1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

wow. our qb has arived

Discussion in 'Miami Dolphins Forum' started by caliphinfan, Nov 20, 2016.

  1. Pauly

    Pauly Season Ticket Holder

    3,696
    3,743
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    I am in the same boat as cbrad on this one. It's nice to have RT17 play well on those last 2 drives, but it isn't proof Tannehill is in the consistently good QB club.

    Through this year my view has been than Tannehill has been let down by his receivers. Well on Sunday his receivers helped him out. Landry made plays that went over and above especially his TD, Parker made plays, a couple of ankle height catches on the GWD. Sunday was more on his receivers than Tannehill. Tannehill did play well, it's just that it was his receivers that made some special plays to help him out. the San Diego game was where Tanny was making special plays to win the game.

    Also the Defense played well all game. In the Philbin years, deep into the 4th quarter and behind by 7 and the offense sputtering the D would have given up and RT wouldn't have had the opportunity to make the comeback.

    The Chargers game was Tanny's victory. This week was much more of a team effort, and Gase deserves the lion's share of the credit. Not for his schemes and Xs and Os but for the job of getting all the players motivated and playing hard for 60 minutes.
     
    cbrad likes this.
  2. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    What is proof is that when the oline doesn't have Turner, Thomas and/or Fox, Thill is franchise.
     
  3. brandon27

    brandon27 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    45,652
    19,304
    113
    Dec 3, 2007
    Windsor, ON. CANADA
    I personally wouldnt go as far as franchise yet. I've always believed he could get there though. There were some doubtful moments, for sure, but he's definitely showing that we can win with him. He's always kind of, sort of shown that behind a shaky line, so this recent streak is solidifying that believe IMO. I think he's getting there, the thing I want to see now though, is more consistency. These performances are good, and confirming what alot of people believed, but consistency at it gets him to that next level of franchise discussion IMO. It's coming, you've got to be encouraged by what were seeing.
     
  4. smahtaz

    smahtaz Pimpin Ain't Easy

    It blows my mind people don't realize this.
     
    number21 likes this.
  5. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    We don't have to guess, Gase literally says that Thill is why he took the job. Check the PC from the Rams game on the official site.
     
  6. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Well this is what Gase said in his introductory news conference:
    http://www.miamidolphins.com/news/a...nference/f0333706-9f8a-4eb7-befb-2cce26e5cdba

    “Well this is where we’re at right now with Ryan (Tannehill), I’ve seen him play very minimal games. I’ve seen him play live once, not counting a preseason game where we played him at Denver.”

    Hard to say how much of the decision to take a first time HC job was due to Tannehill when he hadn't even seen Tannehill play much.
     
    dolphin25, Finster and jdang307 like this.
  7. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    It will never end for you will it?
     
    number21, LI phinfan and brandon27 like this.
  8. Brasfin

    Brasfin Well-Known Member

    2,435
    1,672
    113
    Apr 27, 2013
    Brazil
    Coach Adam Gase had a conviction that he could win with Tannehill and that he could be a quality quarterback. Gase was asked Monday when he determined that and why he felt that way.

    Before I even took the job; that’s why I took the job,” Gase said. “When you feel comfortable with the quarterback you are coming in with, that’s a good starting point. And, obviously, there’s a huge checklist going down after that.

    http://www.miamiherald.com/sports/nfl/miami-dolphins/article116258378.html
     
    number21, LI phinfan and resnor like this.
  9. brandon27

    brandon27 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    45,652
    19,304
    113
    Dec 3, 2007
    Windsor, ON. CANADA
    I think the bottom line here... the organization obviously thinks he's either franchise status already (probably pretty clear by the contract extension) or that he's already there now or going to be very soon with Gase, if not already. If this team keeps winning, as I said earlier he's going to be here a long time and there's going to be alot of people very upset at that fact lol

    Either that, or Gase has alot of people fooled in his praise for Tannehill. lol

    LEts be honest here... he woudlnt have taken the job if he didnt feel he had something to work with at QB.
     
    number21 and resnor like this.
  10. smahtaz

    smahtaz Pimpin Ain't Easy

    C'mon man, you've seen coach-speak before.
     
  11. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Yeah I know I heard the presser. Just pointing out it's a bit hard to know what to believe if he explicitly said before he didn't even see Tannehill play much. Can't always take what people say literally. Maybe Gase is telling the truth now but not before, or maybe the other way around, but I cannot imagine taking a job because of a QB you haven't even seen play much.
     
    dolphin25 likes this.
  12. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    Yes. We've never been 6-4 with Tanny as the QB before without a commitment to the run, a good oline, good coaching, and audibling.

    As long as you don't count 2014 that is. Gase has matched Lazor's first year! Woohoo!

