We are on the same page, we usually are lol. The big diff this year is that we can actually beat people w the things we do well. Take Hartline for instance, he can eat well on the short to intermediate routes but he can't beat anyone with them and when defenses decide to take him away they typically succeed in doing it. Parker otoh has the potential to turn those 8-10 yard completions into big gains and he won't disappear in the red zone. Miller can hit most teams for 12-15 carries and 55-65 yards but again that's not enough to be decisive, with a second back we can go to 25-30 carries for 120-150 yards and really put defenses in a bind.
I think deej would agree that it is not JUST about the read option. It's about the ability to sense the pressure, quickly process things and when there is nothing there, tuck it and run. It's also about the circular type of movements within the pocket. I am not against Tanne. I like him a lot. He's been improving every year and I hope he continues to do so. He has had bad oline play, but just about every QB has areas where he can improve. This is just one.
pretty much..its about what he could do to improve his game and his teams ability/chances to win the game...and I believe thats the single most obvious component to his game thats completely being neglected by his coach and himself..it would help the passing game if he could learn the skill.
Matt Stafford throwing for 5k had less to do with Megatron as it did him throwing the ball nearly 700 times. Nobody should want their QB passing the ball at that rate because it normally means you are rarely ahead in the game.
There are facts to consider before you try and play off Matthew Stafford like he's nothing. I'm not a huge Stafford fan, but I am certainly a man who's willing to admit an accomplishment when I see one. Many comparisons can be made between Stafford and Tannehill. The two QBs have put up very similar numbers over the last two years. Here are some averages of the 2013 and 2014 seasons: Stafford: 4,454 yards per season, 26 TDs, 16 INTs, 59.4% completions (734 for 1236) Tannehill: 3,979 yards per season, 26 TDs, 15 INTs, 63.4% completions (747 for 1178) One guy takes a little less risk and has a higher completion percentage, the other takes a little more and has a higher yardage total. Both have very similar TD and INT numbers and the attempts aren't dramatically different. Now, one should consider that Stafford played only 10 games his rookie year and only 3 his sophomore season. Going into his 3rd year, he was labeled "injury-prone" and only had 13 starts to his name. I think it's interesting that Stafford was able to come back in his 3rd year and pass for 5,038 yards on 663 attempts (63.5%). That's amazing for several reasons: (1) 5k is not a number we're used to seeing, (2) his 63.5% completion percentage shows he was accurate with the football and not just slinging it around the lot, and (3) his 663 attempts showed that the coaches trusted him to run the offense and lead the team. That's not the whole story either. That same year, Stafford produced a whopping 41 TDs with only 16 INTs. That's a turnover every 314 yards. Now, that's one hell of a feat if you consider he was still a "young" QB learning how to play. Keep in mind Stafford had 2 years and 13 starts going into that great year. If we look at Tannehill's best year (2014), he had 2 seasons under his belt and 32 starts (to Stafford's 13). We see in 2014 Tannehill bettered the INT total with 12 and he managed to average 337 yards between INTs which is great. He also had a 66.4 completion percentage but his low YPA offset that and resulted in a relatively low yardage total of 4,045...which isn't bad but really suffered because of the lack of big plays throughout the year which could've pushed that total up to a more impressive 4,500 yards. If we average out what Stafford has done since his monumental 2011 season, we see that he's averaged 4,625 yards per season, a 59.6% completion percentage, 24 TDs and 16 INTs. Those pretty respectable numbers. Given Tannehill's 2014 season, I think it's reasonable to expect something like that...maybe a few more TDs and a completion percentage that's higher by 1-2% The whole point of this is to show that (1) Stafford has done things that Tannehill hasn't with just as much inexperience and (2) that at this point, it's fair to say that Stafford has been able to sustain similar numbers to those that we might consider Tannehill's high water mark. The basic question I guess I would ask people is this...if you don't consider yourself a fan of Matthew Stafford, how can you be a fan of Ryan Tannehill? I continuously see Miami fans knocking Stafford as though it helps their cause and it's just the opposite. Maybe it makes them feel better about their guy, but from an outside perspective, the two QBs are strikingly similar. It would make a lot more sense if Miami fans left their ego at home and started using Stafford as evidence that Tannehill-esque QB'ing can lead a team to (1) a Play-off appearance, (2) being competitive in a tough division with at least 1 elite QB and (3) a long-term answer at the QB position.
