I'm out on Tannehill

And I think most have a REALLY hard time putting that on Tannehill. For some reason, you don't. I respect what you say, DJ, I just don't think you're being very objective here. Tannehill is not the reason we're not in the playoffs. Lamar Miller is not the reason we are not in the playoffs.

 

Take him back to the good ole days of Ray Lucas and AJ Feely. Those days of yore when having a QB with even a .500 TD/INT ratio was a pipe dream.

 

Tanny should have done a better job getting a rush on Geno, who looked like Brady on Sunday.

 

I dont know whats going on in this thread. I've been so pissed about the last game, Ross keeping Philbin and the Cluster F+%^ with Wallace I haven't had it in me to bring up the forum.
What I do know is that Tannehill is the best QB this pathetic franchise has seen in 15 years, is tough as nails and has improved every single year he's been in the league. The best part is he is still improving, his needle is still pointed up. 4045 yards, 27 TD's against 12 Picks, 66.4 completion percentage and a 92.8 QB rating. All playing behind an oline that after Albert went down was just as bad as last years epically bad one. Yes they gave up sacks at exactly the same rate as last year (think the number was every 4.6 pass attempts) after Albert went down.

If that oline isn't enough how about our "vaunted defense" that made some of those horrible Tom Olivadotti D's look like the '85 Bears. You don't need to know ANYTHING else about that D except for One thing, They gave the ONLY perfect QB rating in the NFL this year to one of the worst QB's in the league. Smith looked like the second coming of Joe Montana out there on Sunday and it was sickening.

You can blame it on injuries. You can blame it on coaching, but you CANNOT blame this on Ryan Tannehill.

 

I have this obligatory tweet every week where I say that we judge Tannehill not on his own merits, but how he's able to overcome the shortcomings of his teammates and coaches.

"The defense gave up 37 to Geno Smith?! Godammit why didn't Tannehill put up 40!"

"Sturgis missed a 53 yarder? ****ing Tannehill. Why didn't he score a TD on that drive."

"Philbin deciding not to go for it on TWO 4th and 1's? CMON RYAN WHAT IS YOUR DEAL?!

 

Son?? I was watching and playing football while you were, as an earlier poster put it, "swimming in your dad's scrotum".


Just because you went to the game and saw it with your eyes we are to believe that you know what you are looking at? Because I watched every game this year, with my eyes. But I don't claim to be an expert. I saw what everybody but you and a select few saw. That Tannehill was elite when given time, and even when the line failed, which was early and often, he still made plays. The defense directly cost us 3 wins. So with those 3 wins he led us to an 11-5 record. Which I will take with a 3rd year QB. This is what I saw with my eyes.

Say I went to a ballet and watched it with my eyes, it doesn't mean I know everything about the ballet.

So if I am to give any credence to your opinion, what is your background? Coaching? Playing? Scouting?

Or Madden?

 

This is my last post on this thread.

DJ, you are entitled to your opinion, that's for sure.

And so am I.

And my opinion is your opinion is crazy and unfounded.

I'm done.

Happy New Year!

 

Just because Ryan didn't keep the ball doesn't mean it wasn't a read option. I'm having trouble connecting some of your statements with what a read option is. Tannehill keeping it is only effective if he has an open path to the second level. He is by far the worst runner of all the options. You seem to be advocating for him to run for the sake of running.

 

Oh, and Fin-O, I am not reading your posts, but....

GO BUCKEYES!!!

 

Roll Damn Tide.

 

I agree with you that is has those, but I dont think Ryan works through them either because he does not have that ability or he doesnt have the time, perhaps a little of both.

 

It could also mean Luck understands how important it is to win those games and thus steps his game up to do so.

 

Yeah, Luck just plays to a 20 point higher QB rating in the division than out because the games are more important. If that were true, I'd be more upset that Luck wasn't playing his best every game, but was playing lazy outside the division.

 

It could also be that the teams in Lucks division, specifically Jacksonville and Tennessee are two of the three worst in football and the other, Houston had a lot of injuries, no QB, and a back 7 that was somewhat limited. Play 6 games against that group and the worst you should do is 5-1 and the 1 better be against Houston.

 

This

 

let us play 4 games a year against the jags and titans...

