1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Is Adam Gase the biggest scam in football???

Discussion in 'AFC East Rivals' started by djphinfan, Apr 17, 2019.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Do you think if Aaron Rodgers had experienced the same injury history and sequelae at the same age as Tannehill, and was positioned career-wise (in terms of age and health exclusively) precisely where Tannehill is now, there would be a team that would be considering him its starter?
     
  2. djphinfan

    djphinfan Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    111,650
    67,542
    113
    Dec 20, 2007
    So maybe my thread title isn’t too out of bounds?
     
  3. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    The thread title is supported by cbrad's work, if you're of the persuasion that a prevailing narrative (i.e., "Gase is a quarterback whisperer") should be supported by objective evidence. His work showed the objective evidence isn't there!
     
    djphinfan likes this.
  4. djphinfan

    djphinfan Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    111,650
    67,542
    113
    Dec 20, 2007
    More like Manning is the coach whisperer..

    Pretty sure the reason why Adam the scam didn’t like Josh Rosen is because he asked too many questions.
     
    resnor likes this.
  5. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Please. That's such a ridiculous argument. Yes, I believe IF Tannehill hadn't had multiple knee injuries and missed two seasons, that even at his age, he would have been gone after as a starter. I believe that his age + injuries = QB that no one is willing to take a risk on as a starter. If he ends up playing in Tennessee and looks good and shows he's not an injury risk, teams will start sniffing around.
     
  6. KeyFin

    KeyFin Well-Known Member

    10,488
    12,821
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    I was going to stay out of this because I really don't want to argue you on stats. Then I realized that you're not arguing stats either because just like the conversation on Gase, you're ignoring LITERALLY EVERYTHING ELSE to make the conclusion fit your agenda.

    For Manning, he was coming off career ending spinal surgery where he literally had to figure out how to throw a football all over again. No biggie right? It's insignificant that he only did slightly better than he ever had before. Never mind that Manning himself sings Gase's praises and says he had his best year ever under him- Gase CLEARLY had a huge impact on Manning for the guy to be his biggest advocate all these years later.

    For Cutler, he had his best TD/INT ratio BY FAR under Gase. So did Tannehill in 2016. Are we pretending that these three QB's, all who praise Adam Gase, is just making this up for the heck of it? We can also add Osweiller in there as well- a 4th league-starting QB who thinks Gase is legitimate.

    You guys hate RT/OZ yet they had solid starts under Gase....doesn't your own prejudices prove you're wrong one way or the other? Either Gase is legit or Tannehill and Osweiller are clear NFL starters who are simply misunderstood. Oz's meltdown in Texas....easy explanation....Gase wasn't there.

    How many does it take for this witch hunt to be proven ridiculous? Do we need to send out postcards to all 32 starters? You guys better get right on that then!
     
    Irishman and resnor like this.
  7. Unlucky 13

    Unlucky 13 Team Raheem Club Member

    51,929
    63,006
    113
    Apr 24, 2012
    Troy, Virginia
    I've not been one to argue that Gase is or is not great with this or that QB. But I do think to this point, he's clearly shown that his ceiling is as an OC. Maybe that changes eventually, but it was the case with Miami, and it looks like it again in Jersey. There's no shame in that, but its truly the case for some guys. He needs reigned in by someone else with a higher level of authority and a better view of the big picture.
     
    Surfs Up 99 and texanphinatic like this.
  8. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Umm.. TOTALLY way off base response KeyFin.

    First of all that post of mine you quoted consisted ONLY of a statistical argument, nothing else. There's literally no attempt from me to make the data fit any conclusion.

    Second of all, "statistical significance" in this case just means there's evidence that the given data point didn't come from the same underlying population as the rest of the data, nothing else. Is it such a surprise then that the ONLY statistically significant data point was when Manning's health deteriorated? It takes quite a bit before something becomes statistically significant.

    Third, when you say Cutler's TD/INT was "BY FAR" the best under Gase.. that's misleading to say the least. Cutler's TD/INT ratio in 2015 was 21/11 = 1.9091 and you're saying that was "BY FAR" better than his second best year in 2011 of 13/7 = 1.8571?? LOL. Those are basically the same ratios given the two denominators of 11 and 7.

