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

Merge: Report: Joe Philbin wanted to replace Ryan Tannehill with Derek Carr

Discussion in 'Miami Dolphins Forum' started by muskrat21, Jan 10, 2016.

  1. dgfred

    dgfred Free Agent pickup

    642
    259
    0
    Dec 17, 2015
    N.C., USA
    good, bye
     
  2. shamegame13

    shamegame13 Madison & Surtain

    3,451
    903
    113
    Dec 15, 2014
    I wish we drafted Russell Wilson #8 overall (where he SHOULD OF been drafted and Tannehill fell to the third round like the project QB he is, he is on year 5 and almost 30 and fans still tryna preach "development" lmao FOH
     
  3. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    So, your argument is he's been properly developed? He's been given the proper tools to succeed?

    Do you also not believe Tannehill should have had more time to develop than a QB who had a full college career starting?

    Clearly you don't, as you've been singing the same tune since he was drafted.
     
  4. shamegame13

    shamegame13 Madison & Surtain

    3,451
    903
    113
    Dec 15, 2014
    Lol Res, idc about your debate because there is no debate. You will give him excuse after excuse until he is off the team (which is coming). So go ahead and drop every excuse in the book. I literally said before last season started that you guys would still say he needs time to dwvelop despite the fact that all you guys kept saying "Year 4 is the real year" lmao now it is year 5, its like groundhogs day, he is just not that good and cant feel pass rush for the life of him.
     
  5. Sceeto

    Sceeto Well-Known Member

    13,501
    6,244
    113
    Oct 13, 2008
    New York
    word
     
  6. dgfred

    dgfred Free Agent pickup

    642
    259
    0
    Dec 17, 2015
    N.C., USA
    Haha... maybe you need to 'switch' teams. Needs to develope? Just re-watch the Giants game (if you watch at all) and see what a decently play called game, use of the RB, QB running all over- to see what can be done. Blueprint right there.

    The pieces are in place now... with a decent coach and play-calling.

    If you were fussing about the D I would more than understand... but you are not and I don't.
     
  7. shamegame13

    shamegame13 Madison & Surtain

    3,451
    903
    113
    Dec 15, 2014
    Fussing about the D? The defense that was always.on the field because our offense lead by an overpaid QB had the most 3 and outs in football? I would hate the offense if I played for Miami D. Your gonna be one of the fans crying when even QB genius Adam Gase realizes RT17 is a total fraud.
     
  8. dgfred

    dgfred Free Agent pickup

    642
    259
    0
    Dec 17, 2015
    N.C., USA
    Nah... the defense was horrible. If you don't see that... then I know what to think of your other assessments.

    Overpaid you will find on the defensive line.
     
    resnor likes this.
  9. Alex44

    Alex44 Boshosaurus Rex

    20,810
    8,965
    0
    Jan 7, 2008
    Hollywood, Florida
    Don't you know Grimes slipped and fell like 18 times because he was on the field too much?

    Sarcasm btw.
     
    resnor and dgfred like this.
  10. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    He wasn't attacked.
     
    resnor likes this.
  11. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    It's funny, and I'm sure the usual suspects will go crazy over this, but the Seahawks defense was in the field a ton in the first half of the game, while their offense was sucking. Then they came out second half and shut them down.

    Shouldn't they have been too tired to play effectively?
     
    Fin D likes this.
  12. Larryfinfan

    Larryfinfan 17-0...Priceless Club Member

    dgfred likes this.
  13. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    Well the argument goes, why draft such a project st 8 then? Consensus was at the time, he was a reach at 8 because he was a project.

    I'm not saying he's a bum like the poster above. But if the argument is he's a project, who takes projects at #8? We do that's who.

    Philbin is a bum but before everyone jumps on his throat for wanting to move in a different decision he chose Tanny over Moore to start. For whatever reason he and Lazor (and maybe Sherman) lost
    Faith. And they may very well end up being wrong. Very wrong.

    But he gave Tanny his first shot even though many thought he should sit.
     
  14. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    Wilson and the offense started sustaining drives. Two touchdowns first two possessions plus the 15 minute break at half.

    But I didn't need to tell you that. It's so obvious!
     
  15. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    I do not disagree with the idea that perhaps Tannehill should not have been taken that high, given that he was a bit of a project. However, given the progress he's shown, despite all the obstacles, I think that it shows he night just have what it takes, especially now that he has a competent coach, who hopefully also fixes the oline.
     
  16. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Annnnd...you missed the point. For several seasons we've been told that the Dolphins sucking in the second half is because Tannehill could not keep the offense on the field in the first half, and the poor, poor defense was just to tired.
     
  17. shamegame13

    shamegame13 Madison & Surtain

    3,451
    903
    113
    Dec 15, 2014
    We led the league in 3 and outs, if you know football it should be self explanatory. Maybe you never played a down of football so you might not understand.
     
