Merge: Report: Joe Philbin wanted to replace Ryan Tannehill with Derek Carr

Aaron Rodgers made the playoffs with a bad offensive line and practice squad receivers.. And he was close to the nfc championship game on top of that.

 

Yes.

Did he also have poor coaching?
Did he deal with a poor scheme?
Did he deal with the OC abandoning the run game?
Did he deal with turmoil throughout the entire organization?
Did he deal with not being able to audible?

Did he deal with all this in his through each of his first four years in the league?

No?

BTW, how come it's ok for people to use Rodgers or Wilson as comparison when their goal is to denigrate Tannehill, but if I bring either up to show how the team affects play of the QB, people get all up in arms?

By the way, Rodgers also didn't have as good a year as he's used to having.

Oh yeah, and to the people *****ing about Tannehill with "volume stats," Rodgers had almost the same amount of attempts, but had like 500 yards less, and his ypa was below 7.

 

When our OL starts making the money that Mr. Average QBakes, then I will start getting on their case, however we pay Tannehill to overcome bad OL, dropped passes and whatever else the homers like to bring out.

 

Some offenses yes. And it is more of a necessity with the Dolphins and Tannehill than most. But it doesn't define an offense.

Fact is OL play is overall pretty bad in the league, having a truly good OL is getting as rare as it to find a good QB.

Tannehill/OL...

Insert Rock and hard place pic from Fin D.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Yeah, you're right, we haven't paid any big money to our line, or drafted players highly for the oline. We don't pay big money to coaches to get these guys to do their jobs.

You don't draft a QB, knowing he needs development, and then saddle him with the stuff I posted two posts back. If you do, then you certainly don't turn around and ***** that your young, developing QB hasn't overcome a combination of obstacles that literally no other successful QB has ever overcome.

 

Lol

 

You have no way of proving or disproving that a qb has never overcome those things because most are your opinion. It'd your opinion in regards to how good the coaches are. Truth is you don't have a clue who is or isn't a good coach. Only thing you can go off of is the coaches record. Hmm...sounds familiar. You may not want to admit it but the QB has a hell of a lot more to do with the hc record than the hc does. Hell, the front office has more to do with a hc success than the hc does. You give thill a pass for a perceived lack of enough talent around him to be successful yet nobody else gets that benefit from you. He's played 4 full seasons. He's neither young or developing. You going to play the raw, young, potential, developing card until the guys 35?

 

FinOmenal post sir.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

This thread makes me laugh.

 

Based on the statistics at the link above, and based on the correlation between Adjusted Sack Rate (the pass blocking statistic on the page) and quarterbacks' DVOA in 2015 (-0.14), if the Dolphins had had the Raiders' Adjusted Sack Rate in 2015 (4.6%), Ryan Tannehill's 2015 DVOA would've increased from -10.6 to -6.74, which would've moved him from 27th to 24th in the league.

 

So, since its ok to just apply that data as if all QBs are the same, if Dilfer was the QB of the 49ers instead of Montana, they would have been just as good?

 

Name me a QB who has dealt with all those at the same time. We've been asking this for awhile.

QB'S usually get three years before people judge them. Tannehill should get a little more time, due to where his development was when drafted, shouldn't he? Throw in the piss poor surroundings, and the dysfunctional coaching staff, it's a miracle he's been as good as he has.

 

Yeah...so you are not even considering the run game here?

That was the main point of my post.

 

If you apply the run blocking statistic from that page (Adjusted Line Yards) in the way I did above, it moves Tannehill's 2015 DVOA (-10.6) from 27th in the league to 12th (7.73).

 

All QBs are not the same, and that's probably why the correlation between quarterbacks' DVOA and the pass blocking statistic on that page is a mere -0.14.

In other words, because the individual ability of the QB is so influential, the relationship between offensive line and QB play is weak. The offensive line doesn't have nearly the effect on the QB that some people seem to believe it does.

 

How good has he been? Thus far average at best.

He is getting more time, and in regards to that laughable blanket question you guy's have been clinging too? Its a subjective, OPINION based question.

Like a previous poster said, you or any of us can not speak intelligently as to who is a good coordinator and who isn't. We all have our opinions but that's not going to produce any kind of real evidence either way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

carr was voted in to the pro bowl.

 

Sounds like Joe Philbin shouldve been a scout, not an NFL head coach.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Not a knock against Carr, because I legit like the cut of his gib, but that doesn;t mean much.

 

So I'm clear, all QBs are not the same but the oline play effects them all the same?

Pristine logic.

 

If offensive line play affected them all the same, the correlation between offensive line and QB play would be 1.0.

Again, the weakness of the real correlation suggests exactly the point you're making, that there are QBs who are affected more, and QBs who are affected less, by offensive line play. Presumably the driving force in the degree to which they're affected by offensive line play is their own individual ability.

