What were Tannehill's numbers deep without Wallace? My point about the redzone tds was also that were Wallace on the team this season, it would almost be a certainty that those redzone tds would go down, and he wouldn't necessary have had such a great rating from Tannehill. Most of those redzone tds weren't great plays by Wallace, either.arty last one of those highlight catches, only ended up a highlight catch because he had it bounce off his chest initially.
Deep Without wallace? Zero completions past 21-30. None. Zilch. Nada. It just wasn't there, for a host of reasons. Regardless of whose fault it is, oline, blocking, scheme, WR, Tanny ... it's just something we need fixing. Parker isn't going to burn anyone deep but he should win a few jump balls. He's excellent at creating separation with his technique even when a DB is on him but it's a small window of separation and he'll still need some well placed balls. I think this group of QB friendly WRs will help Tannehill and that's the point I haven't watched tape on Stills but some posters were saying he's great at tracking the ball in the air and bailing out Brees last year. Landry is not catching deep passes unless someone blew coverage. It's Parker/Stills/Jennings to rescue the passing game and elevate it past the short game it was last year.
Going back to your original point about redzone TD's, I do agree you can't just look at # of TD's and say a WR is QB friendly. However, highlight reel catches are rare by any receiver, so having 2-3 out of 10 is not bad. And while I do agree that in general Wallace isn't that QB friendly, part of the blame is also on Tannehill for not knowing how to throw to him (those two just don't fit each other well). A QB that can throw a good high-arching deep ball where he trusts the receiver to go out (not up) and get it would find Wallace a QB-friendlier WR.
Yeah game tape on Stills does show he's much better than Wallace at going after the ball. I just get the feeling some people here are counting the chickens before they hatch with him. I really hope what looks like a good fit on paper turns into reality with him here.
But a "deep ball" is considered 20 or greater. What is his ranking on those not to Wallace? For his career? Also, EVERY TEAM wants QB friendly receivers. No GM is seeking out receivers that can't catch and are a poor fit to fill their WR positions.
Of course everyone wants qb friendly receivers. Just like every team wants RBs that can run the ball 6.0 ypc. But you can emphasize speedy WRs with not the greatest hands, or give up some athletic ability with hands of glue. There were questions of Breshad Perriman's hands. But he timed at 4.25. He's not the QB friendly WR say a Devante Parker is. Torrey Smith isn't a QB friendly WR. Larry Fitzy may be, but John Brown and Michael Floyd aren't.
Of course. But do most teams want their main receivers to be as QB friendly as possible, or do they not care? I'd say most teams are trying to have their two top guys be as QB friendly as possible. Last season we had a guy who wasn't what most would call QB friendly as our #1. That's not really ideal, nor is it really a knock on Tannehill that they went out and got receivers that better fit the scheme.
Someone like Peyton Manning doesn't need QB friendly WRs. He just needs WR that will get open. Of course, if you can get the complete package, a super athletic WR with greate routes, with hands of glue, great strength to box defenders out, outjump them, and can outrun anyone, yeah you'd love that. Not everyone could make the acrobatic catches that Chris Chambers use to make. Sure he'd drop a couple in the bread basket, but he rescued many an errant throw. Someone like Brandon Marshall is a basket case but he is easy to throw to. He just won't outrun anyone. Ever. Marvin Harrison is a precise route runner and had some quicks and speed, but he's not winning any jump balls, one hand catches that are off target etc. He just got wide effing open all of the time. He was Ted Ginn soft in the middle of the field. I've seen him take a dive rather than get hit. And for good reason he's kinda small. And before someone goes and finds me a video of his one handed catch yes I can do that with Wallace as well. QB friendly doesn't just mean get open and catch balls. I'm talking about guys that will make up for a not perfect throw by the QB.
Oh, I get all that. I'm just saying, when it comes to your 1,2 receivers, more often than not, good teams have QB friendly receivers. They do things well, and can bail out the QB on off target throws. Maybe Peyton doesn't need that...but he's sure as heck pretty much always had it.
