Even when he had time and a WR who was 3 steps behind the defense....he missed. He MUST get better at these game changing throws.
I think the point I'm making is that the stuff people are dogging him on, he has been consistently correcting. Now, the deep ball was an issue, at least in Wallace's direction, but he wasn't solely the problem there. Of course, he may never be the best in the league at the deep ball. Who cares? Sometimes I think people expect that the Dolphins QB will be perfect, and have no shortcomings. That's not real life.
And there were other times he hit receivers on the hands with beautiful deep balls and they dropped them, or had poor body control and stepped out of bounds.
When you are as close to the playoffs as we were the year before and party last, one TD could change your whole season. And that happens with every QB.
Yep, and I saw plenty of the top QBs in the league underthrow receivers last year, only to see the receivers recognize it much earlier in their routes, and slow up earlier so that they didn't have to stop and wait for the ball. Just saying, blaming it all on Tannehill isn't accurate or fair. And one defensive stop could have earned playoffs also.
Stupid discussion. Aaron Rodgers is the best QB in the NFL and Ryan Tannehill hasn't proven anything yet.
I dont understand why so many beat up on Tannehill. Outside of 1 season with Chad Pennington, he's easily the best Qb we've had since Marino. He has clearly improved every year despite the shortcomings on the oline. There is no reason to believe he wont improve again this year. As far as I'm concerned the biggest thing he needs to get fixed is his deep ball and who knows at this point, the receiver changes might have already fixed that problem. Clearly he and Wallace never seemed to get on the same page. Look, despite the rules changes that have opened up the passing game the one constant that remains is this, it is hard to find a "franchise QB". It's taken 15 years to find a guy as good as Thill and he is clearly in the top half of the league and arguably a top 10 guy at this point. Best part is his needle is still pointing up. Lighten up and give this guy a break. Lets see what happens when the season rolls around. I'm actually optimistic this year for the first time in quite awhile.
I never said I didn't like RT17. As a matter of fact I said that I did multiple times. But, to compare him to Aaron Rodgers?? Silly Season...
That's the NFL. A 7.3 YPA would have been tied for 13th in the league. But people say "dink and dunk" implying that the Dolphin offense had a YPA that was shorter than most in the league. I'm saying that for most of the season, that wasn't true.
OK. I think it's a bit unfair to Thill to compare him to Rodgers at this point. So I agree with you on that point.
Or he just struggled against three of the best defenses he saw all year (NE, KC, BUF) and picked it up against Oak - what do you know... Your shrinking of sample size to exclude three games against strong competition and blaming his performance on "it was new" is dishonest. He struggled all year against defenses of that caliber.
That's true. It obviously also brought down his rating. His rating for the balance of the season after those first three games was 97.76. On that list comparing where Rodgers rating ranked in 2008 compared to Tannehill's 2014, 97.76 would have been 5th in 2014. That compares very well to where Rodgers ranked (6th) in 2008. People want to pretend that you can't possibly compare Rodgers and Tannehill, based on the assumption that Rodgers is one of the best QBs in the league and Tannehill can't possibly ever be the best in the league. But the comparison isn't to Rodgers now. The comparison is between Rodgers in 2008 and Tannehill now. And the fact of the matter is that Tannehill compares very favorably. As to whether Tannehill can or can't someday be one of the best in the league is opinion and speculation. It is not anymore silly to see it as possible than it is to proclaim it can't possibly happen.
His game has improved each year since stepping into the league... yes, there are some specific things he still needs to get better at, but I think we should give him the benefit of doubt and have some confidence that his overall game will take another step next season, like it has the past two.
I think the comparison should be Rodgers in his 3rd season starting vs Tanny's 3rd year. If you argue, Tanny wasn't ready yet so we shouldn't compare him to Rodgers first season, that just means ... Tanny wasn't ready yet. At the end of their careers you're not going to subtract Tanny's first two seasons. They start, when they start. Their ages aren't even that wildly far apart in their 3rd years. 5 years apart, with 4 years more experience starting. If Tanny jumps over 100 qbr this year, and then stays that way for his career (amazing by Rodgers) then it's quite similar. Let's wait and see.
Lol Ok, dude. I'm not going dredging through nfl.com or wherever, from my phone, to find videos. I'm SURE you remember Wallace going out of bounds on the sideline and the endzone on two catches. I remember at least two drops on deep balls in the Pats game, and there were others. Disregard if you want, since I'm too lazy to find the video, but you know it's true. You watched the games. If you're really going to act like through the first 5 games or so there weren't tons of drops, then you're just being dishonest. We lead the league in drops through the first four or five games, if I recall correctly.
