Ryan Tannehill

"The Guy wrote:

And I have attempted to explore that perception with objective evidence, representing hours of effort on my part.

Does the evidence provide a definitive conclusion? Not at the present time, but the objective exploration was done, and so the discussion rests on something more than the perceptions of fans on a message board.

Now, where is the objective evidence that Tannehill's surroundings on the 2012-2018 Dolphins were significantly worse than average? I suppose we're fine with that one's resting on the perceptions of fans on a message board? No objective exploration necessary?

Its really not hard to objectively say those teams were poorly constructed. Out of all the players on those teams only a tiny handful went on to even mediocre success.

Hiw much noise did Hartline and Bess make after they left Miami? Pretty much none in the positive way. Mike Wallace?

How many of our o-line went on to truly succeed other places? Maybe a couple out of how many we rotated? Though we did have a couple solid individual pieces on occasion.

Defensively, other than Wake who aged out of relevance for our team, how many defensive game changers have we had? Vontae Davis even was pretty crap.

The Philbin era was especially bad IMO and most of our actual talent came in tail end of the Gase era, who's a pretty average to crappy coach.

My two cents on talent.

"AGuyNamedAlex wrote:

Its really not hard to objectively say those teams were poorly constructed. Out of all the players on those teams only a tiny handful went on to even mediocre success.

Hiw much noise did Hartline and Bess make after they left Miami? Pretty much none in the positive way. Mike Wallace?

How many of our o-line went on to truly succeed other places? Maybe a couple out of how many we rotated? Though we did have a couple solid individual pieces on occasion.

Defensively, other than Wake who aged out of relevance for our team, how many defensive game changers have we had? Vontae Davis even was pretty crap.

The Philbin era was especially bad IMO and most of our actual talent came in tail end of the Gase era, who's a pretty average to crappy coach.

My two cents on talent.

So now just for the sake of argument, let's say all of that is true -- how do we know it caused the performance around Tannehill from 2012 to 2018 to be significantly worse than that of the average team in the league?

You're looking at the Dolphins exclusively there. There is no comparison with a league norm or with the average team happening in what you've said.

"The Guy wrote:

So now just for the sake of argument, let's say all of that is true -- how do we know it caused the performance around Tannehill to be significantly worse than that of the average team in the league?

You're looking at the Dolphins exclusively there. There is no comparison with a league norm or with the average team happening in what you've said.

That's a pointless line of thinking. You can't prove something that didn't happen. All we can look at is what happened in Miami with Tannehill, and what happened in Tennessee.

"The Guy wrote:

So now just for the sake of argument, let's say all of that is true -- how do we know it caused the performance around Tannehill to be significantly worse than that of the average team in the league?

You're looking at the Dolphins exclusively there. There is no comparison with a league norm or with the average team happening in what you've said.

I'm not sure that reasoning is valid because:

1) Though there may be some emotional bias, just by watching Dolphin games you are getting a comparison to the opponent each week.

2) Again, maybe not as much but we also watch other teams each week and analyze them as well. Some of us anyway.

So to say there is no comparison being made IMO doesnt hold water, we are comparing to the rest of the league as we see it each week. Some teams we may see more than others and I said there is some emotional bias involved.

Still though, a comparison is being made to the league.

"AGuyNamedAlex wrote:

I'm not sure that reasoning is valid because:

1) Though there may be some emotional bias, just by watching Dolphin games you are getting a comparison to the opponent each week.

2) Again, maybe not as much but we also watch other teams each week and analyze them as well. Some of us anyway.

So to say there is no comparison being made IMO doesnt hold water, we are comparing to the rest of the league as we see it each week. Some teams we may see more than others and I said there is some emotional bias involved.

Still though, a comparison is being made to the league.

What you're talking about there is a completely non-systematic way of viewing the league as a whole. There are a boatload of biases that could be functioning in that scenario.

What do you think is more probable: 1) that a non-systematic viewing of the league generates erroneous confirmation bias about one's own team, or 2) that a non-systematic viewing of the league produces valid comparisons among teams, and a precise perception of where your team falls in relation to the average one?

Consider something like strength of schedule, for example. Do you know, off-hand and with precision in relation to the average team, the 2019 Dolphins' strength of schedule? Why wouldn't you? You watched every game and watched lots of other games as well.

