Dolphins Plans for QB

I disagree on the coaching. Yes, perhaps you expect that turnover in BAD or just average teams. Good teams, that are successful, don't have that turnover. So, yes, those coaching changes were incredibly detrimental, regardless of how you attempt to apply the stats.

And regardless of stats, they oline has been atrocious for like a decade or more. Tannehill didn't make them bad.

 

You're not disagreeing. I said that kind of coaching turnover is an "average situation". The question isn't whether Tannehill was on an otherwise great team (obviously not). The question is whether he was in an "average situation", except OL. And I think the answer is yes.

So "detrimental" in an absolute sense is one thing, it wasn't "detrimental" relative to average.

 

So then if we want to compares apples to apples, let's not compare Tannehill to QBs that have been on teams that haven't had constant coaching turnover. Let's compare Tannehill to other QBs in similar situations. How does Tannehill compare stats-wise with QBs on poorly managed, scandal prone teams.

 

Well.. if we're just going by coaching turnover there are tons of teams that have had it worse than we've had it.

For example, excluding temporary HC's, teams like Buffalo, San Fran, Chicago and Cleveland have had 4 different HC's since 2012! And 9 other teams have had 3 different HC's since 2012.

Among the ones that have had 2 HC's, let's just pick the ones where each of those HC's coached at least 2 years (otherwise we're also including New Orleans where Sean Payton was banned in 2012, as well as KC where it's mostly been Reid except Crennel in 2012.. we don't want these types of teams). Well.. there are 6 teams that have had 2 HC's since 2012 that each coached at least 2 years: Miami, Jets, Houston, Washington, Atlanta and the Rams.

Who were the QB's on those teams? Dolphins have had only Tannehill except 1 year of Cutler since 2012; Jets have had at least 5 different starting QB's since 2012, all of whom Tannehill is better than; Houston has had at least 6 different starters!.. and except Watson Tannehill is better than all; Washington has had 3: Alex Smith, Kirk Cousins and RG3; Atlanta has only had Matt Ryan; and the Rams have had 6 starters with only Goff better than Tannehill.

So I'd say 2 teams have had better QB's (Washington and Atlanta) and 3 have had it worse. In that sense Tannehill is slightly above average for teams that have had 2 HC's that coached at least 2 years. It's just a small sample but it's not like Tannehill was at the top of this group either. He is above average however in the sense that he was good enough to not be quickly replaced lol.

 

Thanks cbrad. I'd argue that Matt Ryan was given a fantastic team. Freaking great receivers and tight end and good to great running backs, even as a rookie. I know people want to act like that **** doesn't matter, but it absolutely does. It's crucial for the development of a young QB. It prevents bad habits from developing...like not standing tall in the pocket to take a hit while delivering a good pass, hearing footsteps and panicking, etc.

Also hasn't Tannehill had three separate HCs and an interim HC? So he's essentially had 4 coaches in 6 years, whole also missing significant time to injury.

Also, look at those numbers cbrad...that's 21 QBs who have played for those other teams...and you have 2 or 3 ahead of Tannehill? Doesn't that put Tannehill well ahead of average in that scenario?

 

I agree about Matt Ryan and his well above average surrounding cast.

I'd put Smith, Cousins, Ryan, Watson and Goff above Tannehill. And excluding temporary HC's Tannehill has only had Philbin and Gase as HC's, so 2 HC's (not including 2019 since that season hasn't been played). I excluded temporary HC's for all those teams.

Regarding "slightly above average", there's a difference between "average" with respect to starting QB's playing in any given year vs. "average" with respect to all starting QB's in history. When I put out stats showing Tannehill was average, I'm comparing on a year by year basis. There's no question even below average starting QB's that play a long time are well above average if you compare to all QB's that ever started even a single season.

So by "slightly above average" I'm making the comparison of Tannehill in a randomly chosen year to whoever the other QB's were that year.

 

The problem I have with Smith is that 7 or 8 years or so ago, Alex Smith was a pejorative...not until he ended up in the right situation was he successful. And I'm not sold on Ryan being better than Tannehill. We'll never know...but I think it's highly probably that if Tannehill had been on the Falcons teams that Ryan was on, he'd have had similar numbers.

 

I think that if a QB is able to crank out "average years" over and over as long as he's healthy, then he's actually likely had an above average career overall. I personally put really high values on consistency, dependability, and knowing what you've got. I've said before that I think of RT as the Jim Kelly of his era, and looking back on him I think that's a good analogy. The difference is that around the point he was 30 years old, Kelly was surrounded by elite talent and good coaching.

One player is a HOFer, beloved by his fanbase. The other is being called garbage on the way out the door. So much depends on what's around the QB.

 

I’m not sure about Unlucky but there are folks who missed on Mahomes badly that are saying the same things about his lack of discipline, backyard style of play, runs around too much etc.

 

Res there's more to qbing, and I know you know this, then a passer rating, your basing your conclusion on this number that he is an average qb on a bad franchise.

