Is Adam Gase the biggest scam in football???

"Irishman wrote:

I agree. I'm afraid I am starting to become one of the lemmings that I complain about all the time. I need the seasons first game to start as soon as possible so there is at least some meat on the bone to talk about.

I would go so far as saying the it may take the first 5 or 6 games to establish who the key players are going to be and getting the team time to adjust to the new playbook in real game situations. I promise I won't complain if we win a lot during those 5 or 6 games.

lol! Give me time, win or lose, and I can find something to complain about so I won’t make any promises. :-)

"KeyFin wrote:

I looked at that as well, but I don't know Philly well enough to know if they were starters or backups (obviously, Wallace and Sproles were starters, plus Ajayi was rotational). My narrative the entire time (going back several pages) was to name a team that has overcome the same or more and finished the season strong.

Again though, we COULD HAVE been a playoff team last year if RT didn't collapse so spectacularly. And I do agree with you, that's on Gase to some degree...I can't say more on a public forum since I have a little more insight there. Gase did want to draft a QB though and he was told no (as was Ross), and several of those naysayers are still in the building...grabbing their own QB while simultaneously pointing fingers elsewhere for last season. The front office was an absolute mess with lots of personality clashes, so I'm hoping a lot of that got sorted this off-season.

Despite what people think, culture starts at the top and trickles all the way down to the field level. A lot of folks have complained that they weren't supported in Miami in recent years and felt like their hands were always tied...that's about as far as I can go. It shouldn't be too hard to fill in the blanks though given who's left standing.

Key I support everyone that wears our uniform, but that doesn’t mean I think their gonna succeed based on my analysis..

Over the years while stating that Ryan ISN'T good enough to get it done in the playoffs or handle pressure situations on the road, AND, that we should of taken other qbs in the process like Wilson and Mahomes, I would say things like Ryan is a tough guy and I respect him and hope that he succeeds, I would say things like Ryan is doing something unprecedented in football at this level, which was playing wide receiver at a big time college level then making the transition to the pro level and going first round, I would give him credit for that, I also said that if he wanted his career to have a shot at being a decent qb and to help his team win games, he’s going to have to add the threat of his legs off-script, which he never understood..

I went on record here after the show hard knocks, and said Philbin wasn’t the right head coach for us and is gonna fail..but I didn’t bash him every chance I get for the three years, I try to find the positives in our players and our coaches..

If it was up to me, Tannehill and Philbin would not of been Miami Dolphins.

"KeyFin wrote:

Owners? As in, more than one? That's kind of funny since he had multiple job offers within 24 hours of leaving Miami. Ross didn't even say that he wasn't head coaching material...not a single time.

That's funny hearing you say that after being one of his biggest fans for five straight years. People actually quit this forum over all the pro-RT stuff you were spewing with a few others....and now you're going to bash the guy? That's extremely childish.

So you were wrong on Philbin's high moral character instilling the right culture, you were wrong about Tannehill...and now you want to call someone the biggest scam in football after being 1 game under .500 for three seasons. Should we name the Miami head coaches who have done worse in the past two decades?

Do you even realize how ridiculous that sounds? The "biggest scam in football" shouldn't have one of the best records in Miami since Shula...

I think the only team that had a head coaching offer was the Jets..

I told you why I thought he was a scam..

Going to those 5 days of practice to watch him coach, watching him on the sidelines during games, seeing how In in-effectively he used his players, especially his Qb, and his real poor talent for identifying talent..

He’s an offensive coordinator at best that is living off praise from a hall of fame qb and he’s taking full advantage of it, that why the blood wasn’t even dry before he took that job..

"djphinfan wrote:

I think the only team that had a head coaching offer was the Jets..

I told you why I thought he was a scam..

Going to those 5 days of practice to watch him coach, watching him on the sidelines during games, seeing how In in-effectively he used his players, especially his Qb, and his real poor talent for identifying talent..

He’s an offensive coordinator at best that is living off praise from a hall of fame qb and he’s taking full advantage of it, that why the blood wasn’t even dry before he took that job..

The fact that teams can’t even do the basic analytics necessary to determine that the quarterbacks under his command didn’t do significantly better than their career norms is a testament to the ineptitude of the league as a whole in identifying coaching talent.

"The Guy wrote:

At one point under Gase, Tannehill was playing with first-round picks at left tackle, left guard, center, and right tackle, and a previous Pro Bowl player at right guard. That's as "all-pro" as an offensive line is going to get in the NFL.

