Is Adam Gase the biggest scam in football???

"KeyFin wrote:

When four QB's verbally say Gase helped them tremendously and you try to disprove them in a thread with this title...you've been totally way off base this entire time. Again, I failed to see your math on returning quarterbacks after career ending spinal surgery. Or how I have to actually say that I was referring to Tannehill's (and Moore's) 10 game stretch in 2016 when we won 9 games and made the playoffs.

There's nothing off base there to Miami Dolphins fans in this pity-party of a thread. Is that what this forum has devolved to? We attack anyone who has a unique opinion on our former head coach and prior starting quarterbacks?

They can enjoy him personally all they want. Jay Cutler and Ryan Tannehill were no better and IMO in Ryan's case worse off.

Adam Gase was a joke in Miami, we should all just be happy he is gone.

"The Guy wrote:

Do you think if Aaron Rodgers had experienced the same injury history and sequelae at the same age as Tannehill, and was positioned career-wise (in terms of age and health exclusively) precisely where Tannehill is now, there would be a team that would be considering him its starter?

"resnor wrote:

Please. That's such a ridiculous argument. Yes, I believe IF Tannehill hadn't had multiple knee injuries and missed two seasons, that even at his age, he would have been gone after as a starter. I believe that his age + injuries = QB that no one is willing to take a risk on as a starter. If he ends up playing in Tennessee and looks good and shows he's not an injury risk, teams will start sniffing around.

You missed the question in my post, quoted above. Your answer simply opined about whether Tannehill would be considered a starter by a team had he not been injured.

Again, the question, rather, is whether you believe Aaron Rodgers -- if he had the same current age, injury history, and sequelae as Tannehill -- would be positioned as a starter right now by a team.

"KeyFin wrote:

When four QB's verbally say Gase helped them tremendously and you try to disprove them in a thread with this title...you've been totally way off base this entire time. Again, I failed to see your math on returning quarterbacks after career ending spinal surgery. Or how I have to actually say that I was referring to Tannehill's (and Moore's) 10 game stretch in 2016 when we won 9 games and made the playoffs.

There's nothing off base there to Miami Dolphins fans in this pity-party of a thread. Is that what this forum has devolved to? We attack anyone who has a unique opinion on our former head coach and prior starting quarterbacks?

First, Tannehill's 10-game stretch in 2016 was not significantly statistically different from his 13-game stretch (games 4 through 16) under Bill Lazor in 2014.

Second, should every quarterbacks coach/offensive coordinator multiple players have positive things to say about be labeled a "quarterback whisperer"? In other words, the mere expression of positivity about a coach by his players shouldn't establish some sort of distinctive, highly meaningful moniker for him, in my opinion.

Third, the statistical point of view regarding this topic comes down to whether you believe someone labeled a "quarterback whisperer" should be associated with a measurable, significant difference in the play of the quarterbacks under his command. If you don't believe that, then the statistics are irrelevant to you.

"KeyFin wrote:

When four QB's verbally say Gase helped them tremendously and you try to disprove them in a thread with this title...you've been totally way off base this entire time. Again, I failed to see your math on returning quarterbacks after career ending spinal surgery. Or how I have to actually say that I was referring to Tannehill's (and Moore's) 10 game stretch in 2016 when we won 9 games and made the playoffs.

There's nothing off base there to Miami Dolphins fans in this pity-party of a thread. Is that what this forum has devolved to? We attack anyone who has a unique opinion on our former head coach and prior starting quarterbacks?

No, the "off base" part of your post was you accusing me that I wasn't arguing stats in the post you quoted and was instead trying to make the data "fit my agenda". That's just a false statement no if's, and's or but's. So in terms of attacks you're the one that started it.

And it's Tannehill's 8 game stretch that people kept referring to in 2016 as proof Gase was better. But have you forgotten how many times I pointed out that's just a sample size issue? Tannehill was #12 in passer rating overall in 2016 and also #12 in best 8-game stretches in 2016. He was NEVER a "top 10 QB" statistically speaking over any decent stretch of play after taking sample size into account.

Point is.. there's no statistical evidence Gase improved his QB's using overall measures of performance like passer rating. Of course, if you try to find SOME statistic where QB's were better with Gase, you'll find that. But that's no different than someone saying every person on this planet is abnormal in SOME way if you keep testing them on every possible measure you can think of lol (people make money off this trick btw.. "you're abnormal according to measure X so pay us money to treat you for your condition").

