Ryan Tannehill

Buffalo

Who was the poster you reconnected with from the other message board?

"Losferwords wrote:

You seem overly invested in a player that no longer plays here. Shouldn't you take to this to a Titans message board?

I am not sure why you singled Buffalo out... Everyone has been participating in this thread... It has been by far the most active. Honestly, it is a little unusual... but this has been the best thread on this site for months.

Flipping the coin to the other side... I wonder why several posters spent all of this time trying to deny that Tannehill is a great QB? Why come up with 137 different arguments to try to diminish his success?

"Etrius24 wrote:

Flipping the coin to the other side... I wonder why several posters spent all of this time trying to deny that Tannehill is a great QB? Why come up with 137 different arguments to try to diminish his success?

What we're talking about here is the player X environment interaction across two teams, and at this point nobody can determine with certainty the quality of the player or the two teams.

What we do know is that Tannehill had six previous seasons in the NFL in which his overall performance was average. Those seasons consisted of many combinations of surrounding personnel (players and coaches).

If someone held a gun to your head and demanded that you bet all of your belongings on one of the following two possibilities, which one would you choose:

1) Tannehill's surroundings in Miami, across many combinations of surrounding personnel (players and coaches), were terrible for six years, thus enabling merely average surroundings in Tennessee to elevate his performance to his 2019 level. He will therefore play significantly better for the rest of his career than he did in 2012-2018, because his surroundings in Tennessee are likely to remain at least average and are unlikely to be as terrible as his surroundings in Miami.

2) Tannehill's surroundings in Miami weren't significantly different from average, and his surroundings in Tennessee in 2019 were exceptionally good (for him specifically), thus elevating his performance to his 2019 level. He is therefore unlikely to play at that level for the rest of his career, because such exceptionally good surroundings are unlikely to be sustained or replicated.

Here's why I would bet on possibility number 2:

First, the league is geared toward parity among teams. It's unlikely that across six seasons any single team (i.e., Miami) could be especially horrible to the degree that it explains the difference between Tannehill's performance 2012-2018 and his performance in 2019.

Second, as I said above, Tannehill's environment in Miami consisted of many combinations of players and coaches. It's unlikely that all of those combinations were so terrible that it explains the difference between Tannehill's performance 2012-2018 and his performance in 2019.

Third, there have been NFL quarterbacks in the past who have experienced just one exceptionally good season, only to never perform that way again for another full season. Those quarterbacks obviously don't have exceptionally good ability -- they simply benefited from exceptionally good circumstances in just one season of their career. That doesn't mean Tannehill is definitely one of them -- it simply raises the possibility that he is.

So with all that, it certainly makes sense in my opinion to explore the situational advantages Tannehill may have been experiencing in 2019, and that's what I've been doing in this thread.

At any rate, next season (hopefully there will be one) will shed much greater light on what's going on here.

"Etrius24 wrote:

Buffalo

Who was the poster you reconnected with from the other message board?

The Guy was Shouright on Finheaven

"The Guy wrote:

What we're talking about here is the player X environment interaction across two teams, and at this point nobody can determine with certainty the quality of the player or the two teams.

What we do know is that Tannehill had six previous seasons in the NFL in which his overall performance was average. Those seasons consisted of many combinations of surrounding personnel (players and coaches).

If someone held a gun to your head and demanded that you bet all of your belongings on one of the following two possibilities, which one would you choose:

1) Tannehill's surroundings in Miami, across many combinations of surrounding personnel (players and coaches), were terrible for six years, thus enabling merely average surroundings in Tennessee to elevate his performance to his 2019 level. He will therefore play significantly better for the rest of his career than he did in 2012-2018, because his surroundings in Tennessee are likely to remain at least average and are unlikely to be as terrible as his surroundings in Miami.

2) Tannehill's surroundings in Miami weren't significantly different from average, and his surroundings in Tennessee in 2019 were exceptionally good (for him specifically), thus elevating his performance to his 2019 level. He is therefore unlikely to play at that level for the rest of his career, because such exceptionally good surroundings are unlikely to be sustained or replicated.

Here's why I would bet on possibility number 2:

First, the league is geared toward parity among teams. It's unlikely that across six seasons any single team (i.e., Miami) could be especially horrible to the degree that it explains the difference between Tannehill's performance 2012-2018 and his performance in 2019.

Second, as I said above, Tannehill's environment in Miami consisted of many combinations of players and coaches. It's unlikely that all of those combinations were so terrible that it explains the difference between Tannehill's performance 2012-2018 and his performance in 2019.