"resnor wrote:

That's a pointless line of thinking. You can't prove something that didn't happen. All we can look at is what happened in Miami with Tannehill, and what happened in Tennessee.

That's precisely what we're looking at. So which is it -- that 1) Tannehill's surroundings 2012-2018 were horrendous, and his surroundings in 2019 were merely average, or 2) his surroundings 2012-2018 were average, and his surroundings in 2019 were exceptionally good?

What I'm saying here is that no one is providing objective support for possibility #1.

"The Guy wrote:

And I have attempted to explore that perception with objective evidence, representing hours of effort on my part.

Does the evidence provide a definitive conclusion? Not at the present time, but the objective exploration was done, and so the discussion rests on something more than the perceptions of fans on a message board.

Now, where is the objective evidence that Tannehill's surroundings on the 2012-2018 Dolphins were significantly worse than average? I suppose we're fine with that one's resting on the perceptions of fans on a message board? No objective exploration necessary?

All trying to find some esoteric stats to confirm a belief you started the season with. Objective exploration my ass. There has been absolutely nothing objective about anything you've investigated. Every single one of your "analyses" have been a blatant attempt to twist whatever you can to back into a conclusion that "Tannehill is average".

You've even attempted to turn a 117.5 passer rating into a "no better than having an average QB" nonsensical line of reasoning. If the stats don't show average performance then somehow you have been determined to show that "something was different about Tannehill's passer rating." You acknowledged dropping the passer rating differential as a key measure simply because Tannehill had the highest passer rating.

Your latest pathetic attempt included a miscalculation of expected points scored with Tannehill's passer rating. You were attempting to show that Tannehill's passer rating was somehow tainted because the Titans should have scored more points than they actually did.

"The Guy wrote:

That's precisely what we're looking at. So which is it -- that 1) Tannehill's surroundings 2012-2018 were horrendous, and his surroundings in 2019 were merely average, or 2) his surroundings 2012-2018 were average, and his surroundings in 2019 were exceptionally good?

What I'm saying here is that no one is providing objective support for possibility #1.

I have rarely seen someone with such blatant flaws in their thinking. What about option 3?

3) Tannehill's surroundings in 2012-2018 were bad and his surroundings in 2019 were good.

How the hell could you come up with the two choices you did? It is bizarre.

"The Guy wrote:

What you're talking about there is a completely non-systematic way of viewing the league as a whole. There are a boatload of biases that could be functioning in that scenario.

What do you think is more probable: 1) that a non-systematic viewing of the league generates erroneous confirmation bias about one's own team, or 2) that a non-systematic viewing of the league produces valid comparisons among teams, and a precise perception of where your team falls in relation to the average one?

Consider something like strength of schedule, for example. Do you know, off-hand and with precision in relation to the average team, the 2019 Dolphins' strength of schedule? Why wouldn't you? You watched every game and watched lots of other games as well.

I think the most probable is 3) a poster with a marginal understanding of statistics and football and a pathological need to discredit a single player will come up with all kinds of nonsensical arguments that get repeatedly shot down by someone who knows statistics, someone who knows football, or both.

"The Guy wrote:

So now just for the sake of argument, let's say all of that is true -- how do we know it caused the performance around Tannehill from 2012 to 2018 to be significantly worse than that of the average team in the league?

Seriously? You're asking how can be know if players that played badly in Miami and didn't play any better anywhere else (or didn't play anymore at all) were simply bad players that contributed to bad teams in Miami?

"FinFaninBuffalo wrote:

Seriously? You're asking how can be know if players that played badly in Miami and didn't play any better anywhere else (or didn't play anymore at all) were simply bad players that contributed to bad teams in Miami?

And how did that compare to the league norm, in terms of the frequency with which players play badly for one team and then have future careers similar to those?

Certainly that didn't happen for Miami 2012-2018 and for no other teams whatsoever. The question is, where did Miami fall in comparison to the league as a whole in terms of the frequency and magnitude of that issue?

Or should we just trust that some guy named "FinFaninBuffalo" on a message board thinks it was "bad."

And that represents the objective comparison needed for just one proposed indicator of the Dolphins' ineptitude 2012-2018.

"FinFaninBuffalo wrote:

I have rarely seen someone with such blatant flaws in their thinking. What about option 3?

