This topic is all over the board and I thought it deserved it's own thread.. I've heard Seth's thoughts, Travis, and many others, myself I've been racking my brain since last year..and I think it's ultimately the most important question about our Qb and staff. I mean justify this stance.. You draft an athletic Qb, you then proceed to run a timing based offense predicated on passing exclusively from the pocket with very limited movement from that platform.. Please tell me the philosophy behind that? 1) Is it because when looking at the big picture of development, this is a necessary evil, it must be done this way systematically for the player to ultimately reach his overall potential, and most importantly his ceiling in the pocket, as in if you allow him to use his entire skillset from the beginning, the pocket talent would not evolve at the right pace. 2) Is it because the Staff identified that escapability was not Ryan's forte, he doesn't see it quick enough, and decided to design game plans that required him to stay in the pocket til the last fraction of second. 3) Their clueless?
How long have some of us been begging for a moving pocket, especially considering this oline...what happened yesterday?the biggest and best plays were when the design moved the pocket....no?... It all ties into my post above...was the lack of incorporating a moving pocket to both sides in a gameplan for the last 1 and a half seasons on purpose because that's how you have to develop a Qb to be his best from the pocket? or was it simply the wrong philosophy to take when you have a skillset that obviously can roll left or right with equal precision and grace?.. How can anyone justify not using these talents into a gameplan.??
Don't think a timing based offense inherently negates any type of athleticism from the QB. We actually saw yesterday the best game Tannehill has had from a pocket management standpoint. I think he did a good job there. In regards to moving the pocket, they probably should use it a little more, but it really can prevent big problems if you do it too often.
Think about the two plays that were designed to go left and right, the first one to Wallace was a thing of beauty. Then the opposite, Ryan moves left, rolls to the very last second and throws a freakin laser accurate dart to Clay who converts a huge first down, completely going against his body... I don't understand why we can't see these types of plays 6 to 8 times a game..I understand the whole cuts off half the field, well, not with this dudes dexterity and arm strength...these are his weapons, they need to be used..this is about getting the best out of what you have..and if it's not there, he can learn to run it..
I think it is a combination of things. I do think the staff wants him to develop his pocket skills and use his mobility only in an as needed situation, so they have discouraged him breaking out of the pocket. I also think he needs to get away from Mike Sherman. Sherman had him at Texas A&M, and it took Mike a while to even put him in the spread formations and shot gun at TAMU. The first half year that Ryan played, he was much more effective in the gun and with multiple receivers. It was when they put him under center in a conventional set that he seemingly strugged.
One thing I know is that NYJ has two to three more things to gameplan for than they did before Sunday - Tannehill breaking the pocket and running, the rollout deep pass to Wallace and even these shorter shuffle and swing passes to the RBs. We'll see how it plays out the rest of the year. One thing that struck me yesterday through all the Tannehill hysteria...is that he accounted for all but 16 of our yards. Is it just me that sees this as absolutely ridiculous? Tannehill is not at a point where he's good enough to cover for the deficiencies of players who have no business starting in the NFL.
I think in general, coaches get afraid that a quarterback whom has the ability and inclination to run early in their develop will rely too much on running rather than going through their progressions and will become predictable/stunted in their development, etc. I think it was Philbin who also made it sound like he really didn't like the half-field reads that come from the play action bootleg game. Which doesn't make a lot of sense to me because it jibes exactly with their run scheme and their $60 million dollar deep threat.
Not sure I follow your point here, are you saying that it's on Ryan to just break out of the plays timing?
Doesn't that just spit in the face of using your players talents to scheme an opponent.. So he would rather have the whole field as an option instead of exploiting the strengths of your Qb?
He was running it before, but he coughed up the ball a few times and the coaches probably held him back a little because they were afraid of a long trend. Other than that, it really is up to Tannehill to run it when he sees an opportunity. Coaches don't make those decisions for him. He makes those decisions on the field based on opportunities.
He's dealing with a short deck no doubt, he is improving individually, but I want to gameplan using the tools he does bring to the table..isn't that what's it's all about, gameplanning, isn't that what Belicek does, he uses his roster to do jobs that they do well in.. Are we sacrificing true gameplanning to protect a fear of our Qb facing limited options, when in reality, this Qb is so good on the move he just might make something happen regardless of those limited options.
Yes, he needs to do that within the context of the play though. Its essentially a dual mandate; making the play from the pocket is the priority; if necessary break out of it.
