Sure you did. The article proved Lazor didn't evaluate Tannehill's ability to audible? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So...you have no proof? I've given proof for what FinD and I are saying. You've given none. Just because Lazor didn't allow true audibling does NOT prove that Lazor evaluated Tannehill and found him lacking. It doesn't, no matter how much you say it does. Lack of proof is not proof of something. So, keep ignoring my question. I'm not reframing anything. I'm asking what proof you have that Tannehill was not allowed to audible due to Lazor determining he could not do it? Give proof, or stop saying it.
Quote. The. Part. Where. It. Proves. Lazor. Didn't. Evaluate. Tannehill's. Ability. To. Audible. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I cannot stress how stupid this is. You're asking for proof of something that's obvious. By your logic, I can't prove any NFL OC evaluates their QB's ability to audible. That doesn't sound ridiculous to you? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If you can't quote the specific part that says exactly what you're claiming, it's not there. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That article absolutely destroys the arguments around Tannehill with regards to audibling and throwing short because that's all he can do. Read. The. Article. You might learn something.
For someone who wants to call others trolls, you have no problem doing it yourself. It's not obvious. What's obvious, from reading Lazor's quotes, and players quotes, is that Bill Lazor, the vaunted OC, believed HIS PLAY CALLING AND DESIGN were so good, that it was unnecessary to allow the QB the freedom to audible. He sometimes would call two plays, allowing Tannehill to pick which he wanted, other times, he did not, allowing Tannehill only the option to use the play as called. These are facts man. It's pretty clear that Lazor didn't utilize normal audibles because he clearly believed his play calling didn't need audibles. If you can find one shred of evidence that Lazor didn't allow audibling because Tannehill couldn't do it, then post it. We also know that under Sherman, Tannehill was good at audibling. He made good choices for plays, and called good protections, Campbell said so. But, it slowed the offense down, and didn't allow as much rhythm for Tannehill. Read. The. Article. If you can't be bothered to read it, that says more about you and your stance than you think.
Can you quote anything in any article that proves Lazor did evaluate him? Isn't it silly for you to ask for a specific quote from me in an article you didn't read, when you can't quote anything, anywhere to even hint at your point? Why is the burden of proof on me and never you? Once again read the article. Read that Campbell talks about how why Tannehill isn't audbling now is because of stuff from when Sherman was here which, incidentally, IS BEFORE LAZOR WAS ON THE TEAM. You'd think, if it was because of Lazor deeming him unworthy because of some evaluation, that Campbell would have said as much...but nope. Again, none of that matters to you. You're mind is made up in spite of quotes, facts, evidence. No matter what I provide its not enough, and yet you haven't provided anything. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Yet, according to you, I'm in denial and a troll.
What exactly about my post was baiting?? Youre reaching. And he didnt NEED a better OL, he has been a beast long before this stretch.....but this stretch is certainly next level. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This crazy idea of yours that Lazor didn't evaluate Tanne for his ability to audible, and he has also said that he did allow him to audible but Tanne didn't do well with it so he scaled it back, so there's that. Tanne has recognition issues, and that is without a doubt, so it certainly is no stretch to think that he doesn't do well when given the chance. The biggest joke however, is this ridiculous idea that Lazor is sooo friggin stupid that he doesn't understand that having a great audible package just makes HIM look better, no, he's an idiot that thinks his offense is so good it doesn't need audibles. Just go on and keep kidding yourself.
Nothing is going to prove Lazor evaluated him except video evidence. Since I can't produce that for any OC, I can't prove that any OC has done that with any QB. This is very simple logic. If you and I have thought of evaluating Tannehill's ability to audible, what makes you think he wouldn't do so? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It says right in that article that when they did audible with Tanne it slowed his rhythm down, those guys just see what they want.
