So because he didn't call plays better, he wouldn't bother evaluating his starting QB's ability to audible? Anybody that knows anything about football knows it's crucial to completely evaluate your starting QB. He's not that bad. He didn't keep his job for more than a season and a half because the offense he was running has been figured out and he didn't stick to the run. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last time: do you have evidence that the reason Lazor didn't use traditional audibles is because he decided Tannehill was bad at it? What you are doing is like me saying your car won't go 120mph because I haven't seen you go that fast in it.
So why did he claim that there was some sort of consensus that when Tannehill was asked to make audibles, it slowed down the offense and threw off his rhythm? Why did he say he wants him to "manage" the game? Because he's nothing more than a game manager. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I find it interesting how you guys pick and choose what to believe from what the coaches say. You disregard Campbell saying he can handle everything, and focus on the "manage" comment.
Last time: the original debate was over whether or not Lazor even evaluated Tannehill's ability to audible. Since you insist, the only evidence there is on whether or not Tannehill is bad at audibles, are Campbell's quotes regarding Tannehill and the one game Tannehill was allowed to make full audibles. Neither indicate Tannehill is good enough at making full audibles to be trusted in a regular season NFL game. There is no evidence Tannehill makes full audibles well enough in actual games. There is only evidence of the contrary. The only positive quote regarding Tannehill and audibles is with two huge disclaimers. That's not an endorsement. It's funny that you two want to cling to the positive portion of the statement and downplay the two huge disclaimers. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I didn't ask which side is good at their jobs. I said I wonder which side knows more about football. You tell me. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That's incorrect. Once again, coaches said he did fine with audibles themselves, but it messed with his rhythm. Is that abnormal for a young, raw, QB? It would have to be, for you guys to make a big deal about it. By the way, it's not just one game. Tannehill made good decisions with audibles under Sherman, they just didn't like the speed. So again, another case of mis-stating what coaches have said. Further, as far as our conversation, there is literally no evidence that Lazor wanted to run traditional audibles, and that Tannehill prevented him from doing so.
Not at all. Campbell explicitly stated that he just wants Tannekill to manage the game and not try to be something he's not (anything other than a game manager). Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
A game manager that can do it all, though, right? I mean, if we're accurately repeating what he said, not just picking what we want. And if you have a game manager that can do everything, then is he a game manager?
What? You asked me why wouldn't Lazor have evaluated Tannehill on audibles. I said I don't know why. I merely pointed out Lazor did lots of things that don't make sense. So much so, he's been fired. Same with Sherman. The point being Lazor wasn't good at his job (neither was Sherman).
Again, I've asked this countless times. If he's progressed since Sherman, why didn't Lazor ask him to make full audibles? Why would he restrict Tannehill, with his job on the line, if Tannehill proved he was more than capable at calling correct, full audibles without negatively affecting the offense? The only responses I can think of would be the following: A. Lazor was an egomaniac control freak that was willing to risk his job even though Tannehill was clearly more than capable of making correct, full audibles without negatively affecting the offense. OR B. Tannehill was not capable of making correct, full audibles without negatively affecting the offense. Play calling isn't relevant to this discussion. We know Lazor was bad at that. The offense has been figured out, we know that. So what is it, A or B? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You don't know why he wouldn't yet you're claiming it's plausible to question whether or not he did. So either Lazor isn't a logical man or you aren't. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
IMO they are all incompetent. If I had to choose, which is your question, I would say the coaching staff - as inept as they are. I am sure there are some on the staff that are good at following a plan. Problem is there doesn't seem to be a solid plan. If Coach Dan learned under the old Head Coach I am sure he will repeat what he knows - what he was taught. I don't know the coaching staff as well as I probably should so I may be reaching. So going back to the previous thought of repeating what you were taught/what you know---we all know where that got us in the past so expecting something different is probably wishful thinking. Players, scheme, and staff are all set in place. Changing in the middle of the season is a bad idea. But this is the Dolphins, I expect these types of moves now. One could also argue that making the coaching change mid-season is also a sign of how bad the front office is. But, we all know accountability runs thin around here so I am sure all those involved will get contract extensions for their loyalty to Ross........
A. The real question is, why would you automatically assume a guy so bad at his job that he was fired before he did two full years, did things correctly? I mean we've seen him call bone headed plays and make boneheaded personnel decisions, why are you so "30 pages of arguing" positive he did the right thing as it pertains to audibles and Tannehill? Especially when there's evidence that suggests otherwise? Or you know, he just sucked at his job. I mean can you explain why he made all the mistakes he made? No of course not. But following your logic, that just means he didn't make those mistakes then.
