Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Miami Dolphins Forum' started by bbqpitlover, Oct 16, 2019.
Tannehill is now 5th in passer rating.....
Somebody (who has me blocked thankfully), seemed to be really pushing that narrative that the Titans 'ain't beat nobody good.' The Jills have been a VERY good team this year...and they just got served...in a game where the run stunk, and Tannehill had outstanding stats (as well as weaponizing his legs). At what point do you guys just ignore this moron?
"The Titans made NFL history. Per NFL Research, the Titans became the first team to score a touchdown on every red zone possession (minimum six red zone possessions), have zero turnovers, and allow no sacks since the Patriots in 2007. "
From an article on theathletic.com:
Red zone performance is hugely important and Tannehill has been among the very best in the league since getting the start in Tenn. LOL @ people worrying about run/pass ratios instead.....
Which the Titans have...stable characteristics and not some freak set of circumstances such as the Thanksgiving Day Leon Lett fiasco.
And the Leon Lett play is a good example of a random variable. Things that are less intuitively random but largely random nonetheless are interceptions caught and fumbles recovered in general, for example. So in fact one of the biggest predictors of winning in the NFL — turnover margin — is a good bit random.
He is the same QB. I get what you meant, but the point of many in this thread is that he is the same guy that we had in Miami, just in a different system. I think that is why the thread has the number of posts that it does. I think he shows just how important system fit is with QBs.
As an aside, it's why watching Fitzpatrick this year has me so stoked for Tua in Galley's offense. I see their overall game play as similar, with Tua having more potential with his accuracy, consistency, and Marino like release. Imagine a more accurate Fitzmagic, with no Fitztragic, oh and his throwing motion is faster than Dan's was... Hope springs eternal, but I am stoked about the Dolphins future. Makes cheering for Ryan painless.
Actually it’s not intuitively random. If team A has a defense that has X number of interceptions or X number of forced fumbles/recoveries, and team B has an offense with X number of interceptions or fumbles, one can deduce the likelihood of a game having an interception or fumble.
That’s like the great Jason Taylor or Cameron Wake. The likelihood one of them would have a sack on a quarterback was high, not random.
Additionally, with the higher volume of passing plays that are now prevalent in the NFL, the likelihood of an interception increases.
Just because a certain quarterback has no or very few interceptions doesn’t make the possibility of him throwing an interception unlikely.
And a great RB, a decent coach and a very good offensive line. Something he was usually lacking here.
I think the conclusion can be drawn at this point that Ryan Tannehill is a borderline Elite QB. If you look at his numbers compared to Mahomes right above you can make an argument that he is in fact elite. We can also surmise that he was not the bum many here said he was and in fact his poor performance here was based on a bad Oline and Poor Coaching.
Ryan Tannehill was never the problem here. There is enough of a sample size of his play in Tennessee now to put this to bed.
That's freaking amazing.
Too bad Miami couldn't give him some complementary pieces while he was here.
What does that say about Florez and Grier that he let him go?
No no no no no!!!!!!!!
I dont particularly agree with calling them random. No team just hands the ball to the other team, even a bad snap turnover isnt random, it's a bad play by the center or quarterback and I'd still say that relates to the skill of the player involved, because focus is a skill.
If a QB throws a ball right to a defender unforced that isnt random either. It's a miscommunication or related to the skill of the QB.
Unless they mean there are random turnovers of other types I'm not thinking of.
Nothing. Unfortunately our fan base is full of idiots with zero football intelligence and Ryan was never gonna be able to change their opinions of him (this comment is NOT directed at people on here). Those same idiots buy tickets and merch and were raising hell and threatening not to spend money. I also didn't ever see him being able to make this his team "his" due to all of the baggage from previous seasons and coaches even though he's a team-first guy. I was sad to see him go but he needed a fresh start somewhere other than Miami. I've enjoyed watching him in Tenn doing what we had hoped he would do in Miami, and a big part of me wishes he was still here.
Like the article says, just over half of turnover differential is random. Just under half is likely due to things of the nature you're talking about. But for just over half of turnover differential to be random is quite a bit.
