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

SI: Cameron on Gase, RT17 & The Offense

Discussion in 'Miami Dolphins Forum' started by Galant, Sep 9, 2016.

  1. Stringer Bell

    Stringer Bell Post Hard, Post Often Club Member

    43,990
    21,652
    113
    Mar 22, 2008
    Neither, its a non sequitor. Does being a great QB lead one to audible, or does being able to audible lead you to becoming a great QB?

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
     
    Fin-O likes this.
  2. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh Club Member

    72,252
    43,682
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    The end result of your argument is that nothing can be compared and everything we discuss is a non sequitor. Does a QB with elite running skills make a QB great? How do we know unless we compare?

    Audibling is not the chicken or egg argument. It is a tool that QBs are given to deal with defenses. You act like its the secret to Kung Fu. A QB needs tools. Tools he possess and tools given to him by the team. The worse the situation he has the more tools he needs to cope. Having the oline problems we've had there's a few tools a QB can use to deal with that. The last staff took as many tools from him as possible. You can obfuscate that simple concept as much as you want but it doesn't change reality.

    Was S. Young great in Tampa? Why?
     
    resnor likes this.
  3. Stringer Bell

    Stringer Bell Post Hard, Post Often Club Member

    43,990
    21,652
    113
    Mar 22, 2008
    Everything can be compared. Your argument removed Tannehill from comparison when you declared him a victim of circumstance, not a contributor.

    In order to audible effectively, you need to be able to read defenses, diagnoses coverage schemes, etc. prior to the snap. Not every QB can do these things equally.

    The tool analogy is a great one. In order to use many tools, you need to display a mastery in application of those tools. You have to pass tests to use cars, use certain weapons, distribute certain things, etc. In order to audible effectively, you have to display a mastery of reading defenses, diagnosing coverages, etc.

    This quote pretty much sums up how you are willing to overlook Tannehill playing any role in this:

    You have defaulted to the "staff took the tools away from him" rather than acknowledging the role his abilities played in the staff giving him the tools. You are then incorporating that assumption into a question, which leads it to be a non-sequitor.

    Don't think you can accurately assess a QB in a sample less than 20 games.

    Either way, you're trying to argue that the circumstance around a QB impacts that player's performance. I'm not disputing that. I believe that the coaches played a role in Tannehill's inability to audible, but I also believe that Tannehill played a role as well. The non-sequitor you posed previously inherently assumes that Tannehill did not play a role in his lack of ability to audible.
     
  4. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    14,488
    8,397
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    You are assuming that audibling was taken away because he was deficient. An assertion made many times, without any evidence of it.
     
    Fin D likes this.
  5. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh Club Member

    72,252
    43,682
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    No it didn't. You're putting that onto the argument because you think it scores some points or something.

    Thill has shown he can do that. Lazor has shown his own ego got int he way.

    Again, a person may be perfectly competent using a given tool, but the tool's owner may still not let them use it.

    I am not. **** this is ridiculous.

    Your argument is now that Thill couldn't audible because the fired coaches deemed him not worthy and that's his fault and not the fired coaches. Again, who has shown to be more competent, Philbin has a HC, Lazor as an OC or Thill as a QB?

    Any other time you'd complain about the coaches, but now they were right and was all thill's fault. Kinda crazy on your part.

    Convenient. Did he ever a 20 game stretch like that anywhere else?

    Its no a non sequitor. Its a legit issue. You'll see this year. The question is will any of you admit you were wrong or will you keep passing on taking responsibility?
     
  6. Stringer Bell

    Stringer Bell Post Hard, Post Often Club Member

    43,990
    21,652
    113
    Mar 22, 2008
    "I believe that the coaches played a role on his inability to audible".

    My assumption is that both parties played a role. Therefore, I wouldnt pose a question like 'how many OCs have succeeded without a QB that could audible?", because it is a non-sequitor.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
     
  7. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh Club Member

    72,252
    43,682
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    No it isn't. The OC has the power to determine whether the QB audibles. Lazor decided Thill wasn't allowed. You assume he good reason. I don't. That doesn't make this a non sequitor.
     
    resnor likes this.
  8. roy_miami

    roy_miami Well-Known Member

    1,385
    560
    113
    Oct 11, 2013
    If Doughty ends up starting for us this season somehow will he have the same full audible authority that Tannehill will have?
     
