You can definitely win with a guy who has a 88-92 qbr but man, I'm hoping Tanny becomes the 100-105 guy.
Good points. The only part I would take issue with is that limiting interceptions may not be entirely on RT. A big part of it is also on the OC. Now obviously the QB is the one making the decisions, but the OC has a hand in how difficult those decisions are. I watched quite a bit of Philly last year b/c I wanted to see how Kelly's O translated to the NFL. The big thing that struck me was how much space both the WRs and the backs had. That doesn't mean that Foles and McCoy didn't make great plays/great decisions, b/c they did. But a large majority of the plays were easy decisions. It was a stark contrast to what we saw in Miami. If you watch the highlight reels for RT you see a large percentage of great throws into tight windows. Looking back at the Philly games last year, I would say that by far the largest percentage of their big plays were throws to wide open WRs. So while Foles still had to make the throw, that throw was far easier most of the time. I think that RT's interception rate would look a great deal better if say 70% more of his decisions were suddenly easy ones.
While I think what you say is true, I also think a big difference was how the two quarterbacks handled pressure. Foles really handled pressure well and had a nice 82 rating versus pressure while Tannehill had a 46 rating or something like that. Tannehill threw 10 picks while being pressured. The answer to that isn't necessarily to just have a line that doesn't let him get pressured because every quarterback will deal with pressure. The answer is he needs to stop making poor decisions when he is pressured.
Goofy looking guy sporting Riddick like shades and a wife beater's tan... No idea what she sees in him when she could have her pick of the guys on this forum.
I don't really dig super skinny blondes with slight curves and a pancake *** myself, but she's not THAT bad... lol...
I think the Tannehill turnover thing is being overstated a little by some. His INT% is better than Marino's career number and isn't all that far from Drew Brees'. I can live with a INT% under 3 and there's reason to expect that to go down as he develops. 39 turnovers in 2 years really isn't so staggering, especially on a team that passes as much as the Dolphins have and that pass protects as poorly as the Dolphins have. Stafford had 44, Eli Manning had 45, Carson Palmer had 44, Dalton had 43, Flacco had 38, Matt Ryan had 37, Romo had 37 Rivers had 35, Brees had 34, Luck had 34, etc. So there's certainly nothing staggering about Tannehill's 39. And obviously not every interception is a result of a bad decision.
It's not the average number of turnovers, it's the bunches. CK clearly made the argument, 3+ turnovers a game. If you have one turnover a game, throughout the season, that's not too bad. If you have 3+ in 5 games, you've effectively cut the legs off of your team for those 5 games.
[video=youtube;dNLTdNxhFvw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNLTdNxhFvw[/video] Here's Tannehill's overthrows and underthrows to Wallace. 8 plays were from shotgun, 3 were under center. 2 of those 3 had the "mesh-point" with passes appx. 55 yards (underthrown, caught), 60 yards (underthrown batted away- in pitt. snow game). As you can see, the shotgun plays there was a little pressure however we can't just take these plays in a vacuum, I'm sure he was hit a few times before that may have made him a bit jumpy. Looking at this, I think the excuse that Sherman's play action theories are good stories, but false. Tannehill has trouble with the long ball.
That's one way of looking at it. Another way is that you are limiting the number of games in which you turn the ball over. As is so often noted, the team that wins the turnover battle usually wins the game. In two seasons, Ryan has had no INTs in 14 games, roughly every other game. That's good. In that span, Stafford only had 8 zero INT games. Eli Manning had 10. Etc. And let's be honest about those 4 3 INT games -- the truth is that we had relatively little chance of winning them even if Ryan was turnover free. The first was on the road against a very good Texans team in Ryan's first NFL start. IIRC, a few of those were passes tipped at the LOS that weren't really bad decisions (and that batted pass issue turned out not to be a lingering issue). The second was that 37-3 bloodbath against the Titans in which the INTs definitely didn't help, but the entire team (including the water boys and the kid who ran out to pick up the tee) sucked. The third was on the road against an undefeated Saints team in prime time, and the Saints were about 500% better at home than on the road. The last one, in the season finale against the Jets definitely hurt and was a winnable game. But Tannehill's INTs were a real "cause" of a loss in only 1 of those 4 3-INT games. The truth is that INTs tend to come in bunches for most QBs. They are often caused by pressure etc. and some games just have more of that. Peyton Manning has had 18 3+ INT games in his career. Brees has had 14. Marino had 25. Tannehill's 4 in his first 2 years is hardly remarkable.
You know...I just realized this. This is the first time ever...Tannehill has had to learn an offense other then Mike Shermans. That gives me pause.... Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk
Yeah, I see Tanny as very serious about his job and about doing whatever he can to improve. He'll learn the offense as quicker than most I believe. Obviously it will still mean his first year w/ the new offense.
Well, personally speaking, I was not "trying to sound smart and coachy at the expense of ignoring the elephant in the room". There are reasons the elephant is in the room. We're just discussing the reasons why. There are reasons rather than just saying Tanne sucks and is a turnover machine. That's the end result. We're just trying to discuss what the problem is and if we think it can be fixed. We've ALL stated some opinions. No biggie.
I agree that Foles handled pressure better. Without looking at the numbers, but just watching them play, it was obvious. Foles would often scramble around to buy time. They weren't physically impressive scrambles, but they were very aware scrambles. That being said I do believe that playing QB is a great deal easier when you're only asked to make a few great plays once in a while. That was my main beef with Miami's O last year. It seemed like RT had to consistently make great plays for the offense to move at all. His throws had to fit in tight windows. He had to evade nearly constant pressure. He had to carry the offense to an extent that few second year players are asked to do. I just wonder how his numbers would look if he could pick and choose his spots to make those tight throws.
Does it surprise anyone that Tannehill had 4 4th qtr comebacks last season? He'd have had more than that if the defense had held... He has 5 for his career - http://www.pro-football-reference.com/play-index/comeback.cgi?player=TannRy00 Foles had 1 last season, and 2 for his career: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/play-index/comeback.cgi?player=FoleNi00 Maybe I'm the only one that finds that interesting... My favorite Tannehill was the 40 yard strike to Gibson against the Ravens, while on the run. Too bad the team failed him that day or that Gibson wasn't able to turn that up-field into a TD. IMO he carried the team last season until the final 2 games... a lot of his bad decisions could just be youth and frustration, wanting to make something happen. Hoping he continues his upward career trajectory. I sure don't want to have to start over with another rookie QB.