The larger point again is that teams vary on the basis of how much of their winning is due to systematic (team skill) versus random (luck) variables. Take two undefeated teams with the same record at this point in the season, and if one of them has won games primarily with skill and the other luck, obviously the former would be predicted to do better than the latter for the remainder of the season. The former team's skill would be expected to continue, while the latter's luck would likely run out.
Again this is why how you win matters, not just whether you win. Place a bet on a stellar final season record for a team getting by with luck and your bet would be worse than one you could place on a team winning with skill.
My question is exactly what type of turnover is "random" because in my opinion nothing in the universe is random. There are factors that make things happen, and when those things happen they arent random.
Fumbles can be random, as to how they bounce, etc, once they leave the players hand.
But I agree, random implies it just happens at various times, with no reason behind it. That really isn't the case. They're is always a reason. This is why statistics have a limit on how they can be applied to a game played by humans.
If you roll two fair dice the numbers that come up are random. When a player fumbles a football, the way it bounces is random. When a player tips a pass, whether it lands in the arms of another player or falls harmlessly to the ground is largely random.
There is a whole lot in the universe that is random. Hell, some astrophysicists believe the universe itself was created via a random quantum fluctuation:
No this is important. In statistics "random" just means you can't predict it given the information you have available. It doesn't mean it can't be predicted by someone else with more information.
So that Harvard sports analytics finding is saying that IF you equate team abilities (no skill difference) w.r.t. their ability to create turnovers (they assumed all teams had average turnover distributions) and IF you don't know what causes turnovers, then 54.7% of the observed variation in turnover differential can be explained by mechanisms you don't know how to predict.
Sounds a bit funny, but it's accurate lol. Anyway, that's what's meant by "randomness" in statistics.
However, the meaning of "randomness" changes once you get into subatomic physics and quantum mechanics where NO observer can ever obtain the information necessary to predict what is observed. There, the probability of each observation can be specified but the events themselves are inherently random for any observer because the observer disturbs the very system he/she is trying to observe, making perfectly accurate prediction impossible.
In this case the definition is that it can't be predicted. When a team's turnover margin in the second half of a season can't be predicted from its turnover margin in the first half of the same season, that variable is largely random, in comparison to variables that can be predicted in such a manner and are therefore more systematic and suggestive of team skill.
Here's an entire article on the basis of it:
Anybody who has played backgammon can attest to the above, where a lot of the game is skill-based, yet a lot of it is due to chance (random). I'll beat any novice backgammon player 95 times out of 100, but notice I didn't say 100 times out of 100. Make the opposing player an expert and that figure drops to about 50 times out of 100.
Chess by contrast is entirely skill-based and non-random. Roulette on the other hand is entirely random and completely non-skill-based (in terms of picking the number the ball falls on).
Football is more like backgammon than like chess. There's lots of skill going on, but also lots of randomness going on.
If anyone were to agree with you would be random
But what were the run/pass ratios? LOL.....
The numbers you roll on a dice arent random at all. They are the product of physics, if the dice start in your hand a certain way, you roll them at a certain angle and with a certain strength, know the tables exact composition and so forth you can make an exact prediction.
Sure, but even then, good luck having "skill" in rolling certain numbers. Numbers will be rolled randomly, even though they could be predicted (theoretically) on the basis of the information you noted. If that wasn't true, craps wouldn't exist as a game in casinos.
Same is true for some variables in football. Some stuff happens in football and it isn't skill-related. If a team is winning on the basis of that stuff, it isn't as good as a team that's winning on the basis of skill.
I'm not sure I agree, but putting that aside I dont see what happens on a football field that isnt related to someone's skill even if I did.
Except maybe the snow plow game....but that wasnt a turnover. Just some bull****.
Yes, I understand that. But that is why I said that there is a limit to how much stats can apply to a game played by humans. I mean, I referenced fumbles for a reason. Lol
I would argue that turnovers are generally caused by another player causing enough discomfort to cause the player with the ball to make a mistake. So, it might be random as far as trying to predict, but it isn't random in practice.
Really, the disagreement between statisticians here, and the rest of us, I think boils down to you guys are interested in trying to predict things. That would be beneficial say, with betting on games consistently, but it isn't beneficial when trying to explain what's happening on the field. Look no further than the Tannehill debate. It certainly seems that it in simplistic terms, it's about predictive power vs what we're seeing on the field.
