Miami Dolphins: Ryan Tannehill is a dark horse in the NFL

Someone actually said "it's not encouraging"??

Yikes. Hey, can you quote that post so I can laugh at that guy?

 

Just because you have more of something that is valuable doesn't mean it decreases the value of that item for each user. Does the value of clean water go down for you just because we can provide clean water to more people than 100 years ago? Note that this is different than supply/demand.

Now whether you wish to be critical or not is another story. I think that because you mostly compare yourself to your direct competitors (in this case mostly other starting QB's), you feel like you can be more critical. But that's independent of how valuable or impressive what that person did is relative to someone in the past.

Stats don't convey everything or even anywhere close to that, but you yourself asked the question of how to determine the proper level of adjustment. How else do you propose even beginning to do that without stats? I at least gave it an attempt.

 

Who cares? We're not here to tear each other down for whatever our initial reactions to something might be. Some might initially question it and hope for more information--totally fair. Others might love it and wait for more good news--I don't see anything wrong with that either.

The truth is it's one man's opinion versus another's and neither one has anything to prove the other wrong--that's a problem!

Opinions start fights. Opinions reinforce themselves. Opinions sustain themselves. They don't resolve anything, in fact, they're only good for separating otherwise friendly people.

 

Well, if the stat means nothing, then it means its not encouraging. The stat can't mean nothing AND be encouraging.

I know logic isn't in your wheelhouse, but there it is.

 

And yet, you're trying to tell me I'm wrong based on your opinion about fights and opinions......interesting......

But since you asked, I care.

As I've said already, I'm hyper sensitive to negative agendas. Pointing out which side is being irrational is important to me.

 

Soo you took Stringers post and ran with it creating your own interpretation? Oh...ok then.

 

Yeah, that's it. You're so smart.

 

Well, wait...the system is going to be just as selective as ever because the number of teams that win hasn't changed. In your water environmental, everyone with water wins. That's not true in football. The number of winners is limited so it's a supply/demand topic, isn't it?

Personal optimism/cynicism aside, won't the system itself become more critical?

I didn't ask that. Someone else did. There's a whole Marino-Tannehill thing that's happening here I'm not a part of, lol. It is a fair question though. I'll respect that and you're totally right--thank you for showing that data. It's very interesting, particularly the last 5 or so years. That's inexplicable. Could a change in the officiating culture/preparation have somehow affected that I wonder? I wouldn't be at all surprised if the NFL is promoting a more and more sensitive type of officiating which has pushed DBs onto their heals even more.

 

I don't know about you, but I'd really love it if the forum wasn't so divisive. Instead of resolving towards each others views and balancing out, people spiral out, convince themselves that the other side is overly "sensitive" and that the rest of the world must be taking crazy pills.

I'm just saying I'd like to see people make an effort to understand the other side a little better so threads didn't become really bitter.

I actually just bought a truck in Ocala, btw, so you and I have something in common here. I keep seeing Ocala by your name every time you post, haha.

Look, I'm just acknowledging that from where I sit it appears both sides--equally rational as they are--chose to interpret something two different ways. I think that's fine.

I just think that if folks are going to make an attempt voice their opinions loudly that (1) they need to be willing to move towards the middle as opposed to backwards and (2) they need to be honest about what's opinion and what's not and try to make advancements based on new information as opposed to snarky, degrading commentary mixed with a re-hashed version of their initial opinion.

My point is that if all we have here is opinion...why is anyone still talking? To me, opinion is the stuff that's left when all the facts are gone. It's the stuff that's there and you don't know why you think it, you just do.

 

Winning/losing is just the result when two teams play each other. The degree to which something is critical to winning is independent of that. For example, one could say the most important thing for an ice hockey team (to win) is to have a great goalkeeper. So suppose you are in a period where tons of teams have great goalkeepers. How valuable the goalkeeper is remains constant, but the record of a team with great goalkeeping on average declines relative to a period where only a few teams had great goalkeepers.

So.. value to a team isn't necessarily correlated with winning. The value of a player to a team is correlated with winning when you compare how the team plays without that player (so compare an NFL team without a QB vs. an NFL team without an RB.. with all else being equal. You do that experiment I bet the team without the RB wins).

I have trouble finding any other explanation. The reason I showed the difference from 1980-2003 vs 2004-2009 is to show that a rule change that seems to be more important than any since (for the passing game in 2004) and had time to take effect caused only a 3% increase. I just don't see any other factor causing a 10% increase, but I'm open to other hypotheses.

