For those of you calling for more rollouts....

[dolphins4life]

Do you really think that will do any good?  Tannehill is not mobile and he has no pocket presence at all.

[Dolfanalyst]

Think about what opposing linebackers and safeties can do in terms of pass coverage when the QB rolls out and positions himself on one side of the field.

What you gain in escaping pressure you lose in finding open spaces for receivers.  If you roll out and nobody's open, what's the use?

There's a reason you see teams operating from the pocket, primarily.  Tannehill needs to become more adept at moving within the pocket and evading pressure.

You don't resort to an offensive method that's ineffective at the NFL level to compensate for the weaknesses of your QB.  You instead modify those weaknesses, or move on to another player.

[fyo]

Do you really think that will do any good?  Tannehill is not mobile and he has no pocket presence at all.

I've been very vocal in my wish to see more rollouts called. The reason is simple: When rolling out, Tannehill does EXTREMELY well. In fact, when rolling out or scrambling, Tannehill is an elite quarterback. The media regularly show these stats during games, so that is my primary reference, but not one that can be easily linked to since the underlying data isn't published online. Pro Football Focus published a comprehensive two years ago covering the 2013 season (link). It had Tannehill as the third best quarterback on rollouts and fourth best on scrambles.

As for your arguments that the team SHOULDN'T feature rollouts, I disagree with the not mobile part and your second argument is an argument FOR rollouts, not against.

Regarding the mobility of Tannehill, I point to the numbers in the link above (and similar numbers for other seasons), however I certainly grant that he does not scramble around as often as he should when the pocket collapses (or fails to materialize). As for why, I can only guess, but one of those guesses would certainly be a less than ideal pocket presence, which, again, is an argument FOR rolling him out.

DOLFANANALYST: Do you have any data to back up your claim that rolling a quarterback out is "ineffective at the NFL level"? I ask because the only firm data I have (for the 2013 season) points to the opposite. The league average passer rating was 86.9 on straight dropbacks and 96.6 on rollouts.

Rolling a quarterback out is an effective method of disguising weaknesses in your offensive line. As with probably every playcall in existence, there are advantages and disadvantages. I'm not pretending there are no disadvantages. What I am saying is that, on average, the advantages significantly outweigh the disadvantages and for Tannehill, in particular, it moves his statistical performance into "elite" territory. Whether that is on Tannehill or just because it has been masking defects in the offensive line is not something we have the data to distinguish between, but unless the offensive line has suddenly become perfect, that distinction is likely to be irrelevant.

And, no, of course the team shouldn't roll out Tannehill on every single play. It is simply a playcall that I would like to see featured (much) more often, simply because it gets better results on average.

[Dolfanalyst]

I've been very vocal in my wish to see more rollouts called. The reason is simple: When rolling out, Tannehill does EXTREMELY well. In fact, when rolling out or scrambling, Tannehill is an elite quarterback. The media regularly show these stats during games, so that is my primary reference, but not one that can be easily linked to since the underlying data isn't published online. Pro Football Focus published a comprehensive two years ago covering the 2013 season (link). It had Tannehill as the third best quarterback on rollouts and fourth best on scrambles.

As for your arguments that the team SHOULDN'T feature rollouts, I disagree with the not mobile part and your second argument is an argument FOR rollouts, not against.

Regarding the mobility of Tannehill, I point to the numbers in the link above (and similar numbers for other seasons), however I certainly grant that he does not scramble around as often as he should when the pocket collapses (or fails to materialize). As for why, I can only guess, but one of those guesses would certainly be a less than ideal pocket presence, which, again, is an argument FOR rolling him out.

DOLFANANALYST: Do you have any data to back up your claim that rolling a quarterback out is "ineffective at the NFL level"? I ask because the only firm data I have (for the 2013 season) points to the opposite. The league average passer rating was 86.9 on straight dropbacks and 96.6 on rollouts.

Rolling a quarterback out is an effective method of disguising weaknesses in your offensive line. As with probably every playcall in existence, there are advantages and disadvantages. I'm not pretending there are no disadvantages. What I am saying is that, on average, the advantages significantly outweigh the disadvantages and for Tannehill, in particular, it moves his statistical performance into "elite" territory. Whether that is on Tannehill or just because it has been masking defects in the offensive line is not something we have the data to distinguish between, but unless the offensive line has suddenly become perfect, that distinction is likely to be irrelevant.

And, no, of course the team shouldn't roll out Tannehill on every single play. It is simply a playcall that I would like to see featured (much) more often, simply because it gets better results on average.

The point I'm making is that rolling out QBs is something rarely done in the NFL, and there is a reason for that.  As you can from the data the link above, Tannehill rolled out 28 times in 2013, out of 605 pass dropbacks on the year.  Russell Wilson led the league that year with 73 rollouts on 370 pass dropbacks.  The average QB in the league looks to have rolled out on roughly 5% of his pass dropbacks on the season.

Obviously this is something rarely used at the NFL level.  Is the entire league of head coaches and offensive coordinators mistaken?

Would Tannehill improve by rolling out more?  It depends on how much more.  He may improve some, from rolling out some more.

But to roll him out often enough (in theory) to improve his overall performance to the level it would need to be to generate the contribution from the QB position necessary to make the team highly competitive in the NFL, would very likely produce diminishing returns (in reality) for the reasons I mentioned above.

In other words, he isn't just "rolling out more" from being the QB he was envisioned by Dolphins' fans to be when he was drafted.  The issue is far more complex, and requires a far more complex solution in my opinion.

And, ironically, I'd like to see him roll out more, too.