On a slightly different note, I will say this. I'm a Miami fan, but I not a hater. I'm not going to be caught taking out my personal QB frustrations on the rest of the league. Miami fans have gotten so bitter and jaded about QBs that their analysis of the rest of the league is overwhelmingly negative. Miami fans just love to tell you how everyone else's QB is over-rated and not actually very good. I'm sorry to say this, but that kind of mentality just makes those individual fans look horrible. Here's a standard example... DJ recognizes that Flacco looked impressive in his Play-off performances and in his eventual Super Bowl win. He comments on how Flacco has the tools for Play-off success and he's slammed by Miami fans who rush in to say "Joe Flacco sucks." I've just shown how similar Stafford and Tannehill are statistically but I'm sure I'm going to get slammed by someone who's going to come in and try and prove that "Stafford sucks." Some of us younger fans are just sick of this ridiculously jaded, overwhelmingly negative and cynical take on the world that exists amongst the Dolphins fan-base which isn't doing anyone any good. Look, I know the fans are upset about the last 15 years but that doesn't mean you should go out and try to slam every other team's QB. It's ridiculous when I hear pissed of Miami fans who haven't had a decent QB in 15 years, talk as though Tom Brady--maybe the most successful QB in history--is nothing. Talk about sounding jealous!! This is why I say with confidence that it's not that big of a deal that Ryan Tannehill is not ever going to be a top-10 QB. That's not a knock on Tannehill. It's simply a view which recognizes there are already 9 really successful QBs in the league and the likelihood that Tannehill is better than all the rest is not overwhelming.
Good post...I will be very happy if Tannehill can play like Bob Griese...He will never be Marino, nor will he ever carry himself like Marino...Nothing bothered or worried Dan..Ryan will never be Dan..everyone has to realize that at some point..ask Peyton who he thinks the best QB ever was and he will tell you Marino. But, we can easily get to, and win a Super Bowl with Ryan..and I agree with Deej that Ryan's legs give us another weapon. When I watched the Dolphins and Griese..everyone always had the faith that Bob would lead us to victory and he usually did that..Ryan is much more talented Physically than Bob and he is tougher..I want to see him grow between the ears and just have that fire in his eyes intensity.
Just to analyze the sacks, let's consider their careers: Stafford: 1 sack per 19.2 dropbacks (161 in 3,099 attempts). He throws the ball 40.2 times per game so that's roughly 2.1 sacks per game. Tannehill: 1 sack per 12 dropbacks (139 in 1662 attempts). He throws the ball 34.6 times per game so that's roughly 2.9 sacks per game. So, there is a clear differential here in sacks. Tannehill is taking more sacks on fewer dropbacks and on the whole the average is almost 1 sack per game. Is that the O-line? Is that Tannehill? What would happen if we switch the QBs around? Would Tannehill have fewer sacks in Detroit than Stafford in Miami? That's up for analysis but it involves a lot of assumptions and a great deal of uncertainty which has to be quantified in some form. I really haven't seen any sort of (extensive) numerical analysis on the subject which goes much beyond the everyday speculation that runs rampant in forums. For those counting, Detroit has had about 3210 offensive plays in the last 3 seasons and Miami has had about 3016. Miami is roughly 44% run and 56% pass. Detroit is about 38% run and 62% pass. The difference there is striking, huh? Clearly, the Lions have the more aggressive offense. Could it be that defenses simply aren't as afraid of the pass when they face Miami? Maybe that's an answer as to why Tannehill takes all these sacks. Miami runs the ball a lot and tends to prefer short passes. If that's the case (which we know it is) opposing teams would be more likely to rush Tannehill with less hesitation. You combine that with Tannehill's lack of running and the O-line's instability and there's little wonder why the QB in Miami is taking all these sacks. One way to minimize the pressure on the QB is to be more aggressive in the play-calling. While that's counter-intuitive, it's really the only way that Tannehill's numbers are going to go up and that the offense is going to rid itself of this issue. I've said this over and over...Miami has to start taking more risk. It is not alright for Miami to keep playing the way they did last year. That is not going to work in the long run. Even the success that it garnered last year will eventually diminish. Miami's offense must prove that it can do the more difficult things. To this point, they've largely avoided doing those things and that's why this year they're going to have to step forward. So, to PH's point, yes I am excited to see what happens, but I also understand that the expectations and challenges are of a higher order this time and that success is not guaranteed.
