Bret Bielema Says Talks To Coach Phins Broke Down In 2012 Because Of Russell Wilson

13 to 20 was a rough guess at what would be one standard deviation from their average in both directions. As it turns out that was an underestimate. They gave up 15.9 points on average in 2014, and the standard deviation was 9.1.

So, when you specify the range to be between 6 and 25 (roughly one standard deviation from 15.9 in both directions), which encompasses their typical defensive performance, the result is that teams surrendering that range of points win 48% of their games, over the 5,658 games in which that's occurred since 2004.

I chose 2004 because it's when the illegal contact rule was implemented, which changed passing offense and defense substantially in the NFL. If you restrict the analysis to 2014 only, then the result is a 48.6% win percentage for the same range of points surrendered, over 519 games.

So, surrendering the number of points Seattle surrendered most typically in 2014 doesn't even result, in itself, in a winning record, overall.

 

But if you have two distinctly different ways of developing each QB, how can you say this isnt the case? Now, if Miami approached 17's development the same way Carl Smith and Pete Carrol developed RW...ok, then I agree with you. But part of what makes RW so good IS his improvational skills behind the line of scrimmage. He wasnt developed to be forced to go through his reads ...like Tannehill was.

I guess to me, this renders the argument null from both view points. You really cant draw a conclusion either way.

 

Well..go back to your pre draft analysis of both QB's, because that is the point at which there was no influence from the NFL. I believe you had Tannehill rated higher then Russel Wilson, correct?

If thats the case, then knowing what we know now in how the two teams developed their QBs so completely different, how would you see Tannehill doing with Seattles offense?

 

No, not what anyone is saying. Saying that Wilson isn't as responsible for all the wins, or pointing out the obvious difference in how each quarterback was developed, is not the same as saying that they are as good, just on different teams. What has been said is that Tannehill, behind a defense that gave up only 15.8 points on average, would have 3-4 more wins, and been in the playoffs.

Both are good QBs. One has been in a better overall situation than the other. One had a coach who developed the strengths of his young QB, one had a coach who forced him to improve his weaknesses. Why this is being argued is beyond my mind. It has zero to do with individual accomplishments. I've been speaking about wins/playoffs for quite some time in this thread.

 

Personally,

I think this goes to show how Ryan Tannehill still has some upper level potential we may not yet have seen. He's been coached to stay in the pocket and go through his progressions. Well, what happens now if they take the chains off his play, and allow him the ability to do what Russel Wilson does?

I cant see how anyone could say that had Russel Wilson be developed as a pocket QB, he would put up the same numbers. Isnt it fair to say his height was a big reason why he would not have been developed this way?

 

If we are going to base our argument on all these hypotheticals why can't we we assume that Wilson overcame his coaches and Ryan has improved because of his coaches? Let's just assume away at everything while we are at it.

Joe Philbin has a much better resume in regards to QBs than Pete Carroll, so I should base an entire hypothetical argument on that.

 

Hahaha.

Wait..yeah, I'm still laughing. Sherman wasn't really all that good. The only saving grace to him is if he actually fell on his sword, and forced Tannehill to develop the way he did, knowing that it may cost him his job. Just because he had his college HC as his OC doesn't mean it was a good thing. And there is no way that you can look at the situation around Tannehill and say that he had anything "best." Terrible defense, terrible oline, bad receivers for most of his career, poor run game. Yeah, he had it made, since he had his college HC as his OC.

Fin, not a hypothetical that both QBs were developed very differently.

 

What are you talking about hypotheticals. I just posted an article where Carl Smith flat out says he did not develop RW to go through progressions and be a pocket QB..

 

Differently yes, but better? Who knows.

 

That's bs Fin, This debate has been going on a long time, not just this thread, and I don't engage if a poster says that russell Wilson is really good..the debate happens because there's always but's attached, or my personal favorite, he's overrated, or he wouldn't be the same qb he is if he were on another team, or he wouldn't of made us a better team if we were to of drafted him.

These are all the descriptions that I've heard said by most everyone in this thread that's debating the ones who think he is a great qb.

