Tannehill Wallace Connection

That's a good piece. The Bill Lazor as our white knight narrative is a little overdone, imo, but the piece does a nice job going back into Lazor's history which I haven't seen so spelled out.

The one issue I have is a checkdown play to Miller that he gives Tannehill props for.


To me this is Tannehill's biggest problem. Not attacking the middle for chunk plays that can produce YAC. Here he could try hitting whoever that is right near the hash-marks behind the LB for a big play, but instead he does what he usually does...takes the easy throw to a stationary target in a tight space who hasn't even made it beyond the LB shell. Plays like this are what has kept his ypa and WR yac numbers so low. It's a tough throw, yeah, but I just want to see a more aggressive attitude from the QB.

 

Yeah and I mean he did attack the deep middle a couple plays later, which was sweet. But it's little decisions like the one I copied that made this offense feel like it was stuck in a box the last two years. It's the biggest thing that has to change, imo. Get those bigger completions that allow for more rac opportunity and space near the back of the defense. Though maybe the corner was nearby in this play and what I'm talking about is totally wrong.

Admittedly I'm probably hyper-aware of this after stuff the past two years. But I'm a big believer in that raising his ypa to above 7 will put us in the playoffs. I want to see our guy in attack mode. If a few more balls fall incomplete, so be it.

 

Are you saying he should have thrown it to the guy who is circled?

 

Yes, with the defenders (potentially) dropping even further back as he looks at the receiver coming across their zones.

I could buy it if you're saying he should have pumped to Miller first, but then, all we've heard all camp is how Lazor wants the ball out of his hands quickly, and a pump fake there would have meant a good bit of play development time.

 

Right? That would be a horrible decision to throw there. Now maybe there could be an argument for the player at the 40 if he was breaking in.

 

I addressed it in another thread. The problem with this play wasn't so much who he threw too, but more so how quickly he threw it. He started the pass before he ever got Gibson in view. I don't know if that was the result of coaching emphasis or a habit, but had he waited a second, both Gibson (breaking across the middle) and I believe it was Dion Sims (top of the line right before the 25) would have both been open.

At the time he began to throw, Sims was just about to release from his help block and Gibson was bracketed in front and behind by two defenders. My guess here is that he was so anxious to get the ball out, at the time Miller was the only one he saw he could throw to.

Also, I don't know what you're talking about with those stationary target throws to players in front of the LB's. We made a hell of a lot of use of deep outs and similar routes with Hartline and others last season. Before Gibson was out, Tannehill was using him effectively as well. Not to mention a number of plays I can remember to Charles Clay not nearly in that area you describe. When you use as many comeback-type routes as Mike Sherman, there are very specific places the ball needs to be.

EDIT: I'm rewatching this play right now multiple times to see exactly what happens. To add to it, on this play, the primary receiver was the man on the left sideline who I think was Kevin Cone for some reason. His route was not going to generate a completion based on coverage and Miller was read number 2 apparently. Around 2.5-3 seconds had passed by the time Tannehill progressed to Miller and threw the ball to him. He never looked at another receiver. I suspect this has something to do with being coached to get the ball out quickly. Post 2 seconds in the pocket and your second man is open for a modest gain. I think it's a situation he's been told to get the yards in and come back later. Something else that leads me to believe it's possibly coaching is that pass that Miller bobbled but got away with. He almost immediately gunned that to Miller. A receiver gets open in the middle, but the ball is pretty much in Miller's hands by then.

 

No. Watching that play again, if Gibson is sufficiently led, there's no way anyone makes a play on the pass. He would have gotten tackled somewhere up-field or scored. There was one safety to that side and I'm seeing a 2 deep zone so if Gibson plays the sideline well he's in.

EDIT: On probably my 10th review in the past 5 minutes I noticed something I didn't before. The X receiver is running a fairly vertical route. and his DB is probably directly in Gibson's path. A TD is unlikely with both a safety and DB in the picture but the potential gain is larger. The completion based on angle and progression would have had to come around the 43-45 yard lines. That's a touch pass which would take a moment to get there. There's also the fact that Tannehill had just not seen Gibson. In fact, I'm not convinced that is a completion if he throws it around the point visible in the picture or later. I'm not questioning the route design. it would be PERFECT if Mike Wallace was in the game because that's his intangible addition. That CB HAS to go deep and the safety will probably train left and back more.

 

That's Gibson crossing the middle. Dion Sims is the TE at the top of the picture. He help blocks then releases into the flat.

 

That article coincides with everything we have been talking about here all offseason..

Also, I started a thread a while back about the tempo word, there was a lengthy debate, most thought I was wrong.

I stated that I believe that Lazor's tempo meant the time between the break of the huddle and the snap of the football, most told me that wasn't it..

