That plays in with pre snap reading and audibles. A lot on his plate in year 5 Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No, and it shouldn't. First the data: https://i.imgsafe.org/1a76a07d7c.png As you can see, no line separates playoff and non-playoff as well as with ranking. So why should one expect the predictive power to be worse when using standard deviations? Think of a normal distribution. Most of the data is close to the mean. That means whatever separates "playoff" and "non-playoff" will be bunched up if there is a large percentage of teams that get into the playoffs. When you use ranks you are artificially increasing the distance between those bunched up data points relative to those far out, so it should naturally work better in THIS case. So why not use ranks instead of standard deviations? For a very important reason: standard deviations are units of measurement on an axis. That is, you can concatenate standard deviations just like with "meters", "seconds", etc.. You cannot do that with ranks because the difference between rank 10 and 11 doesn't mean the same thing as the difference between rank 16 and 17. In contrast, the difference between 10 and 11 meters is the same as the difference between 16 and 17 meters, or standard deviations. Thus, if A and B are 2 units apart while A and C are 3 units apart, with "meters", "seconds" or "standard deviations" the ratio of 3/2 has meaning, while with ranks it has no meaning. In other words with standard deviations you are actually measuring something. So if you have something like passer rating or points allowed in their own units of measurements, translating to ranks means you are artificially introducing distortions in the measure. Standard deviations changes the units but you keep the property of measurement. Also note that whether ranks work better or worse depends completely on the nature of the data so it's not something principled and should only be used IF it helps predict something better in a particular case. In this case it's impressive that a single line seems to divide the data into playoff and non-playoff when looking at ranks (that aspect is still surprising.. no a priori reason for a line to separate data so well).
Fair. I was mostly poking fun, but trust me if i wasn't lazy as hell i'd go through post history and find some quotes for ya. (notice how I didn't even move a few threads down to quote your post I mentioned ). I also wasn't talking about the majority or pundits personally, just people around here and other fans i've met. Pundits don't really call for replacement of QBs in general anyway, do they? Maybe subtle hints/insinuations but not call for it outright I would think. Unfortunately I think NCPhinFan still has a higher chance of being correct on this one (atleast in a general sense) due to just what i've seen here alone. I mean, I think it'd even be a safe bet that some fans will start calling to sit or cut Tannehill after our first loss no matter how good or bad he plays, because that's how it usually is. What I quoted from vertical limit is just another painful, mind-boggling example of some of the opinions we have here. Lately it's been less than usual since it's slow, but it's sure to increase as the season starts. I mean...When we lost IN Denver during a primetime game 39-36 with Tannehill throwing 3 touchdowns, and the defense *****ing the bed, people were still calling for his head. I understand other teams can have losing seasons with successful QBs and have no QB controversy, but very few of them have had the cesspool of QBs that we have had. and none of them have our fanbase. lol. We are a different animal and it wouldn't surprise me if our fanbase is the one of the hardest on their QB, if not the hardest. Maybe the pundits will see it your way.. maybe they will pull some "it's time to move on from RTH" shtick regardless of how he plays, Idk. But Death, taxes, and phins fans b****ing about their QB seem to be the universal constants.
This is close to where i'd guess it to be, right on the line. Maybe a huge jump in TDs for something like a 36:14 from the Gase effect.
Another 4,000 yard season Tannehill will throw for more yards than Dan Marino in his first five years. Funny how much the NFL has changed since the early 80s Edit: Will need a LOT of touchdowns to catch up.
Which posters want us to move on from Ryan? This part confuses me, I haven't seen much of that in this forum yet it's always a topic?? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Are there fringe posters who called for Tanny's removal? Yes. But the general consensus of those critical of Tanny aren't there. We just want more improvement. Even if they fix the oline and playcalling, there are still things I think Tanny is deficient on. And he's here to prove me wrong this year.
People blame Thill for everything from the deep ball to the defense, but claim they don't want him gone because they didn't explicitly say "he should go." Its a pretty similar tactic to how people who say extremely racist things but deny they're racist because they didn't explicitly say "I'm racist".
Or that a 90+ rating is just average nowadays, so having one doesn't mean you're good. Nineteen starting QBs had a rating of 90 or above last year. Are there 19 very good starting quarterbacks in the league? I don't think so. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2015/passing.htm
I realize a few of you will interpret this as I hope Ryan is stabbed in the face with the space needle.. But watching Seimian take off and convert third downs so easy really makes me wonder why the hell our QB struggles with this. It deflates a defense when it is 3rd and 5 and a QB see's an opening and takes off. Im not sure I can blame an instinctual play on the coaching, but I hope he learns to do this more often. Such an advantage to have a QB who can do this.
