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

How Good (or Bad) Will Tannehill Be in 2018?

Discussion in 'Miami Dolphins Forum' started by KeyFin, May 20, 2018.

What will Tannehill's QB Rating be for 2018?

  1. He will be a 100+ rating QB- Top 5 NFL Material

    8 vote(s)
    11.9%
  2. He will be a 95 rating QB- Bordering on Elite Status

    30 vote(s)
    44.8%
  3. He will be a 90 rating QB- Solid & Dependable

    24 vote(s)
    35.8%
  4. He will be a 85 rating QB- Decent but Inconsistent

    3 vote(s)
    4.5%
  5. He will be a 80 rating QB- It's Time to Draft a Future Starter

    2 vote(s)
    3.0%
  1. Pauly

    Pauly Season Ticket Holder

    3,696
    3,743
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    Cbrad, is it possible to get the run-pass ratio for each of the splits and then plot ypc nd passer rating?
    My manual transcribing gives me a slight negative correlation between ypc and rushing% but a stronger positive relationship between rushing% and passer rating.
     
  2. Pauly

    Pauly Season Ticket Holder

    3,696
    3,743
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    On a related here is a very interesting article about the 2017 Colts and how their total predictability in the 4th quarter cost them big time
    http://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/blog/2018/the-unbelievable-story-of-the-2017-colts

    It very neatly encapsulates my criticism of Bill Lazor as a playcaller for the Dolphins. Also it is another demonstration of how bad coaching can depress a QBs passer rating. So to get back to the OP its why I’m confident that RT7 is a better QB than his career passer rating to date.

    EDIT
    Who else is unsurprised that it was another team Joe Philbin was involved with that was com0letely clueless about playcalling tendencies giving the opposition an advantage?
     
    Last edited: May 23, 2018
  3. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Yeah.. looking at the results this turns out to be a great example of why it's always important to not just report correlations, but to actually look at the data lol. Let me show you what I mean by listing the actual numbers instead of graphing things. This is play-by-play data from 2009-2017.

    I'm going to list 7 numbers in each row. Each number corresponds to a different point differential interval. The midpoints of those intervals are: -15, -10, -5, 0, 5, 10, 15, and each bin has width 5. In other words, I partitioned the line from -17.5 to +17.5 in bins of length 5 each. Let's look at Rush Y/A, Pass Y/A and Rush% as a function of these point differentials.

    Rush Y/A: 4.56, 4.54, 4.4, 4.31, 4.3, 4.36, 4.28
    Pass Y/A: 7, 7.15, 7.15, 7.13, 7.39, 7.58, 7.49
    Rush%: 30.6%, 33.3%, 40.2%, 45.7%, 47.8%, 51.8%, 54.6%

    So what's so special about this example?

    Calculate the correlation between Rush% and Rush Y/A and it's an unbelievable -0.925!! That's almost a perfect negative correlation and evidence of an extremely strong relationship between Rush% and Rush Y/A. Now look at the numbers lol. The effect is almost negligible! You can see that by fitting a line to the data and noting that the slope is -0.0117.. almost zero lol.

    Point is.. that data is evidence that there is a very strong relationship between rush% and rush Y/A when both are a function of point differential, except that the effect is extremely small (strong relation.. tiny effect lol).

    Same with the correlation of 0.875 to Pass Y/A where the slope of the best fitting line is near zero at 0.021. I know you asked for passer rating, but I don't yet have interceptions in this play-by-play database (I'll get it eventually) so I can't calculate passer rating yet. However, passing Y/A should be a good enough proxy for passer rating here.
     
    eltos_lightfoot, danmarino and Pauly like this.
  4. jdallen1222

    jdallen1222 Well-Known Member

    2,752
    1,373
    113
    May 31, 2013
    Plantation, Fl
    Interesting but cherry picked info graphic that was posted online elsewhere:

    [​IMG]
     
  5. Unlucky 13

    Unlucky 13 Team Raheem Club Member

    51,926
    63,003
    113
    Apr 24, 2012
    Troy, Virginia
    Having the second best single season rating in the Red Zone over a 12-year span is really impressive! I'd hardly call that cherry picked.

    Here are RT17's Red Zone stats that season:

    30/44, 68.18%, 224 yards, 11 TD, 0 INT.

