hoped and assumed he would progress. But no dice. Tannehill's intelligence combined with the progress I've seen has me hopeful.

"shouright wrote:

...struggle this year that was (were) not at all caused by any of his teammates or anyone else in the world?

Let's discuss the specifics of that here.

Shou.... you are better than this.... Com'on, Man!!!!!!

"shouright wrote:

Along those lines, one of the things I didn't like about Tannehill from Hard Knocks was when he took off running and dove head first on one of plays shown during the series, and when Jake Long told him not to do that anymore, he sort of had a sheepish response to that. Now granted he was in his first NFL camp at that point, but he's going to have to develop much more of a "hey, I run this offense and I'll do as I see fit" sort of response to those kinds of comments at some point along the way here. That is if he's truly going to lead the team.

I think any rookie, regardless of position is going to listen to Jake Long. Long doesn't seem to ever be jocular. He probably grimaces in good humor, even. Second, Long has the complete respect of the team and is one of the leaders. Any team member, including the QB is going to listen to him. I thought it showed favorably on Tannehill that he didn't challenge Long publicly at that juncture, but took the advice of a vet as any rookie should. That said, in another season or two, I would very much expect to see a more fiery demeanor from Tannehill in regards to dealing with anyone on the team - especially when WRs or the backs fook up... Right now, he comes across as having a bit much of that amicable cornbred fed, aw shucks and please pass the apple pie, Opie Taylor good nature about him. Expect that to change over time...

"Aqua4Ever04 wrote:

How do you know Ryan doesn't?

To me he is a young man that has complete respect for authority, would never talk back to his coaches, does EVERYTHING they tell him, and truly wants to be our next Dan Marino.

Dunno if he wants to be the next Danny Touchdown, but he is extremely amicable, intelligent, and coachable. You could almost see him taking what he did wrong from one game and having it corrected by the next one or two.

To me, the biggest hindrance to him was once his knee was injured and he wore the brace. He was not planting his leg with the brace and stepping into his throws during that duration. A lot of his passes at that time were all arm strength and either standing flat footed or off his back foot. This affected his accuracy. The Dec game where he took the brace off, was night and day I thought to how he played in Nov.

The thing that bothered me was that he would hold on to the ball for too long and miss, dare I say it, *gulp* open receivers. The last New England game where he threw the ball to ___? and it turned into an INT when Hartline was wide open on a crossing route is an example. Another thing is his throwing motion looked a bit odd at times or maybe that was just me...?

"PhinsFan93 wrote:

The thing that bothered me was that he would hold on to the ball for too long and miss, dare I say it, *gulp* open receivers. The last New England game where he threw the ball to ___? and it turned into an INT when Hartline was wide open on a crossing route is an example. Another thing is his throwing motion looked a bit odd at times or maybe that was just me...?

He had several bad games - Houston, Tenn, the last NE game. Missing Bess', Thomas, and Clay were apparent in the last game I thought. Also, much like in the Houston game to start the season - don't discount the opposing defense simply being on point and making plays. They were specifically mixing up coverage's and had him off balance.

"cuchulainn wrote:

He had several bad games - Houston, Tenn, the last NE game. Missing Bess', Thomas, and Clay were apparent in the last game I thought. Also, much like in the Houston game to start the season - don't discount the opposing defense simply being on point and making plays. They were specifically mixing up coverage's and had him off balance.

I agree. When he's on a roll there's no stopping him which is one of the few things I like about him. When defenses start to disguise what they're doing is when he shows his inexperience. Hopefully he learns to adjust.

"cuchulainn wrote:

I think any rookie, regardless of position is going to listen to Jake Long. Long doesn't seem to ever be jocular. He probably grimaces in good humor, even. Second, Long has the complete respect of the team and is one of the leaders. Any team member, including the QB is going to listen to him. I thought it showed favorably on Tannehill that he didn't challenge Long publicly at that juncture, but took the advice of a vet as any rookie should. That said, in another season or two, I would very much expect to see a more fiery demeanor from Tannehill in regards to dealing with anyone on the team - especially when WRs or the backs fook up... Right now, he comes across as having a bit much of that amicable cornbred fed, aw shucks and please pass the apple pie, Opie Taylor good nature about him. Expect that to change over time...

It better. ;)

"PhinsFan93 wrote:

The thing that bothered me was that he would hold on to the ball for too long and miss, dare I say it, *gulp* open receivers. The last New England game where he threw the ball to ___? and it turned into an INT when Hartline was wide open on a crossing route is an example. Another thing is his throwing motion looked a bit odd at times or maybe that was just me...?

Careful, I may start a poll and a thread all about whether the receivers ever did anything right that was caused by nobody but them. ;)

"RevRick wrote:

Shou.... you are better than this.... Com'on, Man!!!!!!

No I'm not. :)

"Eop05 wrote:

I saw progress in key areas throughout the season, so I'm optimistic. I know Chad Henne is irrelevant here, but I just can't remember seeing any progress from him after the beginning of that 2nd year. We naturally hoped and assumed he would progress. But no dice. Tannehill's intelligence combined with the progress I've seen has me hopeful.