 

IMO Wilson is a little better at this point but Tannehill has a higher ceiling. And the difference between them now isn't so great that the team successes would have been any different if the drafts had been reversed. Tannehill would have been more protected and in a more suitable system. Seattle still wins the SB. In Miami, we still miss the playoffs. Wilson is a very good player, but he generally isn't required to make a ton of plays for his team to win. When his defense has fallen down he hasn't been able to score a ton of points to carry the team. Basically we'd be reading this same thread about Wilson right now with different complainers. They both produced similar yards and TDs and TOs. When their teams need the QB to convert 3rd and 7-9 yards they both succeed about 42% of the time. On 3rd and 10+ Wilson succeeded 9 times this year while Tannehill succeeded 6 times. Wilson isn't as accurate overall, but he's better at knowing when to run. He does a better job of running for 5 yards rather than trying a risky pass in a small window. That's largely an experience thing. Tannehill will never be as nifty a runner as Wilson, but he can be as nifty as Rogers once his experience grows. And it is a function of experience. Rogers was still considered "mechanical" in his third season. Tannehill may or may not ever reach Roger's level (best in the league), but he's already playing at a top 10 level (since the install) and a top 5 level when he's had even decent protection. To be "out on Tannehill" after a season like this strikes me as one of the most irrational and ridiculous positions someone could take. I expect this thread to become a future running joke along the lines of "Zach Thomas to safety".

 

The difference with Wilson in that area is that on passing downs (2nd and 11+ yards, and 3rd and 6+ yards), he had 25 rushes for 235 yards, 9.4 yards per carry. 10 of those rushes resulted in first downs, and he fumbled on none of them. Tannehill on the other hand had 7 such rushes for 44 yards (6.3 YPC), and only two of those rushes resulted in first downs.

So in essence Wilson, while being relatively similar to Tannehill in the passing game overall, adds an extra dimension to his team's offense with his running ability. On top of that, Wilson threw the ball downfield (20+ yards in the air) 52 times for 733 yards (a 14.1 downfield YPA), while Tannehill on the other hand threw the ball downfield 53 times for 478 yards (a 9.0 YPA, among the worst in the league in that area). This is largely why Wilson's overall YPA on the year was 7.7, while Tannehill's was a much lower 6.9.

So to characterize Wilson and Tannehill as largely interchangeable is a good bit off-base in my opinion. Wilson is clearly adding two important and impactful dimensions to his team's offense that Tannehill is not, and this is reflected in statistics that are strongly related to winning (YPA), and the conversion of first downs to sustain drives.

 

i don´t know if these stats are available, but i would like to know the difference between these 2 in terms of pressure up the middle

 

And so would I, but in the absence of that information, I don't think we can attribute anything to it with any certainty. What we do know is that Wilson was pressured 46% of the time in 2014, and Tannehill was pressured 38% of the time.

 

I guess it depends on results you're looking at. Team wins =/= Tannehill's development. There are many reasons why we didn't win, but to say that Tannehill didn't produce better, with an improved run game, isn't accurate.

 

I don't agree. You don't know what is going on behind the scene. Our QB did get beat up while not having a playoff spot to contend with. This new offense has required many changes this year which he accomplished. In that his an unique ability to adjust quickly to different situations that the highest level of competition. The also has tremendous skill set as our QB, he's smart, athletic, strong, fast and a good leader. He is still young enough to improve his ability to read and react to different D's and when that improves look out. He needs to trust his teammates so if the O line get updated (OG), good power back added and a number one WR added to replace Wallace I think would solve his problems.

 

Not sure why people dispute this so vehemently. This is a pretty obvious point to me.

 

And you could say something similar about each of the QBs that play for the teams I listed in "TIER 2" earlier in the thread -- if they get X, Y, and Z around their quarterback, their team will be much more competitive.

But that's essentially what I hear the original poster saying as well, that he's resigned himself to Tannehill's needing that sort of uncommon level of surrounding talent, rather than his being or developing into the kind of QB who can make his team competitive for a Super Bowl with only a more average level of surrounding talent.

It really sounds like lots of people here are saying the same thing, but since they aren't understanding it within the context of a larger framework (such as the "TIER" system I outlined earlier), they believe they're actually disagreeing with each other when in reality they aren't.

 

Tannephins, when Tannehill has common talent around him, then we can talk about whether or not he needs uncommon talent. This far, he hasn't had common talent.

 

That's what was said after his rookie season, as well. Since then the team has gotten Wallace, Albert, and James, and Charles Clay has developed. So has Tannehill's improvement since then been attributable to those additions, his own individual development, or both?

 

I totally agree. I understand the fact that he hasn't had alot of experience at the qb position period but he isnt delivering the level of play needed to get to the playoff let alone the super bowl. Im not down with just getting rid of him but bringing in a potential starter to compete is a must.

 

Sorry your eval here is as bad as your eval on Manziel. You're infatuated with the running QB and overestimate it's value. Wilson is world's better than Manziel will ever be b/c of how good of a passer he is. In the end attacking from the pocket is still the QB's #1 job. The run side of it is just that extra 10%. Tannehill is one of the most accurate passers in the game and that (along with his toughness) is what will make him elite. For that extra 10% he has more than enough athleticism, but it's always going to be the less important part.

 

Thank you!!!!!