 

To truly understand the other side, one must figure out why their perception is X. That points to motive. If all the discussions on here could be settled by numbers, there'd be no more forum.

 

I don't feel smart...the evidence is hear for me to read 6 days a week.

 

Yeah, its pretty amazing how I always do that with opinions you agree with. Nah, there can't be a correlation there, its just I'm dumb and you aren't.

 

I trying to figure out how the goalkeeper example isn't showing my point. I think it's a perfect example of my point. You can have the same quality of goalkeeping yet you are losing ground to what is considered par for the course because around you, the talent is rising. That was my point. The same thing that cut it in 1975 isn't going to cut it in 1995. What cut it in 1995 isn't going to cut it in 2015. No rocket science there.

To what degree we raise our expectations is a technical issue. We can do exactly what you began with your prior post if, for example, we were looking strictly at yardage. That's not an interesting problem. It just involves doing the math and accepting whatever uncertainties your willing to accept.

What I think is really important is something bigger, like for example figuring out the appropriate weights for each of these individual stats that by themselves are nothing more than the topic of meaningless arguments. Stats like QBR do that, so the question is, are we happy with those stats? They still speak to season-long stats. To me, the ideal stat is something that begins to speak more on a situational basis--if that exists. Maybe we just need to include situations stats within a QBR-esque number.

Just food for thought.

 

You really believe there is motive?

I mean, a lot of people would call me cynical based on a post here or there yet I'm a huge fan of Tannehill. So put yourself in my shoes of being someone who likes the guy yet on occasion might be labeled by someone such as yourself as having an "agenda" against him. For one, that's horribly insulting but more than that it's just plain wrong.

I wouldn't want my views to bear the weight of having made those kinds up-front assumptions about people. It seems like a person would really mislead themselves taking that kind of liberty in coloring the people they talk to.

Not to mention you do seem notably quick to play the victim and use hyperbole in attacking the person to which you're responding. No offense, just noting a tendency you might want to be aware of and make some effort to eradicate.

 

OK.. let's backtrack. All of this part of the debate started with this statement of yours:

"If QBs of today are indeed more capable or there exist a greater number of capable QBs, then QB ability has simply gone down in value."

That bolded part is what I'm arguing against. You can measure the value of a goalkeeper vs. a field player in ice hockey by playing a match between two teams where they have identical players, except one has no goalkeeper and the other team is missing a field player. The team missing the goalkeeper will most certainly lose. So how critical something is for success is independent of the number of wins you have, because your opponent may have those critical pieces too.

EDIT: I think I'm seeing the confusion. I'm talking about how valuable (critical) a certain level of ability is for a team to win. You seem to be talking about how much money you'd pay the guy given the available competition. The level of ability in question still has the same value for winning even if a person with that ability gets paid more or less (that depends on what else is available).

Well.. the question should really be different. If you just want appropriate weights on different stats, you can get a computer to run through a ton of possible sets of weights and find out which set predicts winning best (QBR tries to do this). It's a simple maximum likelihood calculation. I'm not sure you'd be that satisfied though if someone did that.

What we really need is a way to predict how the outcome of a play would change (statistically speaking) if you change the measured capabilities of a player at a specific position. No one has models like that, but that's the type you ideally want: one that shows how different measures are related to outcomes (other than just wins).

 

Do people jump to the "agenda card" too fast? Sure. But because you don't have one doesn't mean others don't. I get you're a stat centric type of person, but the human animal is emotional and emotions dictate what we do...especially in an opinion oriented forum about a sports team we are all fanatics of.

 

Good F***ing Luck. lmfao

 

Surely, someone will come along any second now and chastise you for making it personal.........


.....yup any minute now...........


......<whistle>





........any time now........




...oh well, I guess not......




...I guess I'm the only one that has to sit through that lecture.......


Oh but wait, that means I'm playing the victim card......but yet........



....still no one taking CiF to task.......interesting........

 

This post is the realist shnit I've ever spoke

 

Serious question.

WHO really does have an agenda and dislikes Ryan Tannehill on this board?? Because like Greg I've been called a "hater" and that is very far fetched considering I've countlessly called him a top 12 QB and bought my son a 17 jersey.

Too many people who right or wrong have criticisms of Ryan are rushed to judgment and labeled these bs labels. You can like a player yet be conscious of some faults. Nobody is perfect.

