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

Miami Dolphins Ryan Tannehill: Judge me on wins

Discussion in 'Miami Dolphins Forum' started by dolfan7171, Aug 2, 2015.

  1. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Why don't you stop claiming no one ever quantified it. That was a quantification. And why don't you try to learn why the uncertainties associated with that stat are the EXACT uncertainties associated with YPA, which is precisely the type of stat you're using yourself in a Rodgers/Tannehill comparison.
     
  2. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    I said there was NO SUFFICIENT weight. And considering you can't prove your stupid number and admit that we don't know if its accurate, then it is, by definition, NOT SUFFICIENT.

    See:
    That is from the post you quoted to restart our argument today. You literally just read that today, not even 20 minutes ago.

    Read that over as many times you need to, to understand it.
     
    Clark Kent likes this.
  3. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Stop changing your argument.

    You said no one quantified it. By definition that is false because I did.
    You said there was no "objective" weight. That weight I provided is as objective as YPA.

    So first of all, stop lying about those things.


    And you're still not acknowledging the elephant in the room:

    How much of YPA is due to the QB?
    How much of passer rating is due to the QB?
    etc..

    In every case, the correct answer is "We don't know", and the uncertainties are the EXACT same ones you keep saying are the reason we can't use wins.

    You argument is completely invalid. Anyway, I've explained this enough. I don't think you're too stupid to understand this, so if you keep up this nonsense argument that's as much proof as we need for yet another intellectually dishonest argument on your part.

    Peace/
     
    Fin-Omenal likes this.
  4. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Sigh.

    I haven't changed anything. I've illustrated to you over and over and over what my argument is and it hasn't changed. I am very clearly talking about quantifying it accurately/sufficiently and if I say that specifically 99 times and 1 time I didn't quantify it precisely with the word "accurately" or "sufficiently", that does not mean I changed my whole argument. It means you need to learn to understand human conversation.

    I don't need to address the elephant in the room. I am the one saying we don't have the answers, you are the one pulling "answers' out of your *** and expecting them to be considered gospel without challenge and get butt hurt when they aren't.

    This argument does nothing for the site. It was deleted before, and you could not leave well enough alone. I'm done with it and you.
     
    Clark Kent and resnor like this.
  5. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    I don't think a win is an "intangible".

    I'll try to explain my overall stance.

    Wins are a team accomplishment. To use a team accomplishment to judge a single member of that team, you need to quantify the impact of that single player on the win. The reason is, that win could have been caused by any number of people or scenarios. Now, if you look at a QBs pocket movement, ability to see the field, throwing ability, etc. then you're dealing specifically with things the QB controls a 100%. Completions? That has to do with QB, WR, Defense, pressure, etc. but at least we can see with our eyes if the ball went where it was supposed to (as much as we can without knowing the play) and if the receiver just dropped it or the defense made a good play.

    I think without that weight, then using wins becomes too fluid and people will add their own biases to reinforce their previously held beliefs.

    Now, I don't think its actually possible to weight wins for an individual player in football. I think there's just too many variables. That;s why I say you can't do it, but if someone does find a way to weight them in a sufficient manner, then I'll happily use it.
     
    Clark Kent and resnor like this.
  6. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    This is so stupid. This whole thing exists because the crowd that is down on Tannehill can point to this and say, "SEE?!! By his own standard, Tannehill is not good enough!!" Meanwhile, these same people, had Tannehill said "Don't judge me by wins, those are a team effort," would be saying he doesn't have "it." He doesn't have a killer instinct. He's not playing to win. Nevermind that for three years, Tannehill has said the "right things." He's never thrown teammates under the bus. Saying "judge me on wins" is saying the "right things" again. He's not trying to put blame on other areas (defense, receivers, etc.). He's allowing people to focus on him, and take the heat off his teammates, even if it's unwarranted...which is exactly what a leader does.
     
    dolfan7171, Clark Kent and Fin D like this.
  7. Stringer Bell

    Stringer Bell Post Hard, Post Often Club Member

    44,356
    22,480
    113
    Mar 22, 2008
    Why do these threads always devolve into discussions on the behavior of posters?
     