It's not dishonest b/c anybody who has watched the NFL knows that a new offense will take time to install. I could buy that he just struggled against better defenses and then picked it up if he hadn't so obviously played at another level from that point on. Reality is that those first three games were an anomaly. And it was totally expected. We talked about it all off-season and speculated as to how long it would take for the adjustment to take place. People posted articles from other QBs saying that it can take as long as 8 games for a QB to get comfortable with a new system. Before the season everybody understood that his stats would be lower to start with and that they would improve as he grew more comfortable. And that if we wanted to know where Tannehill stood at that point we'd have to look at his stats after the install period. This isn't something that I came up with after the fact. This is something that was known and that people now want to ignore.
Does anyone here actually watch Green Bay? Arod Dink's and dunks as much if not more than any QB in the NFL. That's why his yardage gained from passes traveling in the air vs. YAC is 50/50. Rodgers happens to be an amazing deep ball thrower too, seemingly hitting 1-2 per game.
He was solid, iirc. We put up 22 while the Bills offense didn't do sh-t. I wasn't some brilliant night for Tannehill. Point is that you can't just lop off games from a sample size when they happen to be against top competition, because that fact serves as a perfectly good explanation for his struggles. That would be like me removing the Vikings and Jets games from the data because those two games were meaningless and the opposing defenses barely put up a fight. I imagine some folks wouldn't take kindly to that convenient sample.
That's not even remotely the same as taking out games at the beginning that were drastically worse, and attribute it to the new offense. Unless you believe that teams and QBs routinely start with new offenses, and don't see a drop in production while getting comfortable in the new offense.
Of course Tannehill wasn't ready. We all knew that going in and if we'd had a Brett Favre on the team Tannehill would have sat and learned for a few years. But we didn't have that luxury. And nobody believes that Rodgers would have played as well as he did in year 4 if he'd been forced to play on day one. Pretending that Rodgers first year starting after three years of learning is equivalent to a rookie starting his first game is just ridiculous. Reality is that Rodgers gained a ton of experience for three years, we just didn't have stats to track that growth. The first place we do have stats to compare on even footing is Rodgers 4th year in the league and Tannehill's 4th year in the league.
Sitting on the sidelines for 3 years isn't the same as getting game experience for 3 years. Rodgers' 4th year being compared to Tannehill's 3rd year seems more appropriate than comparing Rodgers' 4th to Tannehill's 4th.
You said drops on beautifully thrown deep passes, supposed to be plenty of examples of this yet we can't find many. Odd.
Who said "plenty?" I said there were examples of those as well. They were there. There were also examples of Wallace not adjusting well to balls. So, just as Tannehill struggled to get the ball deep to Wallace, there were other players or units who also struggled, and contributed to the poor connection between the two. I know you want to solely blame Tannehill, though, in regards to Wallace.
I know.. I'm just saying the original argument of comparing Rodgers' 4th to Tannehill's 3rd makes more sense as a benchmark than 4th to 4th. Not even sure 3 years of sitting and learning + 1 year of playing is the same as 3 years of playing. If anything I'd say comparing Tannehill's 2nd to Rodgers' 4th is more reasonable than 4th to 4th because actually playing in NFL games is very different than practice.
Someone correct my math... but isn't the difference between a 7.53 YPA and a 6.83 YPA a matter of 2 feet on average? 7.53 yards = 22.59 feet. 6.86 yards = 20.58 feet. That's a 2.01 feet net difference on average, yes?
Nah man, the value isn't there. Rodgers threw for 38 TDs and only 5 INT last season. His average salary is something like $22 million per year. Tannehill isn't worth only $6 million less than Rodgers per year. He's worth a lot less.
Historically, that 7.0 mark is significant in terms of efficiency. It seems to be the point at which your pass offense is efficient enough. Obviously, there are other parts of the game that have to be sound as well, but if your offense is passing at above 7.0 YPA it's probably not the problem. And last year after the offense started off inefficiently during the install, the offense operated at above that level. And that matches what most people saw, that the reason we missed the playoffs last season was primarily the defense.
Why not? Didn't stop Big Ben from becoming damn good, starting right away. Year 1 maybe not, but possibly year 2. We had and still have Matt Moore. Sure, he's no Brett, But all of that doesn't matter. I don't buy that nonsense of comparing Tanny's 4th year starting with Rodger's first year starting. It makes no sense. He's led this team 3 years already. Fair or not, he was entrusted with that. But all of this doesn't matter, not even sure why we're comparing the two. Since their paths are not similar as you point out, why are we even comparing year 4 of Tanny with 3 years of NFL starting experience under his belt, and year 4 of Rodgers with zero starting experience. Why do it? We hope Tanny takes the huge leap Rodgers did? Okay. I guess. Rodgers is once in ten years. Do we believe Tannehill is in that conversation? Does he take that leap into 100'ish ratings annually? Perennial contenders? Or does he improve but hit a wall in the Eli Manning/Joe Flacco category? Which is more likely?
Yes. Rule changes favoring the offense. The league has been open about making the game easier for the QB.
