Ryan Tannehill 21-22 as a starter

Stats in footbal can never tell the whole story, other players factor in individual stats. An int counts even tho its a perfect pass, A rb that runs the wrong way thereby leaving the qb high and dry is still a sack or tackle for loss by the qb etc. baseball batting avg, HR rbis are ind stats, but td passes arent. A wr makes a diving td grab is still a pos stat for the qb even tho it was not a good pass, rather a great play by the wr, there isnt any error stat that counts the TD on teh scoreboard but removes the TD from the qb individual stats. There is also no sacrifice for the qb who throws it away or spikes the ball or whatever where he is doing the betterment of the team vs padding stats.

Fin D is right, stats cannot be ignored but must be measured in balance with contributing team factors.

 

That hasn't been the case on this board.

 

I don't think that is fair at all. Obviously, when using stats in an argument (here or elsewhere) tyhe person using them is using them to support a point/opinion. Whether that point/opinion is preconceived or was conceived based on the stats plus subjective data is a question that only that person knows the answer to. So, for example, your conclusion that Shouright used stats only to support preconceived opinions appears to be based on your preconceived notion that he is/was a troll. But in truth, you have no idea when or how he conceived his opinions or what objective or subjective data he used to develop those opinions. Unless, of course, you know him personally and he told you.

It is very, very rare that I have ever heard/seen anyone here rely only on stats. Nobody ever says Player X rushed for more yards than Player Y and is therefore better. Or anything like that. What I do see here is a poster claiming that Player X sucks and someone else pointing out that his performance, as measured in terms of statistical production, is actually quite good. I see nothing wrong with that. Nor do I see anything wrong with someone concluding, based on those stats and watching the player, that he is indeed a good player.

On the other hand, I regularly see people here denigrating stats and "stat guys" or "Stat monkeys," and claiming they know from their own observation that Player X or Coach Y sucks. But I'm sure there are few of us who watch every game of any team other than the Phins and unless we are actually watching the games multiple times and really focusing on certain players with knowledge of the play call and the player's assignment, we really have limited information from which to make a purely subjective opinion/assessment.

Obviously, some stats are better or more meaningful than others. For example, a RB's total yards or even ypc don't necessarily mean much because so much depends on blocking, playcalling, etc.. But something like yards after contact means more. I RB with a lot of yards after contact may not be a great overall back because he may have poor vision, or poor decisionmaking, but he is doing something largely on his own. If he combines a high ypc with a high yards after contact, he may not be a truly great back, but you can conclude that he is at least a productive one.

 

And nobody here has ever claimed that stats do tell the whole story. Not sure why it is even necessary to say that. That said, the people who are really into stats and use them the most are generally the ones that are most aware of the better, or more refined, stats. So while a given TD pass might have been a bad pass on which the QB got bailed out by a great catch, a QB who has an elite TD%, completion percentage and yards per attempt over a 14-yr career, with a low INT%, can pretty safely be said to be a quality QB. He may not be as good as another guy whose stats are not quite as good, but there'd be pretty strong demonstrative evidence that he doesn't suck and didn't just get lucky repeatedly and continuously for 14 years.

 

Here's the thing: Tannehill, a third year QB, who was a good sized project coming out of college, is playing like a top 10 QB in the league, RIGHT NOW. People who are posting negatives about him are discounting all the evidence we have, and arguing that Tannehill is at best, an average quarterback. Too prove this, they are going on stats from his first two years. Or trotting out win/loss records. Or blaming him, irrationally, for receivers blatant drops, going back to A&M. It's bizarre that supposed fans of the team are so dead set to prove that Tannehill is not very good. It just doesn't sit well with a bunch of posters here. I could see if Tannehill was absolute trash, like Sanchez in New York, but he's not.

 

I don't agree. I think it has. In fact, when someone mocks the whole notion of stats it is a demonstration that he doesn't understand them. They are just facts. Mocking facts is stupid. It may be fair to mock the conclusions that a given person draws from certain stats, but mocking stats themselves is silly.

 

Fineas, there have been a number of posters who DID claim that stats tell the whole story, hence the term "stat monkey" became in vogue. Heck, most of the anti-Tannehill posters here are teaching for stats to "prove" Tannehill is not the guy.

 

I guess I don't see that. I don't see anyone trashing him. I see some people who aren't willing to say he is great yet, but I don't see anyone saying he is terrible. Those that are saying he is average are looking at a body of work over 2+ years. Those that say he is great are looking at a much smaller sample. Those people may be right, or may end up being right, but there is no reason to mock or ridicule those who want to see a bigger sample size or more evidence.

 

I disagree with your disagreement. Most, if not all, the posters who disagree with the stats, aren't disagreeing with the stats, but with the application if the stats, or the way the stats are accumulated, or the fact that some individual stats (rating, comp percent, etc) doesn't on other players, and thus not a good indication, necessarily of anything.

 

I don't know what to say, other than, "LOOK AT THE THREAD YOU'RE POSTING IN."

 

I don't think I ever saw that. Maybe that happened when I was busy at work and not around here much. I have certainly seen people point to stats to support their opinion that he is not very good, but I don't see anything wrong with that. I am assuming, of course, that being fan enough to be here they have actually watched him and based at least some portion fo their opinion on what they saw. I've certainly never seen anyone say "He looks really good when I watch him play, but I looked at his stats and they are not very good and therefore he sucks."

