He needs to go find every game tape of Aaron Rogers, and study every detail of his game. Study the footwork, the demeanor, the way he uses his eyes to move the secondary, and every other tidbit of his mastery of the position.

He can improve through emulation of the best in the business.

It couldn't hurt.

A better Oline wouldn't hurt ethier.

GO DOLPHINS!!!!

Agreed Peyton moves better in the pocket

On MNF Gruden spoke volumes about Rodgers movement and footwork and knowing almost instinctively where his receivers would be with a simple, often microsecond glance.

Watching a learning from the masters...nothing new, that's how journeymen learned their trade to hopefully become a master one day. Good skills can be learned but I suspect Rodgers has natural abilities that makes him so good.

you can't coach instincts.

alex smith panicked in the pocket. rogers sensed pressure or realized once his primary was covered he couldn't just stand there.

there's no problem with tucking it and running if your guy is covered. you can't expect the line to hold it's block for an eternity.

colonel Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>...and knowing almost instinctively
> where his receivers would be with a simple, often
> microsecond glance.

I'm just not sure that is 'coachable' or 'learnable'. It's jut one of those natural things like a running backs acceleration or a receivers judging the ball in flight that make great ones great. Tannehill is a smart guy, he's worked hard and corrected a lot of things (batted passes, footwork) but sensing the rush, seeing the field, all at NFL speed is just a gift IMO. To make matters worse, I think he is being coached AGAINST doing what DOES come natural...using his feet when he does sense things breaking down.

I think footwork is teachable/learnable.

I think looking off the secondary is teachable/learnable.

Problem is the one doing the coaching, or lack thereof.

I just can't believe Philbin came from a system that has always been so successful, and brought none of it with him.

We need schemes that allow him to get rid of the ball in 2 seconds or less. That's what makes Brady successful. If you hold the ball over 2 seconds behind a bad O-Line, you're just asking to get hurt.

Actually, Vic. I disagree on a minor point you were perhaps not even making. You mentioned Brady.

Brady and Tannehill are very much alike IN THE POCKET. They BOTH PANIC WHEN FEROCIOUSLY RUSHED!!!

The difference is that for some unknown stupid reason, defenses choose to PLAY COVERAGE against Brady.

Brady was rightfully drafted IN THE SIXTH ROUND because Big Ten defenses rushed him LIKE CRAZY! He couldn't stand up to it.

But give him time and he is the BEST IN HISTORY AT PICKING OUT THE RIGHT RECEIVER AND DELIVERING THE BALL THROUGH THE EYE OF A NEEDLE.

Tannehill does not even LOOK COMFORTABLE IN THE POCKET. LOOK AT HIS EYES...HE IS PANICKED ALMOST ANTICIPATING BEING KNOCKED DOWN.

NOW watch his swagger when he runs the option. Look at his confidence on the run. Look at his deadly swift and accurate throws.

Like I said, you can either give a duck a fishing pole and insist that he catch fist THAT WAY or simply leave him to catching fish the way God made him to.

Philbin chooses to force Tanny to use a fishing pole.

TreasurecoastPhinsfan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A better Oline wouldn't hurt ethier.


Exactly right!!!!!!!!!!!!


Therefore a better running game like the packers have woulnt hurt either.

Chren i understand where you are coming from but:


If we had a running game and good Oline, Tannehill would excell even if he was a pocket passer.

No running game, no play action pass....game over.


Defenses will tee off tannehill.

I meant to post this on one of the other threads about the overall state of the team, what lost this game, or the coaching but what you have to understand is that when the defense gives up yardage and play after play, that puts stress on OUR offense playing against a fresh defense.

But the opposite is also true. When our offense can't stay on the field for a considerable amount of time, our defense gets worn out.

Neither our offense nor our defense played well last week.

For the life of me I really don't know what he needs to do. I really don't know what he is capable of doing ! I know he has line problems, etc, etc.