That year Tannehill did no better than he did under Bill Lazor, and he nonetheless demonstrated his characteristic tendency of making his living against poorer competition in non-clutch situations.

Ryan Tannehill was a human experiment in attempting to improve a player's performance by enhancing every element of his surroundings. That experiment failed, and it was because Tannehill's individual ability was inadequate.

Additionally, "top-10 QB" doesn't have much meaning. The meaningful distinction among QBs occurs when you reach about the top six. QBs seven through 10 aren't meaningfully distinct from the average ones.

So making Tannehill "top-10" wouldn't have been meaningful for the team unless he was also top six, and I'd challenge anyone to make an argument for Tannehill's playing that well, under any conditions.

Tannehill had such a line last year for the first three games- and Tannehill was 3-0 before being injured (and most of the line being injured as well). Or are you talking about the Incognito years? Because back then, he was the most sacked in football (partly because of pocket presence, partly because of the line).

Look, I'm not trying to defend Tannehill....I've been neutral on him most of his career. I simply believe he has every skill you look for except the pocket presence. And that's why he was the ultimate tease.

"cbrad wrote:

It's offseason with an unknown as HC, we already know Fitz isn't our solution at QB, we'd like to see Rosen but that will have to wait.. and seeing him in a regular season game is the only real source of useful info about whether he might be our solution at QB so there's just not any real useful info right now in determining how good/bad we'll be this year or next.

So far though I see no real red flags with Flores, but that's before he's even coached a single game lol. Game 1 don't care if we lose or not I'm most interested in seeing whether Flores can game plan for specific opponents like Belichick can (even if it's Belichick light that's better than what we've had), and whether he can adjust in-game.

But that's for the future.. right now not much to talk about except the usual topics lol.

Note- in Fitz's 1st team practice in Miami, he had a 10+ TD day. The media reported he was in full control of the offense, guiding receivers all over the place and he seemed to have instant chemistry with everyone. While you're probably right that he's not the long term solution, he may be the absolute perfect solution for 2019 since he's such an awesome leader and worker. I'm really hoping for Pennington round II this season as he surprises the heck out of a lot of people.

"The Guy wrote:

The fact that teams can’t even do the basic analytics necessary to determine that the quarterbacks under his command didn’t do significantly better than their career norms is a testament to the ineptitude of the league as a whole in identifying coaching talent.

Yeah because if he can’t even do that, like wtf are they hiring him for?? Lol, surely it’s not his leadership traits, nor how he teaches the principles of the game.

Guess he was trying that approach of allowing your assistants to coach Everything so you can focus on playcalling duty..

Anyone watch belicek practice footage, I have, hours...he’s on the field, in the middle of the action, loud voice, teaching fundamentals..I guess it was gases week off from that.

"KeyFin wrote:

Tannehill had such a line last year for the first three games- and Tannehill was 3-0 before being injured (and most of the line being injured as well). Or are you talking about the Incognito years? Because back then, he was the most sacked in football (partly because of pocket presence, partly because of the line).

Look, I'm not trying to defend Tannehill....I've been neutral on him most of his career. I simply believe he has every skill you look for except the pocket presence. And that's why he was the ultimate tease.

It doesn’t matter what years, he’s wasn't good enough to get it done..some saw the flaws early, some didn’t.

"KeyFin wrote:

Tannehill had such a line last year for the first three games- and Tannehill was 3-0 before being injured (and most of the line being injured as well). Or are you talking about the Incognito years? Because back then, he was the most sacked in football (partly because of pocket presence, partly because of the line).

That was against Tennessee, the Jets, and Oakland. He played slightly below average against Tennessee, which was the best team of the three and made the playoffs, and very well against the Jets and Oakland, both of which finished the season 4-12.

Again what you see there is Tannehill’s making his living off of poorer competition, which has been his pattern of performance throughout his career, regardless of the variation in his offensive line.

In other words, you’re misattributing his performance in those games to his offensive line, whereas it’s fully accounted for by the quality of the competition and represents a pattern of play of much longer duration than just those three games.

"KeyFin wrote:

Note- in Fitz's 1st team practice in Miami, he had a 10+ TD day. The media reported he was in full control of the offense, guiding receivers all over the place and he seemed to have instant chemistry with everyone. While you're probably right that he's not the long term solution, he may be the absolute perfect solution for 2019 since he's such an awesome leader and worker. I'm really hoping for Pennington round II this season as he surprises the heck out of a lot of people.