There's actually a way to correct for doing such multiple comparisons to see if you can find something statistically significant (e.g., the Bonferroni correction) so if you really wanted to go down that route I can do that analysis too. And if you did apply such corrections for multiple tests I'm pretty certain the result is the same: Tannehill's performance under Gase could be explained by random variance alone.

As far as that quip about spinal surgery, Gase went to Denver in 2013 not 2012, and Manning was ranked #2 in passer rating in 2012, just as in 2013. So we already know that the effect of the surgery was positive BEFORE Gase went to Denver.

Finally, you don't decide which coaches are great or not based on what players say about them. You look at their performance.

Since there are so many variables In football that could explain wins or losses, I wonder what sample size is needed to overcome that. It’s not like most coaches and/or players are around long enough to get an idea of what is statistically relevant or not. In this situation do we use a coach with a high longevity and success record like Belichick as sort of a benchmark?

"Surfs Up 99 wrote:

Since there are so many variables In football that could explain wins or losses, I wonder what sample size is needed to overcome that. It’s not like most coaches and/or players are around long enough to get an idea of what is statistically relevant or not. In this situation do we use a coach with a high longevity and success record like Belichick as sort of a benchmark?

Lots of important questions in that one post. I won't write a treatise for an answer but let me try to clarify a few things.

1) For every sample size there is a different "confidence interval" outside of which things become statistically significant. As sample size increases that confidence interval shrinks. So it's not like you have to have at least X samples before you can calculate statistical significance. You can do that for any X. It's just that for smaller X the uncertainty is so great it's unlikely anything would be considered statistically significant. The main uncertainty in calculating confidence intervals isn't sample size but whether you know the type of distribution you're sampling from, bringing us to my 2nd point..

2) As you say there are tons of variables that can affect an outcome. It's one of the more amazing discoveries in statistics that adding the effect of many different variables, regardless of the type of distribution they come from, produces a single random variable with a known distribution: the normal distribution (the Bell curve). There's a famous theorem that proves this called the Central Limit Theorem and the value of it is that you KNOW the distribution you're sampling from when there are tons of variables affecting the outcome, provided they are summed and not multiplied, bringing us to my 3rd point..

3) There are cases in electrical engineering (e.g., signal processing) as well as in science (e.g., responses of sensory neurons) where the noise is not additive but multiplicative. Then #2 doesn't apply and you have to solve things empirically or be really clever with the math or with a simulation based on the math. That just means you look at how the distribution of your statistic (e.g., passer rating or TD% or anything else) changes as a function of sample size. Once you see the distribution start to stabilize (using whatever statistical technique applies) you can then calculate the confidence interval using that empirical distribution. It's how I came up with the suggestion that the absolute minimum number of consecutive passing attempts over which you should even report passer rating is ~150 or so.

So there's no real issue calculating confidence intervals for win% by coaches for example. The only real caveat here is what percent OF a given stat is due to that player or coach in question. That's hard to resolve through statistics, but I think for the example you asked about (win% and HC's) it's not an issue. It's a much bigger issue when talking about stuff like the influence of the OL or so.

Hope that helps a bit lol.

"cbrad wrote:

Lots of important questions in that one post. I won't write a treatise for an answer but let me try to clarify a few things.

1) For every sample size there is a different "confidence interval" outside of which things become statistically significant. As sample size increases that confidence interval shrinks. So it's not like you have to have at least X samples before you can calculate statistical significance. You can do that for any X. It's just that for smaller X the uncertainty is so great it's unlikely anything would be considered statistically significant. The main uncertainty in calculating confidence intervals isn't sample size but whether you know the type of distribution you're sampling from, bringing us to my 2nd point..

2) As you say there are tons of variables that can affect an outcome. It's one of the more amazing discoveries in statistics that adding the effect of many different variables, regardless of the type of distribution they come from, produces a single random variable with a known distribution: the normal distribution (the Bell curve). There's a famous theorem that proves this called the Central Limit Theorem and the value of it is that you KNOW the distribution you're sampling from when there are tons of variables affecting the outcome, provided they are summed and not multiplied, bringing us to my 3rd point..

3) There are cases in electrical engineering (e.g., signal processing) as well as in science (e.g., responses of sensory neurons) where the noise is not additive but multiplicative. Then #2 doesn't apply and you have to solve things empirically or be really clever with the math or with a simulation based on the math. That just means you look at how the distribution of your statistic (e.g., passer rating or TD% or anything else) changes as a function of sample size. Once you see the distribution start to stabilize (using whatever statistical technique applies) you can then calculate the confidence interval using that empirical distribution. It's how I came up with the suggestion that the absolute minimum number of consecutive passing attempts over which you should even report passer rating is ~150 or so.