There's also some debate that we could have about which team's method of QB develop has been better given the similarity in the overall numbers. Stafford was given the green light from the get go with lot of drop-backs and he learned how to play the game with a lot of freedom. For that reason, I think he's become more comfortable being "the guy" in crunch time. The team put the ball in his hands from day-1 and he's been able play well enough that they've been a decent team under his tenure. In Miami on the other hand--and this speaks perfectly to how Philbin operates--things have been more scripted and certainly more conservative. Tannehill has been handed a little bit more each year and thus he's always been dogged for being 'not quite good enough' or 'not quite doing everything' but at the same time he's always been able to show some degree of progress. My worry is that after 3 years of NFL experience can you continue to show real progress? At what point are you trying to teach an old dog new tricks? This is Tannehill's 4th year and we're still asking for the kinds of things most QBs are able to show they can do within a 1-2 year time period. In the Philbin debates, Tannephins analysis showed how most of the long-tenured HCs currently in the league had at least 1 exceptional season within their first 3 years. It's really not any different with QBs. You look at virtually any "top-10" QB in the league right now and that player was able to show some sort of shockingly-impressive ability within their first couple seasons, whether that involved pure passing, scrambling, clutch performances in big games, etc. So the paramount question is this...did Miami miss the boat by not giving Tannehill more freedom? That uncertainty is all the more reason that it's become imperative they do it this year.
And so Stafford had an edge coming out, as many successful QBs do. Then again, that's not a knock...that's a benefit! It might be part of the explanation but it's of no practical use as an excuse. A lack of early experience is not going to extend Ryan Tannehill's career. We can't add those years back in so if he's got to learn on the job it's going to cost him part of his career. So if Stafford is going to have a 7-8 year window in which a team can be assembled around him that wins a Super Bowl, maybe Ryan Tannehill will only have a 5-6 year window in which Miami can assemble the right cast. That only makes it more imperative that he learn quickly...and again, at what point does an NFL QB stop getting measurably better? Where does expectation give way to mere hope? Maybe somewhere around the 4th or 5th year I'd imagine?
Yes, let's just throw stats out about Stafford, but ignore that he's throwing to Calvin Johnson, as if that little fact had zero to do with Stafford's numbers.
I wasn't knocking Stafford as much as I was dismissing the idea that passing yards these days arent overinflated and lost some of its importance if you ask me. To this point Stafford is a better QB than Ryan, but I don't think I will feel that way this time next season. I think RT moves into the top 6-8 range.
Good game to watch. Detroit had one chance to hit a big play, the post to Megatron, and they hit it. Miami had Wallace wide open on a post and Tannehill threw the ball out in Lansing somewhere. The other key was Miller was banged up and couldn't so much of anything, the offense was one dimensional and their DL teed off most of the day. Then Albert went down... On the whole teams with good DLs/pass rush gave us problems all year, teams that didn't found themselves in a lot of trouble.
Tannehill may never be elite but as of now the offense appears to have the tools to overcome any deficiencies he may have. RT can play his game and rely on his teammates in a way he never could before. He won't need to channel Russell Wilson or be a pocket magician like Luck in order for his offense to be devastatingly effective, especially vs lesser defenses.