At least you mentioned something. They haven't given any evidence of what Fin D originally claimed. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Wait a second, I'm having a major brainfart. The article Fin D told me to read actually states that Lazor DID have Tannehill audible but it slowed the offense down... So either Fin D didn't understand what we was reading or chose to ignore the evidence completely. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No. It said that he audibled under Sherman. And that he was successful making decisions, and getting the protections right, but it slowed down the rhythm. That doesn't mean the same thing as "Tannehill is bad at audibling" like you guys are saying.
You have given zero evidence that Lazor did not have Tannehill audible because he's bad at it. We have given evidence that Lazor didn't feel he needed audibles, so he didn't use them. But continue to act like we haven't shown anything, but you have. Again, lack of proof isn't proof of anything.
Quoting Dan Campbell, from the article: Stop acting like Campbell said that he could audible under Lazor. Also, stop acting like Tannehill was making the wrong decisions in audibling, because that was not the case. It just slowed things down, even though he was making good decisions.
If this is a true statement then I guess we can deduce that "rhythm" is more important than audibling..... So I guess we ALL overreacted by thinking Lazor handcuffed Ryan by not letting him audible. Makes sense.
I'm not acting like anything. I'm hammering the point that it's stupid to assume Lazor didn't even evaluate Tannehill's ability to audible, then to tell me to read the article, which says he did evaluate Tannehill's ability to audible. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Lol ...it just slowed things down....bro..can u read between the lines at all...basically he's telling you he couldn't have both responsibilities and funtion the offense...
Ok...except he specifically says that Tannehill got them into the right plays and protections. To me, that says that he was correctly identifying defenses, and switching to plays and making protections correctly. So, again, we have a situation where people are assuming something outside of what the coach said. The argument had been made that essentially Tannehill is to dumb to audible. That doesn't seem to be the problem. Further, why should anyone be surprised that having audible responsibilities as a raw, un-developed quarterback caused him some issues? Further, there is zero evidence that Lazor evaluated Tannehill and deemed him unable to audible. It seems far more realistic and likely, due to various quotes from Lazor and players and others, that Lazor simply didn't believe his QB would ever need to audible, due to his phenomenal scheme and play calling. Playcalling, I might add, that saw us refuse to run the ball. Finsfandan, I could care less about your little feud with FinD. I'm asking you, give me one iota of evidence that Lazor evaluated Tannehill and found him lacking, instead of Lazor just not believing that his offense needed audibles.
That is not at all what the article said. Please post the part of the article that are interpreting as Lazor evaluating Tannehill. It's stupid to assume that you know what Lazor did or did not do, or why Lazor made the decisions he did, without one shred of evidence to back up your premise.
What is stupid to assume is that a former QB coach doesn't evaluate the QBs abilities, that's the ABCs of NFL football, OC 101, the theory that he didn't is ludicrous and unheard of, yet you try to sell it as if it's the most likely scenario.
Yeah I mean why would we think that given the evidence pointing towards it? Because it doesn't indict Tannehill. If it makes Tannehill look bad, no evidence needed and its true. If it doesn't paint him negatively, all the evidence in the world doesn't matter. Its typical. Its tired.
How do you feel about the staffs decision that rhythm was more important than a QB audibling if these statements are true??
It was Dan Campbell that said it, and since everything he says is literal than he must be who I'm talking about.
Dude, WE HAVE EVIDENCE that what I'm saying is the case. Lazor believed that his scheme had enough options in each play, that all Tannehill had to do was pick the right option. I'm not making things up. I didn't drop acid, and come up with some whacky stance. You guys, however, have zero evidence, and are pushing an idea...and then turning around and saying that the dude with actual evidence is crazy and made-up.
No the still coach Dan Campbell. Remember this was under Sherman so Lazor wasn't even here when this determination was made. I don't even need to tell you the info you've seen in club about Tanny's decision making at the line. Bottom line: Campbell was here when he had it. They took it away. They kept it away
Dan Campbell didn't say he made the decision. When the decision was made, Campbell was only a TE coach. Lazor was the OC, Philbin was the coach. Lazor and/or Philbin made the decision on audibling. Campbell was simply stating what led to Tannehill no longer audibling.