I know I noticed the increased tempo/less time on Friday from break to snap, and this confirms it, and I love that concept..simply do not allow the defense to communicate when we know what were going to do.

The ridiculous lack of usage by the qbs full arsenal was downright stupidity, and I have no idea what type of negative impact Sherman's philosophies could of had on the results we saw from him, we might have a brand new Qb to evaluate, actually I might just have to give him a clean slate..

 

If you watch Tannehill or Hartline or Gibson or Clay highlights from last season, most of the time the ball is being caught
A) within 6 yards of the LOS underneath the LBs. A huge majority of his throws over the middle were within 6 or 7 yards.
B) by someone who is basically stopped and squared up to the LOS with no momentum moving downfield (comebacks)
C) by someone in such a tight area (sidelines) that they have nowhere to run. Tannehill very seldom led a guy into space or hit them moving vertically. Because he took so many low-reward throws, this offense created very few big plays, and his bad ypa and rac numbers reflected that.

I just want to see him take those opportunities for chunk yards when they present themselves. That's all I'm saying. In the play at hand he could've waited a beat to see Gibson pass through the zones, or to hi-lo those LBs even more where it looks like the bottom LB is already too far upfield, could've laid the ball out towards the numbers to Gibson with a bit of depth.

He certainly didn't have to check it down that fast to a standing target who had nowhere to go. Again, this is the kind of low-reward throw that doomed our offense last season.

 

I would never have advised Tannehill to make that risky throw on the first play of the first game in a new system. There's nothing about the situation that warrants the risk. And the design of the offense is to draw the defense in so that those deeper throws are easier later in the game. The offense is not one play in isolation. You're building a system that not only uses your strengths, but also plays off of your opponent's reactions. Tannehill absolutely made the right decision there.

As for the rest of the article it, it did a nice job of highlighting the predictability of last year's system. The cadence, the position of the receivers, the limited use of the run game, the limited use of the roll-out, the limited use of Tannehill's running ability, etc. That predictability made the opposing defense's job easier and everything more difficult for our offense. IMO that was what killed last season. It wasn't the talent level, but the poor use of that talent that took us from a legitimate playoff team to being on the outside looking in. IMO whatever you thought of our talent level last season, you can expect to see them look about 25% better just by removing the predictability. I'm not saying to expect 25% better stats across the board or that we should automatically pencil in two more wins this season. Every season is different. But I do believe we would have won two more last year if the coaching in that one aspect would have been better.

 

And I only count 9 defenders on that play pictured...meaning their are 2 more somewhere deep, possibly with a good angle to where that throw would need to be.

 

His arm is already in motion which is why the defends aren't still trailing Gibson. They are about to break in on the check down.

 

I made a critical comment on this play from the first time I saw it.


I'm not sure of that. Even before Tannehill starts his throwing motion, the outside (SAM) and inside (safety) defenders were both flat footed (with the safety running up and the outside backer staying home), and it appears that if Tannehill had thrown to Gibson with anticipation, that could of been a big play over the top, because neither guy was going to have a chance once Gibson got parallel with them. Tannehill seemingly made up his mind not to. At least, that was my initial thought.

Sick brings up a good point, which is, we can't see behind Gibson. Perhaps there was a man deep that prevented Tannehill from even looking towards Gibson. Without watching coaches tape w/a real angle, I can't say for certain, but I suspect the Falcons were running cover 3 because the SS moves up into the box with the LB curling out towards the flat.




So, while my initial impressions were that Tannehill made up his mind too early and got rid of the ball too quickly and didn't let the play develop and throw with anticipation, I believe I was wrong.

I suspect Tannehill read cover 3, and didn't bother with Gibson because
A). The inside-out coverage prevented a quick throw in that area.
B). An over the top safety in the middle of the field would have eliminated a throw over the top (or else made for a very risky throw)

Instead Tannehill, simply took what the defense gave him.


EDIT: The only reason Sims was open on the delay was because the Falcons didn't send coverage into the flat, because Sims stayed in to "block" and stayed close to Gibson. Had Tannehill waited on him, that would of been the better throw for more yards. However, that was likely his last read given the play design and subsequent coverage, and it might of been marks against him for not making a quicker read and getting the ball out, Not to mention banking on his last read when he didn't have to.

Like I said, all in all, I think Tannehill made the right decision.

 

Yeah I was wondering where the other two guys were myself. You can't see them on any of the angles I have. Either way, criticizing a check down on the first play of the first PS game is a bit much. Like Raf said, throw the check down first then come back and try to hit the seam later, which RT did, to Matthews latwr in the drive.

 

Fair enough, my response was based on the picture which 9/10 is what is happening when you see a play like that. I need to see it in real time again because it sounds like you're right.