No. YOU are saying that since all NFL coaches evaluate, that that means that they took audibling away because his evaluation said he was no good at it. I'm arguing that the statements we have tell us that he did not take away audibling because Tannehill was bad at identifying and audibling. He was good at that. It was taken away under Sherman because it affected rhythm. Lazor didn't add it back, seemingly, based on his statements, because he felt that his plays had options built in so that there was no need to audible. Now, IF YOU HAVE EVIDENCE that Tannehill was bad at audibling, and Lazor said that was why he didn't get traditional audibles, then you should post your information. In lieu of that, all we can go on are statements from Campbell and Lazor, and none of those statements ever say that Tannehill was bad at identifying presnap, or bad at changing the play. We do know, in fact, that Lazor said Tannehill was as good at that as anyone he's coached. I'm reframing nothing. Here, you tell me what the argument is, since apparently were not arguing the same thing. Let me know what it is you're trying to prove. I'm pricing that all the evidence we have says that audible were removed under Sherman due to rhythm suffering, and Lazor didn't implement traditional audibles because his plays had options built into them, or he'd call in two different plays for Tannehill to choose from.
You're kind of playing semantics here. Our OC ended up fired, too, and our DC was already ****canned. So neither of them was an option. I don't even know who the assistant hc is. Campbell was simply, apparently, basically the last man standing.
Hopefully Miami comes out inspired Monday at home with the throwbacks on national TV. The Giants have a generous secondary so I suspect Ryan has a good game from a statistical standpoint, even if it will feed the blind belief that we have a franchise QB I still want to watch my team look inspired. Remember when Henne threw that deep pass to Ted Ginn who left Revis 5 yards behind him??? Crazy things happen on Mondays. Lets just hope it isn't like the TB MNF game which set football back 35 years.
then He will be gone Bet he wants 3,000,000 a year, which we dont have Then its just another hole to fill I'd give him 5,000,000 just for the hair
What's funny about that is Wilson is on fire AND he's got a great matchup. Tannehill had a 10 point performance, his week by week performance has been underwhelming, and he's going up against a hungry Giants team in the playoff hunt with Coughlin and Eli. The NYG have a porous pass defense but he didn't take advantage last week. Plus the Dolphins record in MNF is 3-10 in their last 13 appearances. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
They didn't say he was good at audibling. They said he made the right calls but slowed the offense down and it threw off his rhythm, which was clear last game. If they thought he was good at it and it helped the offense, there wouldn't have been a collective decision by the coaching staff to not allow him to make full audibles. Think about what you're saying. You ignored the original claim by Fin D that I'm assuming Lazor even evaluated his ability to audible. Since that's clearly been proven wrong, you're moving onto the argument that Tannehill showed he was good at audibling, but the coaches were such egomaniac control freaks, they decided to risk their careers and restrict Tannehill. You're saying that despite two pieces of evidence to the contrary; the quote from the article and Tannehill's performance last game when he was allowed to audible. Give up. You're fighting a losing battle. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Nah, I'm not saying for sure we're going to lose. I'm predicting we will because of the state of both franchises. That can change and I hope it does so we can see some glimmer of hope. I'd love to see Parker continue to do well. I'd love to see Miller do well even though he'll be priority #1 for the NYG defense. I want our OL to gel together and do well. Heck, I'd even want to see Tannehill turn his career around so he can be the franchise QB the front office thinks he is. I'd love to be wrong and have a top 10 QB on a relatively cheap contract for several years. I just don't think I am wrong. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Humans poop. Offensive coordinators evaluate QBs. We've gone through this already, remember? Your logic is flawed. You hate Lazor and defend Tannehill so much that you believe an NFL OC didn't even evaluate a starting QB's ability to audible. You can't distance yourself from that claim. It's been quoted. It's on the record. The article proved you wrong. Last game proved you wrong. I'm simply restating history. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm really trying to refrain from making insulting remarks. 1. You have not proven that Lazor evaluated Tannehill on audibling. You are assuming that. Given what Lazor has said about his offensive system, it's just as likely that he didn't need to evaluate Tannehill on audibling, since he wasn't going to use traditional audibles. 2. So, Tannehill was actually making the right calls for audibles and protections, and that somehow, in your brain, equates to him not being good at audibling? You realize rhythm being slowed isn't the same as being good at audibling, right? Again, how many first or second year guys are good at audibling? 3. The article gave ZERO evidence of what you're arguing. Again, WHAT PART OF THE ARTICLE gave you the idea that it supported your stance? You really don't like to answer specific questions. 4. Again, WHY are you using one game in a season where we gave an interim head coach and OC to in any way , shape, or form come to a conclusion on Tannehill's audible ability? Further, did he make poor calls in the audibles? How many times did he audible? Again, you literally know now of this, but are, once again, making a claim that you know something. It's almost like you're trolling.
Go back and look at the Chad Henne threads.....you aren't going to get through to a group of guys who are head over heels with a QB. Every logical thing you bring up they will find a way to try and discredit it. They remind me of a couple of real crappy lawyers who lose case after case and the judge and jury look at them in pity with every straw they grasp upon.