Oh, yeah. I'm with you 100%. Of course yardage is inflated these days. We don't even need to say that. You and I understand that good and well. The impressive thing is that the kid came out and did that (5000 yards, 41 TDs, 16 INTs) in his 3rd year with less than 16 starts under his belt all while sustaining a 63% completion percentage. That's Andrew Luck kind of stuff. We both would be sitting here anointing RT17 a top-3 QB if he had done that. Maybe you're right that RT17 does crack the top-10 but it's going to take clutch performances and he hasn't had any of those yet, let alone in the Play-offs. You might also be asking too much of the kid if you're expectations don't involve him eventually plateau-ing. I could see him taking another step towards improvement in his 4th year, but I don't see him completely changing his game. He's always going to be someone who has detractors. If Eli, Flacco and Roethlisberger can have detractors, then guys like Stafford and Tannehill are going to plenty of them.
I HATE the way QBs are singularly graded on team success. No one ever says Joe Thomas or Adrian Peterson or Cam Wake are good but they're teams never won anything. If Romo, Rivers, Ryan, traded teams with Flacco, Eli, Ben, they'd be wearing rings. If any fan base is ever going to understand that it'd have to be the one that watched Dan Marino struggle to sniff an AFCCG for 17 years while McMahon, Williams, Rypien, Simms, Hostetler, Johnson, and Dilfer lifted the Lombardi.
Well...at some point RT17 is going to have to be the guy who makes a play. You really can't get around that. You certainly can't hide a QB. Wilson, Roethlisberger, Flacco, Eli...none of them are perfect QBs but they had the ability to step up when they had to make a play. RT17 hasn't really done that yet. Here are the highlights of Miami facing Detroit. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgFHQxgnDR8 Take note of the fact that Miami's defense played their hearts out. But Detroit was still able to capitalize (as you pointed out) with a few crucial plays here and there that really were the game. Detroit didn't play their best but they still won. Maybe with Suh switching teams, we have the edge but we're not going to face the Lions 16 times. Even if Miami makes the Play-offs, they're going to have to operate against the best AFC teams out there. Note that Stafford had an INT when Grimes made the defensive play of the year. That wasn't really on Stafford. Most CBs couldn't deflect the ball, let alone make that INT. Tannehill's INT on the other hand, is on no one but himself. That was a bad throw to a guy who was well-covered. Also note that Charles Clay was a chump and couldn't secure that ball in the endzone when Tannehill did a good job getting him the ball. Glad Clay's gone to be honest. Finally, Stafford's play at the end is very much like what people are talking about Tannehill not being able to do. The irony is kind of funny there. Stafford can do that consistently where as Tannehill rarely does without there being some little hitch. He did something similar to get Clay the ball, but again, slightly better placement (away from the defender) and the LB doesn't swat it away from Clay.