  8. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Isn't this post ^ a commentary on posters?
     
    resnor likes this.
  9. rafael

    rafael Well-Known Member

    27,364
    31,261
    113
    Apr 6, 2008
    I've avoided this thread b/c IMO it is ridiculous to blame team wins on an individual, even a QB. B/c even a great QB can't overcome a bad team. Archie Manning was a great QB on a horrible team. He was easily and unanimously included among the league's best during his 10 year career and yet the Saints had losing seasons in 9 of those years. I see judging a QB on wins as something lazy people with no individual assessment skills do. Last year if the defense had not collapsed down the stretch we would have made the playoffs. Would Tannehill be a better QB if that had happened even if his play had been exactly the same? Obviously the answer is "no". He would be the exact same QB, but poor evaluators would have a different opinion.

    As for how much of an impact a QB has on wins, the best correlation coefficients I've seen (passer rating and ANY/Att) are between .51 and .56 or so.
     
  10. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Because that's all this thread is worth? There is no winning this discussion, and that's what I'm illustrating.
     
  11. Clark Kent

    Clark Kent Fighter of the Nightman

    8,560
    4,133
    113
    May 9, 2008
    Great post. And it reminded me of Cam Newton. Regardless of any evaluation someone might have about Cam as a QB and a passer, I found it fascinating the way the media changed the narrative surrounding Cam Newton from 2012 season to the 2013. In 2012, Carolina had the 18th ranked offense and went 7-9. In 2013, Carolina had the 18th ranked offense and went 12-4. Despite not playing much differently than he had in the previous years, suddenly the narrative was sunshine and rainbows. Cam was maturing, evolving, becoming a real leader, etc...

    Really, the difference between the panthers in 2012-2013 wasn't so much the evolution of Cam Newton, but the evolution of the Panthers defense. Yet, Cam got the credit for the 12-4 record and the division title moreso than anyone else. As the old saying goes, QB's get too much credit when things go well and too much blame when things go poorly.
     
  12. Stringer Bell

    Stringer Bell Post Hard, Post Often Club Member

    44,356
    22,480
    113
    Mar 22, 2008
    Its a commentary of the content on this site. I'm not lumping people together and projecting things onto them. I'd be willing to bet that someone visiting the site for the first time isn't coming here to hear people's opinions on what perceived 'crowds' of forum posters are doing.

    Rafael's post is a great example of how to address points without discussing other posters.
     
  13. Stringer Bell

    Stringer Bell Post Hard, Post Often Club Member

    44,356
    22,480
    113
    Mar 22, 2008
    The fact that you can't see the relevant discussion here proves that you are violating the site's TOS.

    The topic of this thread is pretty clear and simple. How can Ryan Tannehill be objectively evaluated? Do you have anything to add to that discussion. If you want to create threads on how you perceive people are treating Ryan Tannehill, then take it to Fanhell, or whatever that site is called.

    ETA: I'm also not sure why 'winning' a discussion needs to be an objective. People should discuss how they objectively measure Tannehill's success. That doesn't impede anyone else's ability to do so.
     
    Fin-Omenal likes this.
  14. Clark Kent

    Clark Kent Fighter of the Nightman

    8,560
    4,133
    113
    May 9, 2008
    Is that really a fair analysis?

    Do you recall the Pro Football Focus controversy the first month of last season? Despite Philbin suggesting he may bench Tannehill, PFF had graded Tannehill very high. Top 5 QB in the NFL at that time, despite a 70 something QB rating. PFF defended their analysis by pointing out, Ryan was making good decisions. A combination of factors outside of Tannehill's control (ex. passes dropped; losing yards and TD's in the process) lead to some "meh" QB stats, despite a solid and/or strong performance.

    EDIT: Here's the article. https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2014/09/17/analysis-notebook-week-2-3/
     
    Unlucky 13 likes this.
  15. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    This place is like family. Family bickers. A lot of us spend a lot of time here and we've seen tendencies amongst posters that obviously fuel the things they are trying to pass off as fact.

    And feeling like family is what makes this place what it is. There is no perfectly rational public forum....especially on the internet.
     
    cbrad, dolfan7171 and resnor like this.
  16. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    You know, you do this a lot. You single out a post by me, and complain that I'm talking about other posters. You act as if I completely disregard the topic. I didn't. I said it's "stupid." Further, I stated that Tannehill is showing true leadership. I also stated my opinion on how this would have been going had Tannehill said the opposite.

    You, however, simply went on a rant about me. Take your own advice.
     