    Still a lot of season left, no need to make proclamations just yet.
     
  13. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    Exactly. Gase is patting himself on the back today for Tanny's performance, but he was hedging his bets before the season. IF Tanny sucked donkey balls he didn't hitch his wagon to that donkey in public.

    Now it's, "oh I never would have taken this job ..."

    I really really like Gase. But no need to jump on his balls. He had his doubts about Tannehill before the season and now he's acting like he didn't.
     
    dolphin25 and cbrad like this.
  14. Brasfin

    Brasfin Well-Known Member

    2,435
    1,672
    113
    Apr 27, 2013
    Brazil
    Yeah, I just think he had more reason to be cautious with the media on his first day on the job than today, the day after a win that brought him to 6-4. It's more likely he was telling the truth today than on his intro presser.
     
    resnor likes this.
  15. Sceeto

    Sceeto Well-Known Member

    13,501
    6,246
    113
    Oct 13, 2008
    New York
    Not unusual in the least, but still, weird f'ing b-tchfest.
     
    cuchulainn and resnor like this.
  16. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    I think it's the opposite. If we were 4-6 or worse, you think he's hitching his wagon to Tannehill if he played poorly? If anything, a sign of confidence in your QB before you start the season is more important, and he hedged.
     
  17. Pauly

    Pauly Season Ticket Holder

    3,696
    3,743
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    What I have seen is that Gase was quite guarded with his initial comments. It was only after he had worked with Tannehill for some months in the off season that his support became enthusiastic.

    If we look at the franchises that hired new HCs this season (Not including the Giants who promoted from within) and their QB situation heading into 2016:
    Eagles - Bradford (since traded)
    Buccaneers - Winston
    49ers - Gabbert/Kaepernick
    Browns - McCown/RG III
    Dolphins - Tannehill

    The Dolphins situation was clearly better than the Browns and 49ers, but I'm sure that Gase could have taken a job working with Bradford or Winston and slept comfortably at night.
     
  18. CitizenSnips

    CitizenSnips hmm.

    5,525
    4,219
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    PA
    The fact that anyone believes Gase took this job without watching 10-20 hrs of tannehill tape is hilarious. These guys have access to every game ever. If youre an offensive coordinator on the rise and know what teams are hiring, you're familiarizing yourself with all of them.

    Gase was doing homework the second the bears season ended last year.
     
    Fin D and resnor like this.
  19. smahtaz

    smahtaz Pimpin Ain't Easy

    Wow. Did not see this coming.
     
    resnor and Fin D like this.
  20. Two Tacos

    Two Tacos Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    11,121
    5,828
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    I don't know why you didn't use the full quote with the question for context. It's not much longer.

    I can see your interpretation, but to me this was a guy not wanting to promise a Superbowl on his first day. Or, tie himself to a QB that he only met in passing. Ryan could have had some wierd personality quirks. I get that this supports your point, i just think that not seeing someone live is not at all the same as not watching video. I think he chose his words carefully. He was the belle of the coaching ball. He had options. No way he didn't watch tape on Ryan before selecting Miami.


    On the QB rating stat question. You made a good point about stats being evidence not proof. So how do you weight your evidence? For example QB rating vs your own impressions. If the QB plays better than the rating shows, how do you consolidate the data?

    Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk
     
    Superself, resnor and Fin D like this.
  21. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Because of the context of my post given the posts right above it. If it's being claimed there is no uncertainty whatsoever that Gase took the job because of Tannehill, the part I quoted is the part that matters. It's also possible his "minimal games" comment refers to watching tape given that he said he only saw Tannehill play live once (other than a preseason game), so yeah I'm sure he watched tape but how much can't be inferred from that quote.

    It's easy to consolidate different stats if you have the correlations to winning. The square of those correlations are the weights assuming a line fits the data well and the stats measure relatively different things. If the stats are correlated with each other that has to be taken out first. In any case, that's one advantage of stats: the inferences are objective.

    But like I said in previous posts, there is no principled way of consolidating info that isn't stat-based, including in the case you're talking about: stat + eyeball. So that's your answer.. there is no way and it's totally subjective.
     
  22. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Disagree, cbrad. The question he's answering is just as important. He was asked about winning a Super Bowl. The answer he gave was in relation to that. It isn't like he was simply asked, "What do you think of Tannehill?"
     