    Fourth, Tannehill did NOT have his best TD/INT ratio under Gase in 2016. Tannehill had his best two TD/INT ratios in 2014 and 2015 under Philbin (2.25 in 2014 and 2.00 in 2015). In fact Tannehill's best TD/INT under Gase wasn't even in 2016!! In 2016 Tannehill had a 1.58 TD/INT ratio while in 2018 he had a 1.89 TD/INT ratio.

    So not only are you "trying to make the data fit your conclusion", you're literally making up data to fit your desired conclusion!!

    Really bad post dude.
     
  9. djphinfan

    djphinfan Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    111,650
    67,542
    113
    Dec 20, 2007
    Exactly, he needs to develop his skills as a coordinator cause he’s not head coach material..
     
  10. djphinfan

    djphinfan Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    111,650
    67,542
    113
    Dec 20, 2007
    I think your numbers are inaccurate..

    Tannehill did not improve under Gase, not all his fault though..Tannehill didn’t have things that could be coached up..
     
  11. Unlucky 13

    Unlucky 13 Team Raheem Club Member

    51,929
    63,006
    113
    Apr 24, 2012
    Troy, Virginia
    On that, I'll simply disagree that Tannehill and Gase were just a poor match. RT needed to be under someone like Norv Turne instead.
     
    resnor likes this.
  12. djphinfan

    djphinfan Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    111,650
    67,542
    113
    Dec 20, 2007
    Maybe so, maybe he would of posted better numbers, but the flaws would eventually be exposed in critical situations, don’t care who’s coaching him..
     
  13. Unlucky 13

    Unlucky 13 Team Raheem Club Member

    51,929
    63,006
    113
    Apr 24, 2012
    Troy, Virginia
    Well, you just want a certain type of play style from a QB, and RT isn't going to give you that. And that's cool, because its your preference. But the beauty of football is that there can be so much wide variety. The media always talks about how things are copycat and how something is obsolete, but thats not really true. Its a spectrum.
     
    resnor likes this.
  14. djphinfan

    djphinfan Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    111,650
    67,542
    113
    Dec 20, 2007
    No, not true, he wasn’t flawed just because he couldn’t use his legs correctly, he was fatally flawed from the pocket..
     
    Fin-O and Miamiforlife like this.
  15. KeyFin

    KeyFin Well-Known Member

    10,488
    12,821
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    When four QB's verbally say Gase helped them tremendously and you try to disprove them in a thread with this title...you've been totally way off base this entire time. Again, I failed to see your math on returning quarterbacks after career ending spinal surgery. Or how I have to actually say that I was referring to Tannehill's (and Moore's) 10 game stretch in 2016 when we won 9 games and made the playoffs.

    There's nothing off base there to Miami Dolphins fans in this pity-party of a thread. Is that what this forum has devolved to? We attack anyone who has a unique opinion on our former head coach and prior starting quarterbacks?
     
    Irishman likes this.
  16. Fin-O

    Fin-O Initiated Club Member

    11,375
    11,392
    113
    Sep 28, 2015
    They can enjoy him personally all they want. Jay Cutler and Ryan Tannehill were no better and IMO in Ryan's case worse off.

    Adam Gase was a joke in Miami, we should all just be happy he is gone.
     
    Rock Sexton and djphinfan like this.
  17. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    You missed the question in my post, quoted above. Your answer simply opined about whether Tannehill would be considered a starter by a team had he not been injured.

    Again, the question, rather, is whether you believe Aaron Rodgers -- if he had the same current age, injury history, and sequelae as Tannehill -- would be positioned as a starter right now by a team.
     
  18. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    First, Tannehill's 10-game stretch in 2016 was not significantly statistically different from his 13-game stretch (games 4 through 16) under Bill Lazor in 2014.

    Second, should every quarterbacks coach/offensive coordinator multiple players have positive things to say about be labeled a "quarterback whisperer"? In other words, the mere expression of positivity about a coach by his players shouldn't establish some sort of distinctive, highly meaningful moniker for him, in my opinion.