So there's no real issue calculating confidence intervals for win% by coaches for example. The only real caveat here is what percent OF a given stat is due to that player or coach in question. That's hard to resolve through statistics, but I think for the example you asked about (win% and HC's) it's not an issue. It's a much bigger issue when talking about stuff like the influence of the OL or so.

Hope that helps a bit lol.

The fact that you don’t have a job in the NFL circle tells me there is something wrong with the NFL circle

"The Guy wrote:

You missed the question in my post, quoted above. Your answer simply opined about whether Tannehill would be considered a starter by a team had he not been injured.

Again, the question, rather, is whether you believe Aaron Rodgers -- if he had the same current age, injury history, and sequelae as Tannehill -- would be positioned as a starter right now by a team.

I don't need to answer that question. It has nothing to do with anything. I've never claimed Tannehill was as good as Rodgers. I don't care whether or not a HoF QB would be in the same situation. What I'm saying is, the biggest reason teams weren't beating down his door is because of the age + injuries. Like I said, if this season Tannehill has to come in for extended time and he does really well, you'll see teams make some offers.

While I don't believe Tannehill to be as terrible as some of you do, I'm not stupid enough to not realize that a QB like Tannehill isn't highly sought after after missing consecutive seasons to injury.

"resnor wrote:

I don't need to answer that question. It has nothing to do with anything. I've never claimed Tannehill was as good as Rodgers. I don't care whether or not a HoF QB would be in the same situation. What I'm saying is, the biggest reason teams weren't beating down his door is because of the age + injuries. Like I said, if this season Tannehill has to come in for extended time and he does really well, you'll see teams make some offers.

While I don't believe Tannehill to be as terrible as some of you do, I'm not stupid enough to not realize that a QB like Tannehill isn't highly sought after after missing consecutive seasons to injury.

Of course I can't make you answer the question, but it does have something to do with the topic.

If Rodgers would be sought after as a starter at the same age and with the same injury history as Tannehill, it would indicate that the active ingredient in Tannehill's not being similarly sought after is not his injury history, but rather how he played before that.

Your implication in this post:

"resnor wrote:

I think the problem for Tannehill is his age + multiple missed seasons for his knee. No one is going after him to be a starter at this point.

...is that it was his age and injury history alone.

"cbrad wrote:

Lots of important questions in that one post. I won't write a treatise for an answer but let me try to clarify a few things.

1) For every sample size there is a different "confidence interval" outside of which things become statistically significant. As sample size increases that confidence interval shrinks. So it's not like you have to have at least X samples before you can calculate statistical significance. You can do that for any X. It's just that for smaller X the uncertainty is so great it's unlikely anything would be considered statistically significant. The main uncertainty in calculating confidence intervals isn't sample size but whether you know the type of distribution you're sampling from, bringing us to my 2nd point..

2) As you say there are tons of variables that can affect an outcome. It's one of the more amazing discoveries in statistics that adding the effect of many different variables, regardless of the type of distribution they come from, produces a single random variable with a known distribution: the normal distribution (the Bell curve). There's a famous theorem that proves this called the Central Limit Theorem and the value of it is that you KNOW the distribution you're sampling from when there are tons of variables affecting the outcome, provided they are summed and not multiplied, bringing us to my 3rd point..

3) There are cases in electrical engineering (e.g., signal processing) as well as in science (e.g., responses of sensory neurons) where the noise is not additive but multiplicative. Then #2 doesn't apply and you have to solve things empirically or be really clever with the math or with a simulation based on the math. That just means you look at how the distribution of your statistic (e.g., passer rating or TD% or anything else) changes as a function of sample size. Once you see the distribution start to stabilize (using whatever statistical technique applies) you can then calculate the confidence interval using that empirical distribution. It's how I came up with the suggestion that the absolute minimum number of consecutive passing attempts over which you should even report passer rating is ~150 or so.

So there's no real issue calculating confidence intervals for win% by coaches for example. The only real caveat here is what percent OF a given stat is due to that player or coach in question. That's hard to resolve through statistics, but I think for the example you asked about (win% and HC's) it's not an issue. It's a much bigger issue when talking about stuff like the influence of the OL or so.

Hope that helps a bit lol.

It helps a lot! Thank you for taking the time to explain all that in layman's terms so that I can understand it.

If Tannehill hadn't have been derailed by the injury, he'd be our starter still.

Gase might still be here too, because we probably would have bene in the playoffs more.