The problem is that defenders started picking up on it last year. IIRC, there were a lot of half-field reads where defenders came very close to picking balls off.
I think the coaching staff has finally realized that if we make the playoffs it will be because of Tannehill. We have no running game to speak of. We all should just step back and realize how truly pathetic our running game is and how it's killing this team's chances. We would run out the clock in some of these situations if we actually could. We wouldn't be the worst 1st down team in the league if we could actually run the ball. I think what we saw from Tannehill yesterday will be the template for the rest of the year. It's the only chance we have.
If I were a coach I would be wary to have a QB scramble unless he slides. Tannehill does not slide all the time. He went head first at least once or twice yesterday. That's nerve wracking to me. Take a look at how Vick plays, and how injure Vick is (often), and I'd be wary, too. I also think they may think he does not see it quick enough. I have nothing to base this off of. They could definitely be clueless. I do want him to scramble, though. I also believe that a QB eventually goes to become a pocket passer in their career. That said, Tannehill is young and I want him to make plays when he can.
Ok, then if it's up to him, and the coaches have not curbed that instinct, then Ryan needs to step up his game and do a better job using his own skills..but what if they have, what if they've sacrificed gameplanning and wins to try and turn an athletic Qb into a pocket one.?
i didn't see that stringer...there were times that Ryan would find himself near the sideline and throw it last second which were almost picked, but those plays were random, only a few, and from trying to escape..
If we look at this in these simple terms, to me it looks like Ryan struggles to know where that line is..
Tannehill last year had a habit of trying to force the ball to the receiver running a sidelines comeback with bad timing and a lot of players got their hands on the ball, but there was no interceptions. I don't think what happens warrants their unwillingness to use it, he should be coached to get the ball out or throw it away. I don't think he's done it but once this year, last week vs. the Chargers he didn't make the throw when Richard Marshall jumped the route on a familiar play. They shouldn't be constraining Tannehill's ability to get out of the pocket, both to advance it and to buy time. If he's got issues there, address them, because there's a huge upside if he's able to do that well. Don't dump the whole concept.
But now that it's installed in the offense...it'll be the norm going forward. I tell you though, I'm easier on this coaching staff than most because of the offensive line. I don't know how you run any scheme when your players are so limited that some shouldn't even be in the league.
Can someone help me interpret this.. One mans humble opinion?? Am I wrong to question this philosophy?
Wait, I need to break down that last paragraph, you say they shouldn't be restricting him at all, how would a staff go about constricting him to the pocket?, what is the teaching protocol there? You say if he's got issues" address them"..... How do you address a player having a hard time finding something that has to come instinctually when in theory you have trained him not to do so?
I think that can be argued both ways..taking advantage of aggressive rushers zeroing in on the pocket can be taken advantage of.
Next question please.. The first 30 mins of the game, both teams are at their Apex of hype and cardiac output, both team are on a level playing field, one teams seems to dominate that part of the game, then after a break, seems to not be able to match it again.. Ebb and flows of football??... Coaching.?? What is the general consent on what we did against the panthers, patriots and saints.?
Personally, I think that playcalling and offense strategy have little to do with Tannehill's abilities, athletic or otherwise. It's not Sherman's MO. He's of the "they think we think they think, therefore we think they think" school and has always been. This approach works with certain quarterbacks and offenses; I don't think it works with this offense and this quarterback. Comes halftime, we're done. Because Sherman never establishes any facet of the game.
I think the coaching staff has told Tannehill to stay in the pocket and keep his eyes down the field. Don't break from the play, try to hit Wallace on the late breaking read. There's been so many times he flat out doesn't take his eyes off the field and just covers the ball when rushers close in. I think it's clear that he's being coaches to do it because of how he seemingly just flips a switch situationally. I think that's a dumb idea. Tannehill does a good job of escaping the pocket, and displays good decision making when doing so. If there's some aspect of that they don't like, like his decision making throwing the ball when flushed out, then they need to work on that. Not bury it and try to get him to do something else.