  18. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Then maybe you should understand the importance of a few things:

    1. Drive killing penalties
    2. Run game to keep defense honest
    3. Receivers running routes past the sticks
    4. Manageable third down distance
     
  19. cuchulainn

    cuchulainn Táin Bó Cúailnge Club Member

    23,698
    39,847
    113
    Sep 7, 2012
    Hattiesburg, MS
    As per who? Titans and Bills were the worst. There were actually a dozen teams worse than us. Our defensive issues were largely self-inflicted.

    http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/stats/three-and-out-percentage/2015/

    And this is interesting from mid season.
    http://espn.go.com/blog/green-bay-p...s-lead-nfl-with-40-percent-three-and-out-rate
     
    resnor and Silverphin like this.
  20. Silverphin

    Silverphin Well-Known Member

    11,035
    4,419
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    *sips tea*
     
    Fin D and resnor like this.
  21. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    The beloved Derek Carr and the Raiders had a WORSE three and out percentage??? AND the Redskins, Bills, and Titans?!! Say it isn't so!
     
    Fin D likes this.
  22. Fin-O

    Fin-O Initiated Club Member

    11,375
    11,392
    113
    Sep 28, 2015
    Thats because Ryan is better than Carr, Tyrod, Cousins and Mariotta. DUH!


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  23. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Well, he must be, since I've been told countless times that it'sTannehill's fault for the three and outs, and the general ineptitude of the offense. This thread, in fact, if I'm not mistaken, someone was pointing at the three and outs as proof that Tannehill is not good. That precipitated Cuch's post.

    Would be nice if you would call out BS by the anti-Tannehill crowd the way you try to with myself and FinD.
     
  24. Fin-O

    Fin-O Initiated Club Member

    11,375
    11,392
    113
    Sep 28, 2015
    But you guys are much more fun to deal with. I mean, you have supposedly put me on block about 10x....

    I lke you, you remind me of one of my crazy ex gfs.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  25. roy_miami

    roy_miami Well-Known Member

    1,385
    560
    113
    Oct 11, 2013
    I think he meant 3rd down percentage where we ranked 30th at the end, but were at 32nd for a spell. We were also 30th in time of possession.
     
  26. Laurence

    Laurence Banned

    80
    19
    0
    Jan 20, 2016
    The change in QB rating under pressure could conceivably have nothing to do with offensive lines across the league and everything to do with the fact that pressure simply occurs league-wide at some rate. Consider the hypothetical scenario in which every team surrenders the same frequency and degree of pressure, and every QB's rating drops 35 points under it (from 120 to 85 for one guy, from 100 to 65 for another guy, and so on). If that were the situation, then the change in QB rating would have nothing to do with variation in offensive lines.

    In other words, more exploration of the data is necessary to determine that the finding you're referring to above is driven by variation in offensive line play league-wide. It's entirely possible it isn't.

    I'm incredulous that you're seemingly sophisticated in some areas, and so much less so in others, like this one. What we're talking about is the cause in variation in offensive line play across teams league-wide. That variation in offensive line play could be driven primarily by variation in the frequency with which teams are in situations in which they need to pass the ball to overcome a points differential, thus allowing opposing defenses to sell out against the passing game and ignore the run. The frequency of those situations could in turn be driven primarily by quarterback play -- i.e., better quarterbacks score more points, thus keeping their offensive lines out of those situations.

    It's just as likely that diminishes the variation, in that there is more possibility for one player to compensate for the deficiencies of another, thus leveling out the play of the overall unit and diminishing league-wide variation in those units. That wouldn't be as likely at the position of let's say quarterback, where there is only a single player, and thus no room for other members of his unit to compensate for his play (because there is no unit -- there is only a single player).

    Your analysis above is superficial, and uncharacteristically so, for you. And that's a compliment to your more general posting -- please accept it as such.
     
  27. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    You believe that all teams face the same pressure?

    Dude.
     
  28. Laurence

    Laurence Banned

    80
    19
    0
    Jan 20, 2016
    First we'd have to establish objectively that they don't, second we'd have to establish objectively the degree of that variation (it could be relatively large, or it could be relatively small), and third we'd have to determine if that degree of variation could possibly explain the relatively large variation we know exists in quarterback play.

    If you can't do that (and you haven't in the quote above), then you haven't explained quarterback play as a function of offensive line play. You're merely tossing around ideas and opinions, which is fine, but it isn't anywhere near definitive. You certainly shouldn't think you're guaranteed to be right under those conditions.
     
  29. roy_miami

    roy_miami Well-Known Member

    1,385
    560
    113
    Oct 11, 2013
    Some QBs thrive by extending plays to make big plays but take a lot more sacks in the process (Roethlisberger, Wilson, Rodgers). Others know that they play their best when their jersey is completely clean and will avoid taking hits at all costs so they can dink and dunk you to death (Manning, Brady). We have no identity. We take sacks at a record pace and have low yards per attempt.
     
    Laurence likes this.
  30. Laurence

    Laurence Banned

    80
    19
    0
    Jan 20, 2016
    And in either of those cases, frequency (and probably degree) pressure on the quarterback is explained far more by quarterback play (i.e., how the QB plays) than it is by offensive line play.
     