    He was absolute money when the team got close enough to score, and was also on fire down the stretch, with a 12-2 TD/INT ratio if you were to take away the Baltimore game. (that means seven of his final eight games).

    If Tannehill were to simply pick up where he left off when he was injured, and play the 2018 season like he did his final 8 games (including Baltimore), then his whole season line would look like this:

    322/466, 69.1%, 3446, 26 TD, 10 INT, 100.13 rating

    However, I think that he'll be better than that. He's wiser, Gase is wiser, they know one another a lot better, and the surrounding players are better and most of them know Gase's system and have worked with Tannehill now.
     
    Last edited: May 25, 2018
  6. eltos_lightfoot

    eltos_lightfoot Well-Known Member

    4,297
    720
    113
    Apr 14, 2008
    It’s like I always tell people, you can’t just have correlation in isolation. The main problem is that most statistician types don’t want to dig deep enough. They just want to find the strong correlation and move on to something else. Well, back when I did that sort of thing. Now I work with databases instead. :D
     
    cbrad likes this.
  7. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    At the risk of oversimplification, I'd say that most statisticians can't "dig deeper" because they have too little understanding of the phenomenon they're studying. Similarly, I'd say most scientists that rely on statistical analysis don't understand the statistics. They just plug their numbers into statistical software, get standardized output, interpret it in a "standardized" way, don't know whether the assumptions in the math are appropriate for analyzing the data, and don't know whether there are better methods out there.

    Sheer incompetence is another problem even when you try to do things right. Too often a bad method of analysis is published, not challenged properly early on and then takes a life of its own. It's really difficult to undo all that later even when you can identify the flaws AND fix them because people don't like to change (or be told they've been doing it wrong) and because careers and money are made off of it.

    This btw is exactly how I'd describe these early stages of applying statistical analysis to football. I mean seriously.. these metrics like ESPN's QBR or Football Outsider's DVOA or Approximate Value, etc.. continue to be used only because there isn't much interest among the academic community in football. None would even pass the peer review stage to be accepted for publication!
     
    Last edited: May 25, 2018
  8. eltos_lightfoot

    eltos_lightfoot Well-Known Member

    4,297
    720
    113
    Apr 14, 2008
    So true!
     
  9. Hoops

    Hoops Well-Known Member

    1,183
    1,484
    113
    Dec 11, 2016
    bingo
     
  10. Pauly

    Pauly Season Ticket Holder

    3,696
    3,743
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    There is the whole correlation is not causation thing, which I’m sure evryone is familiar with.

    But for me there is another bigger problem, which is less well known - random distribution is not even distribution. Basically if you slice the data in enough different ways you will find a slice that supports your theory. Whole careers and ideologies get built off that one slice. An example I read recently was about minimum wage and how it affected employment. There was one study based on fast food workers in the NY area that showed an increase in the minimum wage did not lead to a reduction in hours for employees, and from this for about 20 years it became accepted in many economist circles that an increase in the minimum wage did not lead to a reduction in hours. However a more recent study about Seattle raising the minimum wage has shown that raises in the minimum wage lead to reduction in hours for the whole of the economy leading to lower tale home pay for minimum wage employees.

    There is another problem which is not a statistical problem. Probability analysis is done incorrectly far too often. The best predictive models are those that isolate and use the least number of required components. For a model to work it has to have the parts of the model balance their interactions. The more moving parts your model has the more likely it is that you get the balance wrong and you actually get less accurate outcomes. A simple example is comparing passer rating formula (4 moving parts) with DVOA or ESPN’s QBR (both of which have hundreds of moving parts). At the end of the day these new supercomplex models do not provide any benefit over the creaky old passer rating - and that’s not taking into account cbrad’s points about the problems with the math.
    The more complex a model is the more it tells you about the assumptions of the designer than reality.

    And funally, because I've rambled on a bit, is that too much football analysis assumes static relationships (If X is more efficient than Y then you should do more X and less Y). Football however is a dynamic environment which features opponent adjustments based on your actions.
     
    mbsinmisc and cbrad like this.
  11. KeyFin

    KeyFin Well-Known Member

    10,488
    12,821
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    I've owned several small businesses and the stupidity of this has always amazed me- in order to pay everyone more money, the business has to either make more money or reduce costs another way....there is no other option if you plan on balancing the books. Then add in forced health insurance for full time employees- that entry level employee who made $6 an hour in 2000 is now costing you almost $16 an hour.