I think what you are looking at brings up a philosophical discussion. What is the best way to develop a quarterback? There are really two avenues you can travel in quarterback development. First, you can simplify things for the quarterback and gradually increase what you want him to do. The overall philosophy behind this is that the quarterback needs to learn to manage the game before he learns to win the game, so to speak. The other school of thought is to throw as much at the quarterback as you can and let him sink or swim, because long term, this is the stuff you want him doing. In Miami's case, they have an offensive system that is predicated upon the quarterback making presnap coverage reads and based upon the pass concept, knowing who will be open based on the coverage he sees presnap. Then, you have the direct read of the defense once the ball is snapped to make sure they didn't disguise anything. You are also looking at an offense that wants to spread the field and send as many as 5 players into pass routes at anytime (most of the time 4), so at the most, you will have a 6 man protection and some 5 man protections. The quarterback has to be able to find where the pressure is coming from and know when to get rid of the ball, and where the pressure is coming from may also dictate where the pass would go on some occasions.
Yup!! I have seen that play too many time when he keeps looking for somethin then just cradles the ball..so we agree that that is probably engrained...do you feel that is right? Or do you feel that is the norm and qbs just have to find their own clock as to when to take off?
I really think Joe Philbin has a great vision for the offense, but he is really trying to fit a square peg into a round hole (right now). The way they are handling Tannehill (in my opinion) is to establish a pocket passer and have him read a defense before snap and then call the best play possible. The problem with that is Tannehill is not good at it yet and the other players on offense are not especially great at making the same pre-snap reads as Tannehill either. So the coaches are trying to mold their young QB into a prototypical QB because they realize that THE Wildcat or read-option based offense can only get you so far. I agree with them on that, but because of that they are putting a lot of pressure on Tannehill who will need time to adapt to this style. That would be fine with most teams who have patience, but this regime could possibly be in its last year in Miami if they don't make the playoffs. So Philbin and company need to make the decision of the long term good versus the short term good. It is obvious that Philbin has a vision for this offense, but he doesn't have all the pieces he needs to implement that vision yet and the fact that he won't help Tannehill out by letting him use one of his best abilities (throwing on the run and moving outside the pocket) may cost him his job. That's how I see it. I really wish Philbin would be less stubborn and do the things that fit the team he has NOW as opposed to doing the things his CURRENT team is not suited to do.
Jeff: I'm thinking of drafting Ryan tannehill joe: he's got talent and has wr knowledge sherm: he really doesn't fit my system, trust me I know... Jeff: but he knows your system and can start right away sherm: he isn't a franchise qb in this system joe: I'm leaning towards sherm on this one Jeff Jeff: we need a qb and no one else is on the board that is an instant starter, joe you can groom him to be a Arron Rogers type qb move around and wing it joe: it's worth a shot sherm: idc do what you want Jeff, I'm not changing my game plan joe: get behind this mike the kid has talent jeff: he's your guy mike sherm: I'm telling you it's gonna take a while but go ahead pull the trigger, and make sure to get us a te jeff: here's egnew joe: who sherm: lol
does it seem strange to you that they would do that in this particular system, a system that had brent farve and aaron Rodgers running it? or do you think there isn't enough movement in any scheme that outweighs training your qb to hang in the pocket, and the benefits that come with that? I think I understand training him from the pocket, but neglecting the entire skillset as you gameplan to further that training doesn't make much sense, I guess as much as I want to see him run a hell of a lot more bootleg action and read option, I think maybe becoming the best pocket qb and training him to recognize these reads, is the way to go, as long as they are trying to help identify that line of when to find his escape route, and he is fully focused on becoming better at it.. im trying so hard to find this dudes ceiling, and I think he has a lot of potential from the pocket,i just have a hard time dealing with the fact that he doesn't move swiftly enough for me to trust him under serious pressure..I was a little more encouraged from yesterday, im not sure someone literally spoke to him and let him loose from these restrictions because of the jv line in front of him, or he took it upon himself, but id like to see improvement in that specific area exponentially. im rambling here, my bad.
Watching the Redskins and 49ers tonight at the end of the game after RG3 got sacked 3 times in a row (like 5 min ago) I heard Jon Gruden talk about the stunt the 49ers used to contain RG3 all night then he said this, "You have to be able to stay in the pocket and throw the football in this league. Tonight RG3 was unable to do that". By the way did you hear his comment on changing coaches when Shanahans contract came up? He said something like this, "If you change the coach, be careful what you wish for. Just because you change a coach doesn't mean the players are built for his style of play. You are talking about a whole new system and possibly a major stunt in growth for your franchise". Anyway when I heard his comment I immediately thought of your question in this thread.
