There are certain qbs who can funtion at a certain level without having a very good oline, Ryan is not one of them..I don't think that's an outlandish statement.
I'm not sure what you're saying, He's had to function w/o very good OL play for the vast majority of his career.
And yet he's improved every year he's been in the league. And so how does that jibe with the idea that his offensive line, rather than his individual talent, is driving the bus on his play?
I think that to challenge for championships in the next couple of years we need a good OL and run game. Tannehill can put up good numbers w/o them but we'd still be looking at 8-9 wins.
Tannehill's YPA in 2014 is associated with about 8 wins a year on average, between 2004 and 2014. If he improved that number to 7.2, that alone would be associated with 10 wins on average, during the same period. If he improved it to 7.6, the number of wins would increase to 11, on average. So, if Tannehill were to "put up good numbers," chances are the team would do much better. I'm in full agreement that Tannehill's numbers have little to do with the rest of the team, but I disagree that they would result in no improvement in wins. Obviously you're unaware of the data regarding the relationship between QB play and winning in the NFL.
This whole discussion seems to be going above your head, probably bc it's buried in a pile of statistics.
i said I'm in the mindset on how to win multiple championship, what I think needs to be prioritized relative to some other top qbs, the line needs to take precedent.
A lot of poker regs I talk to are "math" players, that's why when a situation doesn't work out in their favor they seem so flabbergasted. "But the math said!!" Pshh
lets not play silly games, what we have is a pocket passer with minimal improv skills, lets get him a top notch line, cause if we don't his personal game as is, will not be able to elevate past it.. or he can start to figure out that he has wheels and start using them in critical situations that piss on poor line play and help teams win games.
He's steadily improved in the absence of a top, or even competent OL. He hasn't had a top notch WR group, run game, or defense either. There's no chance of a top D or WR corps anytime soon but I do think a better back and some depth on the OL would give us a top tier run game/ OL.
I think the argument is that Tannehill has continued to improve in spite of his oline. There's also no denying that the Dolphins defense playing better would result in more wins also. It's not simply the offensive side that needs to improve.
leave it alone dude, live and let live..seem to think you know an awful lot for not being around that very long.
bottom line, the qb needs to improve as much as anyone...there are plays and skill set he's leaving on the field..once he learns that I might stop riding his ***.
Improved "a bit" each year? You make it sound worse than it is. Dude was very good last year. I get that he doesn't play like you want him to, but, then again, he is not going to play like Wilson. I would like to see Tannehill make more plays with his feet, but not if he's being coached to do stuff the way he's doing it. All in all, I'm really tired of seeing people point to Tannehill, specifically, as the one who needs to improve. I know he does, but last two seasons, our defense has been below average, if I'm being nice. Receivers need to play better, defense needs to play better, offensive line needs to play better. If Tannehill changed nothing, but those three areas improved, we'd see an increase in wins. Tannehill playing better, I don't think necessarily translates to more wins, no matter what the Moneyball statistics say.
The team would win more in either case, but the greater probability, and the greater degree of improvement in wins, would lie with improvement in passing efficiency (YPA), since that's more strongly related to winning than the other areas you mentioned. You can certainly bet against that probability if you'd like, but you'd be betting on the exception to the rule, and if you did that 100 times, you'd lose money the vast majority of the time.
You're operating under the assumption that better receiver play and better oline play wouldn't affect Tannehill's YPA. I know you believe the stats say that Tannehill's play is basically in a vacuum, and aren't better or worse based on those things. I don't believe that to be true, so here we are in this discussion, so, agree to disagree.
Since all QBs have offensive lines, the question isn't whether there is an effect on the QB as a function of the presence or the absence of a line. The same question could be asked about the defense, for example. If a team had absolutely no defense, and the opposing offense was able to score at will, would that have an effect on the QB? Well sure! You could say the same thing about the special teams, even. If opposing teams were able to run back kickoffs and punts for touchdowns unimpeded by anyone but the kicker, would that have an effect on the QB? Well sure!
Ok, now that you understand not having an offensive line can affect QB play, continue with that logical line of reasoning further..and accept that the quality of the oline play affects QB play. Its just common sense. I mean if the existence of an oline can affect QB play, then how good they play would HAVE TO affect it as well. Also, side note about your defense example, didn't you agree that the "poor" defenses where to be attributed to Tannehill's good numbers run this year? I mean, why can the quality of the opposing defense affect QB play, but the line built to buffer that defense have no real effect?
That's not necessarily true, however. It could be that the ability of the QB overrides any possible variation in offensive line play that occurs in the league, such that the best QB with even the worst line would perform better than a mediocre QB with even the best line. Sometimes uncommon sense is correct, and common sense isn't, and the fact that 85% of the variation in QB ratings is based on something other than QB pressure suggests that.
Do you or do you not understand that QB's are human, and individual humans at that? Your premise is only accurate if the variation was 100%. Without that 100%, then certainly that means 15% of the time you're stance is wrong. Also, a simple premise. What happens on other teams, has no bearing to what happens on a different given team. My wife is allergic to strawberries. Most people aren't. Your approach to issues would dictate she's not allergic to strawberries.