Ahem.... Give Tannehill the Ravens defense and they'd be 17-0
What happens on the field that isn't related to skill? I mean, you could say that a field goal kicker is affected by wind gusts, but even that is based on skill...some guys are better able to judge the wind, and account for it. Very rare instances could happen, where there's no wind, the kicker kicks, and all of a sudden there's a 25 mph crosswind that comes in and pushes the ball. But that doesn't really happen. Usually off there's wind enough to affect kicks, it's going through the game, not simply happening right after the ball leaves their foot.
When I was a kid, I was visiting a friend in Davie off of Hiatus Road.....it was that little trailer park right behind the supermarket on Hiatus and State Road 84. You wouldn't know where that is, but Florida folks might so it felt important to include.
Anyway, I'm maybe 10 years old and we're playing in this huge field with about a dozen kids. I can't remember what we were playing exactly, but the sun was shining and it was a beautiful day out, so we're all running and screaming and being dumb kids. Only, the next thing I know the boy in front of me froze in place staring towards the supermarket, and from behind me towards the nearest trailer I hear this frantic screaming from one of the parents. She's saying, "Get down, get down...don't come towards me!" And it didn't make a lick of sense in the moment, but that's when I heard the freight train coming.
I turned back around (towards the direction the other kid was frozen in place) and a tornado is forming right there at the far end of the field. And all I can do is stare at it in awe....it started maybe as wide as a car and five seconds later, it's the width of a football stadium...stands and all. The sound was deafening and this thing proceeded to roar on right towards us; I was maybe 20 feet away at one point and not even flinching. Others were scared and running away screaming, but I was simply in awe. It was the most magnificent thing I have ever seen to this day.
Well, the screaming mom wanted us away from the trailer since that was obviously more of a danger than protection...my 10 year old mind didn't understand that at the time though, of course. And there was nowhere to go, nothing to really do except to fall to the ground and hope I wasn't dead in a few seconds. Only, I didn't die because the funnel got maybe 15-20 feet from us and then launched up into the sky...this gorgeous, crystal clear sky....and it landed two blocks away at the other side of the trailer park (where it promptly ruined about 20 homeowner's year...it looked like a bomb went off).
It took us a few seconds to realize that we just witnessed a miracle, so everything was silent at first. Then the mom starts screaming again and rushing us to the trailer which was completely unscathed, and my parents were there maybe 5 minutes later (we only lived a few miles away). And as I'm walking to their car, I see the 2nd most amazing thing I've ever seen in my life....it's a single blade of grass. Only, this blade of grass was stuck about 3 feet high into an oak tree- can you imagine the force it would take to make that happen (I'm sure cBrad has a formula for that!). That's when I realized that I saw something truly special.
That has nothing at all to do with what you were talking about, but you mentioned that wind rarely kicks up that quickly and the old story came to mind. I figured that it was better than this thread's story has been for the past few months so there ya go.
Oh, and GO TITANS!
I do agree that the bounce of a ball, to a human, can seem random and is a variable you cant control.
Still though, sort of like you said, that's discounting the guy who knocked it out, the guy who hustled and got to it, so on.
This is just insane....
They saved his career. He likely would have had a catastrophic injury with Miami's offensive line last year.
Fitz was the better option for the teardown and continues to be a better option. His ability to feel pressure and maneuver through the pocket is superior to Tannehill and while I wish he had Tannehill's arm, he's done fantastic. Miami is averaging close to 28 points a game over the last 10 games which hasn't happened in a very, very long time here.
I'm genuinely happy for Tannehill in Tennessee, he seems to fit the culture there and his skillset is being optimized to the maximum possible level.
It was a win win for all parties.
Well, blitzing doesn't work either....
The issue is that the "skill" you're talking about -- which does exist -- doesn't result in stable and predictable performance in many cases because randomness gets in the way. The skill isn't being discounted. It's in the equation along with randomness. This is why just over half the variance in turnovers is unpredictable (random), and not 100% of it.
Take my backgammon example. If my skill has me way ahead in a game and my opponent rolls a ridiculous number of doubles in a row and wins, what does that say about my skill? It might indeed say something, but certainly it says a lot about what happened (randomly) with the dice. Both skill and luck are in the equation.
Look here for example -- note the variables that correlate weakly with themselves:
Look here as well: