With Stills, Parker and Cameron on the field we'll get a better idea of how well Tannehill attacks down the field. Till now Wallace has been the only credible deep threat available. Having multiple guys who can work the vertical stems should help a ton. Having said that, I do not at all expect to see Lazor dialing up a slew of deep passes. I believe he'll stick w the short to intermediate game, looking to manufacture big plays from YAC, continuing to use deep passes situationally, to keep defenses honest and/or punish them for over playing the shorter routes. Bottom line for me is that Wallace and Tannehill are both good players. Their lack of success on deep routes was more a function of the offense as a whole than any individual shortcoming. It makes no sense to keep Wallace around at his salary on an offense centered on quick passes. The new WR corps is far better suited to Philbin's philosophies. I look forward to seeing this debate put out of its misery.
No, the narrative is specifically about the deep ball. In fact, that's what's in the thread title and what Cefalo was talking about. People try to bring up the rating but it's irrelevant to the narrative about the deep ball.
It's not that I disagree, Piston, with the last post, but I don't agreed with this narrative that Tannehill was being benefited greatly by Wallace. It's not like Tannehill was throwing bad passes to Wallace, who was making crazy catches and manufacturing tds, boosting Tannehill's rating. The reality is that Wallace benefited by getting a bunch of red zone targets. I have zero issue with a majority of the passing game being short and intermediate...that's what most teams do.
Fair enough. But there's casual fan speak and then there are conversations that take things a bit more seriously. Tannehill sucks, can't throw deep, yada yada, I don't even take it seriously. I bring up the Tannehill-Wallace rating bc it defies the more widely accepted narrative that Wallace and Tannehill had no chemistry. The narrative that Wallace was a one trick pony who doesnt fight for balls or make tough catches. In comparison to the other receivers, none of whom drew the same level of criticism, Wallace did extremely well.
My thinking is that if Wallace was making 4 million instead of 12 he'd be viewed very differently. I respectfully disagree that Tannehill didn't benefit from his presence. Wallace was by far the team's most productive receiver. Clearly that had as much to do with the other receivers not being very good as it did Wallace himself, which is why I'm excited about the talent and depth that's been added for 2015.
My mantra every time I see the words "deep ball" on ThePhins. If you did a crawl, we probably use the words deep and ball more than Brazzers.
I know it is, because TD's are kind of important, you know. I'm talking in general, when people want to devalue Wallace altogether, because he got Red Zone TDs. We were one of the worst red zone teams in the NFL. If Wallace was "stealing" red zone targets from everyone else, where was everyone else when the team kept failing in the red zone, causing one of the worst red zone percentages in the NFL. That's what I was addressing in that post. The silly argument that Wallace basically "stole" other WRs TDs. That had they not gone to Wallace, a different WR would have scored those TDs. So I'm asking, where were those other WRs when we compiled a bad RZ/TD percentage? It just don't follow logic. As for the deep ball, yes the sample size is small, but again I must stress, Tannehill completed ZERO passes to anyone past 30 yards except Wallace. So it's inaccurate to say he had an above average percentage throwing to everyone else deep. You can say he had an above average completion percentage throwing to other WRs 21-30 yards. Because that's all he completed to them. If he threw any passes, past 31 yards, to anyone other than Wallace, than the completion percentage would be Zero. And that's not a good number I don't think. I know just through the first few games, didn't Dion and Hartline both miss deep attempts? He threw 22 passes between 21-30, and 20 passes 31+ so it's not like this is a 5 times volume situation here. It's almost 50/50. And the rest of the receivers were 0-fer past 31 yards. That's a fact. Anyway, new receivers, new chance to have a better connection between Tanny and them. Landry despite his very positive attitude, well I'd be happy if he can start threatening teams from 11-20. Out of all of his catches, only 5 were thrown further than 11 yards. So he's said he thinks he can be a #1, and threaten deep. Well let's start at 11 yards first. Jennings + Stills is where my hope is for this year, intermediate and short deep (i.e. 21-30). The only thing worrying me is, this is a brand new crew. You can never guarantee chemistry.