Even given this premise, though, the best QB with the worst line would not produce as good as he would with the best line. Conversely, the worst QB with the best line would put up better numbers than the worst QB with the worst line. See Tom Brady at the beginning of this season, for example. The Patriots were constantly changing out lineman, and there was no continuity, and Brady looked bad. People were talking about how Brady was "done." Magically, when his oline got solidified, Brady somehow was back to being Brady.
It sounds like you aren't understanding the premise, then. The premise is that the functioning of the QB is based far more on the QB's individual ability than it is any other part of the team. If that premise is true, and the objective data suggest it is, even for Ryan Tannehill as well, then it makes far more sense to talk about how a QB is functioning in terms of his own individual ability, than in terms of what's going on around him on his team, the offensive line included.
And those differences could actually be negligible. If, hypothetically, the best QB with the best line would win one more game a year on average than the best QB with the worst line, what significance would that have if it were also true, for example, that the best QB with the worst line would win four more games a year on average than a mediocre QB with the best line? The point here is the weight these various areas of the team have in terms of winning. The individual ability of the QB by far carries the most weight.
Why are we talking about wins? Wins are a team statistic. The premise that we are disagreeing with is that oline play, or receiver play, doesn't have an affect on the level of QB play. I can't fathom how you truly believe that having a good oline that blocks and protects doesn't result in better play from the QB. I almost don't care what the stats say, as having an oline that is full of turnstiles is going to negatively affect the QB. How do you impact great QBs? Hit them. Everyone knows it. If you can consistently get pressure on Brady, and hit him, his game declines. Make them uncomfortable in the pocket. Their game declines. If you can protect your QB, and give him a pocket to stand in, he will play well. For instance, with an oline that has the QB getting hit on almost every throw, even around the 2.5 second mark, is it any wonder that the YPA for said QB is under 7? If you combine poor oline play with receivers that don't run good routes, and who go through periods of drops, you have a recipe for a dink and dunk offense.
His YPA has been below average every year he's played QB. This isn't a one-year phenomenon...it's five years of established performance. At A&M he was ranked in the bottom half of the entire country in this measure, and in the NFL he's been near the bottom every year. It's not a pure vacuum (those are impossible), but we're talking about consistent undeperformance since day 1 at the QB position. That's a tough trend to bet against.
That's true. Although, in his first year in a new offense, from our bye week on, which was 12 games, Tannehill had an average YPA of 7.2, and had 21tds/8ints. So, for 3/4 of the season, Tannehill was playing where we want him to be. In that 12 game stretch, is it any surprise that his games below 7ypa were against teams with good pass rushes?
We've probably reached the "agree to disagree" point once again, because I could tell you for example that the variation in YPA in the league in 2014 was 93% unrelated to QB pressure, and you'd have to then choose whether you want to persist in the belief of yours you've outlined above, or let that objective data have an influence on your thinking. I can tell you this, however: I certainly hope the Miami Dolphins, and especially whoever is in charge of their "analytics" emphasis, is resting on objective data, rather than their pet personal beliefs.
Actually that's no surprise at all, since playing comparatively more poorly against good defenses tends to happen to all QBs in the league. Do you think the Miami Dolphins are the only team these good defenses play well against?
So, let me ask you this: how do statistics tell you what Tannehill would do if he had a good offensive line? I mean, you can look at Tannehill's games, and compare stats from game to game, to try to draw comparisons for games with fewer pressures to games with more pressures. But, at the end of the day, this is still the same ****ty oline that Tannehill plays with, game to game, and he's pretty much guaranteed, even in games with fewer pressures, to be getting hit late in the third and fourth quarters, and on third downs. You are really saying that if Tannehill played behind the best oline ever, his stats would remain the same? And how do you determine what YPA was related to? It would seem it's related only to who the QB throws to, and whether that player can get YAC. One has to ask oneself, why a QB would throw the ball short, if he had an open option long...
So, opposing defenses can affect YPA, but an offensive line that can negate the defensive pass rush cannot affect YPA? This is quite the conundrum.
What you find is that the variation in YPA, regardless of the opposing defense, is far more a function of individual QB ability than of offensive line play. Against good defenses, the better QBs play better than the worse QBs, and that has little to do with their offensive lines. This is why when you look at QB statistics that adjust for the strength of opposing defenses, you see the same pattern of performance, whereby the better QBs are at the top, and the worse ones are at the bottom, and there is no influence of offensive lines to be found.
Why do you suppose Tannehill would belie the pattern we already see, where QBs' performance has little to do with their offensive lines? Do you think Tannehill would buck that trend and have his game revolve far more strongly around his offensive line, when that pattern isn't found across the league at large? Why is Tannehill any different than anyone else in that regard? In other words, what the statistics tell us is that Tannehill's performance isn't likely to change significantly if his offensive line improved, and ironically enough, that's demonstrated by Tannehill himself, insofar as he's improved during his tenure in the league, without a corresponding improvement in his offensive line.
