There is a post somewhere from long ago where you once literally said the QB has NO influence on W/L record. Few things have stuck in my memory so clearly. Yes your viewpoint has changed. AND there is nothing wrong with that.
I don't think my position has changed at all. My position has always been that Tannehill can't show good or bad pocket presence when he doesn't have a pocket to work with. I have cited examples for four seasons of Tannehill trying to step up in the pocket, or escape pressure from one side, only to get smacked from pressure coming from he should escape to. I've agreed that some sacks are his fault, but not a while lot of them. I get you don't want to search, but if you're going to claim ice changed my position, back it up. One last thing, I tended to not be reasonable with unreasonable posters. I have tried to change that.
I've never seen such a post, unless it was FinD applying someone else's faulty logic, in an effort to make the point about how faulty it was.
That last statement goes both ways. I think there are many other posters that agree with what I said. Finster should at least remember the arguments relating to peripheral vision. You were among those in that debate that suggested it's all (mostly) on the OL and that there's no evidence it has anything to do with peripheral vision. I got into it because I wanted to make sure the arguments were about making intelligent football decisions and NOT his peripheral vision per se (Finster and I had a long back-and-forth on precisely what was meant by peripheral vision so he may remember your responses too). No.. I'm pretty certain in my assessment there, and I'm sure many other posters will back up several claims I'm making.
There was no "evidence" that Tannehill has bad peripheral vision. That was the crux of the argument. You want to theorize? Fine, theorize away. But don't let that theory outweigh the obvious, which was awful oline play leading to sacks. And it doesn't go both ways. I'm not making claims about you.
No.. it was very clear. When I said if you had to apportion credit among all players, coaches, etc.. and IF the QB is the single most influential player on the team, it has to at least be in single digits percent influence minimum because you don't have that many players. I did say it was a subjective assignment of course. The furthest he went way back then was saying MAYBE it's 0.000001%. VERY clear in my memory. You argued it was due to a crappy OL and not due to Tannehill. True, that doesn't imply NO responsibility on part of Tannehill, but it meant no non-trivial responsibility. My counter-argument was that the OL was always crappy and not just in "clutch" situations, so you can't go down that route.
That's correct, same position I took. You're saying you never changed your position on the pocket presence issue, which I think to many people is clearly not true. Yeah it goes both ways.
And, to pull a Fin-O, if you, or anyone else, is going to make the claim, back it up with more than simply your word. I've had my position twisted too many times to simply take the word of most of the posters you're referring to. I've argued, consistently, that whether Tannehill has good or bad presence is impossible to know, because of the crazy pressure allowed from multiple places. You do remember the arguments about pressure, correct? Those arguments occurred because people were arcing that Tannehill didn't sense pressure, and didn't escape the pocket, and compared him to other QBs.
And, again, you ignored olines playing worse late in games when tired, and giving up crazy pressure to four man rushes. You ignored the idea that crappy players can play worse in high pressure situations, which was weird because you love the "clutch" stat.
Fair enough but I stand by what I said. You definitely had a good point. Just saying.. I was in some of these debates where if my memory isn't faulty even suggesting bad pocket presence brought about a visceral reaction. But no, I won't go back and find the posts. Just defending myself here more than attacking you guys (at least intentionally speaking).
No, I said if you can't quantify it and show your work and justify it then you can't willy nilly use W/L record as a QB stat.
I didn't ignore any of that. I pointed out there's no EVIDENCE it was the OL. That is, you guys couldn't show it was a specific issue tied ONLY to the Dolphins. All teams' OL will have greater difficulties in the situations described. The evidence available (which is not all possible data you could gather of course) said Tannehill played a non-trivial part in the below average drop-off in clutch situations.
Again, the visceral reaction was not about pocket presence. It was about people trying to prove that the oline really wasn't that bad, but rather Tannehill was so bad he mace the oline look terrible.
Yes you did say that. And of course I quantified it, which btw you did deny for awhile before admitting that. But when I made the argument you quoted in your post you did say maybe 0.00001% is the QB. Either way, none of this is that important. You're far easier (for me) to debate with and respect now than a year ago. I'm just defending my assertions here.
Yet you also admitted that the data we need isn't tracked. Then went on to come to conclusions using data that you admitted was faulty.
Not the way I remember it. Most people here that criticize Tannehill have always agreed the OL is bad.
No. I believe you made up a number of 20%. You didn't really justify it. You tried but I shot holes in it. You decided to stop talking about it. Regardless, I didn't say what you said I did.
First statement is correct. The data we need to determine whether the Dolphins' OL was somehow special in its inability to adjust to those "clutch" situations isn't available as far as I know. Second statement is incorrect. The conclusions I came to aren't faulty, just incomplete as in the best I can do with the data available.
Yup. Here's the thing cbrad, me and res remember BECAUSE our arguments are consistent. And we've been having these arguments with the same people since 2012.
Right, I advocated for assigning percentages, such as 40% offense, 40% defense, 15% ST, 5% coaching (or something like that). Then, divvy up per player on each unit.
15-20% based on "variance explained" etc.. That was a justification albeit a weak one based on stats like YPA because again it's not a QB stat. Everyone's memory is unreliable. And that was proven long before you were born.
I'm only talking about my time here. Not saying you're right or wrong about what happened years ago. And yeah, if there's a long history of course you'll put in different defense mechanisms than if there isn't that history.
Oh my word. If you use data that you know doesn't apply, because it isn't tracking what you need, and you then use it to come to a conclusion, then it's not only incomplete, it's also faulty.
What? The data are the stats available on the average drop-off in performance measured by passer rating in conditions like <4 minutes trailing situations. Whatever the possible causes, THAT is the result! Of course the data applies. Yes my arguments (the statistical ones) were valid and the conclusions are too given the data available.
Yes, it's been going on since 2012. People arguing that Tannehill makes the oline look bad, the receivers look bad (one poster argued that Hartline/Bess were the best duo in football), the coaches look bad, and the defense look bad. Arguing that Tannehill is bad, can't throw a deep ball, locks onto receivers, and can't see defenders. Arguing that he telegraphs passes, hence the batted balls, but somehow, low interceptions. And no matter how many times we tried to address how other parts of the team affected these things, we were tertiary tools we were simply "making excuses," and that is Tannehill was actually any good, we'd have a better record.
FYI ..... NFL minds have made those same critiques along the way WHILE still acknowledging it's a team sport. His deficiencies exist with or without better teammates. The question is can enough of them be corrected in time for this team to do serious damage?
Right, you made up a number, didn't justify it legitimately and admit it wasn't accurate. And you're STILL not addressing that you accused me of something I didn't say. Ok, if you know memories are unreliable.....why have you been reasserting that something you remembered happened, when it didn't?
I'll agree it's not a "legitimate" justification but I'm not going to say it's inaccurate. That requires the same type of "legitimate" justification that's missing to prove. Our memories disagree. One thing is clear: your memories are unreliable too.
lol, so now we have to count it because you can't prove its wrong...or right? Wow. Not on this its not. I did not say that. Its fact. i know that because its not something I ever thought or argued for. You are trying to remember something you think I did. This isn't equal.
Didn't say you have to count it. For someone that tries to tell people to think logically that's not a good example of logical thought. Right.. even though it's been shown memories are unreliable for human beings it doesn't apply to you if you feel strongly about it.
So, just so I'm clear, I was wrong because you remembered it, then Fin was wrong because he remembered wrong, but then everyone's memory is faulty, so you very well may be wrong, but Fin is still wrong, because he says he never said that, which apparently makes him the only one without a faulty memory. Gotcha.