Well, we're having a conversation specifically about the QB...and we're talking about a window that includes approximately 2015-2025. I would hope that we can get your input but if you don't want to talk about that topic, you don't have to. If you want to talk about the DE end position and specify a certain window we can have that conversation, too. You might argue that Tannehill and this offense will be totally adequate to get this team over the hump and that now the focus needs to be turned to the LBs and DBs and in the long-term, to the DEs. I wouldn't really disagree with that. I would say that over the next couple seasons Miami needs to acquire someone to replace Wake but that's an entirely different topic than what we're actually discussing here...which is the QB. 5-6 years ago Philip Rivers was killing it and getting tons of credit. He was a valuable fantasy QB! The fact he could go 13-3 with a dominant rushing attack (Tomlinson), a host of good WRs and the best TE in the game at that point and lose at home in the Play-offs does hurt his record. Now Rivers' arm sucks and his window has closed. That team is bad. Miami beat that team 37-0 last year. Whatever mojo used to exist in San Diego, it's gone now. They certainly had a chance but that team didn't get it done and yes, some of the blame will land on Rivers for that. I don't really blame the losers (Rivers, Kaepernick, Romo, etc) for what they didn't do but I will certainly give praise to the guys who get the job done (Flacco, Eli, Roethlisberger, etc). Tannehill is going to have a similar window. Will he be good enough to win a Super Bowl during that window? That's the question we're debating and it absolutely matters what you do in those crucial moments. Maybe it does come down to 3-4 plays during the course of a 4-game Play-off run, but you know what? Sometimes your success rests on that. It's absolutely a chaotic system in that regard. A butterfly flaps his wings and Brady is a hero with his 4th ring and Wilson is forgotten as the guy who lost. That's why I tend to think that you should be happy if your team makes the Play-offs. If you only count Super Bowl victories, most people will have zero. I would be totally happy if Tannehill could routinely make the Play-offs. The Dolphins don't have to win the Super Bowl for me to be happy. As long as they have a reasonable shot, everyone here will be happy. The question is...is Tannehill good enough to have a "reasonable" shot? Certainly everyone has a shot...even Shuan Hill has a shot. It's the little stuff that makes the difference. Flacco and Roethlisberger did plenty to earn their rings. Maybe Rivers "deserves" one but life isn't fair. Can Tannehill and the Dolphins over-take NE? Can they get past Luck and the Colts when they have to travel to Indy for the AFCCG in 2018? Who knows? At some point it will come down to a few plays and some of those are the QB. It's THOSE plays that we're talking about. We could be having the exact same conversation about anyone but there's only one QB while there's 7-8 WRs who are going to contribute throughout the year. It's very easy to see why QB is so important. Football is not a game that values every position the same. QB is far and away the most important piece given the current rules. I would take Andrew Luck and Dion Jordan over Ryan Tannehill and Cameron Wake. Seriously...if you have a QB like Luck you can start from nothing and be in the Super Bowl in 2-3 years. We're sitting here asking whether Tannehill's deficiencies are the kinds of things that stop guys from winning enough to get home-field advantage or if his short-comings are the types of things that will keep Miami out of the AFCCG or the Super Bowl. Those are the most important questions. You can't sweep that stuff under the rug by changing the conversation.
So, which is it, Tannehill did a good job getting Clay the ball in the endzone and Clay is a chump for not securing it, or Tannehill had poor ball placement allowing the linebacker to swat it?
A critical third down conversion by the qb running for the first down is one of those few plays in the game that can win the game.
That's the disconnect, you can get the QB all the weapons one needs, the Qb is gonna have to make his own plays in crucial situations, and a lot of the times those moments are anticipation of pressure related where the qb has to move and reset his platform, or have the wherewithall to run for positive yardage.
For example on NFL replay Stafford just side stepped pressure and threw a great pass to Calvin. We need more of that.
Anyone else watching this? Rather its Tanny or Lazor...every play is a slant, screen or quick hitch. Dink-dunk Dink-dunk. Cant do that bs this year.
...and there's 3 points Miami gets that 100% should've been an INT by the Lions. Horrible decision by Tannehill under pressure on 3rd down. Way late over the middle in the red zone. That should've been INT #2.
Good job by Tannehill...not a great job. A great job would've put that ball in the sensible place--away from the LB. Clay could've made it alright by doing a great job securing the catch quickly. Two "good jobs" equate to a missed opportunity.
The last two plays were catastrophes. Ryan running for his life looking for someone open...plenty of time to create a big play...no one's open...he throws it away. The second play, things collapse and he's ultimately sacked. The third, he throws hastily to Wallace on a deep out and the throw is inaccurate. There are chances for WRs to be the hero and they don't live up to the moment. There are chances for the QB to be the solution and he can't make it happen. When someone on this offense has to step up and be great...it seems like there's just not a guy to do it. Maybe all the new play-makers will fix that.