Good grief....YES PLEASE! [video=youtube;2WNrx2jq184]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WNrx2jq184[/video]
Lazor is very unpredictable. Had a decent amount of deep passes originally (11 through 3 or 4 games) and then virtually none for a while. And then a whole bunch in the first half against NE later in the year. As if he was experimenting ... Be great to see what he does with this new crew this season.
It's not inaccurate, jdang, as a deep ball is any over 20 yards. Also, you're not factoring in a couple beautifully thrown balls that were dropped by other receivers throughout the year that were over 30. You're also looking at only one season. You are the one that is putting the stranglehold on sample size, and making it smaller and smaller.
Miami's top performing recievers over the past ten years. DYAR Ranking 18 Brandon Marshall 2011 with Matt Moore 20 Mike Wallace 2014 with Ryan Tannehill 22 Marty Booker 2006 with Joey Harrington 30 Brian Hartline 2009 with Chad Henne 32 Brian Hartline 2013 with Ryan Tannehill 35 Brandon Marshall 2010 with Chad Henne 37 Brian Hartline 2011 with Matt Moore 38 Brian Hartline 2012 with Ryan Tannehill Marshall has always been ranked as an above average receiver, his best year came in 2013 when he was ranked 10th. But to be fair to him he's never played with an elite QB. Booker is an outlier, he had a decent career but being ranked 22nd was his best, and he did it with Harrington no less. Hartline is an interesting case study being ranked top 40 most of his career with three different QBs and over multiple different systems/coaches. Wallace has been ranked number one overall in the league and was top 10 three times in Pittsburgh, not really a surprise he turned out to be Tannehill's most productive receiver. My take: Most of you are being unfairly critical of our wide recievers. Tannehill is clearly not is good as Roethlisberger, so how is it fair to expect Wallace to be a top 10 receiver here? Also, kind of sick we haven't had a top 10 guy in decades. Not since Marino was our QB.
who the hell determined that a deep ball is anything over 20 yards?..lol...and why are you going along with it?
uh, use your own brain, you know damn well a deep ball in the sense were talking about isn't a 20 yard freakin pass..geez man.... this is a ridiculous notion in this discussion.. do you believe he needs to get better at the deep ball or not is the question, don't bring up some dum *** stat that is completely opposite of what were really talking about.
That's fine, dude, if you want to be so hyper critical of a ball that is completed on average like 8 times a season. My point still stands, though, that Tannehill stats, over his career, to guys not named Wallace, on the deep ball, are with league averages. Maybe I'm going to start only considering a "deep ball" to be a ball traveling more than 60 yards in the air. That way, every QB in the league will fail to meet my criteria, and I can then lambaste all QBs for having a poor deep ball.
You even liked the post I quoted here, DJ, so I know you read it. Lol. We have covered already why changing the meaning of deep ball is counter productive.
I've been a die-hard Dolphins fan for over 20 years now. I've been posting on forums for the past 10. I have never experienced a topic so heated like Ryan Tannehill's deep ball. Forums, twitter, articles. It's insanity. I can't believe how this discussion keeps going on and on and on. He hits some and he misses some. I never looked at it beyond that, and I don't care to. It's not something that's going to make or break his career.
Anyone else in here think Wallace was a lazy receiver? Other than the second half of game one this year, has he ever been physical with the DB and take the ball from the air, rather then let it fall to him cleanly with no contest? I mean I'm sure there has to be another game where he tried to beat someone with something besides he speed, but I cannot recall. I was impressed with his effort in the second half of game one, but that's it. Edit: I was referring to game 1 of this past season.