Because Dan Campbell wants a balanced, run based offense. He doesn't want the quarterback to throw the ball 50 times a game. That's where the game manager phrase comes from. It's all about balance.
Dan learned under Philbin, Sherman and Lazor but he's also been under the tutelage of great football minds before. True, it's nearly impossible to replace an offense that was installed during the offseason several games into the regular season. Coaching turnover is a sign of how bad the front office is and how stupid Stephen Ross is, yes. We've consistently kept guys around who shouldn't have been kept, hired guys that shouldn't have been hired and pushed away or fired guys that shouldn't have been. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
False choice. Could be A. Could be, as I've said, he believed his offensive scheme didn't need audibles, due to how he felt his plays were designed with different options. You literally have no idea. I don't know either, I'm just going oft of what he said, and trying to show you, that you literally have no evidence to support your view. At least I know that Lazor, when questioned about audibles, insisted that Tannehill did audible, by using pre-designed options in the play. Like I've said, perhaps Lazor didn't design his offense to use traditional audibles.
It's one thing to say a guy was bad at his job (you and I are in agreement on this). It's another thing to question if Lazor even evaluated his starting QB's ability to audible. Now you're saying Lazor is an egomaniac control freak that risked his job even though Tannehill was proficient at calling audibles. This is where we disagree. I believe Lazor was a bad OC but not that illogical. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Who the heck doesn't believe a QB should be allowed to make full audibles if he's good at it? Lazor was trying to downplay the issue of audibles. Nobody wants the drama that comes with admitting that you're purposefully restricting your starting $100 million QB. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Of course he does. We all do. But managing the game doesn't just mean throwing the ball less and running more. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I've said countless times that we should run the ball more. I've never claimed that Lazor was a good OC. I've never said that I like the way the offense is designed. What I'm saying is I don't believe Lazor would neglect to evaluate his starting $100 million QB's ability to audible. I also don't believe he'd restrict Tannehill if Tannehill proved himself more than capable of making full audibles well enough to help the offense. Remember, this is a guy that loved to have Tannehill throw the ball way more than he should've. If he didn't restrict the amount of times Tannehill threw, why would he restrict his freedom to audible? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So, he didn't let him audible to restrict him...but he let him throw a ton which isn't restricting him...and that somehow proves that he didn't trust him? Come on, man, this gets more and more ridiculous. If he didn't trust him, went did he gave him throw a ton? If you believe your QB can't process information, why have him throwing 30+ times a game? But I'm ridiculous for suggesting that, taking Lazor at his word, that it certainly seems plausible that he didn't use traditional audibles, since he designed the plays with multiple options for Tannehill to choose from, based on what he saw. Lazor said Tannehill processes as well as anyone he's coached. He said that he designs his plays with multiple options for Tannehill to choose from. You've literally given not one shred of evidence to support your theory that all OCs evaluate QBs and therefore Lazor evaluated Tannehill, and thus the lack of traditional audibles means Lazor didn't think Tannehill could handle it. Again, it's like me saying your car can't go 120mph because I've never seen your dad allow you to drive it that fast.
But you can't say with 100% certainty that he did evaluate him in that capacity. This is the beginning of disagreement. You have to admit, as improbable as it may be, there is a chance that you aren't correct. However, it is pretty evident that Lazor did risk his job by his play calling, by refusing to run the ball even when Campbell made it clear that was what needed to happen. He lost his job by refusing to do what needed to be done. That says to me that Lazor is a control freak, and believed he could do what he wanted. Is it really so outrageous to think that Lazor didn't want to use traditional audibles, that's why he didn't do it? I mean, Lazor did say, essentially, that traditional audibles were unnecessary because his plays had multiple options or variations built into them.
Good news guys.... The Dolphins with their newly found ability to audible plays the team that gives up the most passing yards in the NFL and are THE WORST team in the NFL at generating pressure. I fully expect a good game from Ryan (328-2TD) kind of night, its the reason I considered picking him up and starting him in fantasy this week and still may. Bad secondary? No pressure? Home on MNF? If he doesn't come out and play a GOOD football game then you really need to explore just letting him sit behind a rookie or a veteran next season. There were no excuses last week and he still failed, will he make it 1-1?? I think he pulls it off.
Uh, I fail to see how an interim head coach, interim OC (running a **** offense), and a suspect oline adds up to no reasons (or as you call them, excuses).