Whether it's Detroit, Baltimore, Buffalo, NY, GB, any team w a good DL and pass rush gave us hella problems last year. Now, watch the SD, Oakland, Minnesota, Chicago games vs teams with pedestrian DL play and the diff is night and day. The offense was good at blocking for the run, if Miller and Moreno had stayed healthy that week 1 showing vs NE would have been repeated many more times. The pass blocking was more than good enough before Albert was hurt. But when your run game is limited to 15 or so carries and your pass pro is suspect, the way it was after the Detroit game, it falls on the QB to be the difference maker. RT wasn't ready for that role in 2014 and I doubt he'll be ready for it in 2015. My optimism stems from the idea that he won't need to be the difference maker this season. What I envision is a Bengals type offense and team, but with a QB far better than Andy Dalton.
This game was a bad one for anyone who thinks Ryan is better than Stafford. Matt made about 4-5 throws Ryan simply does not make. Why the hell did i watch this game. My pessimism has kicked in
To be fair though, everyone is going to look good against the lesser competition. That's not the thing that keeps you out of the Play-offs. If Miami has this issue with stronger D-lines, that needs to be where they improve. So while you make a good point about all the decorations on the perimeter, you're sort of undermining that by pointing out the real source of the issue which is the weak O-line and the inability of the QB to step up and make the plays that are out there for him to make. This Detroit game was evidence that there are plays out there Tannehill could be making. I think the Bengals reference is interesting. They play in a tough division with 2 teams that have won Super Bowls recently. They are very competitive in those divisional games. They typically have had a stout defense and they have a few good weapons around a young, slightly under-whelmingly QB. I don't want to get into an argument about Andy Dalton, because Andy Dalton is a caricature to most people. They view him in the same light as they do Mark Sanchez and that's not fair, nor is it accurate. Like Stafford in my previous analysis, Andy Dalton is another player who the stats support as being a decent QB. Over their careers: AD: 3,690 yards per season, 25 TDs, 17 INTs, a 61% completion percentage on about 33 attempts per game, 1 sack per 17 attempts. RT: 3,751 yards per season, 21 TDs, 14 INTs, a 61% completion percentage on about 34 attempts per game, 1 sack per 12 attempts. Again...similar QBs. The numbers line up quite a bit. And we all know that Andy Dalton hasn't done much in the Play-offs and that the team is essentially worthless without AJ Green. Yes, I believe Tannehill can be better than Andy Dalton over time, but at this point, Dalton is the one who has successfully fought through a division full of tough defenses and has made the Play-off appearances. So, if Stafford and Dalton have both managed to get to the Play-offs with elite WRs and great defenses helping them out, it's certainly reasonable to suspect that Tannehill could too and he may very well have those things this year. But then again Stafford and Dalton are a combined 0-6 in Play-off games.
You have to specify for us what you are talking about--do you mean physical ability? I think the fans get a little excited about that stuff when in reality it's more like having a pair of expensive pants that are 2 sizes too small. If you can't wear 'em, what the hell does it matter, right? If RT17 has these physical assets, that's great I guess,but it's still about production. I still see a guy who doesn't read the field well when having to move around and a guy who is prone to inaccuracy at the extremes (both short and long). RT17 throws a good ball at intermediate ranges. His velocity is strong and his placement is usually above-average. He's not very accurate on short stuff, which is a problem and he's highly inconsistent on his longer throws which on occasion are God-awful. So I guess physical ability is not really what I look at. I'm more interested in what a guy does with his physical ability. Strong arms are worthless if they aren't accurate. Top-end speed isn't worth anything in a QB if the guy isn't quick and decisive. Mobility is meaningless if a guy can't think just as fast as he runs. Right now, all that physical ability RT17 has with the strong arm and the good speed hasn't really equated to anything that Chad Pennington couldn't provide. Tannehill has been solid on the short-to-intermediate stuff but he's got a lot of room for improvement on the deeper stuff both between the numbers and outside. He's also got a lot to do to improve on how he uses his legs. So I guess what I'm saying here is that while it's easy to look at RT17 and think he's got more upside than Dalton or Stafford...the stats have been more or less the same, and in Stafford's case I think you and I both agree, RT17 has a long way to go before he's even on that level. Potential is one thing. Real, honest to God production is another.
