JoeFootball Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tannehill has improved every year. I see no reason
> to believe he won't get better at deep passing.
> Even if he doesn't, it's not going to define this
> team. Improving the line, staying healthy and
> fixing the run defense are much more crucial than
> a small percentage of passes....of which Tannehill
> completed 392... of which is an all time franchise
> record.

Tannehill had a good season, the sort of progression you want to see to validate the guy as our future. But he still has a lot of work to do. And yes, there's no reason to think he lacks the ability to improve his deep ball. Consistently missing on deep third TD balls is not acceptable and it probably would have been more had Lazor dialed them up more often. Don't you recall the criticism Philbin and Lazor took for the lack of deep passes? The variety of misses is more than just go and skinny post routes too. Look, Tannehill has come a long way since his rookie season but let's not oversell it; he still has a lot of work to do to become a championship QB. The good news for Dolfans is that he is a worker; it's what makes me optimistic about him.



captkoi Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, RT's long ball is his weakness, but the
> opponents don't respect it? Miami had Wallace on
> the outside. You don't think the defenders had a
> deep safety on his side?

When you see Rex Ryan trusting Dee Milliner 1:1 with Wallace, you know he doesn't think Tannehill will make him pay for it. And he didn't. This is a look we saw more and more of as the season progressed. Early on? Not so much. But that safety over the top started to drift away more and more as the season wore on and Tannehill kept putting misses on tape. The way for Tannehill to change that is to start making opponents pay more consistently.

> Stills is now with Miami. The guy has speed.
> You don't think defenders will be wary of him?

Sure. Stills' game is not a secret by any means; DBs know what he can do. He's a good player but still a little raw. Up to now, I haven't seen the same level of respect for Stills as Wallace gets. The way that changes is for Stills to make plays. Again, let's SEE what the guy brings to the table in our system with Tannehill throwing to him (vs. Drew Brees).

cshashaty Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> JoeFootball Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Tannehill has improved every year. I see no
> reason
> > to believe he won't get better at deep passing.
> > Even if he doesn't, it's not going to define
> this
> > team. Improving the line, staying healthy and
> > fixing the run defense are much more crucial
> than
> > a small percentage of passes....of which
> Tannehill
> > completed 392... of which is an all time
> franchise
> > record.
>
> Tannehill had a good season, the sort of
> progression you want to see to validate the guy as
> our future. But he still has a lot of work to do.
> And yes, there's no reason to think he lacks the
> ability to improve his deep ball.

Ok...

Consistently
> missing on deep third TD balls is not acceptable
> and it probably would have been more had Lazor
> dialed them up more often.

I'm talking about the passes that actually happened. Not probably would have happened. You keep saying the same thing but it doesn't make it any more valid a point. You're just ignoring the stats and saying the same thing.

Don't you recall the
> criticism Philbin and Lazor took for the lack of
> deep passes? The variety of misses is more than
> just go and skinny post routes too.

What were they? How many were there? I showed you tracked numbers. You're giving me opinions based ???

Look,
> Tannehill has come a long way since his rookie
> season but let's not oversell it;

What am I overselling?

he still has a
> lot of work to do to become a championship QB.

I would say THE TEAM has a lot of work to do. Tannehill included. He is not, nor will he ever carry them on his back to a SB victory. If that's what you're waiting for, you are in for a major disappointment. He is just a large piece of the puzzle. We had a Qb that carried us for years and never became a "championship QB". So Dan technically, Dan Marino was never a championship QB either. Doesn't mean he wasn't good enough to win one. Its a team sport. No one proved that point more than Dan Marino.

The
> good news for Dolfans is that he is a worker; it's
> what makes me optimistic about him.
>
>
>
> captkoi Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Yes, RT's long ball is his weakness, but the
> > opponents don't respect it? Miami had Wallace
> on
> > the outside. You don't think the defenders had
> a
> > deep safety on his side?
>
> When you see Rex Ryan trusting Dee Milliner 1:1
> with Wallace, you know he doesn't think Tannehill
> will make him pay for it. And he didn't.

That's the scheme Rex uses. Man to man so the front 7 can blitz. That's why the media constantly talks about his need for elite shut down corners. We run a 3 WR base set with a RB and a H-back. That's 5 guys to cover. Rex runs a 3-4 and blitzes a lot. That means the corners have to play singled up, man to man most of the time.

Milliner is certainly not elite but he did have a few very good games two year ago. One was against Miami in 2013....he got the better of the match-up that day but Tannehill did make him pay for it on a TD to Wallace in that same game.

This is a
> look we saw more and more of as the season
> progressed. Early on? Not so much.