Rediculous Resnor....114....give credit when due..we moved on as a team so I am rootin for.Tannehill to have 114 or better with all of his receivers...if we could have hit allot more RZ td's we would not have lost near as many games.
According to Football Outsiders Wallace was the number one receiver in the league one season so I'm guessing Roethlisberger thought he was pretty QB friendly.
You can be a fin fan and still be a fan of the game and/or appreciate special players on other teams. Also, a lot of current fin fans became so during Danny's hey days. His abilities were awe inspiring. Fans were spoiled as he made it look so easy. We haven't have good, consistent QB play since he retired up until last season where Tannehill turned it on after the 3rd game. Tannehill should be able to surpass that this season, be more consistent and commanding, and quiet a lot of his distractors with his play.
Well, since we're discussing QB friendly receivers, I think it does. If Wallace was "QB friendly" and had 4.3 speed, he would have easily been a first round pick.
QB friendly frankly is a stupid made up term used as another excuse for people who can't find it in their hearts to admidt Ryan had some hard times thus far. We get it, the excuses have poured in for months. -Not a QB friendly OL -Not a QB friendly WR -Not a QB friendly running game -Not a QB friendly defense -Not a QB friendly coach -Not a QB friendly Kicker It has been something OTHER than Ryan all year
Watched him at Ole Miss. He had the same issues there... bad hands/fights the ball, and let too many balls get into his pads. Problems with drops. He couldn't get off press coverage and allowed more physical DBs to reroute him. Wouldn't fight for the ball. Lack of vision, etc... he had really only had 1 good year in college. Go read his scouting reports. He hasn't changed... he had 1 decent year of college and 1 or 2 decent seasons out of 4 while in PB. The Steelers haven't missed him at all.
This isn't 1995, all those stats will get you is 8-8 when you throw slants and hitches all day. He needs to get better or we never will. Bottom line, rather it hurts your feelings or not.
Pittsburgh didn't, which is why they offered him a lesser contract than Wallace felt he deserved. Safe to say, Pitt doesn't really give a ****.
Really? Didn't Brady go 12-4 with an 88 QB rating and get to the championship game? And w/a slightly higher QB rating than Tannehill in 2014, NE went 12-4 and won the SB. If the defense could of stopped wind, we were in the playoffs. Tannehill has to improve a number of aspects of his game. Fair and true. But let's not pretend a 2-1 TD/INT ratio and 4,000 yards passing is mundane and meaningless. It's not what it was, but it's not meaningless. Especially when your WR corps consists of Mike Wallace, Brian Hartline, and Brandon Gibson and an injured Charles Clay. All the while your starting C is playing RG and your starting RT is playing LT. All things considered, Tannehill's 2014 was very solid and a step in the right direction.
Which is significantly below what Wallace wanted. They were all too happy to give his contract to Brown as soon as Wallace rejected it and all but told Wallace he wasn't worth a penny more. Which was true, as it turned out.
We agree he had a solid 2014, we agree it was a step in the right direction, we agree he needs to improve in a number of aspects in his game. All this "numbers" talk is simply overblown though, and when Brady's team needs a play in the 4th qtr he usually makes it, when they need a 3rd down conversion? He usually makes it. Two areas Ryan was amongst the league's worst in. You want me to elevate you to the next group of good QBs? Step up and make a play when your team needs you the most. And that starts by making throws down the field. Until then, he is a top 12-14 QB.
I haven't and will not checking the stats from the article below. They could be bogus. http://www.thephinsider.com/2015/1/...ike-wallaces-career-a-statistical-examination From the same article with the Steelers 25% 40+ yard completion rate. With Miami 24% 40+ yard completion rate. Wallace had one amazing season with Pittsburgh. Then they changed the O and he played like he did with us. Good to great. Not worth $11M a year.
We never got that 50+ yard game changing TD that we anticipated when signing him to that ridiculous contract. It was frusterating because we saw him get behind defenses and put himself in position. Saw a handfull of those in Pitt. Frankly Im glad its over, our best WRs now are guys who thrive at what Ryan thrives at. To hell with the deep ball, develop the back shoulder pass and let Parker amd Landry do what they do.