[Phishfan]

Do you really think that will do any good?  Tannehill is not mobile and he has no pocket presence at all.

Tannehill is actually pretty good at moving once he goes forward (movement in the pocket is sketchy) and the rollout gets him outside the pocket which negates the need for pocket presence. You seem to be making points for why he should use them in your questioning of if it would work.

[fyo]

Obviously this is something rarely used at the NFL level.  Is the entire league of head coaches and offensive coordinators mistaken?

Would Tannehill improve by rolling out more?  It depends on how much more.  He may improve some, from rolling out some more.

I didn't notice a single designed rollout last Thursday, although I may have missed one while cringing, I guess . Each of the other games this year had at least one (including one naked bootleg that Tannehill ran for 10 yards, IIRC). So we didn't exactly hit league average in the most recent game...

Different teams would, of course, have a different ideal number of rollouts. The better the offensive line, the lower the ideal. The worse the quarterback is when rolling out, the lower the ideal. The less capable the quarterback is of taking off himself, the lower the ideal.

The Dolphins have a horrible offensive line, particularly last Thursday with all the injuries, a quarterback who is very good when rolling out, and a quarterback who is quite capable of running the ball himself. ALL of that points to an ideal number of rollouts that is ABOVE league average.

I would also like to point out that the threat of a rollout forces the defense to take that into account, thus opening up other plays (at least a bit).

As I pointed out explicitly, I would of course not want Tannehill to roll out on every single play.

[Dave Gray]

Tannehill is not mobile and he has no pocket presence at all.

1) I disagree that Tannehill is not mobile.  (I mean...the guy is a converted WR...of course he's mobile.)
2) If he has no pocket presence, it's specifically WHY you would call for more rollouts.

I like rollouts, because it gives the QB options.

[Run Ricky Run]

Calling more rollouts is a bandage and not a long term fix. It may work in the near term until defenses adjust and we would still be stuck w a qb who has no pocket presence.

[Dave Gray]

^ Everything in the NFL is a bandage, in terms of play-calling.  You call plays that help you win with the guys that you have, taking advantage of the guys you're playing against.  If you need more talent, go get it in the off-season, and then call plays that fit those guys next time.

It appears that we cannot block and create a passing pocket.  We cannot apply forward push to keep D-linemen's hands down.  Therefore, we cut off passing lanes.  With those restrictions, our QB is going to get sacked 5 times a game and get 5 balls batted down.  You can't win in the NFL with 10 offense plays that don't even have a chance from the start.  They are drive killers.

So, adjust with what you have. 

[CF DolFan]

^ Everything in the NFL is a bandage, in terms of play-calling.  You call plays that help you win with the guys that you have, taking advantage of the guys you're playing against.  If you need more talent, go get it in the off-season, and then call plays that fit those guys next time.

It appears that we cannot block and create a passing pocket.  We cannot apply forward push to keep D-linemen's hands down.  Therefore, we cut off passing lanes.  With those restrictions, our QB is going to get sacked 5 times a game and get 5 balls batted down.  You can't win in the NFL with 10 offense plays that don't even have a chance from the start.  They are drive killers.

So, adjust with what you have. 

That's what the good coaches do ala Bellichick. Others lack coaching abilities and go down trying to do "their" thing no matter what. 

[Spider-Dan]

Calling more rollouts is a bandage and not a long term fix. It may work in the near term until defenses adjust and we would still be stuck w a qb who has no pocket presence.

On passing plays last season, Russell Wilson rolled out over 4 times more often Tannehill did.  Is that also a "bandage" by the SEA coaching staff?

[Dave Gray]

I don't think Wilson is a great QB.  He's good, but they just use him correctly and allow him to scramble and buy time.  We want Tanny to be a pocket passer so much, that it seems that we don't care that there's not a pocket to pass in.

[masterfins]

The point I'm making is that rolling out QBs is something rarely done in the NFL, and there is a reason for that. 

Yeah and the reason is that a QB is more likely to be injured rolling out.  High school and college teams do a lot of rollouts and option running plays with the QB's because they don't have the monetary investment in QB's that Pro teams do.

[fyo]

Yeah and the reason is that a QB is more likely to be injured rolling out.  High school and college teams do a lot of rollouts and option running plays with the QB's because they don't have the monetary investment in QB's that Pro teams do.

Quarterbacks are certainly more likely to be injured when running, but I'm not willing to concede that rollouts are more dangerous in and of themselves (without data).

[Dolfanalyst]

1) I disagree that Tannehill is not mobile.  (I mean...the guy is a converted WR...of course he's mobile.)
2) If he has no pocket presence, it's specifically WHY you would call for more rollouts.

I like rollouts, because it gives the QB options.

The QB has those same options on every pass play, without restricting the passing options to only half the field.

Normally safeties (and linebackers when they drop into coverage) sit back and read the quarterback's eyes.  When the QB rolls out, those defenders head the same way he does, knowing they don't have to defend the other half of the field.  The QB can't possibly make a throw well downfield, from one sideline to the other, on the run, with any accuracy.

The passing target options, if there are any on that other side of the field, are now gone, too.  So now you have more defenders on the side of the field the QB can throw to, covering fewer targets.  We're looking at something here that's successful simply because it's used so infrequently.  Wanting it to be used a great deal more frequently is asking it to lose its effectiveness.

Really it should tell us something about Ryan Tannehill's ability as an NFL QB when we're wondering how much better he would do by doing something rarely done in the NFL.

Again, however, even I think he would do better by rolling out more, but I harbor no illusions that rolling out more is the difference between where he is and what's needed from a QB to be highly competitive in the NFL.