From who? Not from Milliner. He was gone long before we even played the Jets last year. Mike Wallace may have seen fewer safety help because Tannehill stopped throwing those deep passes as the season went on. We were also running the ball better so that brings a safety down as well.

But that safety
> over the top started to drift away more and more
> as the season wore on and Tannehill kept putting
> misses on tape.

More like they eventually stopped throwing those passes. You keep talking about all these passes but I have yet to see one ounce of proof. Yes there some. But "more and more" like it was a complete wash....is a complete wash.

The way for Tannehill to change
> that is to start making opponents pay more
> consistently.
>
> > Stills is now with Miami. The guy has speed.
> > You don't think defenders will be wary of him?
>
> Sure. Stills' game is not a secret by any means;
> DBs know what he can do. He's a good player but
> still a little raw. Up to now, I haven't seen the
> same level of respect for Stills as Wallace gets.

But I thought you said you had not judged Stills. How much have you actually watched him?

> The way that changes is for Stills to make plays.
> Again, let's SEE what the guy brings to the table
> in our system with Tannehill throwing to him (vs.
> Drew Brees).

That...I am anxious to see. Combine Stills and Landry and we now have the top WR duo in the NFL as far as catching the ball more times per target than any other team in the league. That's some good hands right there.

Stills was also the #3 or 4 option in NOLA in a crowded receiver field. He still managed to gain more yardage than Wallace. Now we just have to get him scoring points.

Maybe Tannehill won't ever get better at deep passing.Not likely but he doesn't really have to if the guys around him play better. I would rather see a complete team than depend on a QB to be a gunslinger. We can win with the short and intermediate passing game and a strong running game & good defense.

jsm08 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Maybe Tannehill won't ever get better at deep
> passing.Not likely but he doesn't really have to
> if the guys around him play better. I would rather
> see a complete team than depend on a QB to be a
> gunslinger. We can win with the short and
> intermediate passing game and a strong running
> game & good defense.
>
> I wouldn't. I'd rather have the gunslinger that
> makes everyone around him better and doesn't have
> to rely on the system to be flawless to succeed.
> That differentiates that great ones from the good
> ones imo.

And how many of those are out there? Why live in a dream? It's just silly. You would rather have a gun slinging QB with no talent around him? No running game? no defense?

Drew Brees was 7-9, Matt Ryan 6-10, Phillip Rivers 9-7, Tony Romo was 8-8 for a few years until they got more from the TEAM around him. No QB's play defense as far as I know. It takes a team no matter what.

Who said anything about relying on a system? I am talking about relying on an accumulation of talent. You rely on the talent coming together as a TEAM. Not one person. Single players go through slumps, get injured, etc. Then what?

That's all I'm saying. Those numbers are from 2012 BTW.

Tannehill had better success with the deep ball with Brian Hartline and WITHOUT Mike Wallace.....interesting.

Deep ball issues....over-exaggerated
Mike Wallace....over-rated

JoeFootball Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm talking about the passes that actually
> happened. Not probably would have happened. You
> keep saying the same thing but it doesn't make it
> any more valid a point. You're just ignoring the
> stats and saying the same thing.
>
> What were they? How many were there? I showed you
> tracked numbers. You're giving me opinions based
> ???

Joe, I know what I saw and I watched every game as I'm sure you did. Are you trying to tell us that Ryan Tannehill does not have a problem completing the deep ball?

cshashaty Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> JoeFootball Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I'm talking about the passes that actually
> > happened. Not probably would have happened. You
> > keep saying the same thing but it doesn't make
> it
> > any more valid a point. You're just ignoring
> the
> > stats and saying the same thing.
> >
> > What were they? How many were there? I showed
> you
> > tracked numbers. You're giving me opinions
> based
> > ???
>
> Joe, I know what I saw and I watched every game as
> I'm sure you did. Are you trying to tell us that
> Ryan Tannehill does not have a problem completing
> the deep ball?

No. I'm saying the percentage of those throws that can be blamed on Tannehill is highly over exaggerated and the numbers you estimated are not accurate.

JoeFootball Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No. I'm saying the percentage of those throws that
> can be blamed on Tannehill is highly over
> exaggerated and the numbers you estimated are not
> accurate.

I see.

From Salguero today via Twitter: "Last thing for stat hounds. I saw Mike Wallace running 3-5 yrds behind defense at least 16-18 times last 2 yrs. ONE ball was on mark, time"

(I believe I said 1-2 per game)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/30/2015 07:47AM by cshashaty.

When asked...What percentage of plays were the fault of Wallace and Tannehill?

Armando said 60-40 Tannehill. I would accept that.