  17. rafael

    rafael Well-Known Member

    27,364
    31,261
    113
    Apr 6, 2008
    Excellent example. In points per game allowed Carolina went from 18th in 2012 to 2nd in 2013. IMO QB play is very correlated with wins but T/O ratio is correlated more highly and a QB is only partially responsible for that (fumbles by other players and TOs generated by the D). And obviously how well your defense stops the other team's passing attack is also correlated to wins. Pretending that your QB play is the sole or even primary factor is just lazy and wrong.
     
  18. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    Your last line completely contradicted everything you argued beforehand. Almost every single moderately strong correlation factor involves the QB. Nobody is saying judge him solely on his W-L record, but it's something you take note of.

    You say last year if the defense did not collapse down the stretch he'd have made the playoffs. I hear this quite often. How does one make that argument? Other than the last game against the Jets, we did not lose any games where we scored a lot unless you are counting the Broncos game. Giving up 39 to Manning isn't so ludicrous. Pre-injury Manning also scored 41 against AZ the 5th best defense in points allowed. It was a shootout and Tanny is commended for hanging that long. But after this game you have us beating the Jets ... by 3, 16-13. Not a collapse. Kept us in the playoff hunt. Baltimore we gave up 28, but only scored 13. That's the game that killed us. And The offense only scores 13. If the defense only gave up 20 we'd still have lost. New England scores 41, but we score 13. We beat Min, so that's not on the D. And yes, in NY we got smoked by Geno Smith. The very last game.

    If the Defense played the same, and most consider the collapse AFTER Delmas went out, there's no guarantee we'd be in the playoffs. The offense didn't get it done. You'd have to assume that with the defense playing better, the offense would have scored more. That's a HUGE assumption. The Baltimore game is what killed chances for the wild card berth. 13 points ain't cutting it. It'd be a different story if the score was 28-27 or something.

    For every Archie Manning you have a Jay Fiedler on the opposite end. You adjust accordingly. But it's folly to not even take into account team success when judging a QB.
     
  19. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    ANY/Att or passer rating would be self defeating for my argument as both use arbitrary weights.
     
  20. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Yeah, this we definitely agree on. We'll have a lot more disagreements (probably heated) in the future, but as long as we're fanatic Dolphans, we're still essentially on the same side.
     
  21. rafael

    rafael Well-Known Member

    27,364
    31,261
    113
    Apr 6, 2008
    No it doesn't. It recognizes that QB is important but is not the only factor. The thread title is about judging a QB on wins. Since it's not the only factor you can't put that all on the QB. You have to judge the QB on his play. My judgment from watching the games is that the second half losses was far more on the D than on the QB. People put far too much on the QB. I re-watched that Seattle- Denver game and for much of the game Seattle's offense and Wilson were horrid. If Miami's offense had played like Seattle's we would have been down 40 by halftime. But all everybody remembers is that Seattle won so Wilson must be the reason. Frankly that's just ignorant. I have no doubt that if Wilson and Tannehill switched teams the results would be exactly the same except you'd be arguing that Tannehill is an elite QB and that Wilson only completes short passes.
     
  22. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    Wilson's YPA is much higher than Tanny's at a lower completion %, so I wouldn't complain about Wilson only completing short passes. His ypc is 2 yards higher with a MUCH worse receiving corps. As maligned as Wallace is, he had a 114 rating throwing to him. Landry 105, and Harltine 95 or so.

    Swap them out for Baldwin, Kearse and ... Lockette? Not even close.

    Anyway, You judge him on wins now. Why? Because, as I said earlier in the thread, he has the stats. He plays well enough. He has 400 yards, rating in the 90s. If his rating was 101 I'd bet we were in the playoffs.

    You say 2nd half losses were more on the D. Which ones? The only one I'll give you is Denver. But Manning is going to Manning. Scoring 35+ is not news. It's not a collapse. It's Manning being Manning in the regular season.

    Scoring 13 against Balt? Not going to cut it. Detroit? That one is on the Defense? Scoring 13 against NE? Also not going to cut it.

    So which 2nd half losses were pure collapse on the defense? The offense was barely doing anything in 3 games that really mattered after Denver. Jets (we won) Balt and NE. 16. 13. 13. Not saying Tanny is all at fault for those scores, but to pin this on the defense is wrong. Both sides collapsed, Offense included. The defense needed to keep balt and NE to 12 points is what you're saying? Because we only scored 13. ;)

    The man wants to be judged on wins. Who am I to deny his wish?
     