    Superself and Fin D like this.
  23. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Hahahahahahahaha. You mean when the "unicorn line" (Pouncey, Albert & James) was formed? That year? The same stretch of games that I and few others have kept pointing to as proof of giving Thill an oline and running the ball, makes him have Top 10 numbers? Cause if I recall you and the rest of the Tannehaters shouted us down because that was not enough games to determine anything.....unless it helps your contradictory and hypocritical bs it seems....
     
    number21, Superself and resnor like this.
  24. Two Tacos

    Two Tacos Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    11,121
    5,828
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    My question was how do you weight your personal analysis vs stats when they disagree. When someone plays better or worse than their stat line. Or, is your analysis purely statistically driven? If it is pure stats, how do you adjust for team play? All other things being equal, Munoz vs Dallas Thomas at LT is going to move the dial. Team play matters, what is your control for this?



    Also, I'm not sure why you think analysis needs to be so objective. Unless we have a Richie's dad situation again, no one here has a personal relationship with Tannehill. Bias will come out in debate. Which is why I like message boards. It's a good way to check ones self. Even if you do not engage, just reading and comparing others opinions acts as a control.

    Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk
     
    resnor likes this.
  25. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Whatever the question, unless you're accusing him of lying, he was pretty clear about not seeing Tannehill play much before taking the job.
     
    jdang307 likes this.
  26. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Oh.. me personally? I think my impression of how well a player played, or how well the team played in a single game, is almost entirely driven by what I see watching the game and almost never by stats. You can look at what I post right after the game ends to verify that. Maybe I'll mention drive stats, like 11 consecutive drives that ended in punts or INT's, etc.. but otherwise for a single game my view is almost devoid of statistical analysis.

    But since there's no real ability to consolidate that information objectively, I trust stats a lot more than my impressions where both are relevant over the course of a season or more. For example, suppose I think our offense played well vs. most defenses over a season. If the stats however show we score on average fewer points, pass for fewer yards, etc.. than the averages given up by those defenses, then I defer to the stats.

    So stats for me is what I rely on where I assume a human's ability to consolidate information is really poor. Where I think there is too poor information for stats to say much on, I'll still rely on my impressions even after a season. For example, play calling. It's not impossible to analyze this statistically, but I'd have to code up a lot more than I'm willing to, so I just go by my impressions even over a season of how good/bad I think the in-game decisions were (my critique against Philbin for his play calling was never based on stats).


    Why care about objectivity?? All the stuff you see due to science and math (you know.. all that technology etc..) is only possible if you do.

    You know.. the attitude rafael and others have about stats is or has been pretty common in other fields where this debate matters a lot more. Go back 50 years and in most areas of medical research you can go to conferences and literally see some clinician stand up and argue he's right because he saw 5,000 patients with some disorder. The next guy gets up and says the first guy is wrong because he's seen 10,000 patients!

    Over time, people realized that even with all the limitations of statistical analysis - those limitations described here for football still in almost every case exists today in practically every field (e.g. you can almost NEVER control for all confounding variables you care about) - objective analysis from less rich data over time outperforms the subjective stuff.

    There's a study about to come out that shows that in one area of ophthalmology where you still haven't seen the move to data-driven analysis, the effect sizes (measure of how different two groups are) between how clinicians rate the improvement seen in patients vs. how patients rate their own improvements is over 2 (an effect size of 2 is massive.. it's like saying more than 90% of the time the populations differ). In other words, experts in the field are unbelievably biased towards how good they are at analyzing perceived improvement in patients (it makes it looks like the clinician is better than he/she really is!), and in this case since what matters is the subjective sense of improvement in the patients (this has more to do with occupational therapy for low vision) that's the comparison that should be made.

    Yeah.. sports isn't as important as medicine, but if you care about improving your ability to discern what the causes behind different effects are, the only way forward is to gather ever more discerning stats. It's a slow revolution that's happened in field after field and the only reason it hasn't happened so much in sports is because you just don't have the interest and thus talent going into it. Most people, even statisticians, see football like you do: for entertainment. Doesn't mean objectivity doesn't matter if you were to care about analyzing the game more accurately.
     
    Last edited: Nov 22, 2016
    Two Tacos likes this.
  27. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Again, though, you're talking about something completely different, using incorrect information, and passing it off as fact. Gase said he hadn't seen much of Tannehill LIVE, which is in no way the same as saying he hadn't watched him play.

    I'll reinforce, the question he was asked is extremely important to understanding the answer he gave, and the fact you're discounting the question shows your bias. Again.
     
    Superself and Fin D like this.
  28. Two Tacos

    Two Tacos Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    11,121
    5,828
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    Football is art, not science. I personally am happy about this. It's why the sport is compelling. You cannot test like you can in medicine. You don't have to control every aspect to have a valid test, but you do need to control the big ones. You cannot in football. Which is a great thing! It's why Brady and Prescott get drafted when they do. It's why games are exciting and why "any given Sunday" really is any given Sunday.