Leadership?...3rd down cernversion rate?.did he use his skillset to his advantage.? How he handles pressure on the road?

 

He is who he is. Best case, he's this generation's Bret Favre, and that's not what I would choose to have as our QB. A constant heart attack.

 

We've had not what I would call alpha males as head coaches...it makes sense to me that their leadership style transferred somewhat to their players. So mealy mushy head coaches end up with mealy mushy leaders on their team.

Also, I think stats are important in some respects when looking at tannehill. I mean frankly, if the team had a winning record, with Tannehill as QB, people wouldn't be saying the stuff they're saying. So while I agree that Tannehill has shortcomings, I think that you have to consider what he was able to put up for numbers. I mean, we don't need to rehash all the old arguments, but honestly you'll never convince me that Tannehill has been playing on average teams. So, yeah, I think it's important to note that Tannehill put up average numbers on teams that were severely lacking. Third down issues can't simply be attributed to Tannehill, as we all saw all too often most receiver's routes going short of the sticks, or receivers not getting separation down the field.

 

I really wish this myth of “alpha male” and “alpha female” would disappear. This myth became popular from studies into wolves. However the wolves studied were in captivity, which is kind of like basing a study of human behavior on the behavior of prisoners in a Supermax. The reality iwith regards to how wolves actually organize is different.
https://www.wolf.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/267alphastatus_english.pdf

 

The whole idea of Type A is total contrived BS as well. People all fall on a spectrum.

 

I don't have the study but I thought other wolves that were studied turned out to be the parents of the so called beta wolves

 

I don't think it's BS necessarily. Yes, people are a spectrum...however, there are definitely people who are born leaders, or have an easier time being a leader. That's more what I mean with talking about alphas. I agree, much of that is learned behaviors as a result of peer groups, socio economic status, and other factors (essentially nature and nurture).

 

Kyler Murray isnt just an off script QB..He just can at a high level.

 

ok, so if just based on the numbers, those numbers show on many different levels, that he was an average to below average qb.

without the numbers, and just watching how he plays the position, its below average to me, there are instincts and traits that the position requires to be played at a high level that are not there..

 

No, it is 100% bs. No one is born a leader. Some will have easier time than others, but that doesn't make them an "alpha". Mostly because there is no such thing and people are a lot more complicated than that

 

There's almost always both a genetic basis as well as an environmental basis for practically any human trait, including "leadership". So it should be expected that there are studies showing a decent percentage of "leadership" traits have a genetic basis.
(e.g., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10100814 or https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3583370/

The problem with those studies, as well as the main limitation of modern genetics in general, is the inability to figure out how multiple genes interact with each other. Modern genetics does really well when a single gene that causes something, but once it gets to something more complex (i.e., almost every interesting trait lol) we can't pin down what portion of it is genetics and what portion of it was the environment because of the inability to figure out how multiple genes interact.

So other than acknowledging that both genes and environment matter for "leadership", there's not that much science can tell you lol.

 

Why might someone have an easier time than someone else? Probably because they were born with better years then someone else. You can argue the semantics of "alpha" and whether or not it exists...but I can tell you that in moments of crisis or great importance (important to the individual not necessarily mankind) there are some people who take charge and make decisions, and there are others who will follow directions but but give them, and there are others who just attempt to flee the situation. Those who take charge and make decisions, we call "alpha." You call them I'm not sure what. LOL

 

Yea and it could be what they ate for lunch that day

 

Yes it could. But the fact is, it could be simply better genetics in certain areas. That's my only point. What we call "alphas" are simply people who aren't afraid to take charge when necessary, lead project groups at work, make difficult decisions that may have ramifications if those decisions fail, maintaining composure in stressful situations...I mean, that's all people are saying. And there are most definitely some people who thrive in those situations, and those who don't. And if you don't, you can work really hard and also thrive, but it will be much harder for you than the people who already possessed those traits.

 

In the wild wolves form around family groups. Most common is one breeding pair, but it can be 2 or 3 breeding pairs, with the younger wolves leaving to start their own packs once they become adults. Sometimes outside wolves join the pack, usually as a step parent so to speak, or as an orphan.

 

Well the behavioral sciences can help, as long as you ignore the last 30 years of research (ref: replication crisis, at this point I would call the field Behavioural Confirmation Bias. Although the field of Evolutionary Psychology is turning up some very useful things about human behavior).
Studies have shown that leadership based on fear can be very effective ... for a short time. The same is true for high energy leadership. Humans are very good at adapting to and accepting environmental conditions, so introducing a new style of leadership delivers positive short term results, but when that condition becomes normal then there is no longer any benefit from the new style of leadership.

What that does tell is that style of leadership isn’t so important (unless you plan on churning through new leaders every 2 or 3 years). What is important is the substantive ability to repeatedly make good decisions in stressful situations over a long period.