When Fitz has zero expectation he is great. He is a gun-slinging high powered quarterback.

When he gets expectations he is terrible. He is an interception throwing machine.

This is his entire career. Even with the Bucs. There was no pressure the first 3 games and he has one of the if not the best 3 game stint as a quarterback. Talk of him keeping the job, he throws 3 interceptions and plays terrible.

Each and every spot. It is the same. It is almost like he made a wish on the Monkey's Paw.

"djphinfan wrote:

It doesn’t matter what years, he’s wasn't good enough to get it done..some saw the flaws early, some didn’t.

Umm, I started a "We Want Moore" thread in Tannehill's 1st, 2nd and 3rd season. I saw the flaws then and still see them today. The difference between us is that I realized he was our starting QB for 7 years and there was nothing good to come of just randomly bashing him- either he got better or the team was going to struggle. I root for whoever starts for Miami regardless.

There's a huge difference between rooting for someone to succeed and giving blind, overzealous loyalty.

"Dol-Fan Dupree wrote:

When Fitz has zero expectation he is great. He is a gun-slinging high powered quarterback.

When he gets expectations he is terrible. He is an interception throwing machine.

This is his entire career. Even with the Bucs. There was no pressure the first 3 games and he has one of the if not the best 3 game stint as a quarterback. Talk of him keeping the job, he throws 3 interceptions and plays terrible.

Each and every spot. It is the same. It is almost like he made a wish on the Monkey's Paw.

I've never really watched Fitz other than a random game here and there. My general impression is that I like him due to his leadership and fearless approach....I'll take the INT's as long as there's some TD's and huge plays mixed in as well. Matt Moore played the same way and players are drawn to leaders who will take big chances and deal with the consequences later...it makes for some fun football to watch anyway.

Like I said earlier, I don't think he's the long term answer....but I will enjoy watching him in the gunslinger role this season.

"The Guy wrote:

That was against Tennessee, the Jets, and Oakland. He played slightly below average against Tennessee, which was the best team of the three and made the playoffs, and very well against the Jets and Oakland, both of which finished the season 4-12.

Again what you see there is Tannehill’s making his living off of poorer competition, which has been his pattern of performance throughout his career, regardless of the variation in his offensive line.

In other words, you’re misattributing his performance in those games to his offensive line, whereas it’s fully accounted for by the quality of the competition and represents a pattern of play of much longer duration than just those three games.

I mean, I'm not sure what to say.....when his pressures went down, his QBR went up. All of his "perfect" QBR games came on afternoons with a clean pocket.

As far as the first three games last season goes, you were the one who said he played poorly with a good line in front of him. I was just pointing out that you're clearly off-base since he was 3-0 in that scenario last season.

"KeyFin wrote:

I mean, I'm not sure what to say.....when his pressures went down, his QBR went up. All of his "perfect" QBR games came on afternoons with a clean pocket.

As far as the first three games last season goes, you were the one who said he played poorly with a good line in front of him. I was just pointing out that you're clearly off-base since he was 3-0 in that scenario last season.

He might’ve been 3-0 in that scenario last season, but even in those three games he had one that was slightly below average, and it was against the one of the three teams that had a winning record on the season and made the playoffs, with the other two teams finishing 4-12.

In other words, he didn’t win that game; the performance he exhibited in that game is associated with more losses than wins across the league.

The point is that even when Tannehill’s offensive lines were better, he still exhibited the pattern of play in which he made his living off of poorer competition. The quality of the competition was a stronger predictor of his performance than the quality of his offensive lines.

The upshot is that you could’ve given him the best offensive line he had with the Dolphins, and he still would’ve been expected to play poorly in the playoffs with that unit. There were no surroundings that could’ve been compiled around him that were going to change his penchant for playing poorly against good competition.

"The Guy wrote:

He might’ve been 3-0 in that scenario last season, but even in those three games he had one that was slightly below average, and it was against the one of the three teams that had a winning record on the season and made the playoffs, with the other two teams finishing 4-12.

In other words, he didn’t win that game; the performance he exhibited in that game is associated with more losses than wins across the league.