I have watched him play for four years, or close to it. I just think the well is dry and I mean that with all due respect, but I just don't feel it for him. You can watch other QB's with other teams and you get a feel for them and what they are capable of doing and get a hang about how a game might come out. I just don't feel that special something as far as Tannehill is concerned. No offense to him, just how I feel, pure and simple.

davdoldew4 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For the life of me I really don't know what he
> needs to do. I really don't know what he is
> capable of doing ! I know he has line problems,
> etc, etc.
>
> I have watched him play for four years, or close
> to it. I just think the well is dry and I mean
> that with all due respect, but I just don't feel
> it for him. You can watch other QB's with other
> teams and you get a feel for them and what they
> are capable of doing and get a hang about how a
> game might come out. I just don't feel that
> special something as far as Tannehill is
> concerned. No offense to him, just how I feel,
> pure and simple.

******************************************************

davdold...RT is a good QB. He is not Marino by any stretch of the imagination. He is similar to Griese in that Bob needed (and had) a great team around him, on both sides of the ball, and he had one of the best coaches in the NFL. RT doesn't have that. He is playing well, but as has been said, both here and by the media, he, so far, has been unable to carry this team on his shoulders.

Look at RT's numbers since his rookie year. Improved every year, and although I can't remember exactly what, he surpassed Marino in a particular category. Give him a "decent" line that can hold off the opposing defense longer than one second, and he can hit his receivers. Have a "decent" OL and our RBs can get some positive yardage. Instead, RT is getting hammered and our RBs are getting hit before they even get to the line of scrimmage. RT can't do a damn thing about that. Some posters here have said to just get rid of the ball QUICK ala Tom Brady. Easier said than done. Brady has a better OL in front of him. He also has a "decent" running game.

RT is a good QB, one that can be THE GUY. He is Miami's QB. How many Marino's, Rodgers' are out there? If that guy happens to be there when the Fins pick, then hell yeah, grab him, but until that time, our FO needs to strengthen the team's weak areas and the coaches need to put these guys into positions where they can PLAY like they are capable of.

Sure, if Tannehill had the 93 Cowboys Oline, the 85 Bears Defense and the 72 Dolphins running attack he might look like a good NFL QB. But those teams are even rarer than a Marino or Rodgers. AND, in this day of salary caps and millionaire free agents, they tend to be difficult to assemble and impossible to keep together. A great QB on the other hand can make a franchise competitive for a decade...or more.

So his stats have improved every year...so have Lamar Millers. Tannehill had a 1000 yard rusher in Miller last year. What difference did it make? We still complain Tannehill can't succede because of no running game. We draft Pouncey, James, Pay Albert still we claim there is no talent on OLine and THATS why Tannehill can't succeed. ad nasuem

Saying he has better stats than this one or that one from years ago is comparing apples to oranges. The rules and therefore the philosophy of the game are different. Marino was the first QB to throw for 5000 yards. It took 24 YEARS for someone else to. But in the last 5 years 6 guys have done it. It's a passing game, you need a top tier QB to be relevant, let alone successful as a franchise.

A top NFL QB doesn't have to carry the team, but he does have to make a difference(even on a poor team). Tannehill has started every game for the last 4 years, neither our record nor our position has improved in any meaningful way(and this year looks like it may be getting worse). Tannehill has made no difference in competitiveness or the success of the team.

If we could give the defense SOMETHING to worry about except the slant pass, I bet it would be surprising how much better the running game would get. and how much the rush would slow down.

Like davdoldew4 I just think we've seen all we're gonna get in the current scheme and I don't 'feel it'. You can tell watching an offense when the QB is in control...the team 'feels it' and you can see that in their demeanor and play.

IMO there is only one thing left to do, let the guy scramble and take him out of the tedious WCO, get rid of the overly complicated zone blocking and lets see what they can do. Just line up and play. If it works maybe everybody believes in him again, and he gains confidence. If it doesn't at least we know.

RT could come out in London and have a great game, lord knows he needs one and so do the fans. That being said, you have to know that in a game a lot of factors control the outcome and sometimes no one player can be held to be totally accountable for a loss or win. Bring in the QB and he has to recognize if something is not working and go another route to something that will work. No defense can be totally prepared for everything so it has to be the QB's job to see or work on another teams weakness. I just happen to sense a weakness in Tannehill in that respect.

Lord knows there are a lot better football minds on this site then myself and at times the posters here give me heart and hope. I sincerely respect all posters on this site and I respect their opinions even if they differ from my own.

Go Phins !!