    Fin-Omenal likes this.
  23. rafael

    rafael Well-Known Member

    27,364
    31,261
    113
    Apr 6, 2008
    Have you switched the metric now? Before it was all about air yards and Wilson's was below Tannehill's (even though Wilson had a better OL).
     
    resnor and Fin D like this.
  24. djphinfan

    djphinfan Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    111,651
    67,545
    113
    Dec 20, 2007
    its simple..when you hear talk of ''he's a winning qb'' or '' all he does it win'' I believe there is context, it means understanding of down and distance and converting 3rd downs, anyway possible..for the qb thats either delivering the strike, scrambling to create a new platform to keep the play alive when protection breaks down, or strait up running for a first down..3 ways to convert, right now our the qb is using one way to convert, its mostly all from the pocket, very little relatively speaking on the scrambling part, and absolutely minimal strait up running without script..now he says he wants to win more, well than do b and c more and he will.
     
    dolfan7171 likes this.
  25. Fin-Omenal

    Fin-Omenal Initiated

    36,936
    10,264
    0
    Mar 25, 2008
    Thee...Ohio State University
    ...and the first half of the season Ryan struggled and the defense was much better. Sounds like 8-8 to me.
     
  26. Fin-Omenal

    Fin-Omenal Initiated

    36,936
    10,264
    0
    Mar 25, 2008
    Thee...Ohio State University

    I'm far from a stat advocate, I've watched enough football in my life to recognize that they can be inflated and deflated depending on the scenario.

    I've watched every game in 2014 2 or more times, and he was responsible for his own struggles early. He also was responsible for turning it around and looking like a top teir QB around the midway point. So via my own two eyes his 2014 performance was basically spot on with the .500 record we ended up with. Now don't mistake that as in the QBs play ALWAYS dictates the team's record...like some others. But it also is no secret that a franchise QB is the most important part of a football team.
     
  27. Fin-Omenal

    Fin-Omenal Initiated

    36,936
    10,264
    0
    Mar 25, 2008
    Thee...Ohio State University

    Who is down on Tannehill here??
     
  28. Unlucky 13

    Unlucky 13 Team Raheem Club Member

    51,930
    63,008
    113
    Apr 24, 2012
    Troy, Virginia
    I think that there are some here who seem to take being a Dolphins fan like a job, rather than a passion. Punching the clock every day.
     
    Fin4Ever likes this.
  29. rafael

    rafael Well-Known Member

    27,364
    31,261
    113
    Apr 6, 2008
    I just believe that people don't realize how much easier it is to be a winning QB when your running game controls the game and your defense stops the opponent most of the time. I love Wilson and cite his decision making as one of his elite skills, but I also have no doubt that if he'd been in Miami these last three years he wouldn't be seen as "a winning QB". Before my NFL Rewind terminated for the season I watched the Sea/Den and Mia/Den games back to back. The difference was striking. Wilson made maybe two plays in the whole first half and was up by two TDs. It felt like constant three and outs. Tannehill leads the Dolphins on TDs on 3 of their 4 first possessions making play after play and its a 4 point game at half. In the second half, Denver runs it down our throat and all people remember is that Tannehill lost. If you switch those QB performances, Tannehill still wins playing for Seattle and Miami is blown out. I don't point this out to denigrate Wilson. I'm a huge fan, but he gets credit for wins he plays a small part in. His circumstances are so much more favorable. Having weaker receivers pales in comparison to having an all-time great D and one of the best run games in the league. Having to make a few plays a game is infinitely easier than having to make all the plays. Wilson has made plays when called upon so I don't want to take that away from him, but reality is that nobody can make plays every time against NFL competition.
     
    resnor and PhinFan1968 like this.
  30. Griese's Glasses

    Griese's Glasses Well-Known Member

    1,388
    438
    83
    Oct 16, 2013
    Ottawa, ON
    Like seriously. T-Hill hate is sooooo 2013.
     
  31. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Green Bay wasn't a defensive loss? How about the multitude of 30+ point games? I think it was 6 of them?
     
