That stance certainly helps, but you have to admit you have a history of pushing objective over subjective no matter what, so it's hard to know exactly where you stand on this. My argument is simply that your stats are insufficient to make the claim you made against Jim1, nothing else.
He's not saying those are the only years that count. He's saying that those years have anomalies, so you can compare to see the difference. By doing that, you can isolate a potential problem.
My interptetation would be that he's consistently dismissing all other years as relevant and focusing only on 2012, the only Pitt year that statistically fits his thesis.
You keep saying this so please read these words carefully: I didn't say you had an opinion on stats. I don't care what your opinions are of stats. I'm saying you are dismissing the specific stats provided. Please before you accuse me of not reading or understanding your posts, read mine carefully, because you keep acting like I'm talking stats, broadly. I'm not the specific numbers Tannephins gave you. Jim1 knows the problem is that Tannehill throws a horrible deep ball. he's said it repeatedly. So no, someone has said they know what the problem is. The question of objective vs subjective is not the discussion. I personally feel they are equal and have argued they are that times throughout the years. All I'm saying is that if you are going to argue the stats, then bring some valid subjective data instead of, "I don't watch a lot of X and I don't remember a lot of X, but I don't think X was all that bad, therefore your statistical data carries equal weight."
I don't think that it's reasonable for anyone except maybe hard core Steelers fans to remember precisely what happened there in 2012, as the game film would show. That doesn't make Cbrad's point invalid, just and acknowledgement that to have a REAL understanding of what happened, as opposed to a skeletal and incomplete one based on only stats, will require some review. It's a fair point.
I would argue that he's trying to look for similarities with offensive schemes being the common ground, at the expense of other years where Ben to Wallace blew RT to Wallace out of the water. I don't adhere to that. This has beome a total Shouright style thread.
OK, let's do this one argument at a time. First, I'm not dismissing the stats. They stats are fine. They are just insufficient for the argument Tannephins was trying to make. Can we at least agree on that? Numerous posts of mine have been dedicated to that, so we should at least put this one aside, unless you don't agree with my stance. Jim1 is asserting he knows what the problem is. It's his opinion and he admits as much. And when it's a Tannephins discussion, objective vs subjective is usually the discussion. If that wasn't your purpose, fine, but it's hard to tell based on the way you entered the discussion with me. Now tell me.. what is "valid" subjective data?
If you're talking "incomplete" then Tannephins data is waaaaaaaaaaaaay more complete, then "I don't remember for sure but I saw a game or two and I think I remember...."
They are insufficient to say with a 100% certainty. But they at least point in a direction and they are quantifiable. Your stance has literally nothing other than 100 times more incomplete data, that you yourself admit may even not be remembered right. Bring logic, bring some film study, but don't bring the nothing you've brought and say the OTHER guy's argument is incomplete. Valid subjective data would be actual film study by a trained eye or someone who knows what they are doing. A good example of this would be a Todd post. It has film, breakdowns of the film, etc. You brought, partially remembered details of incomplete data from years ago. WADR, how are you not understanding this?
So what? The point is that stats alone aren't even close to telling the whole story, they lack critical detail of what happened. And again, Pitt 2012 is a minor issue anyway imo. I saw the game film from the Dolphins in 2014, multiple times. Wallace wasn't without fault, but he gave RT AMPLE opportunities to make big plays, and RT was more often than not piss poor with his deep ball throws. That's what's relevant, not hanging one's hat on what happened in Pitt, specifically in 2012.
The problem is that when you look at the Miami Dolphins in isolation, or you make comparisons to other teams that aren't systematic, you really have no idea how "ample" that really is in comparison to a league norm, or whether Tannehill was any more at fault for it than the average QB.
WADR, how are YOU not understanding this? No one is saying that vague recollections of Pitt 2012 trump stats, what's being said is that review of 2012 Pitt game film is VITAL to understanding what actually happened. Stats alone don't cut it, not even close.