"djphinfan wrote:

The fact that you don’t have a job in the NFL circle tells me there is something wrong with the NFL

I think the biggest problem is the lack of raw stats that would be useful for analysis. If an NFL team realized the utility of stats they'd hire someone to lead the effort to look at massive amounts of film and measure all kinds of things not found in spreadsheets today. You'd want to include things such as formation and the play called to things that need more precise definitions such as "pressure on QB" and "distance between receiver and defender" etc...

A more scientific approach would also suggest "wargaming" to see how potentially useful statistics are likely to change if you change the conditions in which they were obtained (e.g., if you change how often you go for it on 4th down based on current 4th down stats, that will change the success probabilities as the defense adapts.. but to what??.. have to experiment to get some estimates).

I'm firmly convinced a systematic effort like that should improve win% by a tiny but significant (for the owner/coaches) amount. But as is so often the case stuff changes gradually so maybe we'll see some of this in the next few decades.

"Fin D wrote:

If Tannehill hadn't have been derailed by the injury, he'd be our starter still.

Gase might still be here too, because we probably would have bene in the playoffs more.

You so crazy Fin:)

"cbrad wrote:

I think the biggest problem is the lack of raw stats that would be useful for analysis. If an NFL team realized the utility of stats they'd hire someone to lead the effort to look at massive amounts of film and measure all kinds of things not found in spreadsheets today. You'd want to include things such as formation and the play called to things that need more precise definitions such as "pressure on QB" and "distance between receiver and defender" etc...

A more scientific approach would also suggest "wargaming" to see how potentially useful statistics are likely to change if you change the conditions in which they were obtained (e.g., if you change how often you go for it on 4th down based on current 4th down stats, that will change the success probabilities as the defense adapts.. but to what??.. have to experiment to get some estimates).

I'm firmly convinced a systematic effort like that should improve win% by a tiny but significant (for the owner/coaches) amount. But as is so often the case stuff changes gradually so maybe we'll see some of this in the next few decades.

God damn, I wanna be your agent

"The Guy wrote:

Of course I can't make you answer the question, but it does have something to do with the topic.

If Rodgers would be sought after as a starter at the same age and with the same injury history as Tannehill, it would indicate that the active ingredient in Tannehill's not being similarly sought after is not his injury history, but rather how he played before that.

Your implication in this post:

...is that it was his age and injury history alone.

No. One of us is comparing Tannehill to a HoF QB, and one is looking at simply being a starter in the league. No one is looking at Tannehill as a starter because of missing two consecutive seasons for an injury.

Yes, I also believe the suitor pool for Mr. Rodgers would also be much smaller if he was coming off consecutive missed seasons for the same injury.

"resnor wrote:

No. One of us is comparing Tannehill to a HoF QB, and one is looking at simply being a starter in the league. No one is looking at Tannehill as a starter because of missing two consecutive seasons for an injury.

Yes, I also believe the suitor pool for Mr. Rodgers would also be much smaller if he was coming off consecutive missed seasons for the same injury.

That is not why no one looked at Tannehill as a starter..

Bro, why can’t you see this, he’s flawed bro, always has always will be..

Res, in pure movie drama I want to say this..

Res... let it go Res..................just let it go man.

Next offseason, I think that there could be as many as a dozen teams that change starting quarterbacks, who do not have a built in replacement on board already. If and when that happens, I feel strongly that a few of them will look into Tannehill as at least a temporary bridge to a long term solution, and then he'll have his chance to show what he can do in a new system and healthy.

"Unlucky 13 wrote:

Next offseason, I think that there could be as many as a dozen teams that change starting quarterbacks, who do not have a built in replacement on board already. If and when that happens, I feel strongly that a few of them will look into Tannehill as at least a temporary bridge to a long term solution, and then he'll have his chance to show what he can do in a new system and healthy.

Ugh, you guys I tell ya..

I guess you think he can handle playoff pressure defense when protection inevitably breaks down..lol

"Unlucky 13 wrote:

Next offseason, I think that there could be as many as a dozen teams that change starting quarterbacks, who do not have a built in replacement on board already. If and when that happens, I feel strongly that a few of them will look into Tannehill as at least a temporary bridge to a long term solution, and then he'll have his chance to show what he can do in a new system and healthy.

Tannehill played in several different systems in Miami. No one should be thinking that a change of system would mean much for him.

"djphinfan wrote:

Ugh, you guys I tell ya..

I guess you think he can handle playoff pressure defense when protection inevitably breaks down..lol

Did I say that? Did I say anything remotely like that, or hint at it?