 

Are you going to see quicker results allowing a player to play to his strengths, or forcing a player to do things that aren't natural? Now, I don't recall it being said that either developmental path was better, just that one allowed more immediate success. Will it benefit Tannehill more in the long run, that he was forced to stand in that abortion of a pocket, and go through his progressions? It probably will benefit him much more in the long run than if he'd been allowed to just run around. Not just that, but it should benefit the team in the long run, too.

Not saying it's any better or worse as it relates to Wilson, just that based on the coaching styles, it should be no surprise that Tannehill struggled his first couple of seasons. Hopefully what we saw the majority of last season is what we continue to see from Tannehill, with, hopefully, better placement/trajectory on the deep ball.

 

Skill set and film. Watch Wilson play, he seems so comfortable, from the very first game in his first year. I watch Tannehill and I don't get that same feeling on the same level. You can't teach pocket awareness like Wilson has. He's in a category higher than Tannehill. And his first instinct isn't to run. He's not a cut and run type of guy. He'll extend the play not unlike Romo has been doing for years now.

I watch a lot of Wilson since he's my dynasty league QB and seeing him run backwards from a pass rush and then throwing a perfect ball hitting a WR in stride, it's a thing to behold (and something I wish Seattle allowed him to do more of ... 0 TD games kill me and he had a few of them last year).

 

Sarcasm right? I'm sure it is, but I'm just making sure. I forget if you're Team Wilson or Team Tannehill.

 

It's amazing how the perspective on Wilson can change when one perhaps has a personal investment in his success.

 

Do we know that's something he was forced to do?

 

Wilson should have been more comfortable, should he not? He was more experienced coming out of college. He was playing in an offense that allowed him to be natural, and do what came naturally. He played behind a defense allowing an average of 15.3 points per game.

Tannehill was not allowed to do what came naturally. How comfortable should he have looked?

 

Good coaching right there...bleep you mike Sherman and joe Philbin.

 

Tannehill is my other QB. I made an early bet on Eli Manning and he burned me (great fantasy QB, was, and then turned to crap for two years).

Gonna take a flyer on Bridgewater just in case (two years left in the league)

Fantasy wise I think Tanny was top 10. He's just more consistent points wise than Wilson who is feast or famine but ultimately scored more points.

EDIT: Checked the stats, Wilson was top 3 scoring in Fantasy. I wish it was more evenly spread out but what can I say, got him in the 17th round his rookie year due to this forum

 

How does saying that Wilson makes great individual plays change anything in regards to the defense giving him an 85% win rate when holding teams to an average of 15.8 points per game?

 

I like both, just funner to point out the flaws of the RT17 romantics.

 

And that's the most glaring variables in winning qb play imo and why I covet that skillset, and why I was so hard on Ryan and the the coaches...my bottom line was Ryan's particular skillset was underutilized by both he and his coordinator.


Such great information...from everyone involved..

 

How do we know what comes naturally to Ryan? I can tell you that from day one I have praised his intermediate accuracy, that's always been there.

 

Pretty clearly, he's a natural runner. Different runner than Wilson, but still a runner. But he's primarily a pocket QB, who happens to be able to run. Maybe I'm wrong, and running isn't natural...but how can you not have natural running skills, and be a wide receiver? I'm sure someone will bring up Hartline, but he's a pretty natural runner. Did track, and runs great routes.

 

Behind center of the Dolphins next year, all the players the same, who do you choose?

 

I

And this is the most frustrating critcal question that I have been asking and wondering for three years, and it will never be answered..

I hate even talking about it because my mind goes to mush.

 

I don't see the agility out of Tanny. He can be effective as a runner in a designed run play, but not an improvisational play. Analogy: Wilson is a shifty running back, Tannehill is like a one cut runner who can't make any moves to shake a defender. He's pretty good at that straight line run though.

 

Wilson hands down.

But he is maybe on of 7-8 guys I would take over RT. I think Ryan becomes a top 10 QB next year if not better, but RW is special.

 

Yeah, I agree. I've brought that point up before, when people expect Tannehill to run around like Wilson. He can't. He doesn't have the lateral agility. However, I think that on the move, Tannehill is able to make guys miss, but it's not the same way that Wilson does it. IF the Dolphins oline could form a pocket, a real actual pocket, then you could see Tannehill climb in the pocket and escape through the top like I see other QBs do all the time. That would give teams something to think about. Tannehill going out of the pocket for 10-15 yards would make teams think twice.