Third, there have been NFL quarterbacks in the past who have experienced just one exceptionally good season, only to never perform that way again for another full season. Those quarterbacks obviously don't have exceptionally good ability -- they simply benefited from exceptionally good circumstances in just one season of their career. That doesn't mean Tannehill is definitely one of them -- it simply raises the possibility that he is.

So with all that, it certainly makes sense in my opinion to explore the situational advantages Tannehill may have been experiencing in 2019, and that's what I've been doing in this thread.

At any rate, next season (hopefully there will be one) will shed much greater light on what's going on here.

if the Dolphins weren’t mostly terrible from 2012 - 2018, why all the changes on the roster and coaching staff? If the players and coaches that they cycled through weren’t inept, then wasn’t the front office inept? And if the front office was inept, why isn’t it likely that the team would be mostly terrible?

"FinFaninBuffalo wrote:

if the Dolphins weren’t mostly terrible from 2012 - 2018, why all the changes on the roster and coaching staff? If the players and coaches that they cycled through weren’t inept, then wasn’t the front office inept? And if the front office was inept, why isn’t it likely that the team would be mostly terrible?

I think we would see about the same degree of personnel turnover with any team (and its personnel) that was merely average over the same time span.

Remember that average teams tend not to make the playoffs, and if a team isn’t making the playoffs year after year for seven years, it will likely be turning over a good bit of personnel in that scenario.

What’s most likely for any team in the league is that its personnel, from the front office down to the players, is average overall. Exceptional — whether good or bad — is by definition the exception to the rule.

"The Guy wrote:

I think we would see about the same degree of personnel turnover with any team (and its personnel) that was merely average over the same time span.

Remember that average teams tend not to make the playoffs, and if a team isn’t making the playoffs year after year for seven years, it will likely be turning over a good bit of personnel in that scenario.

What’s most likely for any team in the league is that its personnel, from the front office down to the players, is average overall. Exceptional — whether good or bad — is by definition the exception to the rule.

Guy

The Dolphins suck... They have sucked for a long time... This is a team that makes the playoffs once a decade as a wild card... and on those years they were easily the worst team in the playoffs and got the ever-living dogsh*t kicked out of them in the wild card round... It looked like that commercial with The Bus running over accountants in a flag football league. (Geico)

Put Tannehill on a team that bad.... Run that poorly.... And he still passed for more than 4000 yards with a QB rating in the 90's completing what 64 percent of his passes.

This is why we all knew that if he got the chance to start in Tennessee he was going to be effective... He was going to shine. Because he did not have to play for a coach that could not call more than 3 yard dump offs ( Gase ) and he did not have to dumb the offense down to the Go, Go-Go play calling. There was a half decent line... a top 10 running back and Tannehill was trusted to run the offense... to make reads to look downfield. We saw screen plays... We saw bootlegs... We saw the play action used properly... All things that were not happening in Miami... ( None of those things were Tannehill's fault )

I am not sure why you are now arguing over the amount of turnover in regards to the roster for the Dolphins... It is not even relevant. The rosters were lacking in talent. Those Dolphins teams had terrible O lines and terrible coaching. At the end of the day that is all that matters....

Tannehill went to a team that did not absolutely suck... and he was able to make a difference...

The End.

"The Guy wrote:

I think we would see about the same degree of personnel turnover with any team (and its personnel) that was merely average over the same time span.

Remember that average teams tend not to make the playoffs, and if a team isn’t making the playoffs year after year for seven years, it will likely be turning over a good bit of personnel in that scenario.

What’s most likely for any team in the league is that its personnel, from the front office down to the players, is average overall. Exceptional — whether good or bad — is by definition the exception to the rule.

LOL. More ridiculous attempts at redefining the English language. Average teams don't make the playoffs. The Dolphins fail to make the playoffs so they're no worse than average...... Can't you even see your own logic flaw? I'll give you a clue. Crappy teams don't make the playoffs either.

I suppose the Dolphins were merely an average team last season too.

Let's take it to your typical absurd extreme.

What’s most likely for any team in the league is that its personnel, from the front office down to the players, is average overall. Exceptional — whether good or bad — is by definition the exception to the rule.

Does that mean the Patriots haven't been a dynasty since 2000? By your logic, we shouldn't believe it, despite what we witnessed. Ridiculous.