The stats are still telling more of a story then you guys are. that's the point. I honestly don't think you're understanding why he's presenting the stats he is, and I have no idea how to better explain it to you.
Do you not understand the difference between a missed deep pass and one that was thrown so poorly, with a receiver so wide open, that you want to jump out out of your chair and pull your hair out? Is there a "quality of failure" index that you can refer to? An "I screwed the pooch" QB statistical number for deep passes? Do your stats show whether or not the receiver was six inches open or six feet open when the QB misses a deep throw? Six yards open? Any difference six inches versus six yards open?
His stats point in a direction, just not necessarily the one he claimed. My examples were mostly to argue against the objective vs subjective debate, so it wasn't an attempt at some kind of full analysis of Tannehill to Wallace deep balls, and you shouldn't treat it as an attempt to provide one. Also, you and most people here are guilty of not providing "valid" subjective data according to your definition. But where are you attacking all those other posts? Mine wasn't even meant to provide a full analysis, just to provide examples for the argument with Tannephins. As far as what I remember about Tannehill to Wallace deep balls, I remember that most were underthrown. Important here is that Wallace had to slow down or stop to wait for the ball. That suggests to me that Tannehill has trouble estimating where Wallace is going to be and throws the ball too late (or without enough force.. probably too late in this case since it's a deep ball), which leads to Wallace having to slow down, allowing defenders to make it harder to catch the ball. That is what I remember as the norm for Tannehill to Wallace deep balls. But I also remember cases Jim1 is talking about, where Wallace broke free and Tannehill just totally missed the throw. Sorry if I don't have game tape to back all this up. It's just my memory, but I've seen that happen too many times and I don't mind arguing that's what I remember happened. Of course for you.. none of this is "valid".
Since we've been posting on this thread for quite a while and you haven't, maybe you should read over it and get yourself up to speed before you comment on who knows what.
A viewing of the Miami Dolphins in isolation, with no systematic comparison to other teams, provides no reliable information about how often those things are happening for the Dolphins, versus how much they happen for other teams.
I've seen enough football over the past several decades to know a pattern of bad deep throws when I see one. Why would you come to the conclusion that I view the Dolphins in isolation, as opposed to watching other teams play? Again, did you used to post anywhere as Shouright?
This is what I meant earlier about asking us to trust the expertise of one "jim1" on a message board. On the one hand you want to say objective information is inconclusive, but then on the other you want to say that your non-systematic observations of the Dolphins in isolation are conclusive, simply because you're you. What is "Shouright"? A past member's name?
Would be interesting to run some text analysis software that gives us the probability the same person wrote two different texts on Shouright and Tannephins posts. That is objective analysis, and it tends to work pretty well when there aren't too many possible authors and lots of examples of text.
What I'm asking you to do is trust your own eyes, not necessarily mine, I'm merely presenting my opinion. Where did I ever say that my observations are conclusive? Do your statistics differentiate between - a pass that is six inches overthrown versus six feet overthrown? - a pass that is six inches underthrown versus six feet underthrown? - great coverage on a pass by a CB versus poor coverage? - whether or not a QB was under duress due to pass protection breakdown or not? - whether or not a receiver clearly beat his man and was in the open?
Do your subjective observations make any of those distinctions, and do they systematically compare the frequencies of those events to the frequencies with which they happen across the league?
Systematically? As in have I been taking notes for decades as to which QBs throw how many deep passes? Systematically as in do I have a system of drinking the same amount of beer and eating the same food when watching football? No I don't. Nor do you answer questions when they don't suit your purpose, just like Shouright. It's not really all that difficult to watch football and be able to recognize a poorly thrown deep ball, you should try it. I think that it would add to your limited, statistically based understanding of the game, jmo. Again, please answer the question: did you used to post anywhere as Shouright?
the members take is with numbers..who the hell cares who he is..deal with it..or leave yourself out of it...The guy brings something to the table.. I swear just because folks get frustrated debating the stats they give up and get all pissy fitted.. Im not a stats guy but I find and appreciate the research and info..i don't take it personal..