Right now the big difference between Henne and Tannehill is that Tannehill had quite a few more good games, defined as those with a QB rating of 90 or higher, in his rookie season than Henne did in 2009, when Henne was a 2nd-year player (first year as a starter, however). That particular stat is associated with long-term success, and it suggests Tannehill's ceiling is indeed higher than Henne's, which of course is good news, since I don't believe Henne is even an 80 QB rating guy over the long haul.

I don't have a problem with this post, but I do have a problem with obvious troll bait poll. No player in the NFL is perfect and every player struggles with a deficiency. So why create a poll for something that is obvious?

"Bumrush wrote:

I don't have a problem with this post, but I do have a problem with obvious troll bait poll. No player in the NFL is perfect and every player struggles with a deficiency. So why create a poll for something that is obvious?

Well approximately 23% of the poll's respondents don't think it's so obvious.

Have you something to say to them, or did you already say it, implicitly?

"shouright wrote:

Well approximately 23% of the poll's respondents don't think it's so obvious.

Have you something to say to them, or did you already say it, implicitly?

It's really geared towards the both of you :)

"shouright wrote:

Didn't figure you'd mention any. ;)

A while back you were asked who you would have drafted first, Ryan Tannehill or Boise St. QB Kellen Moore. The point was who was actually the better QB, given that Moore had a much higher QB rating. If you chose Tannehill, it would have to be more of what your eyes told you, less about pure statistics that you seem to favor. If you chose Moore and used his higher QB rating as your sole guide- well, you'd be pretty much an idiot.

The point is that you never answered the question, and for good reason- you were painted into a corner, check mate, game over. There is no response that would have worked for you- so you ignored the question. Asking a girl if she farted would more likely get a response as opposed to asking you that question- iirc you muttered something about the QB rating system not being quite the same in college as it is in the pros- bravo, great non-answer.

This is just something that you might want to keep in mind when you hammer other people in terms of answering questions, because your hypocrisy is steep- I can't think of anyone else on this site who has run away, hidden from and ignored more direct questions as to their theories than you have.

"jim1 wrote:

A while back you were asked who you would have drafted first, Ryan Tannehill or Boise St. QB Kellen Moore. The point was who was actually the better QB, given that Moore had a much higher QB rating. If you chose Tannehill, it would have to be more of what your eyes told you, less about pure statistics that you seem to favor. If you chose Moore and used his higher QB rating as your sole guide- well, you'd be pretty much an idiot.

The point is that you never answered the question, and for good reason- you were painted into a corner, check mate, game over. There is no response that would have worked for you- so you ignored the question. Asking a girl if she farted would more likely get a response as opposed to asking you that question- iirc you muttered something about the QB rating system not being quite the same in college as it is in the pros- bravo, great non-answer.

This is just something that you might want to keep in mind when you hammer other people in terms of answering questions, because your hypocrisy is steep- I can't think of anyone else on this site who has run away, hidden from and ignored more direct questions as to their theories than you have.

I've never made any statement about the construct or predictive validity of the college QB rating as I have the NFL QB rating. The question about college QB rating was irrelevant and therefore not answered. But I see you're still hung up on it. :)

"Bumrush wrote:

It's really geared towards the both of you :)

Well whatever you're "gearing" toward me is obviated by the fact that those 23% exist, so I'd suggest you move on to them. :)

"shouright wrote:

I've never made any statement about the construct or predictive validity of the college QB rating as I have the NFL QB rating. The question about college QB rating was irrelevant and therefore not answered. But I see you're still hung up on it. :)

Not hung up on it, just struck by your sheer hypocrisy. The college and QBR rating systems are very similar, you just don't want to answer. And btw that's just one of any number of questions that you simply ignored in your threads.

I still get a laugh out of the QBR system that you provided and how it rated the all time great QBs. It's like reading the historical results of a beauty pageant and seeing where Rosie O'Donnell rated higher than Carmen Electra and the beauty pageant judge says, "Uh forget that one, it doesn't count." Uh, ok. Great beauty pageant you have there...

"jim1 wrote:

Not hung up on it, just struck by your sheer hypocrisy. The college and QBR rating systems are very similar, you just don't want to answer. And btw that's just one of any number of questions that you simply ignored in your threads.

I still get a laugh out of the QBR system that you provided and how it rated the all time great QBs. It's like reading the historical results of a beauty pageant and seeing where Rosie O'Donnell rated higher than Carmen Electra and the beauty pageant judge says, "Uh forget that one, it doesn't count." Uh, ok. Great beauty pageant you have there...

You're illustrating your lack of understanding of 1) construct and predictive validity in relation to NFL QB rating, and how they aren't necessarily present for college QB rating, and 2) correlation.

But hey, at least you're getting a laugh out of something. What do they say? Ignorance is bliss? :)

"Aqua4Ever04 wrote:

Think Brian Hartline would put the team on his back like this in a championship game? Julio Jones is doing a good job making the whole "receivers don't mean much" argument look pretty damn silly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_heuristic