It is very reasonable to assume that Bill didn't have confidence in him to handle changing plays, every bit as reasonable as it is that Bill Lazor just decided his scheme was beyond audibling. Which theory is right?? Who knows, but to point to evidence from one perspective is flat out ridiculous because none exists.
You have officially taken over the crown as the most ridiculous poster on this site. You are ALREADY apologizing incase he has a bad game?? So basically if he plays well its all props to him for overcoming the rigors of that 32nd ranked pass rush and a secondary that allows over 300YPG, but if he doesn't??? Its the coach, OL, RB, DEF, Scheme, Ross, new uniforms, Isis, Obama, Pigeons, white people, global warming, loud music, or those damn kids that must be the reason. If you aren't married, you never should. Your significant other could get their rocks off right in front of your face and you would likely blame 50 shades of grey and the creators of Farmers only dot com.
Well, there has been no evidence presented to say that the theory that Lazor didn't trust him to make the right calls when audibling. I agree, though, in general, both are reasonable theories. I'm just asking for at least a little evidence for the other, as there is some evidence for what I'm saying.
So...you would say that an interim head coach, and an interim OC running this offense, and a suspect oline are all parts of the recipe for success? I'm just pointing out, Tannehill and the offense are not in a situation where anyone should expect success.
No, I can't say with 100% certainty that I'm correct, but think about how unlikely it is what you and Fin D are suggesting. If anything he trusted Tannehill too much by having him throw way too much. I'm still much more likely to believe Lazor restricted Tannehill's ability to audible for whatever reason (either that Tannehill didn't prove himself or Lazor was a control freak) than that Lazor didn't even bother to evaluate his ability to audible. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Is that a recipe for success? No. But it also doesn't prevent it 10 times out of 10. Josh McCown has had some very good games, Blaine Gabbert has had some games where he was a HUGE factor in the win. Alex Smith gets sacked at a very high rate (higher than RT) but has actually had a real good season and has made plays with his feet when things breakdown. Point is, it is the NFL and the gap in talent is not very significant...so I don't think it is unreasonable to expect a big day and be disappointed if he didn't have one at home vs a team that doesn't generate a pass rush and who allow 27 more YPG than the closest worst secondary. Rather he plays well or sucks won't change my mind about him as it wont yours, but I truly expect a big day from him.
All the signs point to a big game from Tannehill as long as everybody else doesn't completely **** the bed. You'd think that, but the Ravens game completely flipped the script. I'm anxious to see what happens. I'll make a bold prediction. If he has a poor performance on MNF, we will start to hear trade talk rumors involving Tannehill. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
We can't afford the cap hit for trading him....it would cost 10M just to be rid of him. Its possible, but I don't see a team willing to part with anything worth giving away 10M would....now that doesn't mean he has to start next year either. Will likely be a training camp battle with a rookie or veteran with a likely parting of the ways in 2017.
Yes, I keep forgetting that. Instead, he'll be benched. Damn it, just let me make a bold prediction [emoji19] Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Actually his 2016 Cap hit is 11.6M and the dead money would be over 18M. So just under 7M more against the cap to make him go away as opposed to just letting him collect his final year of good pay in the NFL.
Isn't it wonderful that Tannehill is regressing at a time when we need to decide what to do with the coaching staff? I'd rather extend Campbell and his staff for one year to make it clear that it's make or break for everybody including Tannehill than to push him onto coaching prospects. I can't think of one time we've cleaned house. Since Tannehill has been around, we kept Ireland around with Philbin (a guy who owes everything to Aaron Rodgers). We got rid of Ireland and Sherman (got screwed with a raw QB and bad skill position players), hired Lazor who came from the Kelly coaching tree (wtf) and attached Hickey's (nobody ever heard of this guy) success to Philbin. Then Ross extended Philbin (after a meaningless win on an unlikely special teams play) and proceeded to fire him, what, 4 games into the season? Coyle was finally fired (supposedly by Campbell, who somehow was granted this power as interim HC when he was a TE coach the week before), but Lazor was kept around for who knows what reason (supposedly we were gonna run the ball more). Our DC was the DB coach. Our OC was the QB coach that somehow outlasted the two guys that got him the job (Philbin and Sherman). Oh, and Hickey is being overshadowed by Tannenbaum, a guy nobody in the NFL wanted. This was all in the course of 4 years. Am I missing anything? How are we ever supposed to turn around as a franchise with Stephen Ross as the owner? I don't think we will. He either has to die or sell. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I have no idea what Lazor's mindset was. But based on the play calling it's safe to say that he felt passing was his best chance to put points on the board.