 

The way you position yourself and the way you come across are two different things.

For example, I can't go around on this board occasionally telling people I'm a conservative, because the history of my stances reveal that's simply not true.

But you're not a victim, you've done you fair share of labeling yourself.

 

I'm the victim of other people lacking big picture and interpretation ability. This isn't an individual issue it is a board wide issue with anyone who has any criticism for Ryan being labeled. It's ridiculous.

 

Hahahahahahahahahaha

Yeah, that's it.

I mean you're the same person that thinks native americans should just get over the redskins label, but you're telling me the real problem is that you are labeled a hater because you post consistent negative crap about Tannehill?


Hahahahahahahahahaha

And people wonder why I question motive....

 

Non native Americans should get over it... Like you. But it's what makes you feel humane I suppose so you beat the drum. And that has ZERO to do with the discussion, go figure.

 

Ok, so white people shouldn't care about the native americans' labels because they aren't native american. Fine.

Why the hell should we care about your hater label when we aren't you?

This proves the point I've been making, and that's motives should be questioned so you can truly understand someone else's opinion and why they have it.

 

Why does there always have to be major arguments when talking about Tannehill, now going on his 4th year? Does he still have some improvements to make? Of course he does.But it also looks like this is the year that he will take a big jump being he is now going into second year of Lazor's system. Why is there always people on here that take things so dadgum personal and have to argue about it...Also,it is impressive as hell to read about hIQue football in the forum all of the time.

 

There wouldn't be major arguments if the Grumpstapo could be reasonable. They can't.

Again, this thread was started with a reasonable OP. Then the Grumpstapo came in and crapped on everything as they tend to do. No one on this board is allowed to feel optimistic before we're told X stat doesn't matter, Philbin sucks, Tannehill isn't that good, we can't win anything w/o a better OG, Ross is stupid, Coyle sucks, deep ball issues, pocket awareness, blah, blah, bull****, bull****.

Then, the Grumpstapo turns it around and acts like they are the ones being persecuted, when they are the ones that come into a harmless positive thread and start ****ting all over it. Its insane.

 

First I apologize for bringing this thread back on track.
The biggest thing I have seen this off season as far as the passing game goes is the addition by subtraction.
The front office (who I trust for the time being) has cut loose just about every receiver we had.
That tells me that they thought that was what was needed to improve the passing game.
Who do we have left other than Landry ?
I think of the season by quarters.
First four games new faces in new places we take our lumps.
Second four games we see signs as to why the changes were made.
Third four games it starts coming together.
Last four games if we made the right moves this is where it will start to really show up for us.
We will possibly have a playoff game or two.
Now the 2016 season is when we can start to see what we got.
Keep in mind most of the players on this team are young.
We should have many years to look forward to some good Dolphins football.

 

I read the Tannehill dark horse article last year too, didnt make the playoffs.

 

Love your post..I just hope the Dolphins fast track it a little, but I agree, after Hickey's third draft, with Tannenbaum only assisting if needed, in 2016..I think our team will be complete and mainly built through the draft which we have all been wanting for years...of course with several FA's and UDFA's as well, and we will have allot of depth as well.

 

I do agree with you here on allot of this...I was hoping for a Positive Tanny thread this time and also, not sure if you noticed, but should have, Coach has a clean slate this year and I am hoping that he has also grown, now going into his fourth year, into the coach that leads us to the playoff's. And then,just maybe,we can keep our coach of the future...hopefully,like the team and players, I hope that he has been able to work on any weakness' and improve..and where the heck has KB been?

 

I didnt know Tannehill played Defense

 

Ok, so Greg, what am I to make of this post ^?

Is it a respectable opinion? Does it fall in line with other posts that poster has made? If I notice a trend in a given poster's posts, am I to throw away that observation and not factor it in? Should I take each post as a blank slate?

 

I guess my questions shall go unanswered. RIP.

 

Fine, and even if you/anyone else didn't feel that way that would be fine too. It would be fine if you/anyone else rationally voiced those concerns. I just don't understand the overwhelming desire by some people to make sure everyone else is as pessimistic and bitter as they are as if its their mission.

 

Pls stop personally attacking the innocent victim with your vicious agenda.

 

Well, when it comes to the Dolphins, I try my best to always be optimistic..sometimes they aggravate me, the coaches aggravate me, or the Front office or Owner aggravate me and sometimes I post to get it off my chest and the attacks start. However, optimism sure beats the alternative, does'nt it?