This argument gets trotted out for every young QB who does badly in their first couple of games / years. This argument tends to look like it's based on cherry picked data. Basically this argument merely shows the fact that is it possible. Rarely does the person making this argument ever say why the young qb in question will take the Manning path instead of the Leaf & probably the vast majority of QB's who play in this league ( aka the bench or out of the league in a couple of years ). Didn't this argument get put forth for Henne as well? EDIT: I guess the basic question I am asking is WHY is Tanne going to be a Manning instead of a Leaf?
Can we PLEASE judge Tannehill after 2-3 years not 2-3 games! He is playing behind a leaky offensive line, with a rookie head coach and with almost no skill players worth a damn.
Why do we need to do anything to support it? Isnt seeing this team with your own eyes enough proof? Show me evidence that supports we do have a lot of talent and are only a good qb away from being a playoff team like you stated earlier. There are only a handful of players on this team that would start for other teams. Dont ask for objective proof, just watch them play, thats all the proof you need
That's going to put a lot of people out of work ya know. I'd rather let people make their snap judgments and then make fun of them afterwards .
Do you not have 2 eyes? If you do, are you not using them to watch any other team in the league? I'd say one of those 2 scenarios are highly likely if you think our talent is in the neighborhood of average. The defense is in that neighborhood, but the offense is far and away the least talented in the league.
Peyton Manning lit things up in college. He was considered the best QB prospect since Elway. I saw only a handful of TAMU games with RT as the QB, but I never seen their offense generate enough electricity to light a 25 watt bulb. Maybe I was just missing the ones where he was really lighting up the defenses. I'd agree that Ryan is about a reasonable ceiling for RT, though I get tired of people saying we should have drafted him in 2008. That is revisionist history. There were only 1-2 regular forum members around here who were unwavering in their support for Ryan and their insistence before the fact that he should be our pick.
Well if it's so clearly visible, shouldn't it be easy to produce some objective evidence of it? Where is it?
You actually do but chose to dismiss them , I asked you to name drafted players that have produced at a notably higher level than their draft position. Ok , I guess you wanted me to do that instead of asking you a question that had MAYBE one answer , Brian Hartline. Other teams , teams that win more than they lose , playoff teams draft players that out perform their draft slot. That off sets busts or players that don't live up to their draft position. Talent is not equal to TALENT . A starting wr isn't equal to any/all starting wr's , thus Brian Hartline dos not counter Mike Wallace or Antonio Brown. Nolan Carroll doesn't equal Ladarius Webb , Charles Clay and Michael Egnew don't outweigh Jimmy Graham or Aaron Hernadez , Jared Odrick doesn't match Justin Tuck , or JPP .Navorro Bowman trumpets Koa Misi ,Chris Culliver produces better than his draft slot. Jermichael Finley , Clay Matthews , Jordy Nelson ....Gino Atkins , Andy Dalton ....Brian Cushing , Connor Barwin .... Off the top off my head , but of course facts and actual instances aren't objective for some but when asked to show where the draft nuggets are that this current GM has delivered are , the silence is telling , at least to me. Keep telling yourself and all of us he has produced like top drafting teams , and then tell us the record he has is not really what it is. Once again, he has this year to have HIS players produce to show he is a success at what he does. You of course don't need to see that as you are happy that he has accomplished what he has and shouldn't be compared to winning teams . You must also disagree with Coach Philbin as he is fond of saying it is an eyeball thing , a gut feeling , trust in what you see. A lot of us trust in what we have seen , luckily for some Ireland has 15 more games to solidify his winning record.
There were more posters who would have selected Ryan number one than a few to be fair. On a side note , are you concerned with 77? Honestly I hope he was hurt as imo he did not play well yesterday.
Your contention is that the team is short on talent. Therefore you should provide objective evidence that other teams do a significantly better job of drafting players who produce at levels higher than their draft position, if that's the criterion you're using to establish your belief, and you'd like for it to have any credibility. Now, I suspect if you really delved into the issue, you'd find that Jeff Ireland has done no worse than the average team in that regard.