    For example, my first business was a pizza delivery restaurant. I had a pick-up special of a large 2-topping for $7.50. 18 years later, the price of fresh mozzarella is up over 70%...total food cost has just about doubled. That means that pizza special should now be $15. But if I'm also paying my staff almost triple w/ higher pay and benefits, so now the large 2-topping should be around $43 for me to break even.

    But wait, we're not quite finished with the math. That truck driver who delivered my food, he's now 20% more expensive for the exact same reasons...I have to pitch in so he can have insurance as well. Then those utility companies, they all went up almost 50% over the past two decades, so has my business insurances, leases, etc.

    All said and done, that $7.50 pizza should cost you around $65 out the door for someone like me to still be in business.

    But wait....I'm not still running a pizza restaurant....just like millions of other small businesses who closed their doors. So we don't count in that survey. And guess what, folks like Dominoes figured out that if they order mozzarella by the metric ton, cut it with 80% synthetic cheese and then group all their healthcare policies together worldwide, they can shave almost 70% of their overall costs when you compare them to a true small business. The government forcing the little guys to close shop...that means Domino's phone rings a lot more often.

    And hey, all that combined means they can pay $10 an hour with insurance too! Meanwhile, all your favorite local shops are gone and you're eating synthetic garbage food that makes you gain five pounds a year.....but at least some 19 year old high school dropout with no career ambitions is bringing home $400 a week instead of $280. That makes it all worth it, right?
     
    Last edited: May 25, 2018
    Steve-Mo, cbrad, Pauly and 2 others like this.
  12. Fin-O

    Fin-O Initiated Club Member

    11,375
    11,392
    113
    Sep 28, 2015
    I feel ya brother, I feel ya.
     
    KeyFin likes this.
  13. Pauly

    Pauly Season Ticket Holder

    3,696
    3,743
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    Don’t get me started on the restaurant industry, I can take what you’ve said there and expand on it tenfold. But to paraphrase George Orwell, some ideas are so stupid only an intellectual could believe them. Which goes back to cbrad’s point about the scientists not understanding what they’re looking at - my rule of thumb is never trust an economist who hasn’t run their own business.
     
    KeyFin and cuchulainn like this.
  14. Kud_II

    Kud_II Realist Division

    3,662
    1,404
    113
    Oct 15, 2011
    Seneca, SC
    Top 10 QB if Gase doesn't hamstring him.
     
    Unlucky 13 and Redwine4all like this.
  15. Unlucky 13

    Unlucky 13 Team Raheem Club Member

    51,926
    63,003
    113
    Apr 24, 2012
    Troy, Virginia
    Getting back on topic, its wonderful to see clear evidence that RT17 is healthy and practicing well with his teammates. (by comparrison, Andrew Luck is not, and might not until training camp at the earliest).

    So barring disaster in the form of another new injury, it seems pretty certain that Tannehill will be ready to go in September. And at this point, I see no reason why he won't play at a level around what his own personal best has been. He's twice thrown for better than 66% completions, gone over 3900 yards three times, and had 24 or more TD passes three times. He's also thrown for exactly 12 INTs the last three times out.

    So those numbers should really be the base level expectation this coming year. Those numbers would be comperable to what Ben Roethlisberger and Kirk Cousins put up a year ago, and would have been clear top 10 stats in 2017. People saying that he'll be signifigantly worse just don't have a logical reason to stand on, other than they don't like him.
     
    KeyFin, rafael and Pauly like this.
  16. djphinfan

    djphinfan Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    111,648
    67,540
    113
    Dec 20, 2007
    One thing about Ryan that i believe is becoming tru that I talked about early in his career and that is, if we could be really patient with his learning curve, we would see an improving player later on..
     
    Last edited: May 30, 2018
  17. Hoops

    Hoops Well-Known Member

    1,183
    1,484
    113
    Dec 11, 2016
    up the ask of tannehills #'s if we play 16 games with that no huddle tempo. not sure a 95 qbr in that type of setting will meet my expectations.
     