    Third, the statistical point of view regarding this topic comes down to whether you believe someone labeled a "quarterback whisperer" should be associated with a measurable, significant difference in the play of the quarterbacks under his command. If you don't believe that, then the statistics are irrelevant to you.
     
    Last edited: May 19, 2019
  19. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    No, the "off base" part of your post was you accusing me that I wasn't arguing stats in the post you quoted and was instead trying to make the data "fit my agenda". That's just a false statement no if's, and's or but's. So in terms of attacks you're the one that started it.

    And it's Tannehill's 8 game stretch that people kept referring to in 2016 as proof Gase was better. But have you forgotten how many times I pointed out that's just a sample size issue? Tannehill was #12 in passer rating overall in 2016 and also #12 in best 8-game stretches in 2016. He was NEVER a "top 10 QB" statistically speaking over any decent stretch of play after taking sample size into account.

    Point is.. there's no statistical evidence Gase improved his QB's using overall measures of performance like passer rating. Of course, if you try to find SOME statistic where QB's were better with Gase, you'll find that. But that's no different than someone saying every person on this planet is abnormal in SOME way if you keep testing them on every possible measure you can think of lol (people make money off this trick btw.. "you're abnormal according to measure X so pay us money to treat you for your condition").

    There's actually a way to correct for doing such multiple comparisons to see if you can find something statistically significant (e.g., the Bonferroni correction) so if you really wanted to go down that route I can do that analysis too. And if you did apply such corrections for multiple tests I'm pretty certain the result is the same: Tannehill's performance under Gase could be explained by random variance alone.

    As far as that quip about spinal surgery, Gase went to Denver in 2013 not 2012, and Manning was ranked #2 in passer rating in 2012, just as in 2013. So we already know that the effect of the surgery was positive BEFORE Gase went to Denver.

    Finally, you don't decide which coaches are great or not based on what players say about them. You look at their performance.
     
    Last edited: May 19, 2019
    Irishman, The Guy and djphinfan like this.
  20. Surfs Up 99

    Surfs Up 99 Team Flores & Team Tua

    1,950
    1,785
    113
    May 5, 2016
    Since there are so many variables In football that could explain wins or losses, I wonder what sample size is needed to overcome that. It’s not like most coaches and/or players are around long enough to get an idea of what is statistically relevant or not. In this situation do we use a coach with a high longevity and success record like Belichick as sort of a benchmark?
     
    Irishman likes this.
  21. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Lots of important questions in that one post. I won't write a treatise for an answer but let me try to clarify a few things.

    1) For every sample size there is a different "confidence interval" outside of which things become statistically significant. As sample size increases that confidence interval shrinks. So it's not like you have to have at least X samples before you can calculate statistical significance. You can do that for any X. It's just that for smaller X the uncertainty is so great it's unlikely anything would be considered statistically significant. The main uncertainty in calculating confidence intervals isn't sample size but whether you know the type of distribution you're sampling from, bringing us to my 2nd point..

    2) As you say there are tons of variables that can affect an outcome. It's one of the more amazing discoveries in statistics that adding the effect of many different variables, regardless of the type of distribution they come from, produces a single random variable with a known distribution: the normal distribution (the Bell curve). There's a famous theorem that proves this called the Central Limit Theorem and the value of it is that you KNOW the distribution you're sampling from when there are tons of variables affecting the outcome, provided they are summed and not multiplied, bringing us to my 3rd point..

    3) There are cases in electrical engineering (e.g., signal processing) as well as in science (e.g., responses of sensory neurons) where the noise is not additive but multiplicative. Then #2 doesn't apply and you have to solve things empirically or be really clever with the math or with a simulation based on the math. That just means you look at how the distribution of your statistic (e.g., passer rating or TD% or anything else) changes as a function of sample size. Once you see the distribution start to stabilize (using whatever statistical technique applies) you can then calculate the confidence interval using that empirical distribution. It's how I came up with the suggestion that the absolute minimum number of consecutive passing attempts over which you should even report passer rating is ~150 or so.