    Regardless, I like your stat posts and I appreciate the work that goes into them. Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions.

    Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk
     
    Ophinerated, cbrad and resnor like this.
  29. dolphin25

    dolphin25 Well-Known Member

    6,338
    2,400
    113
    Nov 22, 2014
    I guess the millions he is earning had nothing to do with him taking the job.
     
    Finster likes this.
  30. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Like I already pointed out before, you can't just assume Gase saying he's seen Tannehill play "minimal games" refers to live. That could or could not refer to game tape + live or just live because his next sentence specifically talks about seeing him play live.

    Anyway.. personally I don't think Gase was telling the complete truth in either press conference. I think when you look at a lot of things he said when he was hired, he hedged his bets on Tannehill. I can't read what he said there and think he was convinced Tannehill was the answer. On the other hand I do agree he probably did watch a good deal of game tape. So for me, quotes from neither press conference should be taken literally, which is really my point.
     
  31. Finster

    Finster Finsterious Finologist

    3,087
    2,038
    113
    Jul 27, 2013
    I agree with most of what you say, except for football being art, and not like medicine.

    Football is a science, it, like so many other games, are merely military strategy games, devised for contestation, not for aesthetics, and just like in medicine there are a lot of variables, because they are the same variables, people, what cures one person kills another, hows that for variable, lol.

    It is an any given sunday thing though, like you said, and that aspect is what makes it exciting, but it's still a science.
     
    cbrad likes this.
  32. LI phinfan

    LI phinfan Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    1,846
    1,771
    113
    Nov 6, 2013
    I think the point is that he chose this job over others. He would be making millions with any other team he signed to Coach. Must have liked Tannehill and a bunch of other things about Miami to choose them.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  33. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Well.. two things:

    1) Statistical analysis of football could be far more advanced than it is today if people gathered the necessary data. For example, if someone chose to, they could look at the actual probabilities of a WR catching or not catching balls at X distance away from his center of mass, in different directions from where he's facing, at the time of catch. That's one way of measuring "expected catch probability" and would quantify what percentage of a catch or drop should be credited to a WR. You could do the same for all kinds of positions and have a decent analysis of division of credit, the very thing ESPN's QBR tries to do objectively but miserably fails at.

    So it's theoretically possible to answer a bunch of questions that bedevil us today like what percentage of a change in expected win probability due to a play should be credited to a given player just by looking at game tape with a statistician's eye, though I doubt you could do that for every position well enough to rely on the stats (for QB I think you can).

    2) If you really wanted to, you can do controlled experiments. Like suppose one changed the run/pass ratio in a "mock" game where you just have the pieces necessary to do the experiment. No different than war games for the military, you can test how different strategies affect outcomes (essentially have a data-driven approach to apply game theory to). So it's not impossible, it's just not considered a major priority for scientific research (BIG understatement eh?).
     
    Finster likes this.
  34. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Yet, you posted a snippet of a quote from him to support a position, ignoring the question he was asked. That's by point. My point really, has very little to do with how much he had actually watched him play. Yes, he hedged his statement, because he was asked about winning a Super Bowl.
     
    Fin D likes this.
  35. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Right.. my point is (and this is the last time I'll say this or we'll just go round and round) I was arguing against the claim there was NO uncertainty about whether Gase took the job because of Tannehill. Seriously.. what I posted is more than sufficient to argue against that claim whether I quote the entire question + answer or the entire link (hey.. I at least gave you guys the link!)
     
  36. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    To your point #1, you'd have to do that for each individual receiver, because all receivers are different. It's simply not realistic to do that.
     
  37. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    You don't have to for it to be more useful than what you have now. Depending on the data available, it might hurt the analysis by doing it separately for each individual. Specifically, if you add more variance in your model than the increase in accuracy due to adding an extra parameter (and relation to other parameters), then your model accuracy goes down. I actually suspect that will be the case here. The variance might still be too large for a single WR because there may not be sufficient data points for such a 3D analysis. My guess is you'd get the best results by using distance divided by height (or possibly arm length) of the WR from center of mass relative to direction the WR is facing.
     
  38. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    No.

    You omitted parts of the discussion Gase was having to make your point. The parts you omitted clearly show the context and purpose of Gase's statement. That is the epitome of disingenuous. Its basically as egregious as redefining a word so you can claim you were right...oh wait, you've done that too.
     
    Superself and resnor like this.
  39. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    So basically the more data the less accurate the model is.....and you don't see the problem with the model?
     
  40. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    You misread (as usual). The more parameters, the greater the likelihood the added variance swamps any increase in model accuracy IF you had all the data you wanted. Happens in a lot of fields. So you have to be careful not to add too many parameters or relations in your model.
     

Share This Page