A QB with poorer individual ability needs a better offensive line, and a QB with better individual ability doesn't.

 

i know..

 

No that's just one possibility. If it wasn't just one possibility then it means there's two degrees to an oline, bad and good.

Another possibility is that the QB isn't poor, but handicapped by other issues that limit his ability to deal with a poor oline, like making audibles and/or having a running game.

 

That's definitely another possibility, but it certainly won't be reflected in the webpage that got this interchange started. What's reflected in that webpage is 1) a weak correlation between a pass blocking statistic and QB play, and 2) that a change in the Dolphins' offensive line alone, to the level of the Raiders' offensive line, wouldn't have done much of anything appreciable to Ryan Tannehill's DVOA.

So we can hypothesize about the effects of many different variables, but as we do that, we get further afield from any ability to measure them objectively, and further afield from any ability to confirm or deny them.

In other words, people proposing such complex interactions among many variables are really up against it in confirming those possibilities objectively. They're essentially in a world in which they're asking others to trust their expertise about a situation, when there is no known expertise to trust.

 

This is the point where stats cause problems. They aren't the end all be all. They are just a tool. A foot long ruler is pretty accurate, but you don't use it to measure miles. There other tools in the kit that help understand how much a oline affects QB play. That tool is common sense.

 

Tell that to the person who posted the webpage and cited it as support for the idea that Ryan Tannehill would've benefitted from Derek Carr's offensive line play. Why did he bother posting that if common sense was all he needed?

 

Geez, dude. I can only assume you've returned.

Anyway, the webpage, if you're referring to the one I linked to, was specifically about RUNNING the ball. They also included a small bit about pass blocking. The Raiders oline was much, MUCH better at run blocking than Miami's. If you read the page, they explained that. So, is not as simple as looking at the pass blocking of each team, and taking the square root of the QB, and determining that if Tannehill had the Raiders pass blocking in Miami he'd only go up a couple points. In that scenario you are completely discounting the run game.

 

The only common sense needed is by you. I posted a link to mostly run blocking stats, and you went all ape on pass blocking.

POINT
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\/
YOU

 

Of course now we could do the same thing we did above with regard to quarterbacks and offensive lines, where we talk about the measurable effects of the running game on quarterbacks, but in the end the explanation for Ryan Tannehill's performance will come down to an interplay of many variables that can't be measured (coaching, audibles, etc.), and whose relationships with each other can't be confirmed or denied. If that's where we're going to end up -- and we will -- then I'd rather just skip it.

We can all have our opinions. Again, what suggests the reality of the situation in my opinion is the consensus "balance" that's derived from all these interchanges, and that consensus balance suggests that we're talking about an average QB.

 

What consensus are you taking exactly?

 

Yeah, I suppose it's just better to pretend that the run game, or lack there of, has no impact on the QB, or offense as a whole.

It just boggles my mind that so many teams bother doing something that seems to have no impact on the offense and it's production.

 

I was just saying that discussing the subjectivity/objectivity of FO doesn't change that the initial proposition was an inappropriate use of stats

 

There is an impact, but statistically speaking, as with offensive lines, it's much less than some people seem to believe. Again though, when the end point of the discussion is an untestable and unfalsifiable position, there's no use in exploring any of that. You might as well just lay your untestable and unfalsifiable position out there, call it your opinion, say it once, and leave it at that.

 

Is that your plan?

 

There is nothing inappropriate about determining a predicted value based on regression equation.

 

Are you sure you're right about that?

 

There's nothing wrong with using regression to make predictions. The problem was the input to the analysis, DVOA, which includes a stat that claims to measure OL ability. So that's not a knock on you per se.

I'd say the only part "wrong" with the use of regressions (what could be blamed on you) was adding the effect of OL to Gase. Adding them means you're assuming the two factors are independent which I'm sure you'd agree they are very far from being.

 

Right. It was more like a "best-case scenario" approach, based on the two external variables (coaching and offensive line) thought to be most influential. The more interesting finding in my opinion is that Gase's "effect" on both Manning and Cutler appears to have been much less than what's been touted in the media. They didn't deviate nearly as much from their career averages (beyond their rookie years, which I didn't include) than one would think, based on the media hype. In fact, both QBs had better years previously in their careers.

 

There is when what you're using is a dependent partial derivative.

This is one of the best worked examples on teh web: http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/mathemat...3-clearer-notation/MIT18_02SC_MNotes_n1_2.pdf

 

Well.. that's just a fancy way of saying when the data isn't best described by a line (plane, etc..) linear regression isn't a great idea.

I don't think we need to be that picky here, especially since we don't know what the underlying data look like