 

The ability to be unafraid to take charge is not linked to the ability to make good decisions. The most famous study on this is commonly referred to as the Dunning-Krueger effect.

 

WADR, res didn't say they will make good decisions, just that the people he refers to as alphas are more willing to make difficult decisions that carry (I'm assuming he meant severe) ramifications if the decisions fail.

 

I didn't say it was. I said both of those characteristics are characteristics that people we say are "alpha" possess.

 

But those we refer to as "alphas" are more apt to make the right choice. There's a bunch of psychology behind it, but an "alpha" will be able to calmly assess situations, and make more informed rational decisions.

 

That I'll need studies for. Put me and my wife in the same canoe and we both try and alpha the situation and are often doing opposite things. That means at least one of us is wrong (could even be both of us) even though we are both trying to take charge.

In any room with 3 or more people, someone will come out as more "alpha" than the others.

I think the issue with alphas is that it is all relative to there group and situation.

 

A lot of so called alpha’s are the first ones to abandon a situation when challenged or when they can’t manipulate a situation to their favor.

 

Well, in most situations there isn't necessarily only one right way. You and your wife could both be "alpha" in that you're comfortable taking charge, but definitely have different ways.

The idea on the psychology front is that acting on impulse is really fear based. So an alpha will be in a situation and be more calm because they're confident they can deal with it, so the are now able to assess a situation or need, and come up with a solution. I don't have any studies around right now, but it was some stuff presented in a training the other day where I work with at risk youth.

 

Then they weren't an alpha.

 

In today’s world, alpha and sociopaths tend to be intermingled.

Many people admired for being alpha’s are also sociopaths that deep down are really insecure and easily rattled on the inside.

Not sure what my point is.. but that fake tough guy stuff is sometimes a facade.

As it relates to football those qualities may actually drive and help them perform more than the typically passive types that aren’t as vocal or passionate about the sport.

 

Imo, when I evaluate a coach or a player, I look for leadership traits, I had that as a weakness of Tannehill predraft and it was simply based on his interviews and on field personality.

 

You also said the same thing about Parker if I recall correctly.

 

I have serious issues with both of these sentences.

Evolutionary psychology is close to pseudo-science. It's in general extremely hard to test theories about the evolutionary function of biological (or psychological) traits. Most evolutionary psychologists just speculate about why something evolved and (if you're lucky) they'll do an experiment to see if it fits their often ambiguously worded theory where no one can really say whether the data are logically implied by the theory or not. Intuition isn't a form of evidence and they often substitute intuition for actual evidence.

Also, most biological systems look like Rube Goldberg machines. They have all this complex machinery to apparently do something that's quite simple. While that fits with how you might think evolution occurs, it's more likely the result of simply not knowing what the system was really designed to do because you can't directly observe "evolutionary function". To try to infer evolutionary function you'd have to know the statistical properties of the environment that system evolved in, the biological constraints on what could evolve, and the selective pressures on the system, NONE of which are in general known. And instead of working with traits that have a simple genetic basis, evolutionary psychologists are talking about some of the most complex traits we know lol. What do you expect from all that?

Like I said.. evolutionary psychology = mostly pseudo-science.

As far as the replication crisis, it's only a recent phenomenon because more papers are being published recently about it. That doesn't mean the problem is a recent one. It's been around forever, and I'd say it's mostly just due to sloppiness on the part of the researcher. Anything from not designing the experiment correctly to letting something contaminate the sample you're using to coding errors to not recording the precise conditions in which you did the experiment to errors in math, etc...

In other words, it's just a consequence of science done by humans. Why do we see more research papers about it now? It's in general much harder to get research papers published that show a "null result" (they couldn't replicate something). Most journals don't want those papers because they're not novel enough. So it takes a long time till a movement builds to push back against a whole body of research that might have been done incorrectly. It's not something specific to the last 30 years.

In fact, research in the last 30 years is in general better than research done before that. 30+ years ago you see far fewer collaborations between behavioral scientists and geneticists, and the math used to analyze data tends to improve over time. Either way, "leadership" is such a nebulous concept and hard enough to study that I guarantee you 30 years from now we still won't know its genetic basis or what environmental factors are most influential. So any info you think is useful about this subject I'd keep in that kind of context.

At least that's my opinion lol.

 

I was really high on the kids talent..really excited about his game, but ya know I didn’t ever hear him talk..in that draft I had us taking Melvin Gordon but I really was a fan of his game, until I started listening to him.

From 2015.... “I'm rootin for the kid but id be lying if I didn't say I was a bit worried..my fear originally when I started studying him that he was being coddled in his whole life, that he was emotionally very young..I hope that the media doesn't kill him.”

We don’t get the luxury of spending time intimately with these guys on a chalkboard or man to man..

Grier talks about the combine and how all he respects about the event is the interview process, and so, he was in that room with Parker..maybe he better shift gears a little and take the combine for more then just a place to interview players, know what I mean.

 

Need to take a QB that can be clutch as well as start preseason leading up to week 1.