"Etrius24 wrote:

Guy

The Dolphins suck... They have sucked for a long time... This is a team that makes the playoffs once a decade as a wild card... and on those years they were easily the worst team in the playoffs and got the ever-living dogsh*t kicked out of them in the wild card round... It looked like that commercial with The Bus running over accountants in a flag football league. (Geico)

Put Tannehill on a team that bad.... Run that poorly.... And he still passed for more than 4000 yards with a QB rating in the 90's completing what 64 percent of his passes.

This is why we all knew that if he got the chance to start in Tennessee he was going to be effective... He was going to shine. Because he did not have to play for a coach that could not call more than 3 yard dump offs ( Gase ) and he did not have to dumb the offense down to the Go, Go-Go play calling. There was a half decent line... a top 10 running back and Tannehill was trusted to run the offense... to make reads to look downfield. We saw screen plays... We saw bootlegs... We saw the play action used properly... All things that were not happening in Miami... ( None of those things were Tannehill's fault )

I am not sure why you are now arguing over the amount of turnover in regards to the roster for the Dolphins... It is not even relevant. The rosters were lacking in talent. Those Dolphins teams had terrible O lines and terrible coaching. At the end of the day that is all that matters....

Tannehill went to a team that did not absolutely suck... and he was able to make a difference...

The End.

"FinFaninBuffalo wrote:

LOL. More ridiculous attempts at redefining the English language. Average teams don't make the playoffs. The Dolphins fail to make the playoffs so they're no worse than average...... Can't you even see your own logic flaw? I'll give you a clue. Crappy teams don't make the playoffs either.

I suppose the Dolphins were merely an average team last season too.

Let's take it to your typical absurd extreme.

What’s most likely for any team in the league is that its personnel, from the front office down to the players, is average overall. Exceptional — whether good or bad — is by definition the exception to the rule.

Does that mean the Patriots haven't been a dynasty since 2000? By your logic, we shouldn't believe it, despite what we witnessed. Ridiculous.

Certainly you all are capable of grasping the idea that when you gather together the most ardent supporters of a professional sports franchise -- i.e., this forum and others -- and that sports franchise fails to make the playoffs in six of seven consecutive years, the perception that the franchise "sucks" will be reified by those supporters as a product of their communication with each other and their mutual "confirmation" of that perception.

Since average team performance is the norm in the league, I'll let you all take on the task of supporting the notion -- objectively, and not just with your personal perceptions -- that the team was significantly worse than average from 2012 to 2018. Good luck with that. If it's so evident that the team was significantly worse than average, that shouldn't be difficult.

I'll sit back and wait, with the null hypothesis that the team wasn't significantly different from the average team in the league during that period.

"The Guy wrote:

Certainly you all are capable of grasping the idea that when you gather together the most ardent supporters of a professional sports franchise -- i.e., this forum and others -- and that sports franchise fails to make the playoffs in six of seven consecutive years, the perception that the franchise "sucks" will be reified by those supporters as a product of their communication with each other and their mutual "confirmation" of that perception.

Since average team performance is the norm in the league, I'll let you all take on the task of supporting the notion -- objectively, and not just with your personal perceptions -- that the team was significantly worse than average from 2012 to 2018. Good luck with that. If it's so evident that the team was significantly worse than average, that shouldn't be difficult.

I'll sit back and wait, with the null hypothesis that the team wasn't significantly different from the average team in the league during that period.

How do you know that most teams aren't bad, and the few teams that are actually good are the playoff teams? In other words, average can still be bad. You haven't done any work to define what average actually represents.

Essentially you want to restart all the arguments we've ever had in there just 7 years. We've been bottom of the league in third down conversions, bottom of the league in defensive stops on third down, bottom of the league in blocking, terrible coaching. I mean we could go on and on.

"resnor wrote:

How do you know that most teams aren't bad, and the few teams that are actually good are the playoff teams? In other words, average can still be bad. You haven't done any work to define what average actually represents.

Essentially you want to restart all the arguments we've ever had in there just 7 years. We've been bottom of the league in third down conversions, bottom of the league in defensive stops on third down, bottom of the league in blocking, terrible coaching. I mean we could go on and on.

The claim here is that the team "sucked" during that period of time. If you want to define "sucked" as average or worse, because the team made the playoffs in only one year of seven, then I'll agree with that, with the caveat that the team wasn't significantly worse than the average team in the league during that period.

On the other hand, if you want to define "sucked" as significantly worse than the average team in the league during that period -- which is what I suspect is happening, since the team is seemingly being viewed as a ball-and-chain on Tannehill's performance -- then that claim should be supported with something more than the personal perceptions of the franchise's most passionate supporters, whose strong feelings about the matter could be distorting their perceptions.