The point is that even when Tannehill’s offensive lines were better, he still exhibited the pattern of play in which he made his living off of poorer competition. The quality of the competition was a stronger predictor of his performance than the quality of his offensive lines.

The upshot is that you could’ve given him the best offensive line he had with the Dolphins, and he still would’ve been expected to play poorly in the playoffs with that unit. There were no surroundings that could’ve been compiled around him that were going to change his penchant for playing poorly against good competition.

Yet I can point to NE and their overall record when Brady throws for an 85 or lower rating. Hint: it's not far off from their normal record, and it's far better than the dolphins record when Tannehill threw for an 85 or less. That is not to say Tannehill is better than Brady, it's to show why your line of thinking is flawed.

"The Guy wrote:

He might’ve been 3-0 in that scenario last season, but even in those three games he had one that was slightly below average, and it was against the one of the three teams that had a winning record on the season and made the playoffs, with the other two teams finishing 4-12.

In other words, he didn’t win that game; the performance he exhibited in that game is associated with more losses than wins across the league.

The point is that even when Tannehill’s offensive lines were better, he still exhibited the pattern of play in which he made his living off of poorer competition. The quality of the competition was a stronger predictor of his performance than the quality of his offensive lines.

The upshot is that you could’ve given him the best offensive line he had with the Dolphins, and he still would’ve been expected to play poorly in the playoffs with that unit. There were no surroundings that could’ve been compiled around him that were going to change his penchant for playing poorly against good competition.

I mean, look back to 2017. We started 1-4 with a horrible line, Gase fired two linemen and then we won six straight with Tannehill. It's not a secret that when he has time to throw he's consistently better...the same is true for ANY NFL QB that's not named Russel Wilson.

At the end of last season...same thing. We were starting 3rd string linemen, RT was constantly under pressure and he completely self-destructed with strip sacks and picks while getting hit. That was after a string of 3-4 really solid games with a high QBR- he just can't handle the pressure consistently.

"resnor wrote:

Yet I can point to NE and their overall record when Brady throws for an 85 or lower rating. Hint: it's not far off from their normal record, and it's far better than the dolphins record when Tannehill threw for an 85 or less. That is not to say Tannehill is better than Brady, it's to show why your line of thinking is flawed.

You’re hearing me say something I’m not saying. What you’re saying is that New England as a team is more able to overcome Tom Brady’s poor performances. That’s not the same thing as saying that Tom Brady’s surroundings make him play better individually.

What I’ve been saying above is that Ryan Tannehill‘s surroundings could not have made him play better individually.

"KeyFin wrote:

I mean, look back to 2017. We started 1-4 with a horrible line, Gase fired two linemen and then we won six straight with Tannehill. It's not a secret that when he has time to throw he's consistently better...the same is true for ANY NFL QB that's not named Russel Wilson.

The same pattern existed in that season. Across those 11 games, the seven wins were against teams with a combined regular season record of 34-62 (35% wins). The four losses were against teams with a combined regular season record of 39-23-2 (63% wins).

Tannehill's average QB rating in the seven wins against poorer teams overall was 104. His average QB rating in the four losses against good teams overall was 77.7.

Again, the stronger predictor of Tannehill's individual performance was the quality of the competition, not the quality of his offensive line. He made his living -- in terms of his individual performance -- off of poorer competition.

"The Guy wrote:

You’re hearing me say something I’m not saying. What you’re saying is that New England as a team is more able to overcome Tom Brady’s poor performances. That’s not the same thing as saying that Tom Brady’s surroundings make him play better individually.

What I’ve been saying above is that Ryan Tannehill‘s surroundings could not have made him play better individually.

Nor did I say that his surroundings made him play better. I'm saying that Tannehill got next to no help hiding his deficiencies. Meaning, if Tannehill played poorly, we were going to usually lose. It's a team game, which is all I've ever argued. Tannehill had/has his flaws, and no one denied he had flaws. However, acting like he's the worst in the league or something, while ignoring the fact that record often has more to do with the team than simply the QB, is to to miss the forest for the trees.

"resnor wrote:

Nor did I say that his surroundings made him play better. I'm saying that Tannehill got next to no help hiding his deficiencies. Meaning, if Tannehill played poorly, we were going to usually lose. It's a team game, which is all I've ever argued. Tannehill had/has his flaws, and no one denied he had flaws. However, acting like he's the worst in the league or something, while ignoring the fact that record often has more to do with the team than simply the QB, is to to miss the forest for the trees.