3) Tannehill's surroundings in 2012-2018 were bad and his surroundings in 2019 were good.

How the hell could you come up with the two choices you did? It is bizarre.

So let's go with that one, then. The question is, where is the objective support for the highlighted portion above?

"The Guy wrote:

That's precisely what we're looking at. So which is it -- that 1) Tannehill's surroundings 2012-2018 were horrendous, and his surroundings in 2019 were merely average, or 2) his surroundings 2012-2018 were average, and his surroundings in 2019 were exceptionally good?

What I'm saying here is that no one is providing objective support for possibility #1.

What you are saying is basically like challenging a shark bite survivor on how bad it actually was based on objective data. Objective data is great, but you dont always need it to conclude something obvious like being bitten by a shark hurts.

No-one here needs to provide objective data to know those teams were awful.

There are other awful teams too. It doesnt have to be that we were the worst of all time or something ridiculous. Simply AMONG the worst teams in the league for most of that time period, which is a general statement 99% of people would agree with.

Anyone could literally look at the rosters minus Tannehill and cringe.

"The Guy wrote:

So now just for the sake of argument, let's say all of that is true -- how do we know it caused the performance around Tannehill from 2012 to 2018 to be significantly worse than that of the average team in the league?

You're looking at the Dolphins exclusively there. There is no comparison with a league norm or with the average team happening in what you've said.

I have pointed out roster turnover to you as a metric that can be used to judge the state of a team. This is a difficult metric to get in one. place for all teams but I have found a couple of references to it in the seasons we are talking about. Here is an article before the start of the 2016 season that deals with roster turnover following the 2015 and 2014 seasons:

https://www.pff.com/news/pro-percentage-of-snaps-lost-for-each-afc-east-team

Overall snaps lost: 31.49 percent, 30th (2015: 39.31 percent, 32nd)

Miami was last in the league entering 2015 and 30th in the league entering 2016.

This is definitely an area of study that is still evolving. Different articles use different measures (snap counts, full time equivalent (FTE) The 2015 article used FTE and still ranked Miami dead last in the league.

https://www.pff.com/news/snaps-lost-miami-dolphins

Predictably, after a decent season in 2016, the turnover was signficantly less entering 2017 (note, this doesn't include the Tannehill injury).

https://www.pff.com/news/pro-snaps-lost-afc-east

"The Guy wrote:

And how did that compare to the league norm, in terms of the frequency with which players play badly for one team and then have future careers similar to those?

Certainly that didn't happen for Miami 2012-2018 and for no other teams whatsoever. The question is, where did Miami fall in comparison to the league as a whole in terms of the frequency and magnitude of that issue?

Or should we just trust that some guy named "FinFaninBuffalo" on a message board thinks it was "bad."

And that represents the objective comparison needed for just one proposed indicator of the Dolphins' ineptitude 2012-2018.

Again, if YOU want to prove that those Miami teams were no different than other teams... GO AHEAD. Present your evidence to support your new (actually old) theory. Don't ask us to go find your stats to support your theory.

"The Guy wrote:

So let's go with that one, then. The question is, where is the objective support for the highlighted portion above?

Multiple years of league worst roster turnover, three head coaches, numerous offensive and defensive coordinator changes, and front office firings.

"resnor wrote:

Again, if YOU want to prove that those Miami teams were no different than other teams... GO AHEAD. Present your evidence to support your new (actually old) theory. Don't ask us to go find your stats to support your theory.

This is something you do lots of times there is a debate about something. You take a position that is held strongly by many people in the forum, one that has no objective support, and then when someone asks for objective support of it, you act like it's then their position to refute.

This isn't my position to refute. This is your position to support.

"The Guy wrote:

This is something you do lots of times there is a debate about something. You take a position that is held strongly by many people in the forum, one that has no objective support, and then when someone asks for objective support of it, you act like it's then their position to refute.

This isn't my position to refute. This is your position to support.

False. I have zero interest in going back down the previous arguments from years past, that clearly were pointless because you're bringing up arguments now, as if they're new, when they've been argued against statistically for years.

IF YOU want to argue them, then BRING SOME FACTS. You're complaining that I'm not using facts, but all you're doing is making a statement, in the form of a question, and expecting us to run around and find facts to disprove your not fact based assertion.

