Tell me which is the more logical route to take?

Be honest, tell me you didn't think when you posed the question how many super bowl winners had a poor OL that you thought the "average" would at least be in the top 10 for those categories, if not top 5.

It appears you think an OL that finished 21, 22, 29 and 32 in sacks given up is not bad....OK
It appears you think an OL that finished 22, 23, 25, 26, 29, 30, 32 in YPR is not bad...OK
And contrary to popular belief a team does not need to establish the run to win the Super Bowl, unless you think finishing (23, 24, 27, 27, 32) in YPG is establishing the run...OK

It appears you ignored all that and came to the conclusion that teams winning the super bowl have an average OL (which I bet was a big surprise to you). If that was true then there would be a small "range" in the numbers. But, in fact, the range for Sacks given up is (1-32) and for YPR is (3-32) and for RYPG (4-32).

To help better understand that your conclusion is not correct that most teams are middle of the road

Teams finishing 12th - 21st middle ranks (pretty fair to say that would be somewhere in the middle when there are 32 teams so 16.5 would be average); 1-11 (upper ranks); 22-32 (lower ranks)

Sacks given up: 4 out of 14 were in the middle, 5 in the upper ranks, 5 in the lower ranks
YPR: 5 out of 14 were in the middle, 2 in the upper ranks, 7 in the lower ranks
RYPG: 3 out of 14 were in the middle, 6 in the upper ranks, 5 in the lower ranks

However when looking at QB play:

QB rating: 2 in the middle, 11 in the upper ranks, 1 in the lower ranks (Eli Manning in 2007 who played far above his regular season play during the playoffs)

So teams that had worse OL play, but had MUCH, MUCH better QB play!

It appears to me you thought you threw out a slam dunk question that turned out to be brick and now just trying to salvage face by claiming "average" is proof most teams fall in the middle when it isn't the case.

Oh yeah, and Miami is not ranked 30th in YPR...Miami is tied for "1st" at 5.0 with STL...they are 17th in RYPG, but that is b/c of rushing attempts per game. Not sure where you got your numbers, but it appears they are wrong. And Miami would be ranked 26th in sacks per attempt.

The other claim that is not accurate is somebody is saying Tannehill needs a top 10 OL to be effective...ME but even that is no guarantee as evidence by throwing picks when not being pressured and being the only player on the team not aware when the ball was being hiked against the Pats for a safety...ugh!

 

How many offenses don't?

 

i don't get the obsession with limiting stats to just the SB winner. In general I prefer at least all of the championship game teams if not all of the playoff participants in general.

 

It's actually ludicrous, when you think about it...people are arguing that Tannehill is the weakest link on offense, yet we are throwing 73% of the time??

This means, either Tannehill is truly terrible, and the coaches just can't see it, or the coaches know the other parts are so terrible, that they're willing to throw Tannehill under the bus, and make him throw an abnormal amount of times, as they believe he's the best option we have.

Or Tannehill simply refuses to use the run option that is designed into the plays, which I find hard to fathom that the coaches would allow that to continue this long.

 

Which is mind-numblingly INSANE!!!!! Should never be more than 50%. He's simply not capable of shouldering the offense like that.

Philbonehead thought he was grooming the next Aaron Rodgers back there.

 

In three years he'll be middle of the road in salary

 

Yet people are claiming that the problem with Green Bay last week was Rodgers had to throw "too much." Apparently 22 throws was too many.

 

I say A. Tanny's average at best play coupled with his and Suh's salary almost guarantee dolphin mediocrity for a long time.

Disclaimer: Free Brady.

 

It's limiting the dataset to 1/4 based on some merit but also lucky bounces.

Back to throwing 73%. I'd say a coach in Philbin who never cared for balance. Against the Pats we were forced to throw, it was obvious. Patriots dared us to throw and we couldn't.

 

I would rather have a coach and GM that can build a complete team that will become a dynasty, so we can plug a good qb into the system and keep the ball rolling rather than have the elite qb with a **** team around him so when he retires/goes down we are not back in the dark ages, sort of like what happened to the miami dolphins.......

 

I don't think he's the weakest link. I just think that he is and will be an Alex Smith type. If you're okay with Alex Smith, then cool. I personally think you need more than that at the QB position in order to contend consistently.

 

Almost no QB can shoulder that game after game.

 

The Colts and the Packers have been running off balance. Probably like 40/60. I think it was pointed out Green Bay under Philbin (and after) never ran a balanced offense.

But they had Aaron Rodgers. They can run it 40% of the time.

 

So, we have 10 people on the forum who, if they were a GM, would be out of a job in like three seasons, when they kept drafting QBs, and never building a team around what they have.

 

The GM, HC and OC that rested their careers on Tannehill are all out of job.

 

LMAO

That's the best you've got? Ireland isn't gone because of Tannehill. Neither is Sherman, or Philbin.

 

Both