That was off the top of my head , the players I listed ,to you , then don't have superior talent? Not sure honestly if you feel that. My point is you can't equate a John Jerry with a Jimmy Graham , or a Brian Hartline with a Mike Wallace , they all play , they all have made squads , to degrees they have been starters , their values aren't equal , imo and I would suggest the vast majority of football executives would concur. Ireland has not put players on this team that have substantially out performed where they were drafted . That is a huge aspect imo of how well or not well a GM does his job. It is fair on your part , and others to say lots of other teams could have drafted Jimmy Graham , but when you look at the overall selections and see this is consistent for Miami ,and other teams ( as listed ) hit on playmakers , impact players , pro bowlers it matters. It is not an isolated instance as shown. You can review if you wish and then objectively show those who question Ireland's track record where he has produced like the playoff teams . It also is not just the playoff teams , but to me that is where the focus is , I don't care if we are better than Cleveland or St. Louis over the last half dozen years. The goal is to be a top 8 team that wins deep into the playoffs and has a chance to win a Super Bowl. You do that in large part by drafting players I have shown you. Again , I have said Ireland gets this year to have HIS players show he can draft and build a winner, if at the end of this year that isn't clear then , I for one , make the change. That to me is more than a fair shot to prove himself. I hope he does , I want to win .
Or, if you delved into the issue, perhaps you'd find that he has done worse in talent accrual than the average team.
IMO that metric used in the "Objective look at Ireland" thread showed that Ireland does a better than average job of drafting. I think that the team's success has been limited b/c they had not found the QB and there was so much turnover in the coaching that they had to keep changing the type of players they wanted. I also think that Henning was so horrid his last years here that he negated almost any potential for early offensive success. I would say that Ireland has been average to below average in FA, but part of that is also influenced by the coaching turnover. IMO the net is that Ireland is good at talent acquisition and that we'll have success if RT is a franchise QB and if Philbin and co. is the right staff.
Then weren't you watching the game? I saw a Dolphins team hanging tough and competitive against an elite level team barring the 6 minute meltdown which "can" be corrected through experience and coaching. And if I'm not mistaken, in that 6 minute catastrophe, 21 points were scored. So "theoretically", besides those turnovers they got in our territory, they did not score a single touchdown. I'd say that's pretty good talent considering the opponent. An NBA team needs superstars, an NFL teams needs solid players.
Thanks, but I'll await the work of the people making the contention before I do any delving of my own. I'm merely pointing out that their point isn't convincing if it's based on opinion with no objective facts.
CK has already posted why that metric isn't objective at all. Moreover, Ireland has failed to draft a single true impact player sans Long (and I give him credit for that). the rest of 2008 is a complete bust. Nobody is left. From 2009, Vontae is gone, Pat White is gone, Pat Turner is gone. Perhaps Smith will be resigned but he is not a top level CB by any stretch. Hartline is ok I guess. Nalbone, gone, Clemons is ok at best. Gardner and JD "The Veteranarian" Folsom are gone. So from the first two years we have a whopping 4 players left, only one of whom is a top ten player at his position. 2010, I'll be generous and put Odrick as a "good" player, although he is no superstar and likely never will be. Misi is an average Morlon Greenwood level starter, but ok. Jerry is on the roster mostly because we don't have any other options, Edds is out, Carroll and Reshad Jones are borderline pkayers in this league and likely wouldn't play on most other teams. Spitler is a nice special teamer. Wonderful. 2011. We already cut Gates which is a huge bust. Pouncey is a very good player. He may be top 10 at his position so kudos there. DT is average, can;t stay healthy and is in and out of the doghouse. Clay and wilson are nice developmental players for where they were drafted, so I guess that's a nice job as well. The two best players picked by Ireland are a center and a LT. Nice players to have, but meaningless without a QB and the ability to score points. He hasn't drafted a single top level playmaker. He has not drafted a single ball hawking DB. He has not drafted a natural pass rusher (Wake and Starks were FA for which I give him credit). In short, his drafts have been average at best. Having only 4 guys left from 2008 and 2009 is criminal
But what if those players represent very rare exceptions to the rule, and players like John Jerry and Brian Hartline are the vastly more frequent norm? What if players like Graham and Wallace are so few and far between that when you compare overall rosters across many teams, you find that Ireland hasn't done any poorer job than the average GM? Or what if you find he's done even better? You can't just cherry-pick a player here and a player there and reach a conclusion based on it. You have to do something far more systematic and thorough than that to be convincing -- to me at least. Now if you don't want to convince me, that's fine as well. We can just forget the whole thing.
