Ryan Tannehill 21-22 as a starter

The true part of this post is that you are correct , folks will refuse to accept, refuse to just live and let live..they will sense it is the same, and react like they always have..

I don't know why we can be so on opposite sides of the spectrum when it comes to this..I don't get why I like him and you don't..

 

I don't think I've had any problem with comprehension of your posts. You said he only posted about Tannehill and that was clearly not the case. You also said he had an irrational hatred of Tannehill when he was actually pretty complimentary of him at times.

 

You are the perfect example of the anti Shou, Deej.

You have two major points you tout all the time: Stadium & read option. You discuss them A LOT. But they aren't all you discuss and you back them up with your opinion that you illustrate with other examples. Shou didn't do that.

 

Some people like and appreciate opposing viewpoints and others don't. I'm not sure it is much more complicated than that, although it might be for some.

 

You said:

If that is the total of what you think I said, then no you did not pay attention to my argument.

 

Who is attacking? But its ok for him to bait posters but not ok to respond?, I really don't care cause in some ways shou was great for this site as he challenged you, he made think of why you believed. But he could take it too far.

But my point was never an attack, more ? Why so many get caught taking the bait if it is a protagonist or debating a stat clearly irrelevant to how good a qb someone is or will be

 

*22-22

 

C'mon, that's silly. Shou was easily in 99.7+ percentile of posters in terms of how much time and effort he put into backing up his opinions and illustrating them with examples. You and others obviously didn't like his use of stats and spreadsheets, etc., but claiming he didn't try to back up his opinions with facts and other illustrations is absurd.

 

It is precisely what you said:

 

Look, the point isn't whether he was a good poster or not. I think he was and you obviously disagree. That's fine. The point is whether he should have been banned or others who do what he did should be banned. There are a lot of bad posters with stupid opinions that they state poorly. But they don't get banned and they shouldn't. None of the things people are complaining about, even if true, should be grounds for a ban.

Irrational hatred for Tannehill
Irrational love for Hartline
Unpopular opinions
Repeated posts on the same subjects
Creating new threads on topics already the subject of another thread
Having an agenda (whatever that means)
Use of stats that others dispute
Use of flawed stats
Use of spreadsheets

None of those are grounds for a ban. He's not here anymore (or if he is it is under a different name), so it's not really about him. It is about the principle and about whether this is a site worth coming to.

Anyhow, I've satisfied my need/desire to say my piece and I'll move on.
Use of stats

 

This is the problem. You think the people that had a problem with him had a problem with stats. You also think its just because the poor little damsel just had an opposing view and a lot of us couldn't take it.

That, just like the quoted post below, prove you really aren't paying attention.

Its precisely PART of what I said. Again, you're lack of attention is telling.


Also, for the record, I never once complained about him to the mods. They banned him for their reasons.

 

Look, the point isn't whether he was a good poster or not. I think he was and you obviously disagree. That's fine. The point is whether he should have been banned or others who do what he did should be banned. There are a lot of bad posters with stupid opinions that they state poorly. But they don't get banned and they shouldn't. None of the things people are complaining about, even if true, should be grounds for a ban.

Irrational hatred for Tannehill
Irrational love for Hartline
Unpopular opinions
Repeated posts on the same subjects
Creating new threads on topics already the subject of another thread
Having an agenda (whatever that means)
Use of stats that others dispute
Use of flawed stats
Use of spreadsheets

None of those are grounds for a ban. He's not here anymore (or if he is it is under a different name), so it's not really about him. It is about the principle and about whether this is a site worth coming to.

Anyhow, I've satisfied my need/desire to say my piece and I'll move on.
Use of stats

 

IMO, SR/DU didn't have an irrational love/hate of anyone/anything but himself. People here are citing his love for Bess and Hartline as a duo, as if that was a constant thing. I remember some fierce arguments with him about how they were used and which one was more vital for the team at the time (he thought Bess was the best WR on the team; I didn't think Hartline was, but I argued that Bess was very limited in his role). He thought Bess was a future All-Pro and that Hartline was on his way out, and he argued that point vehemently no matter what opposition faced him. He never conceded anything, even after I (and others) broke down games to show how each was used. That's just who he was as a poster.

The content of the argument doesn't really matter; my point is that he argued persistently (sometimes annoyingly so) for his side, but he eventually moved on when time proved him wrong on certain things. I had some crazy back-and-forth with him over the years, but I think he added to the overall discussion, as tiring as it was at times. Sometimes people just need a little time off.

 

I think we all can agree, Daryn Colledge sucks.

 

What are you trying to say with the capitolization there buddy? Lol

idk Fin, like I said, I found his style to be unique, thought provoking and not disrespectful to the board or the subject..

A lot of folks like stats so he argued with them exclusively, so I thought that would be more accepted, no big deal, and if the numbers didn't say things were getting better or worse then he didn't feel an opinion was necessary..

I remember him from the beginning..really liked him, maybe he went a little crazy but he was never hostile Fin, maybe it's just how his mind worked?

 

Agreed. Maybe it was just an emotional reaction to the moment based on a few terrible plays, but I commented last night that he might be the worst player in Dolphin history. Almost certainly an overreaction, but he's had moments of absolute atrocity.

 

that he does.

 

I assume others stated how great Tannehill was ? How is that different in his expressing his opinion?

 

The difference being that Shouright discussed topics related to this forum. You're discussing another poster, which is not what this forum is for.

 

I'll take the blame for that. I commented on the troll accusations re: Shouright/Dolphans United! and it kind of mushroomed out of control a little. My bad.

 

I also take my share of blame for that as well, by helping it mushroom.

 

And now you are too. Welcome to the pool, kettle. That guy over there, he's pot.

 

My apologies for straying off down the rabbit hole.