Also, you've had me on block for at least the last year, so how many of my posts have you been reading. Lol

"FinFaninBuffalo wrote:

I have pointed out roster turnover to you as a metric that can be used to judge the state of a team. This is a difficult metric to get in one. place for all teams but I have found a couple of references to it in the seasons we are talking about. Here is an article before the start of the 2016 season that deals with roster turnover following the 2015 and 2014 seasons:

https://www.pff.com/news/pro-percentage-of-snaps-lost-for-each-afc-east-team

Overall snaps lost: 31.49 percent, 30th (2015: 39.31 percent, 32nd)

Miami was last in the league entering 2015 and 30th in the league entering 2016.

This is definitely an area of study that is still evolving. Different articles use different measures (snap counts, full time equivalent (FTE) The 2015 article used FTE and still ranked Miami dead last in the league.

https://www.pff.com/news/snaps-lost-miami-dolphins

Predictably, after a decent season in 2016, the turnover was signficantly less entering 2017 (note, this doesn't include the Tannehill injury).

https://www.pff.com/news/pro-snaps-lost-afc-east

That at least is a decent attempt. That's the first such attempt I've seen at objectively supporting the idea that Tannehill's surroundings 2012-2018 were significantly worse than average.

Again, this is a major piece of the puzzle in the belief that Tannehill's surroundings were a ball-and-chain on him 2012-2018. I mean my lord, one of the cornerstones of the theory of his performance in 2019 has never been supported objectively.

"resnor wrote:

False. I have zero interest in going back down the previous arguments from years past, that clearly were pointless because you're bringing up arguments now, as if they're new, when they've been argued against statistically for years.

IF YOU want to argue them, then BRING SOME FACTS. You're complaining that I'm not using facts, but all you're doing is making a statement, in the form of a question, and expecting us to run around and find facts to disprove your not fact based assertion.

Also, you've had me on block for at least the last year, so how many of my posts have you been reading. Lol

I've brought facts -- the strongest probability is that any team in the league, in any way, is average. That is a fact. Therefore my belief is that Tannehill's surroundings on the 2012-2018 Dolphins were more likely than not average.

If you're arguing the 2012-2018 Dolphins were significantly worse than average, well then you're asserting something different from that fact, and then the onus is on you to support that.

This thread just needs to die. It's pointless and it will NEVER reach a resolution that makes anyone, let alone everyone, happy.

There is a such thing as being over reliant on numbers. Especially numbers that have very little to do with the individual player and try to get cute making comparisons of apples and oranges but selling them all as apples.

This goes for any statistic that supports or discredits Tannehill.

"The Guy wrote:

I've brought facts -- the strongest probability is that any team in the league, in any way, is average. That is a fact. Therefore my belief is that Tannehill's surroundings on the 2012-2018 Dolphins were more likely than not average.

Same is true for the Patriots, right?

"FinFaninBuffalo wrote:

Same is true for the Patriots, right?

Sure. The position that the Patriots have been significantly better than average 2001-2019 can be readily objectively supported.

"The Guy wrote:

That at least is a decent attempt. That's the first such attempt I've seen at objectively supporting the idea that Tannehill's surroundings 2012-2018 were significantly worse than average.

Again, this is a major piece of the puzzle in the belief that Tannehill's surroundings were a ball-and-chain on him 2012-2018. I mean my lord, one of the cornerstones of the theory of his performance in 2019 has never been supported objectively.

This had been addressed on a yearly basis during the time period, especially as it relates to the OL. You, in fact, argued that the repeated change over in personnel argued in favor of Tannehill being the problem, since, you were certain that there was no way that a team could repeatedly fail to solve a problem. I was certain the the replacements sucked, their replacements sucked, and their replacements sucked, and so on......

Finally, Tannehill goes to a new team in 2019 and he excels. The Dolphins, OTOH, continued their thrashing on the OL. Again, they had 8 different linemen play 44% or more of the offensive snaps. 5 of them had 0 snaps for Miami in 2018. Predictably, the line sucked again.

"The Guy wrote:

Sure. The position that the Patriots have been significantly better than average 2001-2019 can be readily objectively supported.

LOL. You believe the Patriots were more likely than not average.