  31. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Then an oline consisting of 5 high school band members block the same as 5 NFL lineman?
     
    resnor likes this.
  32. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Welcome back.

    I'd say the burden of proof is on you to prove that all QBs face equal pressure league wide, since you're the one espousing the belief. You can't simply make up a silly hypothesis, and then tell me that I need to prove you wrong.

    You're beating the same rickety, poor sounding drum as ever.
     
  33. Laurence

    Laurence Banned

    80
    19
    0
    Jan 20, 2016
    I said that was a hypothetical scenario.
     
  34. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    No, it absolutely is not. Why is the QB extending the play? Because the oline couldn't do their job, so they scramble and extend. They don't snap the ball, and immediately start running around in the backfield like sandlot football.
     
  35. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Ok...then why did you respond to me like this?

    Certainly doesn't sound like an argument from a guy purely making up a hypothetical. If it's hypothetical, then it had no basis in a discussion about this, and I don't have to prove it wrong.
     
  36. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    My analysis was spot on.

    The first comment about 60 vs. 95 rating was in response to you suggesting that if variance in OL across the league is minimal, then that "would indicate that the common-sense belief that QBs are affected significantly by offensive lines is incorrect."

    That deduction of yours just doesn't hold if it's true that we see 60 vs. 95 rating difference in pressure vs. no pressure situations, unless you think "pressure" has absolutely nothing to do with OL play. My point is that variance in OL play has nothing to do with what you argued there (and what I quoted). You can tell that QB's are significantly affected by OL independent of talking about OL variance.

    The second argument was in response to you suggesting it's possible variance in OL play might be caused by variance in QB play. I responded that you can't ignore causal relationships by pointing out there are some things an offensive lineman does that cannot be caused by QB play. So think about it. If some of the total variance in OL play includes variance in OL play that physically cannot be caused by the QB, then it's logically not possible for all variance in OL play to be caused by the QB.

    That's spot on analysis.

    Finally, the comment about 5 OL is likely true in football because you're unlikely to see a LT compensate for the mistake of a RT in a deterministic way. That is, the only way the variance decreases by adding O-linesmen is if a mistake by one causes the lack of a mistake by another. That's a hard argument to make. Whether the LT makes a mistake is most likely independent of whether the center, RG or RT makes a mistake. I could maybe see an argument for O-linesmen that are positioned next to each other compensating for each other to a degree, but there are so many pairs of O-linesman that are not next to each other (6) where you'd expect relative independence of action rather than dependence, meaning you'd expect variance in OL play to be greater than that for any single O-linesman.

    So I don't see what's so superficial about what I said.
     
  37. Laurence

    Laurence Banned

    80
    19
    0
    Jan 20, 2016
    Not necessarily. Perhaps they're down big on the scoreboard, and they need to let the receivers get far downfield for a long gain. And perhaps they're down on the scoreboard because the quarterback hasn't driven them to score enough points.

    The problem here is that people have become so accustomed to seeing the quarterback (in this case Tannehill) as being affected by these sorts of scenarios that they can't even hypothesize scenarios in which he's the cause.

    Either one is possible, but when you're blind to one of the two and you consider only the other, you're biased.
     
  38. Laurence

    Laurence Banned

    80
    19
    0
    Jan 20, 2016
    The QB is significantly affected by pressure. What you're espousing here is that offensive line play is a moderating variable between pressure and quarterback play. We don't know that's the case. It's entirely possible that pressure alone drives the bus on the QB rating finding, and variation in offensive line play isn't a significant moderator.

    Again, that effect could be predominantly situational (being put in position in which the opposing defense can sell out against the pass and ignore the run) and much less physical. There doesn't have to be a physical cause for the cause to be driven primarily by the QB.
     
  39. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Well there's nothing to argue about here if you really think that it's realistic that the OL has nothing to do with the difference between passer ratings (60 vs. 95) in pressure vs. no-pressure situations. Seriously? That IMO doesn't need proof. I've seen enough plays where an O-linesman whiffed on a block leading to pressure or a sack (one reason I mentioned Dallas Thomas).

    You're not getting it. There is no question every human being has variance in his/her behavior. That means every O-linesman does too. And all of that variance goes into any calculation of total variance for the OL. So if any portion of total OL variance is not physically caused by the QB (and by "physical" I just mean any physical process, which includes "situational", but it HAS to be determined by the QB), then the QB cannot be responsible for all OL variance.
     
    resnor likes this.
  40. Laurence

    Laurence Banned

    80
    19
    0
    Jan 20, 2016
    And is there any significant variation in that among teams, or do all teams do that with roughly the same frequency? If they do, then offensive line play can't possibly vary enough to moderate the relationship between pressure and QB rating in this case. You know this; you're just not thinking about it for some reason.

    He doesn't have to be responsible for it all, if we're already starting with an amount of it league-wide that's so small it can't possibly explain the large variation we see in QB play.
     

Share This Page