"The Guy wrote:

The claim here is that the team "sucked" during that period of time. If you want to define "sucked" as average or worse, because the team made the playoffs in only one year of seven, then I'll agree with that, with the caveat that the team wasn't significantly worse than the average team in the league during that period.

On the other hand, if you want to define "sucked" as significantly worse than the average team in the league during that period -- which is what I suspect is happening, since the team is seemingly being viewed as a ball-and-chain on Tannehill's performance -- then that claim should be supported with something more than the personal perceptions of the franchise's most passionate supporters, whose strong feelings about the matter could be distorting their perceptions.

Don't think you're understanding my point. Let's take the AFC. 24 Teams, 6 get in. Just being average doesn't mean you're good. So you need to define what average is. Don't present an argument and expect everyone else to do the legwork for you.

"resnor wrote:

Don't think you're understanding my point. Let's take the AFC. 24 Teams, 6 get in. Just being average doesn't mean you're good. So you need to define what average is. Don't present an argument and expect everyone else to do the legwork for you.

It's not my argument. The argument presented by others is that the Dolphins 2012-2018 were so bad that they functioned like a ball-and-chain on Tannehill, thus allowing his merely average surroundings in Tennessee to enable his individual ability to finally be expressed.

In other words, the surroundings on the 2019 Titans were merely average, and the surroundings on the 2012-2018 Dolphins were significantly worse than average. Where is the objective support for the notion that the 2012-2018 Dolphins were significantly worse than average?

That isn't my argument. I'm not the one saying the 2012-2018 Dolphins were significantly worse than average.

It's simply the point made by a bunch of people on a message board, who are reifying each other's perceptions, and the consensus among them is then taken to represent "reality." They could all be wrong, however.

"The Guy wrote:

It's not my argument. The argument presented by others is that the Dolphins 2012-2018 were so bad that they functioned like a ball-and-chain on Tannehill, thus allowing his merely average surroundings in Tennessee to enable his individual ability to finally be expressed.

In other words, the surroundings on the 2019 Titans were merely average, and the surroundings on the 2012-2018 Dolphins were significantly worse than average. Where is the objective support for the notion that the 2012-2018 Dolphins were significantly worse than average?

That isn't my argument. I'm not the one saying the 2012-2018 Dolphins were significantly worse than average.

Aside from players on the field you also have to take gameplan, coaching and play calling into account.

I'd say we were near bottom of the barrel in all those categories for a while.

When fans can predict the playcalling sequence, imagine how a defense that studied them all week feels.

"AGuyNamedAlex wrote:

Aside from players on the field you also have to take gameplan, coaching and play calling into account.

I'd say we were near bottom of the barrel in all those categories for a while.

When fans can predict the playcalling sequence, imagine how a defense that studied them all week feels.

I suspect fans can predict the play-calling sequences for any team in the league, with non-significantly different accuracy for any one of them.

The average team in the league in 2019 ran the ball 52% of the time on first down, passed the ball 60% of the time on second down, and passed the ball 79% of the time on third down. Those figures alone enable a degree of accuracy when applied to any team.

"The Guy wrote:

I suspect fans can predict the play-calling sequences for any team in the league, with non-significantly different accuracy for any one of them.

The average team in the league in 2019 ran the ball 52% of the time on first down, passed the ball 60% of the time on second down, and passed the ball 79% of the time on third down. Those figures alone enable a degree of accuracy when applied to any team.

Sure, but I'm talking beyond that. Down to which gap the run is going to and what routes are likely to be run.

Obviously as you said there is a degree of accuracy with every team, however the ability to call it right down to the play itself shouldnt be so easy. .

"The Guy wrote:

I suspect fans can predict the play-calling sequences for any team in the league, with non-significantly different accuracy for any one of them.

The average team in the league in 2019 ran the ball 52% of the time on first down, passed the ball 60% of the time on second down, and passed the ball 79% of the time on third down. Those figures alone enable a degree of accuracy when applied to any team.

Guess teams are wasting time and money with all their film time. No need to watch film.

"The Guy wrote:

It's not my argument. The argument presented by others is that the Dolphins 2012-2018 were so bad that they functioned like a ball-and-chain on Tannehill, thus allowing his merely average surroundings in Tennessee to enable his individual ability to finally be expressed.

In other words, the surroundings on the 2019 Titans were merely average, and the surroundings on the 2012-2018 Dolphins were significantly worse than average. Where is the objective support for the notion that the 2012-2018 Dolphins were significantly worse than average?

That isn't my argument. I'm not the one saying the 2012-2018 Dolphins were significantly worse than average.

