PFF is just total garbage in general. You study the Camaro and I'll study the Mustang. Now lets put our notes together and rank them...
I actually find his movements in the pocket are pretty calculated. I think the offense rolls him out by design quite a bit so those are obviously planned, but I also think he anticipates well. I see that anticipation as one of Wilson's biggest strengths. People label that as "natural talent", but IMO it's in large part experience. Rodgers was seen as robotic coming out but as he gained experience, things slowed down, etc., he now looks natural. The difference in Rodgers' escapability as a rookie to what it was when he started 4 years later was night and day. Some claim he didn't gain experience b/c he was on the bench, but I think the difference in the player he was at first and who he was 4 years later reveals that theory as false. (Several studies have concluded that mental reps are at least 80% as effective physical reps so that plus his preseason and practice reps would imply that Rodgers arguably had 3 years of effective NFL experience when he got his first start). I don't want to imply that all experience is gained equally. One person can do a job for 30 years and learn very little while another can do the same job for 5 years and through attention, effort and talent learn a ton. But you still need some experience to have that opportunity for your attention, effort and talent to manifest. I think guys like Rodgers, Luck and Wilson are exceptional QBs that have used their attention, effort and talent to maximize their experience. And I think it manifested with those guys looking natural. BTW, I think this happens in many fields. I did martial arts for years before people started calling me a natural fighter. Reality is that there was very little that was natural about it. I was a pretty good athlete and I was smart enough to analyze and criticize my failings, but I wasn't a natural fighter. I walked in to a ton right hooks before I learned to block or avoid that "naturally".
All good points, but RW was doing that in his first year in the NFL. So while the offense rolls him out by design, I think that's more because they saw he was a "natural" at it. You're right about his movements being calculated (or instinctively smart) in the pocket though (regardless of whether he does it "naturally" or not).. I was just making a joke with that headless chicken remark.
i never wanted someone to be right more than you..If ryan can anticipate the pressure better and engage his athleticism sooner then we all will be happy...its been three full years and i have yet to see improvement in that area so Im a bit concerned.
im not trying to turn ryan into wilson in the playmaking improv dept, wilson is Special, just hoping he can get better from what we've seen..which hasn't been good..little frustrating considering the staff considers him a dual threat qb.. if your gonna be a dual threat qb you have to run the ball on your own accord more than tom brady...and have to call more than 3 runs and 1 rollout a game.
I think giving Tannehill more leeway to change the play at the line of scrimmage would really help. First year or two coaches wanted Tannehill to learn how to be a pocket passer (I think this was a good decision). Then they let him use his feet more, but he doesn't seem to know when to run. Teaching him, and giving him the responsibility to change the play on the fly I think would go a long way towards helping him make better decisions on when to run.
ok, sure, whatever he needs to do to understand how important that element of the game is, cause right now its not firing at all in the ole brain.
Huh. I'm not sure you'll find many people agreeing that we ran the ball fine in the second half of games.
It's chicken and egg. Our run game tailed off in the back half of games, but was that due to the runner or coaches not wanting to run? So when you say our inability to run the ball, I'd more accurately describe that as our not wanting to run the ball. We ran the ball fine, when we ran.
Except that Miller's ypc went down slightly as the game wore on. Why would that happen as a result of not running the ball as much? Seems like the data point more towards coaches limiting Miller's carries because they didn't think he would be as effective if he carried it too much.
Where do people get the idea that we were a bad running team in the second half from? First of all we were the second most efficient running team in the league, that alone would suggest we couldn't possibly be a bad running team in the second half. Then you look at Miller's stats and see his carries, yards, yards per attempt and TDs all went up in the second half in 2014...
Relative to 1st half, not relative to rest of league. I forget the stats that were posted, but that was by Tannephins that showed the slight decrease from one half to another. EDIT: I think I see the discrepancy.. the Tannephins stats were by carries (1-10 vs. 11-20) etc.. not 1st half vs. 2nd half, so I guess the argument should be amended that way.