I agree. However, I think there's a good reason the debate is so heated. Most other problems with the Dolphins over the years we can usually agree on. Who doesn't remember all those defensive lapses at the end of games (and I'm going back almost 10 years), or the persistent issue at QB that finally seems solved (or likely solved)? Or what about all the deserved crap our coaches from Wannstedt to Sparano to Philbin have gotten? Or the crap Ireland got. In most cases there's little to debate, even though there are always some that see things differently. But this deep ball issue is interesting because there's no denying the problem to those who remember those misses to wide open receivers or not hitting Wallace in stride or Wallace not fighting for the ball. Those events form strong memories regardless of how often they occur or not because of their importance (could've been big plays). On the other hand, the stats tell different stories depending on which stats you focus on. Some show it was just a Tannehill-Wallace deep ball issue. Others show the overall cost to Tannehill of having Wallace might not be that great. You get people with slightly different viewpoints that will all have some good foundation for their argument, with little that clearly settles the issue for all sides. So yes I agree the issue is way overblown in importance (it IS an issue though), but I will say this. As tiring as it may be to see people argue this, the stats/data/arguments that have been presented over who knows how long are actually quite informative, though I think all that could've been done in one long thread instead of many many threads over time.
well Res, I sure as hell don't have a problem with Ryan throwing 20 yards passes..there is no logical context for someone arguing that the meaning of a deep ball is 20 plus yards.. i would say 35 yards in the air and beyond is what I would call a deep ball.
well, thats because some folks have been arguing the whole time that a 20 yard pass is a deep ball. Lol...no wonder
Seriously, y'all have been providing stats to back your argument, and those stats included 20 yard plus passes...lol
It's just a convention dj. Lots of things we define as X or Y have no real "logical" basis but are just the result of some arbitrary choice made by someone that stuck because people used it often enough. A recent example I came across was at what point we say a person is legally blind. It's arbitrarily defined at acuity of 20/200 (or between 20/100 and 20/200 for some institutions) or a visual field of 20 degrees or less. Trust me, that "definition" is totally arbitrary and stuck only because a researcher long ago just needed to set a threshold somewhere; it's not the result of rigorous testing to see at what point you really shouldn't be allowed to drive or do something else.
Because the NFL stat keepers define a deep ball as 20+ yards. I'm sorry you disagree. However, throwing a ball 40+ yards downfield requires so much to go right, which is why your don't see it happening all the time. I believe it was CK that already laid that out, but you're talking like less than 10 a season on average. Yes, I agree that Tannehill struggled to hit Wallace on some wide open 49 yarders, and that was bad. I also saw Tannehill get absolutely clobbered on some of those. I also saw Wallace and others not react well to some 40 yarders, or flat out drop them, and that was bad, too.
Ck very clearly explained why the sample size issue makes using just the 40+ yard passes meaningless. You may not like what the conclusion is or understand why or how the statistics show what they show, but that's not an indictment on the people who post the statistics.
I really think this debate has reached its end...some folks are using stats that include passes 20 yards and over to defend that ryan is average at the deep ball, when we know that just isn't the case, if your using 20 and over to make him average then he's worse than I thought..lol deep ball..fu65 what the monkeys say, you and I, and everyone else with half a brain knows that a deep ball aint no 20 or 25 yards.. if you wanna argue deep ball skill then lets be honest and logical here..35 yards in the air and over, hell I can throw 30 yards on a rope.