It's something many people have commented on, the need for Tannehill to run more. It is partially explained by him being specifically coached to remain in the pocket come hell or high-water. Which was fair enough in year 1 and 2 but not justifiable in later years. Some if it explained by his running style, which is more a straight line burner than a rubber legged juker. Basically he's a really good runner when he has a defined running lane, but not so good in chaotic situations. If I was his coach I would tell him that if a play breaks down and you have a running lane to go for it, but if there isn't a clear running lane to roll out and try to keep the play alive until a receive breaks open. Something that bugged me in the last few years is seeing opposing Ds completely clear out and cover the receivers and leave no one spying in Tannehill simply because they knew Miami's plan was not to let him run. It doesn't matter if he comes up short now and again, what's important is that simply the threat of it forces one defender to stay back in a spy role and gives our receivers more chance to break free of coverage, especially on 3rd downs.
It's amazing how many posters I see claiming they "don't want Tannehill gone" are the same guys that have been blaming Tannehill for the receiver's problems, the oline's problems, the coaches' problems, and the defense's problems. I fail to see if you have been blaming a QB for all that stuff, that you're surprised when people think you want that QB gone. Let's not even mention all the threads over the past four seasons where people have been saying Tannehill is one of the worst QBs in the league.
Yeah. And you had threads started like "I'm DOne WIth Tannehill" and others. If we didn't get the new oline these same posters would be screaming for a new QB. Now they're in defense mode with lines like we just wanted to see him improve. We predicted this would be their reaction last yr so we shouldn't be surprised
Oh yeah, it's crazy the backtracking going on around here. Not surprising, but still crazy. Crazier still, is I've been accused numerous times of flip-flopping on things, yet for four seasons my arguments have remained the same, while the usual suspects have changed their positions numerous times.
Effing stop. You're getting to be ridiculous. I made it very clear. You're just trying to start **** now.
What I have read on here is people want him to improve. Having a new line does not mean he will do better on 3rd downs or in the 4th quarter. He had the same line when he was putting up numbers the rest of the game, so OL is kinda hard to blame.
It is better to refer to NFL averages for the situation rather than just his overall passer rating. I found doung that excercise quite illuminating. Better than i thought at some things, worse at others
The OL is pretty much directly to blame for two or three losses where they gave up pressure at just the wrong moment in the 4th quarter in both the 2013 and 2014 seasons. Its all connected.
This is how I see it as well. Suggesting that Tannehill still has areas of his game that need improvement touches a nerve that makes people get really worked up and defensive, for whatever reason. It's weird. I don't see anyone claiming that he couldn't have made it deep into the playoffs with the 2000 Ravens defense, or maybe even last year's Broncos. Those exceptional circumstances are not the issue. As I see it, for a team to be consistent contenders for a period of several years, the QB has to be at a certain level...and Tannehill isn't quite there at this point. His game has been lacking in certain depts ever since he started playing the position six years ago, and that's my concern. But I'm confident; I really do think Gase will get his game to an adequate level by the time this year is over.
No, no, no. Talking about areas in Tannehill's control, where he can improve, doesn't set off anyone. Here's an example of what would: Poster 1: Tannehill has a bad oline, and gets sacked more than anyone. Poster 2: Tannehill has bad pocket presence, making his line look worse. The second poster puts the onus of the sacks on Tannehill, even though the line has been epically bad. Did Tannehill need better pocket presence? Maybe, but hard to tell with how bad the oline has been.
I'm out of the prediction business when it comes to Tannehill and to the team at large. I'll be pleasantly surprised if he turns in to the franchise QB we all think he is capable of becoming. If he flops, I won't be shocked either. I can say this, if we are having this same debate next offseason it won't be a good thing.
Suggesting Tannehill still has areas of improvement definitely caused some strong reactions. I remember how suggesting he has bad pocket presence was one of those issues. What people on both sides of this have been writing in the last few months are way different than half a year ago or more, probably because of the intense reaction from the other side. You see people defending Tannehill slowly changing their (written) stance, including on the pocket presence issue while people criticizing him now often add all kinds of disclaimers. And regarding your example. I think people criticizing Tannehill always accepted BOTH are true, while people defending him couldn't accept position #2, leading to big arguments. Personally I think #1 is far more influential regarding the sacks he's taken than #2, but there are many sacks where it's hard to argue #2 wasn't the reason.
His OLine has not been good. His pocket presence has been just okay. These can both be true, and imo they are. You can isolate things in his game; not everything is a *team issue*. His mechanics in the pocket have been too sluggish for a kid with his athleticism and quick release. Sure this is more of an un-measurable eye test, but to me this has been the case for six years. His decision-making is too robotic and conservative, resulting in fewer extended plays, a lower percentage of chunk plays, and a chronically low ypa. This has been the case for six years. I've heard it argued that YPA cannot be a QB measure because it's an offensive measure...and I get that a little. Thing is the sample size here is substantial: his ypa has been remarkably consistent relative to his peers ever since he started playing QB at A&M. That's with different coordinators and OLines and receivers and running backs and opponents, etc. He is the common denominator, not to mention the only guy with the ball in his hands every play. At some point you have to isolate things he has control over.
Not really. The two main and constant voices of one of those sides has been me and resnor. Our stance has been inarguably consistent. The other side constantly flips, bends, twists and often, flat out denies previous stances.
It has definitely been the case with him for 6 years. Alas, we already know the rebuttle ........ that he was raw coming out of college. It's coming again, brace yourself.