 

You misunderstood that post. The 85% win percentage is associated with the surrendering of 16 or fewer points, not with an average of 15.8 points surrendered.

If a team surrenders 16 points or fewer, it wins 85% of the time. That includes points surrendered from zero all the way on up to 16. That doesn't reflect an average of 16 surrendered, however.

The Seahawks in 2014 didn't hold every opponent to 16 points or fewer. They averaged 16 points surrendered.

The definitive information on your "Seahawks' defense" point is in post #760. What the Seahawks did most typically in 2014 in terms of points surrendered isn't even associated with a winning record in and of itself.

 

Escapability like Wilson comes in a form of a very specific type skillset..I don't believe their in the same ballpark..but you could run a few more read options a game, and damn it Ryan needs to learn when to take off when the defense gives him a lane, which is way more than a half of friggin rep per game, that's his fault, and has been talked about and rehashed a lot..he needs to recognize the ops...drives me nuts, those numbers that ck posted about his legs are pathetic.

 

Exactly... Amen and a thousand hail marys

 

True.. But if you are trained to go through your progressions.. Then you are trained to hang in there till the very last moment and take the hit as you get it off..

 

Definitely not in the same ballpark and it comes back to what I said earlier about pocket feel, awareness and flat out intuition. You can't teach it, and those who have it, have it early really early. Luck, Romo, Wilson and Big Ben are the ones I feel have it the most. Wilson was a slippery mofo on Sunday wasn't he. I think NE fans were dying at home watching them try and chase him.

Funny enough he got sacked more than Brady though I think. Brady knows how to avoid a sack but not in the same way (he gets rid of the damn ball within 2 seconds like clockwork)

 

Again, you're proving my point about perception.

Basically what you're doing is acting like anyone who doesn't automatically agree that Wilson is the unequaled second coming, into someone who thinks he is horrible.

Read this next part carefully.........

I believe if the QBs were swapped, and Tannehill benefitted from all the positives that Wilson had (namely a better team and a staff that let him improvise) he'd be doing similar things. I think if Wilson had been here with a worse team and forced to become a pocket QB he's be doing similar things to Tannehill. Again, Wilson scrambles better, Tannehill has the better arm, etc. If Wilson is a 96 than Tannehill is a 95.

You know I think Tannehill is the answer for us at QB, so, if I'm saying I think Wilson & Tannehill are similar levels...that obviously means I think highly of Wilson.

So saying I think that, IS NOT A SLIGHT OF WILSON, BUT IS ACTUALLY PRAISE.

The people being ridiculous, are the people in your camp, WADR. You guys are the ones that are overreacting and being homers (for Wilson). You guys are the ones that freaked out because people had the audacity to think Tannehill is overall as skilled as Wilson. You guys are the ones that took the argument out of control and to other places.

 

i agree, that's why I complain about a lack of read option keepers and his own ability to go thru a couple progressions and just take off and cut them, he can do those two things so let's get it out of him.

 

But...take a look at Tannehill playing QB in college. Look at his athleticism...

[video=youtube;csaLD29yYng]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csaLD29yYng[/video]

You can totally see how different he was coached by Sherman in Miami. Under Sherman, in Miami, did you see him using his legs nearly as much?

 

I agree some, but I also disagree. For one thing....its not just Russel Wilson being allowed to break the pocket more often, its the recievers are coached completely different as well. Our offense is a timing based rout running system. Everything has to be in synch...QB has to go through progressions, and WRs have to run very precise timing routes. Wilson's reciever's are coached completely differently. They expect Wilson to leave the pocket and are coached to make themselves available to him while he buys time behind the line of scrimmage.

We really are comparing apples and oranges here. Wilson has crazy lateral agility. Serious...he kind of reminds me of the how a QB with Barry Sanders agility would have. His lower body can do things, while his upper body stays pointed down field. Tannehill has a completely different kind of agility. And Brady has what amounts to an eternity behind his line compared to Tannehill.

 

Still trips me out everytime I see him play WR