  32. UBMurda

    UBMurda New Member

    31
    6
    0
    Mar 7, 2015
    I disagree with Tannehill you gotta judge by what u bring to the table not just wins n losses.

    Because:
    the defense can get u the win
    the kicker can get u the win
    the rb can get u the win

    So u can be dragged along the way to victory. If u can throw the deep ball with accuracy n not over throw or under throw our WR's "mike wallace" its a plus for the team. But if all you bring to the table is 3 n outs then u gotta go cus we can use ur spot for a better QB. Im not saying tannehill is a bad player but u gotta judge the player for what they truly bring to the table not just the win because anyone can be carried along for the win.
     
  33. Stitches

    Stitches ThePhin's Biggest Killjoy Luxury Box

    53,148
    31,935
    113
    Nov 23, 2007
    Katy, TX
    Good thing Tannehill and the Dolphins had the best 3 and out % in the whole league last year, so he doesn't bring 3 and out to the table.

    http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/stats/three-and-out-percentage/2014/
     
    Fin4Ever and resnor like this.
  34. UBMurda

    UBMurda New Member

    31
    6
    0
    Mar 7, 2015
    Im not saying Tannehill does im trying to say u cant judge a qb for wins n losses u gotta see wat he brings to the table as a qb. The 3 n outs i use as an example of wat a qb can do from time to time and can still win the game. That doesnt make u a good qb because u won the game. At the end of day u had a bad game n the team was able to hold on to the lead with good defense, running the ball, making fg's, etc...

    What tannehill needs to improve is the deep ball accuracy because he over throws n under throws so many wide open deep passes. He also needs to disguise the way he looks at his WR's because if u look at tannehill he stares at his target all the way threw n doesnt look for another option. I had Wallace last year or the year before in my fantasy league n tannehill pissed me the **** off because i would see wallace open n he would just look one way n force the pass to hartline. Then when wallace would be open he either over threw or under threw the deep pass. I would notice these type of thing because im staring at my fantasy player "Mike Wallace" checking to see if hes in the game, open, covered etc... n alot of times hes open but tannehill doesnt even bother to check n see.

    Again im not saying Tannehill is bad but i wont judge him by wins n losses. What he need to improve is deep ball n vision of the field. I can tell u right not J. Landry will get the most targets n receptions. We got K. Still, G. Jennings, and D. Parker who are deep threats but tannehill just like to throw short passes.
     
  35. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Yes, we all agree, he struggled to hit Wallace. We don't all agree that Tannehill has below average deep ball ability.
     
  36. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    I guess Tannehill hates big, exciting plays. Just maybe, short passes are a necessity when your oline is letting defenders blow through multiple places in under 2.5 seconds. And he turned Hartline into a 1000 yard receiver, and it wasn't by Hartline breaking tackles and turning short passes into big gains.
     
  37. Fin-Omenal

    Fin-Omenal Initiated

    36,936
    10,264
    0
    Mar 25, 2008
    Thee...Ohio State University
    Have a Valium sir, nobody here dislikes Tannehill...we just want our franchise QB to keep getting better!

    And he will.
     
    jdang307 likes this.
  38. Griese's Glasses

    Griese's Glasses Well-Known Member

    1,388
    438
    83
    Oct 16, 2013
    Ottawa, ON
    It wasn't always that way around here. Interestingly all the Tannehill haters have been mysteriously quiet lately. Something tells me they will magically appear right after the first INT of the season.
     
    Unlucky 13 and resnor like this.
  39. dolfan22

    dolfan22 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    Not sure if it's been mentioned or not but today Jon Gruden was asked on NFL Network what QB he thought was going to step up , emerge this year and he stated it was his guy in Miam , Ryan Tannehill . Said some very positive things about him , nothing new or earth shattering , did mention his really quick release as something he liked a lot .

    Liked his progression , his running ability , his release , the offense and weapons for him .
     
    Dol-Fan Dupree likes this.
  40. djphinfan

    djphinfan Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    111,651
    67,545
    113
    Dec 20, 2007
    I hope no'one thinks Im a hater for pointing out things that I think he needs to do to become great..Im not sold yet but I cant tell you how much I'm rooting for him to become what I think his skill set can provide..I know Ryan can win enough games to make the playoffs, never once have I said any different, my question mark is the whole enchilada, I need to see more before I can fully commit..
     

Share This Page