 

I think, at least for me, it comes down to the use of statistics to support an argument or belief when it comes to talking Phins football. I think there are some that believe that stats are a great tool.. And can be used to tell part of a story. I believe football is such an emotional story And relies on so many different variables that not using every tool to judge football performance is a mistake.

Take a look at sports nutrition. You could look at a players lack of performance by just using stats and come to a conclusion about that player. But watching game film.. You can see that player starts to lose explosion in their movements later in the game. They also lose focus, and have more mental mistakes. Looking at stats only.. You would draw the conclusion they simply aren't making the plays on the field.. But someone like DJ might look and say.. Hmm.. Why are these things happening later in the game.. And knowing a good deal about sports nutrition, could deduce there's a good possibility the change in performance could be based on his diet. I can tell you first hand.. Lack of a correct diet can make an athlete look horrible on the field.

Where I run into issues with guys like Shou..is when they refuse to accept anything not statistical as a valid argument.

 

By the way.. Kind of off topic.. But theres a danger in relying solely on big data. At some point.. Pre crime will become a real deal.. Simply because do much data has been collected that you will be guilty of pre crime based solely on probability

 

But just as often, if not more often, the stats are being used to refute or challenge a conclusion that someone makes based on their eyes alone. Someone will say that a player is losing energy or explosion late in games and appears to have poor nutrition or poor stamina. But someone else points out that the stats show that the player's most productive quarter is the fourth quarter and that his late game production is the best in the league. Those are stats/facts that tend to refute or challenge the first conclusion. Or at least render it of limited relevance in light of the fact that the player is nonetheless at his most productive late in games.

 

Right...or, in the instance specifically we were discussing, statistics from Tannehill's first two seasons were being used as a predictor of future ability. The first two seasons of a guy who was a very raw prospect. A guy who switched from receiver to QB IN COLLEGE and still showed enough ability and potential to be a first round pick. Now, with the knowledge of the player, and knowing where his ceiling probably was, it was incredibly infuriating to debate statistics comparing Tannehill to guys like Brady/Brees/Manning/Rodgers, etc.

 

Right.. But thats what I mean.. Using all of the tools available to judge performance.

 

But it is hardly crazy to compare stats from a player's first 2 seasons to see how they stacked up with the elite QBs. It may be a factor to explain a variance, but 2 years' performance is still a relevant factor to consider. He didn't really switch from WR to QB in college. He went there as a QB and was asked to play some WR since they needed help there and he did not win the starting QB job. And it's not like he was incredibly inexperienced coming into the NFL. Yeah, he had less experience than most, but still started 20 games at QB in college. Cam Newton started fewer college games and put up good numbers his first 2 years in the NFL. Brady only played a few more games in college. Aaron Rodgers played only a few more D1 games in college. Matt Cassel really didn't play at all in college and put up pretty good numbers his first 2 years. While one can argue and distinguish all of these, the point is that it is perfectly sensible to try to compare a young QBs performance with the greats to see how he stacks up.

 

I think his mind could not accept an angle that didn't match up with the stats.. The extreme version of believing numbers never lie, but, he made you think twice about your position using those numbers, he challenged you to defy the numbers, I would sometimes get him though, enough for him to say I'm wrong, no, but he wouldnt just overlook what you were trying to say, he acknowledged the defense.. Hell, I used to call him Doc, actually really respected his weird mind, also weird that we always talk about him.. Apparently he went off on the board with a rant of threads calling folks out..I think if he's reading this he is smart enough to understand what some folks problems are with him and adjust his style just a bit because I don't think he'll survive the witch hunt...when he did come back last time I did see you become more latient with him VT

 

Sure, if you were comparing all QBs first years in the league. But he wasn't, because it didn't lead to the same place. For instance, Rodgers didn't start his first three years. Brees was pretty bad his first three years. Brady sat for awhile. Then you also get into discussing the different surrounding cast of each quarterback. So many things, and it all goes to show why looking purely at statistics is a terrible way of trying to predict the future of a quarterback.

This isn't baseball and Moneyball.

 

The problem is that there are so many factors to consider those first two years.

- quality of offensive line
- quality of QB coach
- quality of the TE
- initial mechanics
- game planning by coaching staff

These factors have a profound impact on performance of a young QB. It seems better to compare the growth curve and improvement until they are experienced within the league.

 

nah he went deper than that, he wasn't just throwing out empty comparisons like that

 

Back into the rabbit hole...lol

I disagree DJ, I remember the threads. I remember a bunch of us going back and forth with him on the exact things I mentioned up above. It true, you cannot use statistics of QBs first years as anything. There are way way way too many variables out of the QBs control.

 

That's not a problem. Those are just factors to take into account. There are factors to take into account in evaluating anything, whether with statistics or without them. And for what it's worth, it was exactly that growth curve and improvement that he was comparing and using to conclude that Tannehill had a pretty good chance to develop into a franchise QB.

 

That's not really how I remember it. I know I was the one that starting this thing off track and I tried to end it, but I'll make one final comment about him, at least as I remember it. He was not a pure stats guy who didn't take into account emotions, psychology, etc. Not at all. If I remember correctly, he was a psychologist or physchiatrist or therapist or whatever and was very much into how psychology and emotion play into football and player/team performance. I know that some of my arguments with him were about those things and not stats at all.

 

But they're not taken into account here.

In fact, I've never seen numbers that do take any of that into account. Have you?

 

Everything that is being requested taken into account is actually quantified by a number. Tannehill's experience, for example, is quantified by a statistic.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

 

Except those weren't taken into account, really, as I recall. And, despite the quotes you found, I definitely never got the feeling from him that he thought that Tannehill would be a franchise QB.

 

And what statistic would that be?