Giant load of BS. Those numbers will get you to the Super Bowl on the right team, Seattle for example. Lets not pretend that defenses don't adjust to take away what opposing offenses want to do or that throwing quick passes doesn't have its own set of pitfalls. I'd love to hear which receivers were going to run which route combos to create all these down field passes you speak of, and which protections Lazor could rely on to keep the pocket clean while these combos developed. Im well aware of Tannehills deficiencies but I'm not down for blaming one guy for issues that were beyond his control.
Nobody is blaming ONE guy, but when you are the QB you better be prepared to take the grunt of it. And we had one of the league's best deep threats who was open deep often. The point is those stats were system based (ask Nick Foles who played at a top 5-8 level in that system). The good news is that system thrives on what Ryan does best and that's intermediate accuracy. He's always going to put up good numbers with those routes. I want to see aggressive, clutch throws on 3rd down and late in games. That will always be more important than a completion percentage.
Are we sure those other teams aren't opting for the shorter stuff because the longer stuff is being taken away? Just asking. In 2014 it certainly felt like defenses didn't have to worry about Miami going deep at all because Miami would screw it up by themselves. There's a big difference in that because it allows opposing defenses to apply more pressure on the QB while still covering the shorter routes. I know teams were applying pressure with 4 but I think the point still holds that Miami's lack of big play ability actually made their protection issues worse. As I said before, the only way we can be sure that the pass protection gets better is if we start seeing Miami hit big plays in the face of it. I think what Fin-O is saying is what many other people are saying...although it seems unfair, games may come down to 1 or 2 opportunities to make a big play which demand the QB make a great throw and the WR run a great route. As was shown in the Dolphins-Lions game, both QBs were rushed quite a bit but Stafford was able to side-step it and push it down-field for a TD when he had the chance. Yeah, he threw it to Calvin Johnson but I could've caught that ball...it was thrown beautifully. If Tannehill was able to complete just 4-5 of those throws per season (that's one every 3-4 games), his stats would look like I want them to. I see the cake, I don't see the icing. We'd be looking at a guy who's putting up closer to 4,300-4,500 yards and 30 TDs as opposed to 4,000 and 27. While the former looks legit, the latter is less impressive given the current NFL rules.
Well said. It boils down to most of us believe Ryan is somewhere between 10-15 best QBs in this league. Some of us aren't shy in pointing out what needs improved from the QB position, some would rather defer to other reasons. All these debates in a nutshell.
Nick Foles' one great season came when he had the best OL and running game in the league, while facing a schedule full of teams that played little or no defense. And that's the point. We all want to see Tannehill improve, you want to see more aggression and I don't disagree at all but the conditions have to be favorable in order for that to happen. Run the ball, force LBs to hug the LOS then find the grass behind them, force safeties into the box, leaving CBs on an island. Slow down the pass rush so that the deeper routes have time to develop. Show a credible threat to create chunk yardage on the shorter throws. Cause let's face it, defenses are going to prioritize preventing big plays until you make them more afraid of something else, you can't just go out and throw bombs bc you want to, especially in a division like the AFCE where everyone plays D. I agree w your overall assessment and I share your desire for a more dangerous offense we just disagree on the best path to getting there.
Good post. My issue is that what you're describing isn't realistic given what the offense has had to work with for the past few seasons. That, and my primary concern is how best to win games more so than how to turn Tannehill into elite QB. IMO the offense has been too pass happy, more balance is needed. We don't have a Luck or Manning so we shouldn't be throwing as much as the Colts or Broncos (which we were), especially with a below average OL like we had post Detroit. Id much rather see Tannehill in the 28-32 attempts per game range, with a nice compliment of play action and rollouts. Let Miller and a second back churn out 25-30 carries a game, sprinkle in a some read option and deny defenses the opportunity to really come after the QB. Imo that's going to bring about a lot of the improvements you're calling for and give us the best chance to maximize production and wins.