  18. Fin-O

    Fin-O Initiated Club Member

    11,375
    11,392
    113
    Sep 28, 2015
    Gase has elevated him, not hamstrung him.
     
  19. Fin-O

    Fin-O Initiated Club Member

    11,375
    11,392
    113
    Sep 28, 2015
    Anyone else have this horrible feeling every time you check a report that we are about to hear another significant injury?? Its always in the pit of my stomach.

    As far as Ryan's stats...nobody should be rooting for volume stats. If we are going to be a good football team you would prefer we have a solid run to pass ratio and efficient. 3rd downs and red zone numbers are the one's I care about.

    You can have the 4800 yards crap all you want, he ends up with that and i don't like our odds of being any good.
     
    KeyFin likes this.
  20. KeyFin

    KeyFin Well-Known Member

    10,488
    12,821
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    That's the thing most people don't get....there aren't many 100+ rated QB's through the ages that threw for 400 per game consistently. The only reason you pass that much is because your defense is not getting the job done OR you're red zone offense is failing (can I get a fist pump?!?)

    I agree with you- I look at TD/INT splits and efficiency in the red zone/on 3rd down. If Tannehill shines there then I could care less what the rest of his stats look like.
     
    Dol-Fan Dupree and Fin-O like this.
  21. Fin-O

    Fin-O Initiated Club Member

    11,375
    11,392
    113
    Sep 28, 2015
    Tannehill struggled yesterday.

    Is it too late to trade him to the Eagles for Nick Foles????
     
  22. MikeHoncho

    MikeHoncho -=| Censored |=-

    52,652
    25,565
    113
    Nov 13, 2009
    As the staunchest Tanny-supporter, we should be drafting/grooming someone (maybe Mkenzie Milton outta UCF) next year anyway. There is no reason to not draft a QB every year.
     
    KeyFin likes this.
  23. Unlucky 13

    Unlucky 13 Team Raheem Club Member

    51,926
    63,003
    113
    Apr 24, 2012
    Troy, Virginia
    Its one valid school of thought, but its not one that I really buy into. I would rather have an established, capable veteran backup who we know can go in for a few games and not wreck things if RT is out for a little bit. If RT plays as well as he should this coming year, he'll be going into his age 30 season next year, and really we won't need to even consider someone taking over.
     
  24. Hoops

    Hoops Well-Known Member

    1,183
    1,484
    113
    Dec 11, 2016
    bump in "stats" was probably a bad word choice on my part. I think when you are playing with that kind of tempo assuming the qb can handle all the responsibilities that come with it (and I'm fully convinced tannehill can) the expectations should go up when you consider how much it taxes the defense.

    obviously anything north of 95 on the qbr front you'd sign up for in a heart beat in terms of efficiency rating.
     
  25. Unlucky 13

    Unlucky 13 Team Raheem Club Member

    51,926
    63,003
    113
    Apr 24, 2012
    Troy, Virginia
    The amount of national disrespect RT keeps getting is loony. This article lists him as the #32 fantasy QB this season, behind guys such as:

    Baltimore backup rookie Lamar Jackson - who almost everyone agrees will need to learn on the sidelines

    Jets backup/third stringer Teddy Bridgewater - who hasn't played since 2015 after suffering a much more serious injury than RT

    Jets placeholder Josh McCown - who will lose his job at some point this season to rookie Sam Darnold

    Tyrod Taylor - who will probably lose his job to Baker Mayfield at some point

    Packers backup DeShone Kiser - who's sitting behing freaking Aaron Rodgers

    And everyone else who's got a starting job. Basically, they think that he's the worst of the worst, ranked just above the other rookies and the backups. They're sprinting to the keyboard to consider him dead. I just can't wrap my head around it.
     
  26. Fin-O

    Fin-O Initiated Club Member

    11,375
    11,392
    113
    Sep 28, 2015
    This is true.

    I have $100 bets with 3 of my friends who are Browns fans, who are convinced they end up with a better record than Miami. They all 3 injitiaed this in a group text. I’m like.....okay?
     
    KeyFin likes this.
  27. MikeHoncho

    MikeHoncho -=| Censored |=-

    52,652
    25,565
    113
    Nov 13, 2009
    I can't argue with that (look how it worked out for Philly last year). That said, an established capable veteran often does come at a cost and that isn't really future-proof. While a good insurance policy, this type of pick-up doesn't really push the active starter.
     