 

Ab.
So.
Lutely.

However, I wasn't aware Sanchez did any of those things by himself? That's pretty damn impressive to go on a football field by yourself, after doing the entirety of the game planning yourself, against an entire opposing team and reaching those numbers. Wow!

 

I guess we can agree to disagree. I read more people, especially ones being mentioned tend to use stats to confirm their bias, rather than using stats to create their stance.

Also, who is mocking the notion of stats? It is mocking the usage of stats that people are doing.

 

Shows the disadvantage of showing record for a quarterback.

 

Why don't you point out where anyone trashed him or called him anything worse than "average," which is not trashing. An average starting QB would rank somewhere in the 12-20 range among NFL starters. There are a lot of good QBs in the league.

Manning
Brady
Brees
Rodgers
Luck
Rivers
Romo
Ryan
Flacco
Wilson
Kaepernick
Roethlisberger
Newton
Stafford
Dalton
Foles
EManning
Cutler

Falling somewhere in the bottom part of that group is no shame. One could argue that he is better than several fo them, but could just as easily argue that he not yet, especially if you are someone that wants to look at a larger sample size.

 

Troll post of the day.

 

I would put Tannehill after the first 5 of that list. IMO, he's better than everyone after.

 

As I pointed out in my response to Fin D, you really can't know if they used the stats in part to create their stance or to confirm a bias. There are a few things I am pretty comfortable assuming about everyone on this forum: (1) they have watched many Dolphins games; (2) they are interested in football; (3) they are capable of making opinions based on what they have seen; and (4) if they are citing stats, they have seen those stats they are citing.. Unless you dispute those assumptions, how can you conclude that any individual poster did not develop his opinions based on some combination of what he saw and the stats (plus perhaps what he has read or heard)?

I've often seen people called "Stat monkeys" or derisively called "stat boys." Numerous times I have seen people either quote or paraphrase the Disraeli/Twain quote: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

 

That's fine. You are certainly entitled to your opinion. But there are a lot of other guys on that list who have been both very productive and efficient for a long time and continue to be.

 

You do have a general idea based on a conversation.

It is a difference between reading one post and 100 posts.

 

But again, you are assuming that you know when the opinion was formulated and also assuming that the stats he is citing in a given post are the first of that type of stat he has ever seen. I don't think those are fair assumptions. Very few people develop opinions out of thin air. They are based on something, however misguided that thing may be. For just about every football fan, those opinions are bnased on some combination of what they have seen, heard, and read, including stats. Of course, for active players, many stats continue to change with each passing week. So someone may have developed an opinion based on watching Tannehill as a rookie and his stats over the past few years. He may not have seen anythign to cause him to change his mind and when he argues that opinion he includes cites to some facts which include more recent stats from the last few weeks. I don't see anything wrong with that, nor do I see it as indicative of just using stats to support a preconceived opinion.

 

anyone worth reading won't do that ever..anyone who does around here won't be around for long..

 

I am not assuming. I am formulating an opinion based on what a person writes.

 

I agree.

 

fine, but your using an example of someone that just signed up.

 

And it really doesn't matter, because the stats are what they are. Someone can be as biased as the day is long, and Dan Marino still has 420 career TD passes. It's not like if you believe someone has a bias, any statistics he or she mentions are therefore invalid. That's paranoia.

 

So people with a certain bias, presenting information pertaining to or attempting to prove said bias, never have an agenda? No one is even saying "invalid", it's the context..... I don't even....

How is it even paranoia when it USUALLY IS the case anyway?

 

Honestly, I think with a quite a bit of people here (myself included), it's not the disdain of stats -- it's the disdain for use of stats without even considering other factors.

 

Oh you mean like starting a thread called "Ryan Tannehill 21-22 as a starter" and then including zero substance to go along with it?



This is while he just set a franchise record for consecutive games with 70%+ completions.

 

I'm not trying to start a fight. I'm calling it like I say it. Sanchez was trash. That's WHY they got rid of him. Dominant defense and dominant run game while limiting his throws got then wins. You know it, I know, and everyone else knows it. You made an irrational, inciting post.

Hence, troll.

 

0-1 in clever trolling.

 

Example of what? Being a troll? Yeah, sure, I guess. Every one of these "new"accounts seems to have the same goal: portray Tannehill as negatively as possible while goading long-time posters.

 

Again, that's the attitude that bothers so many. Tannehill has led the team to at least an 8-3 record, if not 9-2, which would basically guarantee a playoff spot, yet the TEAM has failed him, and we sit at 6-5.

So, what you really said was, "If the Dolphins make the playoffs, I'll erroneously credit Tannehill with all the credit, but until then, I'll continue to ignore the failures of other parts of the team, and ridiculously hold Tannehill solely responsible for the Dolphins record."

 

Exactly. Stats don't tell you as much in football as in other sports. For example in his rookie year when everyone thought RGIII was amazing he actually put up decent numbers. However some like myself looked deeper at those numbers and saw how they were inflated and that he actually wasn't all that good. A 50 yard pass counts the same regardless of whether it is a screen the receiver takes 50 yards or a deep bomb right on the money between two defenders. Both plays are equal in end result but one obviously takes higher skill level by the QB.

 

Worthless thread stop posting forever