It's simply the point made by a bunch of people on a message board, who are reifying each other's perceptions, and the consensus among them is then taken to represent "reality." They could all be wrong, however.

Again, we had these discussions for years. Now you want to bring it up, as if it hasn't been discussed ad nauseum. Pretty unbelievable, actually.

"resnor wrote:

Again, we had these discussions for years. Now you want to bring it up, as if it hasn't been discussed ad nauseum. Pretty unbelievable, actually.

But that's my point -- repetitive discussions among the most ardent supporters of a team are subject to lots of confirmation bias. They certainly shouldn't be taken to represent reality in the absence of objective support.

You seem to view a consensus here as indicating that people's beliefs about something are valid. If the majority of people here believe it, then it must be true. That isn't the necessarily the case, however.

Consider that the stakes here are relatively low (i.e., the following of a professional sports team). History has shown us that even when the stakes are high, a consensus among people can in fact be wrong. Consider Nazi Germany and slavery in the United States, for example.

"The Guy wrote:

That isn't my argument. I'm not the one saying the 2012-2018 Dolphins were significantly worse than average.

No, you're the one claiming the 2-4 Titans were a "perfect storm" for Tannehill.

"AGuyNamedAlex wrote:

Sure, but I'm talking beyond that. Down to which gap the run is going to and what routes are likely to be run.

Obviously as you said there is a degree of accuracy with every team, however the ability to call it right down to the play itself shouldnt be so easy. .

Yeah well, that's an unfalsifiable claim, really. At this point we have no ability to go back in time and objectively support the notion that fans of the team could predict, with greater accuracy than they could with other teams, the nature of the plays the Dolphins would run between 2012 and 2018. Certainly I'm not taking the off-hand comment here or there on a message board to mean that we achieved some heightened accuracy in that regard, during that time period.

"The Guy wrote:

Yeah well, that's an unfalsifiable claim, really. At this point we have no ability to go back in time and objectively support the notion that fans of the team could predict, with greater accuracy than they could with other teams, the nature of the plays the Dolphins would run between 2012 and 2018. Certainly I'm not taking the off-hand comment here or there on a message board that we achieved some heightened accuracy in that regard, during that time period.

That's fine, but I know following the game threads it was very easy for us to point out what was coming next.

Your inability to confirm something doesnt make it false, just like my saying it cant make it demonstrably true.

I'm just saying what happened in my experience.

"The Guy wrote:

But that's my point -- repetitive discussions among the most ardent supporters of a team are subject to lots of confirmation bias. They certainly shouldn't be taken to represent reality in the absence of objective support.

You seem to view a consensus here as indicating that people's beliefs about something are valid. If the majority of people here believe it, then it must be true. That isn't the necessarily the case, however.

Consider that the stakes here are relatively low (i.e., the following of a professional sports team). History has shown us that even when the stakes are high, a consensus among people can in fact be wrong. Consider Nazi Germany and slavery in the United States, for example.

I'm not talking about theories discussed. These were lengthy threads, with people using stats and numbers to back this stuff up. It's fairly disingenuous to sgt as if that wasn't happening all along.

Now you want to to start up all these discussions again, as if they didn't happen to begin with. And for what? We had the discussions, people presented fact after fact for years...yet here we are anyway, and your trying to go right back into it.

Clearly there's no point. YMMV

"FinFaninBuffalo wrote:

No, you're the one claiming the 2-4 Titans were a "perfect storm" for Tannehill.

And I have attempted to explore that perception with objective evidence, representing hours of effort on my part.

Does the evidence provide a definitive conclusion? Not at the present time, but the objective exploration was done, and so the discussion rests on something more than the perceptions of fans on a message board.

Now, where is the objective evidence that Tannehill's surroundings on the 2012-2018 Dolphins were significantly worse than average? I suppose we're fine with that one's resting on the perceptions of fans on a message board? No objective exploration necessary?

"The Guy wrote:

And I have attempted to explore that perception with objective evidence, representing hours of effort on my part.

Does the evidence provide a definitive conclusion? Not at the present time, but the objective exploration was done, and so the discussion rests on something more than the perceptions of fans on a message board.

Now, where is the objective evidence that Tannehill's surroundings on the 2012-2018 Dolphins were significantly worse than average? I suppose we're fine with that one's resting on the perceptions of fans on a message board? No objective exploration necessary?

Man...you've rejected objective evidence for years. Lol. It's simply not true to act like:

1. There was a majority of Tannehill supporters on here

2. That the Tannehill supporters used anecdotal evidence to support their positions