  28. Unlucky 13

    Unlucky 13 Team Raheem Club Member

    51,926
    63,003
    113
    Apr 24, 2012
    Troy, Virginia
    Well, you don't need to have a younger, or top of the line backup though. When you have a solid starter who's 30 or under, I think that getting an older veteran, who's starting days are over as your backup is a good, cost effective method.
     
  29. Pauly

    Pauly Season Ticket Holder

    3,696
    3,743
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    Sheer lunacy. The absolute most pessimistic case for Tannehill is that he comes back as an 85pr QB in a low volume ground based offense. Even then that gets you into the low to mid 20s.

    I don’t envision Tannehill as a top flight fantasy QB, even if I do think he has a fair chance of being elite on the paddock, simply because he has never been a super high volume QB.

    If I played Fantasy Football I’d be happy to pick up Tannehill as the 20th QB picked but I could understand why other FF players had let him fall but as the 32nd QB picked I’d be ecstatic.
     
  30. Unlucky 13

    Unlucky 13 Team Raheem Club Member

    51,926
    63,003
    113
    Apr 24, 2012
    Troy, Virginia
    It would likely depend on the scoring system, but in the league that I ran for a long time, he was the 10th-15th best QB for several years before his injury.
     
  31. rafael

    rafael Well-Known Member

    27,364
    31,261
    113
    Apr 6, 2008
    What I recall from those times that Tannehill had that 100+ rating for a stretch of games is that Tannehill generally wasn't playing better. What mostly changed was the surrounding situation. The first time I felt that it was mostly due to a stretch of easier opponents. But in 2016 under Gase, I felt is was mostly due to the OL solidifying, the run game becoming more consistent in both usage and production (I believe that usage is the larger factor in making the pass game more efficient) and the receivers knowing and running their routes better and dropping fewer passes. I didn't see Tannehill become more accurate or get the ball out quicker or improve his decision-making in any significant way. I did think the run game production was above average, but everything else I felt was pretty average. He wasn't getting some incredible or unsustainable level of protection. The receivers weren't making remarkable plays. He wasn't getting more lucky bounces. The opponents were average or better. I felt our defense was playing below average during that stretch. Overall, I'd say that the surrounding situation was pretty mid-level or average. So that's what I believe Tannehill is in an average situation.
     
    cuchulainn, Pauly, resnor and 3 others like this.
  32. M1NDCRlME

    M1NDCRlME Fear The Spear

    731
    543
    93
    Oct 26, 2009
    Orlando
    Good. That means he should still be available late in my fantasy draft. And once again I will win my league with RT17 as my starting QB just like I did in 2015! Guys were pissed that I was whoopin their asses with my crappy QB, and I was $1,100 richer.
     
    rafael and Unlucky 13 like this.
  33. Rick 1966

    Rick 1966 Professional Hipshooter

    8,565
    3,821
    113
    Nov 23, 2007
    Powell, WY

    Maybe it means they think he's a high risk at getting re-injured early in the season?
     
  34. dolfaniss

    dolfaniss Junior Member

    69
    42
    18
    Dec 2, 2007
    It's crazy they have backups ranked before Ryan. Really, really like they should be fired from their jobs crazy.
     
    resnor and Unlucky 13 like this.
  35. KeyFin

    KeyFin Well-Known Member

    10,488
    12,821
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    To be fair, I think it's hard for an outsider to look at our staff's "body of work" the past few off-seasons and declare us a contender. I won't go into everything but here's a quick rundown-

    - Tannehill had a stretch of very solid games, then sat for 20 games with two different knee injuries
    - We fired our best line coach (for obvious reasons) and lost Pouncey. And while we brought in talent, that doesn't mean anything yet
    - Tunsil struggled last year and James ended the season on injured reserve. No guarantees there of great 2018 play
    - We lost our top receiver in Landry, plus our top RB in Ajayi. While the replacements look adequate, that's only on paper
    - We traded away Suh and made no effort at all to replace him. Plus, all our starting LB's this year are unproven
    - Gase couldn't get players to adapt to his fast-paced playbook last season- what has changed this year?
    - We've ended the past three seasons under three different QB's (four if we count Fales), so consistency has been a major problem
    - We went D-heavy in the draft and ignored QB completely, even though it was clearly our biggest 2016 and 2017 need