There is evidence pointing to the fact he didn't. Humans pooping is not proof that Lazor evaluated Tannehill on audibles. What effing planet is this? The article doesn't prove me wrong at all, it actually points in the direction that Lazor didn't do the evaluation.
Dude, honestly, how are you agreeing with him on this? I know we haven't always agreed, basically never, actually, but this is pure insanity. We have coaches saying Tannehill made the right calls. We have Lazor saying that Tannehill made presnap decisions as well as anyone he's coached. We have Lazor referring to choosing different options with his called play as "audibling" when trying to refute the idea that he didn't allow Tannehill to audible. Literally, THE ONLY THING we don't have evidence of, is that Lazor evaluated Tannehill to be bad at audibling, and thus didn't let him do it.
Join the Club level. Seriously. It's worth it. No trolling. No getting talked down to. Great, healthy debates and discussions.
And you don't think you're testing my patience? 1. It's flat out ignorant to even entertain the idea that a freaking NFL OC wouldn't even evaluate his starting QB's ability to audible. What's more likely- that what you and Fin D are suggesting is the case or after evaluating Tannehill, he and the coaching staff opted to restrict him? There's proof of the latter. 2. If him making the right calls slows the offense down and throws off his rhythm, they're saying he can't handle it. They're saying it's not a good idea to depend on him to make full audibles. That's why they made that decision. I don't know how to make it any more obvious. 3. Read. The. Article. Sound familiar? 4. It's the only evidence we have. This past game was the first time he's been allowed to make full audibles. He was beyond terrible. Words can't describe how bad he was. None of his coaches have trusted him to audible, can't blame them. He's had plenty of time to prove himself as a Dolphin. He's done the opposite. I'm not trolling. You don't know how ridiculous you and Fin D sound to the majority, or possibly everybody else in this thread. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
He's also been indignant in the past when we didn't recognize that he thought the no audible thing was a major problem.
Read the article? Quote where it says Lazor evaluated him. It says Sherman evaluated him. Not Lazor. You;d think if it was Lazor, Campbell would have said Lazor did it, but no, he says Sherman did. Why do you suppose that is? Oh yeah, people poop. Jesus.
Everything that comes from Campbell indicates the staff don't think Tanny can handle much mentally. http://www.thephinsider.com/2015/10...-of-the-week-can-ryan-tannehill-audible-maybe Sounds like Campbell feels Tanny needs training wheels. There are only 40 seconds between plays. Tanny doesn't process fast enough to have audible power according to the Coach.
I told you to quote the article before and you didn't. I said people poop because of cbrad's analogy. Apparently you weren't able to make the connection. Funny how you dismissed everything else I argued. You're so wrong it's ridiculous. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Hence, Salguero's report on the divide between the coaching staff and the front office. I wonder which knows more about football. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I know where you got the stupid people poop idiocy. I've read the thread. It just doesn't apply. As I said, NFL coaches don't make their players play tug of war....yet one did. NFL coaches don't hang effing lobster traps in the locker room, yet one did. NFL coaches don't put out bounties on other players, yet one did. Lazor had a system, it didn't include audibles. He's also been fired for being bad at his job, just like Sherman. Deal with it OR PROVE ME WRONG WITH ANYTHING specific to the actual issue at hand. You've literately dismissed EVERYTHING I've ever said and evidence I've provided. Get off your cross.
The Tannehill audible thing has been an issue since last year ever since an "anonymous" player leaked it to the media. They've been asked about it since last year. It's silly to believe Lazor never entertained the question of whether to give him more freedom or not. Judging by Campbell's comments they coaching staff for whatever reason don't like to put a lot on Tanny's plate. It slows him down. Wonder why.
Why would he restrict Tannehill if Tannehill improved the offense with the freedom to make full audibles? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Campbell has said multiple times that Tannehill CAN handle all that stuff. They don't want him to be "Superman". Meaning they don't want him to have to do everything. Aka balance offensively.
Just saying its silly doesn't mean anything to me. Wasn't it silly to play Hartline over Matthews? Dallas Thomas over Fox? Trade Vontae? Trade Smith? And so much other crap I've had to hear about these past 4 years but all of a goddamned sudden, these coaches are effing geniuses who did things any other coach would do. The spin has reached levels heretofore unheard of in modern society.
Again, your own quote contradicts what you're saying Campbell is saying. He said, "He can handle it. "
I have read the article. You haven't, if you believe the article says that Lazor evaluated his audibling skills and found him lacking. How many times did he audible? Were they wrong? Without proof, you cannot say what you're saying. I'm not sure how you can't understand this. I'm not being ridiculous, saying that you don't have proof for the things you're saying.
I know. Did you hear that since people poop Bill Lazor thinks Tannehill is the worst QB ever at audibling?
I know...but then after I saw him play I began to realize that for whatever reason he just wasn't going to workout. Very similar situation here. I didn't defend a large sample size of mediocre play, thats the difference.
I honestly do not even know what the argument is about. I just see poop and proof all over the thread. What I do know is that you guys like to take a certain approach (not you as much as.....) that even when some evidence is provided it is dismissed or they just parlay it to another "reason".