I don't remember arguing anything about the team's record in my posts above about Tannehill. What I've been saying is that he plays worse individually against good competition, and more so than the overwhelming majority of QBs in the league, and that it was not a function of the variation in his offensive lines.

That made him an undesirable QB to enter the playoffs with, since the playoffs of course consist of nothing but the better competition in the league. He could've entered the playoffs with the best offensive line he had with the Dolphins, and he still would've been expected to play poorly, based on his past performance.

"The Guy wrote:

I don't remember arguing anything about the team's record in my posts above about Tannehill. What I've been saying is that he plays worse individually against good competition, and more so than the overwhelming majority of QBs in the league, and that it was not a function of the variation in his offensive lines.

That made him an undesirable QB to enter the playoffs with, since the playoffs of course consist of nothing but the better competition in the league. He could've entered the playoffs with the best offensive line he had with the Dolphins, and he still would've been expected to play poorly, based on his past performance.

You were talking about stats correlating to losses. I pointed out that when Brady has bad stats, his team still wins. It's not all about the QB when you have a good team.

"KeyFin wrote:

I've never really watched Fitz other than a random game here and there. My general impression is that I like him due to his leadership and fearless approach....I'll take the INT's as long as there's some TD's and huge plays mixed in as well. Matt Moore played the same way and players are drawn to leaders who will take big chances and deal with the consequences later...it makes for some fun football to watch anyway.

Like I said earlier, I don't think he's the long term answer....but I will enjoy watching him in the gunslinger role this season.

Watch this video. It will change your mind about Fitzpatrick in before you watch this, you would think my Monkey's Paw thing was just a weird joke.

"resnor wrote:

Yet I can point to NE and their overall record when Brady throws for an 85 or lower rating. Hint: it's not far off from their normal record, and it's far better than the dolphins record when Tannehill threw for an 85 or less. That is not to say Tannehill is better than Brady, it's to show why your line of thinking is flawed.

Yeah those are meaningless stats because they don't adjust for era. And the difference is huge: in 2001 league average passer rating was 78.5 so an 85 was well above average while in 2019 league average was 92.9 so 85 is well below average.

Here's what Brady's win% looks like for all games he started where he had a passer rating at the value on the x-axis or lower.

I had a post written up about how this related to expected for the league but then realized that "expected" depends on the distribution of passer ratings for QB's across the league and just having fewer ratings at the extremes will naturally produce the curvature that you see as ratings go up – same thing should occur in symmetry as ratings go down except that small sample size creates the jaggedness you see making it hard to see the real shape. It also means this way of analyzing things isn't that useful. Not only is the scale distorted but sample size means data points at the lower end are highly unreliable while data points at the upper end are highly reliable.

However, if you do want to make a statement similar to the one you made, I'd go with this: "Brady's win% when he has an average or worse passer rating is 48.81%, so about 50%, which HAS to be way more than expected because that includes all games where he played worse than average". So go with that statement if you want, but this way of looking at things won't tell you how MUCH his team helped. For that I think you have to do it the way I've done it before: find the relation between stat X and win% and then remove that win% from actual win% (e.g., that's how I adjusted ratings for defense in the past).

"resnor wrote:

You were talking about stats correlating to losses. I pointed out that when Brady has bad stats, his team still wins. It's not all about the QB when you have a good team.

Actually I was distinguishing individual performance from team performance, by saying that in one game the Dolphins won, Tannehill nonetheless played individually in a way that’s typically associated with losing in the NFL.

The point was that he played that way against a good team, which supported the point that he tends to play poorly against better competition. Ironically it also means the Dolphins actually did for him in that game what you are arguing the Patriots have done for Brady in many of Brady’s poorer performances.

"The Guy wrote:

Actually I was distinguishing individual performance from team performance, by saying that in one game the Dolphins won, Tannehill nonetheless played individually in a way that’s typically associated with losing in the NFL.

The point was that he played that way against a good team, which supported the point that he tends to play poorly against better competition. Ironically it also means the Dolphins actually did for him in that game what you are arguing the Patriots have done for Brady in many of Brady’s poorer performances.

I can tell you that that was an aberration then. When I first looked at this, I believe the dolphins were around .300 when Tannehill threw for an 85 or less. Brady, for comparison, was around .600. Actually there were a few highly touted QBs that had had comparable win % even when throwing at an 85 or less.