Stop making it personal..your better than that. if ya'll got a problem with a member who uses stats to form his argument, look yourself in the mirror, because it might be you.
There are so many great WR's available to team with Landry. And of course I love my boy Jaelen Strong.
jim1 has been here a long time and is a knowledgeable member of this forum. I'd trust him as much as anyone else here. Why should anyone trust your expertise?
I don't trust anyone's opinion who has only watched a given game once or twice, while being a fan. Film study is equally as important as stats. But if the stats presented in this discussion by Tannephins are not in depth enough, then watching the game, on broadcast footage and not coach's tape/All 22, is puddle deep comparatively. That's the real problem here, we've got people arguing the validity of stats vs observation, but they have a poor concept of observation and don't really understand the stats.
Just trying to make a point: how does one "systematically" watch football? It's an inane point. WADR my problem with stats is over reliance on them and the use of them exclusively, not on stats themselves. We all use them and we all know that they're very helpful. The problem imo is when someone says that stats alone are useful and our eyeballs and visual judgement (because we are not "experts") are worthless and invalid. That's just a bunch of hogwash, and as with the problem with Shouright, that kind of thesis is designed to annoy as a poster carries the banner of statistics as the supreme being and dumps on personal observation as worthless. In other words, Shouright. The other threads like these are the same, the rehashing and pulverizing of theses themes, and the result is usually a Shouright style thread that goes on for 500 to 1,000 posts, for no good reason, with plenty of straw man arguments and avoidance of questions that don't fit into his theory.
You still obviously don't get it. Try re-reading Cbrad's posts- what he's saying is that an analysis of the game film is called for, stats alone don't cut it, not even close. You keep harping on the same nonsensical points after jumping in half way through the conversation, and Cbrad does not equate or label as superior his vague recollections of Pitt 2012 to stats or anything else, that's just in your head from what you misread.
No, you don't get it. There's two topics you guys are mashing into one. First, there's the broad stats vs film study argument. I am saying that across the board, stats and film study are equal. So please stop acting like I'm not saying that or don't get it. I've argued that point on these boards longer than anyone since most are in the either stats camp or film camp. Second argument is the evaluation of Tannehill's deep ball. While film is equal to stats in importance, these things must be done to the same degree for them to be equal. You are basing your opinion on watching the games probably through broadcast footage during real time, maybe some of those games you watched more than once, but the same footage. That's not valid observation. You guys are steady complaining that his stats are not in depth enough, but your film study is even less in depth, therefore, in this argument, is invalid, compared to his numbers.
If you don't think that observation based on what a fan can see watching the games is valid, that's your opinion. If we all had access to coaches' film, that would be great, but we don't or at least I don't. Most rational fans view both statistics and film study as helpful and valid, so don't feel unique or near to it as per that. It's a typical and in my mind a rational stance.
No one should trust my expertise at all because I have none. I'm simply conveying data that were gathered by other sources, and interpreting them in a logically sound way in my opinion. Certainly people are free to disagree with my interpretations, because I claim no special expertise in that area, either. In other words, no one should "trust me" at all, but I can promise you that I'm being as certain as I possibly can in presenting the data as its been gathered as faithfully as possible. There is no stone unturned, and certainly no intentional attempt on my part to present only a partial picture of the data that have been gathered. In other words you may not, and should not, "trust me" in terms of any special expertise that I bring to the table, because I claim none, but I encourage you to trust the process I'm employing (the data gathering) in making my conclusions.
Yet when I watch games I can see if a ball was slightly or greatly underthrown, slightly or greatly overthrown, if the DB made a good play on the ball or not, was covering his man well or wasn't, if the QB was under duress when he attempted a deep pass, if the QB gave the receiver a chance to make the catch or if the throw was simply off target, etc. How do statistics account for all of that when the desire is to not only see a pass/fail tally but what actually happened to cause a play to succeed or fail, details of what transpired during a play?