    That's what outsiders see when looking at us, so it's no wonder they don't see a winning team with lots of potential. Although we are counting on Tannehill's dominance as a given, there are certainly enough question marks above to raise some eyebrows of people who aren't fans. The line could implode and our front seven on D could end up being a complete joke. You set odds based on facts, on known proven players that have a history of success, and we just don't have that anywhere. Maybe Wake and Jones fit that criteria, possibly Stills as well. Everything else is question marks up and down the board.

    Now, I think we're poised for an awesome season...I'm thinking around 10-6 or 11-5 at this way early stage. But I can also understand why others would doubt Tannehill and pretty much our entire team- they just haven't shown enough to make an outsider excited.
     
    Last edited: Jun 11, 2018
    sunworshipper, Pauly and Fin-O like this.
  36. Fin-O

    Fin-O Initiated Club Member

    11,375
    11,392
    113
    Sep 28, 2015
    Well said.

    People tend to forget many of the things you stated above. And while we are quick to overrate nearly every Dolphin as fan's (Im guilty of this also) reality is, we have shown really nothing outside of internal hope.

    I just hope WE are right.
     
    KeyFin likes this.
  37. KeyFin

    KeyFin Well-Known Member

    10,488
    12,821
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    I really hope we are as well. As fans, we know our D is built to get after the QB and force mistakes while playing with the lead. We saw that against NE and it was beautiful....and we are WAY BETTER speed wise this coming season with young talent. So if Tannehill is legit AND our line performs as expected AND our receivers/RB's are as good as we expect, it feels like all the pieces are in place for some real blowouts.

    That's what all of us feel, yet we can't prove a single aspect of it because it's all theory in June.

    Odds are pretty good that one lineman won't pan out. I still think that puts us ahead of last season and I think the run game will be improved. I also believe that RT's year on the bench was a major blessing in disguise so I'm expecting him to be lights out more often than not. Gase certainly believes so anyway. And the D? I'm pretty excited to see our young players attack the football....we have so much speed and talent in place to really see the total game plan.

    I really believe 10 wins is a realistic goal with a lighter schedule than we've had in awhile. It all comes back to Tannehill though and if he can give us that total Gase game plan on both sides of the ball. That's really why I started this thread to begin with- over half of you believe that RT will be in late 2016 form with dominance on most weeks. Eight us us guessed he'll be a 100+ QBR, top-5 QB which corresponds with 11 or more wins.

    So yeah, I'm hoping WE are right as well...it will be a heck of a season if we are.
     
    Fin-O likes this.
  38. mooseguts

    mooseguts Well-Known Member

    362
    368
    63
    Jan 12, 2018
    I want him to pick up where he left off in 2016.

    But i'm wary of fools gold, Tannehill has had the same kind of season since entering the league including 2016.

    Starts off rocky which if this happens this year will surely be blamed on the 20 games missed.

    Has a good stretch of good play which will be met by people saying he just needed the rust to come off.

    We finish off needing a couple wins from divisional opponents ie the Bills, we lose. Since Ryan is 0-4 in Buffalo.
     
    KeyFin likes this.
  39. KeyFin

    KeyFin Well-Known Member

    10,488
    12,821
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    To be fair, we fired two starting linemen in 2016 and things dramatically changed as a result.

    I remember watching the 3rd or 4th game that year on a business trip and looking forward to the game all day long; I drove for 30 minute to find a sports bar for the Monday Night game. And by the end of the 1st quarter, I was ready to walk out since it was so clear that there was zero protection- that stretch was about the worst I've ever seen the Dolphins. So to go on that big win streak after playing so terribly bad.....it was definitely more than a QB shaking off rust. =)
     
  40. Fin-O

    Fin-O Initiated Club Member

    11,375
    11,392
    113
    Sep 28, 2015
    And this is the devils advocate approach to this team. And you know what? That’s just fine, because YOU have the percentages in your favor of being correct while the rest of us scramble for excuses on why we finished 7-9/8-8 again.
     

Share This Page