    So there's no real issue calculating confidence intervals for win% by coaches for example. The only real caveat here is what percent OF a given stat is due to that player or coach in question. That's hard to resolve through statistics, but I think for the example you asked about (win% and HC's) it's not an issue. It's a much bigger issue when talking about stuff like the influence of the OL or so.

    Hope that helps a bit lol.
     
    Irishman, Surfs Up 99 and The Guy like this.
  22. djphinfan

    djphinfan Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    111,650
    67,542
    113
    Dec 20, 2007
    The fact that you don’t have a job in the NFL circle tells me there is something wrong with the NFL circle
     
    Last edited: May 19, 2019
    Pauly likes this.
  23. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    I don't need to answer that question. It has nothing to do with anything. I've never claimed Tannehill was as good as Rodgers. I don't care whether or not a HoF QB would be in the same situation. What I'm saying is, the biggest reason teams weren't beating down his door is because of the age + injuries. Like I said, if this season Tannehill has to come in for extended time and he does really well, you'll see teams make some offers.

    While I don't believe Tannehill to be as terrible as some of you do, I'm not stupid enough to not realize that a QB like Tannehill isn't highly sought after after missing consecutive seasons to injury.
     
    Unlucky 13 likes this.
  24. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Of course I can't make you answer the question, but it does have something to do with the topic.

    If Rodgers would be sought after as a starter at the same age and with the same injury history as Tannehill, it would indicate that the active ingredient in Tannehill's not being similarly sought after is not his injury history, but rather how he played before that.

    Your implication in this post:
    ...is that it was his age and injury history alone.
     
  25. Surfs Up 99

    Surfs Up 99 Team Flores & Team Tua

    1,950
    1,785
    113
    May 5, 2016
    It helps a lot! Thank you for taking the time to explain all that in layman's terms so that I can understand it.
     
    Pauly, cbrad and The Guy like this.
  26. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    If Tannehill hadn't have been derailed by the injury, he'd be our starter still.

    Gase might still be here too, because we probably would have bene in the playoffs more.
     
  27. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    I think the biggest problem is the lack of raw stats that would be useful for analysis. If an NFL team realized the utility of stats they'd hire someone to lead the effort to look at massive amounts of film and measure all kinds of things not found in spreadsheets today. You'd want to include things such as formation and the play called to things that need more precise definitions such as "pressure on QB" and "distance between receiver and defender" etc...

    A more scientific approach would also suggest "wargaming" to see how potentially useful statistics are likely to change if you change the conditions in which they were obtained (e.g., if you change how often you go for it on 4th down based on current 4th down stats, that will change the success probabilities as the defense adapts.. but to what??.. have to experiment to get some estimates).

    I'm firmly convinced a systematic effort like that should improve win% by a tiny but significant (for the owner/coaches) amount. But as is so often the case stuff changes gradually so maybe we'll see some of this in the next few decades.
     
    resnor likes this.
  28. djphinfan

    djphinfan Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    111,650
    67,542
    113
    Dec 20, 2007
    You so crazy Fin:)
     
  29. djphinfan

    djphinfan Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    111,650
    67,542
    113
    Dec 20, 2007
    God damn, I wanna be your agent
     
  30. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    No. One of us is comparing Tannehill to a HoF QB, and one is looking at simply being a starter in the league. No one is looking at Tannehill as a starter because of missing two consecutive seasons for an injury.

    Yes, I also believe the suitor pool for Mr. Rodgers would also be much smaller if he was coming off consecutive missed seasons for the same injury.
     
  31. djphinfan

    djphinfan Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    111,650
    67,542
    113
    Dec 20, 2007
    That is not why no one looked at Tannehill as a starter..

    Bro, why can’t you see this, he’s flawed bro, always has always will be..

    Res, in pure movie drama I want to say this..

    Res... let it go Res..................just let it go man.
     
  32. Unlucky 13

    Unlucky 13 Team Raheem Club Member

    51,929
    63,006
    113
    Apr 24, 2012
    Troy, Virginia
    Next offseason, I think that there could be as many as a dozen teams that change starting quarterbacks, who do not have a built in replacement on board already. If and when that happens, I feel strongly that a few of them will look into Tannehill as at least a temporary bridge to a long term solution, and then he'll have his chance to show what he can do in a new system and healthy.
     