In Tannehill I see a guy who I believe is finally worthy of the Homer Brigade's defense, unlike Beck, Henne, Ireland, Philbin, etc. He has failed to get this team to the playoffs, but has put up numbers and performances that typically result in playoffs. He hasn't been perfect, and has to improve. I know both sides thoroughly enjoy debating Tannehill ad naseum. They will pretend they don't and that it's a labor, but they wouldn't spend a 3rd of their lives doing it if they didn't enjoy it. It's a fool's task for 2 reasons: 1. Nobody is going to change anybody's mind. 2. Gase believes in Tannehill and that's all that matters. He was brought here in large part to improve Tannehill and he thinks he can do it. He has hitched his wagon to Tannehill and he will get at least 1 year to prove himself. If Tannehill does not improve, Gase will find someone else to hitch his wagon to. I doubt he will risk his career on Tannehill if he does not quickly reward his coach's faith in him. My prediction: Tannehill shows moderate improvement this year, although I'm not sure it will be enough to get the team to the playoffs which will result in another year of fierce debate between all you nerds. Carry on!
What if we lived in a world where a QB had flaws and his surroundings were poor...wow, what a notion. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Tannehill has played at a level and in a situation where it's really not easy to see precisely who is at fault for what. So it's not surprising that it's been hard to change people's minds when you can't easily argue what precisely is the reason for the observed outcome. But if he puts up way better numbers this year, or even slightly worse, I bet you do change some people's minds. Definitely agree on point #2 though.
I'm pretty fed up with this whole characterization. The non Tannehaters do not believe Thill is without flaws. We just think the things the haters have said are flaws, are wrong. Its not ****ing rocket science and we've been 100% consistent. Those things are: - deep ball issues (the haters are so ridiculous about this they've literally changed the definition of a deep ball from 20+yards to 40+) - pocket awareness/scrambling (the line is too bad) - wins and losses/playoffs (these are not QB stats) - not clutch (doesn't exist and also had to be redefined to fit) That's it. That is ****ing it. All this bull**** and stupid crying by the Tannehaters is all over the fact we don;t think those specific things are accurate/legit/real. They blame the defensive woes on the QB, but act like we're the ones being unreasonable. At some point people have to see what is going on here.
In what world is Ryan forgiven for having a subpar deep ball his whole career? The "Tanneblowers" can only blame Mike Wallace for 2 of those (which is laughable) beyond that maybe, just MAYBE we can all agree that Ryan has never thrown a good deep ball on a regular basis and when you couple that with a WR who thrived on getting behind defenses and not going up and getting jump balls it was simply an imperfect storm. So yea...he should be responsible for throws he wasted on...although I see why it makes sense to simply "blame" others because that seems to be the theme with some posters. Stupid Papa Johns, *******s sold me all that pizza now look at me! ZERO ACCOUNTABILITY.
Yeah, the deep ball issue was seriously overblown, too. Wasn't it CK who outlined how Tannehill's deep ball was basically league average? He looked particularly awful with Wallace, but it was people redefining deep ball to 40+ that skewed stays against Tannehill.
Show me where conversations about actual areas where Tannehill needs improvement have caused issues? Not conversations where Tannehill is blamed for the oline being bad (happened many times). Not where Tannehill blamed as the sole reason for Wallace not working (happened many times). Not where Tannehill was blamed for not winning enough games (happened many times). Not where Tannehill was held solely Tannehill's for 4th quarter performances (happened many times). Essentially, often times statements detracting Tannehill would be made ("Tannehill throws a bad deep ball", for instance). We would then say, well, it's not the greatest deep ball, but many of them are catchable, but Wallace runs bad routes, can't catch with his hands, etc. Then we'd be accused of making excuses for Tannehill. Truthfully, the ones we argued with the most, most of whom sit on my ignore list now, were not reasonable in the discussions. The solely blamed Tannehill for things, and refused to consider that there were other factors, outside his control, that affected these things. Had they been reasonable, as they're desperately trying to seem now, the arguments wouldn't have happened as they did.
I'm not searching through an entire database, but I definitely remember how even suggesting the idea that Tannehill has bad pocket presence elicited strong counterarguments. Maybe you and Fin-D don't remember or realize it but you guys have changed your stated opinions too, and specifically on this issue. Your stated responses today on the pocket presence issue are more reasonable than they used to be. And by the way the same is true with "clutch" and with W/L record. It took a long time to get you guys to agree to what is arguably the most reasonable point of view, which is that since the QB is the single most influential player on the team, that SOME non-trivial portion of the bad "clutch" stats Tannehill has (like <4 minute left trailing) and that SOME non-trivial portion of W/L record has to be on him. That took months and tons of posts. Yes, your written viewpoints have changed over time, and yes they changed to more reasonable points of view. I think there are many other posters that remember these debates too btw.. not just my memory.
No. No. No. I never said said or argued against the QB being the most influential player on the team. I never argued anything other than I just said about pocket presence. That is flat out not true. My stance has not changed one iota.