I guess its a good sign when tannehill's detractors have to mischaracterize his abilities by taking areas where he is average and blowing them out of proportion to say he's poor at it. Same with the pocket presence argument. When you really look at how much he's developed and when the worst aspects of his game are average then you really have tobe excited by his future. I fully expect the deep game (35 yds plus) to produce way more big plays this year than last and I wont be because tannehll improved. It will simply be because we got receivers who know how to fight for the ball. The pocket presence argument will probably continue because the oline is still Swiss cheese unless someone unexpected steps up. Anyway just expect alot of the tannehill detractors to praise his improvement when the reality wil be the stats will improve due to other circumstances
That's fine, man, you have your own expectations. However, looking at NFL.com, the best QB's in the league completed 15 passes on the season, of 40+ yards. Those guys are Luck, Roethlisberger, and Rodgers. Manning and Stafford each completed 11. Brees, Hoyer, Eli Manning, and Romo each completed 10. Now, Tannehill had 4. That is not enough, I'd agree. However, it's 4 more than the zero that you guys are saying he had (although the NFL.com site doesn't specify if it was the ball in the air, or the end result was a 40+ yard play). Also, you're talking about the best deep ball throwers in the game are completing less than one a game. I'm sorry, I just don't see why everyone is so up in arms over it. Sure, Tannehill needs a little work, but when you factor in how the oline constantly had him getting hit, and then you factor in that he was having to try to guide the ball into a tiny little box for Wallace 40+ yards downfield, is anyone surprised that Tannehill didn't hit more deep balls? Factor in the the drops and the poor awareness of people stepping out of bounds on catches, and you have the perfect storm contributing to Tannehill's deep ball struggles. People are remembering a couple wide open plays that were missed, and trying to characterize every deep ball as being that situation. Of course, when you're struggling with the deep ball, due to whatever circumstances, it makes it really hard to connect, even when the guy is wide open. It happens. I think this year can tell a different story, but I think alot depends on the oline. To each his own, I guess.
More deep ball talk which NOTHING will be proved no matter what side of the fence you are on. After 2016 one of the sides will be running thin on excuses. Best case scenario they both thrive away from eachother and its chalked up to bad chemistry and not a fundamental lack if ability.
Becasue recognizing a flaw turns everyone into a "detractor". Me: Ryan is a top 12 QB in the league and ascending. Ya'll: great post bro Ryan is sweet. Me: Ryans deep ball and pocket presence need some work. Ya'll: whatever bro, you are just a Tanny hater. Me: ....sigh....these mains sure are something sometimes.
Exactly!! There is really nothing that Tannehill is bad at or even below average anymore. There are areas where he is average, but not many. People have to find very narrow criteria to criticize like, the deep ball to one player or the deep ball within a certain range. Since Wallace is gone, whether he was good or bad with Wallace is a non-factor going forward. And the stats show that he was actually above average on deep passes to everybody else. He'll probably attempt a few 40+ yard passes to his new cast of WRs with undeniably larger catch radius and even if the success rate in that narrow area is low, it's such a small part of the game that everybody will praise how much Tannehill's overall deep pass has improved. The pocket awareness will improve naturally with experience and with better line play. All QBs struggle when there's pressure from two areas (especially middle and outside). Tannehill faced that too often the last few years. I thought it was telling that last year's pass pro which seemed like such a significant improvement over the previous year was still rated the second worst in the league. How bad does your pass pro have to be to improve significantly and only get to second worst? When you see QBs escape and make plays it's almost always when they're pressured from one area. That's when you see plays like that TD to Matthews last year where Tannehill scrambled left and hit a crossing Matthews. The times where QBs get pressured from multiple areas and escape are rare. Reality is that when it happens most QBs wisely turtle and look towards the next play. If our OL becomes just competent and avoids wholesale breakdowns then people will claim that Tannehill has improved in his pocket awareness and escape-ability (even if he really hasn't) So those areas will improve if the team around him improves regardless of whether Tannehill improves individually or not. And since he's at least average at everything none of those small subsections of his game will have much impact on how good of a QB he becomes anyways (fatal flaws are only fatal if it's a significant part of the game and you're considerably below average).
No idea about how many attempts. Here's the link: http://www.nfl.com/stats/categoryst...ull&statisticCategory=PASSING&qualified=false click on 40+ to sort by most completions for 2014. Also, Tannehill was 16th for passes completed at 20+ yards, with 41.
According to CK earlier in I don't remember which thread, his YPA the last 8 games was at the bottom of the league. So he does need to improve that ... But he's good enough already, and hopefully gets better. I think Wilson has faced as much or even more pressure. Don't know we'll ever see Tanny rise to his level.
Don't think those are through the air. They include 2 yard dumpoffs ran 40 yards. I check ESPN Splits for through the air numbers.