There are 32 starting quarterbacks in the NFL. I'm not suggesting that RT is going to suddenly step in and become one of the top five. I'm suggesting that a team might look at him and give him a chance to be one of the bottom five, and then we see what the future holds. There's a big grey area between awesome and can't play in the NFL, and a lot of people seem to ignore that.

"Unlucky 13 wrote:

Did I say that? Did I say anything remotely like that, or hint at it?

There are 32 starting quarterbacks in the NFL. I'm not suggesting that RT is going to suddenly step in and become one of the top five. I'm suggesting that a team might look at him and give him a chance to be one of the bottom five, and then we see what the future holds. There's a big grey area between awesome and can't play in the NFL, and a lot of people seem to ignore that.

Ok Luck, til next year then.

And who the hell cares if the guy gets a bottom feeder starter job as a bridge to the next.

Unless your saying the guy is good enough to win a championship why the hell are you spending any more time defending him?

Tell me once and for all, do you think he is good enough to lead a team to a championship ?

If the answer to that is no, then you are just being obtuse

"djphinfan wrote:

Ok Luck, til next year then.

And who the hell cares if the guy gets a bottom feeder starter job as a bridge to the next.

Unless your saying they guy is good enough to win a championship why the hell are you spending any more time defending him?

Tell me once and for all, do you think he is good enough to lead a team to a championship ?

If the answer to that is no, then you are just being obtuse

Well, A) we simply weren't having the same argument I guess. I've been talking, for a long, long time, about being a starting NFL quarterback, and no further. I guess I must have missed something else along the way. I'm every bit as interested in talking about the middle or bottom third of players as I am the top. In fact, always talking about the top guys gets boring, honestly.

B) I am a very strong believer that individuals do not win championships, teams do. And I'm also a big believer that most quarterbacks need to be in the right system to succeed. The system that works for player A might be terrible for player B, but player B might excel somewhere else if given the chance.

C) A number of quarterbacks who I would not consider to be elite have led their teams deep into the playoffs, both recently and in the past. The Vikings made it to the NFC title game two years ago quarterbacked by Case Keenum. Nick Foles was the QB for the Eagles when they won the Super Bowl. The Cowboys came within three points of making the NFC title game in 2016 with Dak Prescott at QB. The Ravens came within three points of making it to the AFC title game as recently as 2015 with Joe Flacco at QB. And on and on. None of those guys are better than a healthy Tannehill.

So, if your question is whether I think that a healthy Ryan Tanneill, on the right team and in the right system can do what those guys did, then the answer is yes. If the question is whether I think that he'll ever be subjectively one of the best QBs in the league, then the answer is no.

Ya'lls a bunch of battered wives I tell you! What the heckyaba's??? The biggest thread on this forum right now, same old flippin BS arguments about some Malafala's that ain't Dolphins no more.

Ya'll need to get Frozen and let that ish go.

"Unlucky 13 wrote:

Well, A) we simply weren't having the same argument I guess. I've been talking, for a long, long time, about being a starting NFL quarterback, and no further. I guess I must have missed something else along the way. I'm every bit as interested in talking about the middle or bottom third of players as I am the top. In fact, always talking about the top guys gets boring, honestly.

B) I am a very strong believer that individuals do not win championships, teams do. And I'm also a big believer that most quarterbacks need to be in the right system to succeed. The system that works for player A might be terrible for player B, but player B might excel somewhere else if given the chance.

C) A number of quarterbacks who I would not consider to be elite have led their teams deep into the playoffs, both recently and in the past. The Vikings made it to the NFC title game two years ago quarterbacked by Case Keenum. Nick Foles was the QB for the Eagles when they won the Super Bowl. The Cowboys came within three points of making the NFC title game in 2016 with Dak Prescott at QB. The Ravens came within three points of making it to the AFC title game as recently as 2015 with Joe Flacco at QB. And on and on. None of those guys are better than a healthy Tannehill.

So, if your question is whether I think that a healthy Ryan Tanneill, on the right team and in the right system can do what those guys did, then the answer is yes. If the question is whether I think that he'll ever be subjectively one of the best QBs in the league, then the answer is no.

Well your wrong, he’s 30 and has never done it, teams need abs to have to play well individually for the team to advance to a championship..

He’s shown nothing in big games, especially on the road, his instincts, mental acuity and limited athleticism fails him every time

"Puka-head wrote:

Ya'lls a bunch of battered wives I tell you! What the heckyaba's??? The biggest thread on this forum right now, same old flippin BS arguments about some Malafala's that ain't Dolphins no more.

Ya'll need to get Frozen and let that ish go.

I dont let anything go, lol. I'm still frustrated about things that happened 25 to 30 years ago!