And now, to reach the conclusion you're making about Ireland based on that data, you would need to compare that data to similar data you would obtain from other teams' recent histories. To compare Ireland's work to the work of the GMs from other teams without doing that work is such a glaring omission in the process you're using to reach your conclusion that what you're saying can't even be taken seriously IMO.
Good GMs find those rare players. Ireland has found zero thus far. If you have something to convince me that he will start finding those guys then fine, but you don't. What you have at best is that Ireland is right in the middle with the average GMs. That's all well and good if you aspire to be average. If you aspire to something more, perhaps exploring your options to see if you can find somebody better is wise. If Ireland is average, it seems likely that whoever the next GM is will at least be as average, so what's the harm in changing?
No, you're erecting a straw man. I don;t care what everybody else is doing. I care what Ireland is doing. What did he see in Vontae that made him choose him rather than Hakeem Nicks or Clay Matthews? I don;t care that other GMs passed on those guys. What went into that decision and how is Ireland going to try and rectify it in the future? You want the focus on the wrong thing. You want to focus on the choices of the league's personnell men at large when they are irrelevant to the choices Ireland made
And you know that how? Perhaps there is no correlation whatsoever between the quality of a GM and his tendency to find "diamond in the rough" players. Perhaps finding those players is such a rare thing that it has no relationship with the quality of the GM doing it, and it's more "dumb luck" than anything else. You certainly don't know until you research it. How do you know it's not the case that average GMs do just fine if they have a very good quarterback? You're proposing that the quality of a team's GM is strongly and directly related to how well the team performs, yet you provide no objective evidence of that assertion. Now that's all well and good if all we want to do is toss opinions around. But if you want your opinion to be convincing at all, you have to do this extra work to support it IMO.
No offense here, but at this point we should probably quit this discussion because all I'm going to do is repeat myself.
The thing is , it isn't rare , as all the examples show , and again that was off the top of my head. Rare would be only a Jimmy Graham or only a Justin Tuck , it isn't only and the rare aspect applies to Ireland and finding those level of players. Actually it isn't rare because he hasn't found any here , at all. So you don't feel that measure is warranted and don't feel won loss record is indicative , you have blind faith . Let's hope you are right and Ireland delives us to the playoffs this year , and to a super Bowl in the next three years.
Fine, but I don't understand how the relative competence of all 32 GMs is relevant to how a particular one performs. Ce la vie
The fact that you can pull those examples off the top of your head doesn't mean they represent something that happens frequently. I can think of the last few plane crashes that I saw covered on the news, and that would seem to make them appear frequent when in reality they're extremely rare. You're misstating my position there.
How many players did I list? Above what number does rare become regular? If virtually all playoff teams show this over the time Ireland has been with Miami , is that still then rare? Or a pattern? I see a pattern , playoff teams ( and others ) find and acquire these types of players , as I have shown.
In terms of your point, it becomes "regular" (i.e., meaningful) when the average GM, or GMs whose teams are the most successful in the league, are doing it significantly more than Ireland has. As it stands now in the course of the presentation of your argument, we have no idea if that's the case. Ireland's number could be zero, and the number of 75% of the GMs in the league could also be zero, or perhaps one, in which case Ireland woldn't be significantly different from them. Ireland's number may also be non-significantly different from that of the GMs of the most successful teams in the league. In other words, your criterion of selecting players who "do substantially better than their draft position" may in fact be meaningless in terms of comparing the league's GMs, despite the fact that you can think of a few of those players off the top of your head.
And that's another issue you'd have in terms of doing that research to compare Ireland to the other GMs in the league using that criterion: the draft isn't the only way a GM obtains players.
Yes, I have, and I give Ireland credit. Congratulations, you found one great player not named Jake Long acquired by Ireland out of more than a hundred transactions. The fact that we continue to have to point to the same two guys should tell us all we need to know
Shouright, I have learned on thing on this board. Haters will hate, no matter what. Fact or logic does not figure in. You are wasting your time my friend.
What systematic investigation is necessary? Look at the FA we signed, the dollar value, and the production we got in return. This year alone we signed 9 and kept 1.
Right, anyone who disagrees with you is not using facts or logic. We're just "haters". Sorry that we'd like to see a team with lots of good players wining alot of football games. Unrealistic expectations, I know, but call us crazy.