  33. djphinfan

    djphinfan Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    111,650
    67,542
    113
    Dec 20, 2007
    Ugh, you guys I tell ya..

    I guess you think he can handle playoff pressure defense when protection inevitably breaks down..lol
     
  34. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Tannehill played in several different systems in Miami. No one should be thinking that a change of system would mean much for him.
     
  35. Unlucky 13

    Unlucky 13 Team Raheem Club Member

    51,929
    63,006
    113
    Apr 24, 2012
    Troy, Virginia
    Did I say that? Did I say anything remotely like that, or hint at it?

    There are 32 starting quarterbacks in the NFL. I'm not suggesting that RT is going to suddenly step in and become one of the top five. I'm suggesting that a team might look at him and give him a chance to be one of the bottom five, and then we see what the future holds. There's a big grey area between awesome and can't play in the NFL, and a lot of people seem to ignore that.
     
    resnor likes this.
  36. djphinfan

    djphinfan Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    111,650
    67,542
    113
    Dec 20, 2007
    Ok Luck, til next year then.

    And who the hell cares if the guy gets a bottom feeder starter job as a bridge to the next.

    Unless your saying the guy is good enough to win a championship why the hell are you spending any more time defending him?

    Tell me once and for all, do you think he is good enough to lead a team to a championship ?

    If the answer to that is no, then you are just being obtuse
     
    Last edited: May 20, 2019
  37. Unlucky 13

    Unlucky 13 Team Raheem Club Member

    51,929
    63,006
    113
    Apr 24, 2012
    Troy, Virginia
    Well, A) we simply weren't having the same argument I guess. I've been talking, for a long, long time, about being a starting NFL quarterback, and no further. I guess I must have missed something else along the way. I'm every bit as interested in talking about the middle or bottom third of players as I am the top. In fact, always talking about the top guys gets boring, honestly.

    B) I am a very strong believer that individuals do not win championships, teams do. And I'm also a big believer that most quarterbacks need to be in the right system to succeed. The system that works for player A might be terrible for player B, but player B might excel somewhere else if given the chance.

    C) A number of quarterbacks who I would not consider to be elite have led their teams deep into the playoffs, both recently and in the past. The Vikings made it to the NFC title game two years ago quarterbacked by Case Keenum. Nick Foles was the QB for the Eagles when they won the Super Bowl. The Cowboys came within three points of making the NFC title game in 2016 with Dak Prescott at QB. The Ravens came within three points of making it to the AFC title game as recently as 2015 with Joe Flacco at QB. And on and on. None of those guys are better than a healthy Tannehill.

    So, if your question is whether I think that a healthy Ryan Tanneill, on the right team and in the right system can do what those guys did, then the answer is yes. If the question is whether I think that he'll ever be subjectively one of the best QBs in the league, then the answer is no.
     
    VManis, Pauly, resnor and 1 other person like this.
  38. Puka-head

    Puka-head My2nd Fav team:___vs Jets Club Member

    8,605
    6,743
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    Slightly left of center
    Ya'lls a bunch of battered wives I tell you! What the heckyaba's??? The biggest thread on this forum right now, same old flippin BS arguments about some Malafala's that ain't Dolphins no more.

    Ya'll need to get Frozen and let that ish go.
     
    djphinfan likes this.
  39. djphinfan

    djphinfan Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    111,650
    67,542
    113
    Dec 20, 2007
    Well your wrong, he’s 30 and has never done it, teams need abs to have to play well individually for the team to advance to a championship..

    He’s shown nothing in big games, especially on the road, his instincts, mental acuity and limited athleticism fails him every time
     
    Last edited: May 20, 2019
  40. Unlucky 13

    Unlucky 13 Team Raheem Club Member

    51,929
    63,006
    113
    Apr 24, 2012
    Troy, Virginia
    I dont let anything go, lol. I'm still frustrated about things that happened 25 to 30 years ago!
     
    Tin Indian likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page