  9. Stringer Bell

    Stringer Bell Post Hard, Post Often Club Member

    43,990
    21,652
    113
    Mar 22, 2008



    I have only argued A) that your question was a non sequitor, and B) that both parties likely played a role in the decision.

    See what? Regardless of what happens on the field, your question will remain fundamentally flawed in its logic and a non-sequitor.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
     
    roy_miami likes this.
  10. Stringer Bell

    Stringer Bell Post Hard, Post Often Club Member

    43,990
    21,652
    113
    Mar 22, 2008
    Ok well we now have you on record that Bill Lazor acted in bad faith.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
     
  11. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh Club Member

    72,252
    43,682
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    It isn't.

    The only way it could is if the only reason a QB wasn't allowed to audible was his own fault.

    Do you or do you not agree a QB could be kept from audibling through no fault of his own? Yes or no? If yes, its not a non sequitor if no, you're wrong the answer is yes.
     
    resnor likes this.
  12. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh Club Member

    72,252
    43,682
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    I'm on record saying Lazor wouldn't give anyone audible power because he felt like only he could call his offense.
     
    resnor likes this.
  13. Stringer Bell

    Stringer Bell Post Hard, Post Often Club Member

    43,990
    21,652
    113
    Mar 22, 2008
    I dont believe a QB can be completely absolved of any responsibility, no.


    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
     
  14. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh Club Member

    72,252
    43,682
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    I didn't say any responsibility. I said a QB can kept form audibling form an OC for reasons beyond the QB. For crying out loud you're being ridiculous iof you think that can't happen.
     
  15. Stringer Bell

    Stringer Bell Post Hard, Post Often Club Member

    43,990
    21,652
    113
    Mar 22, 2008
    That is not acting in bad faith.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
     
  16. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh Club Member

    72,252
    43,682
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    What exactly are you trying to accomplish here?

    I know you don't believe half the crap your saying.
     
  17. Stringer Bell

    Stringer Bell Post Hard, Post Often Club Member

    43,990
    21,652
    113
    Mar 22, 2008
    Illustrate the circular logic behind your question, which was a non sequitor.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
     
  18. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh Club Member

    72,252
    43,682
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    There's nothing to illustrate.

    You are insanely acting like the ability to audible can only be taken away based on the QB. You are literally ignoring everything about humans, free will, the concepts of ANYONE ELSE OTHER THAN THE QB being bad at their job, etc. All because you want to purposely annoy the piss out of the board, I'm guessing.

    Look at the results. I man is a 5 year starter at his job, the other kept his job for a 1.5 year....and didn;'t get a job as an OC at his next job. Guarantee if Thill was cut today he'd still be a QB within the week.
     
  19. Stringer Bell

    Stringer Bell Post Hard, Post Often Club Member

    43,990
    21,652
    113
    Mar 22, 2008
    No, ive stated a number of times that all parties play a role.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
     
  20. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    14,488
    8,397
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    I don't know why you bother, FinD.
     
    Fin D likes this.
  21. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh Club Member

    72,252
    43,682
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    I'm an idiot.
     
    roy_miami likes this.
  22. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    8,697
    10,251
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    I agree with both sides here if that possible?!?!

    On one hand I think it's true that the way Fin D's often couches his question suggests a priori that the environment, not the QB, is the problem. And the question ideally shouldn't do that. On the other hand, I do think his question is relevant because you have to ask that question (phrased a bit differently) to figure out who is more responsible, the QB or the OC.

    IF we had easy-to-access measures of different QB's audibling powers and how good pass protection is across the league, then one could in principle extrapolate what the "expected" performance of a QB would be in Tannehill's case even if no other QB was in the same situation.

    So the question shouldn't necessarily be what other QB's were in the same situation and how did they perform. That's nice if you can answer that but it's not necessary to answer. The question really should be whether we can get the data on audibling powers and pass protection ability (and running game of course) to extrapolate what "expected" performance is in Tannehill's situation. As stated that doesn't require any other QB to have ever been precisely in Tannehill's situation.

    Of course, that brings us back to Fin-O's point of us not having access to such data to test these hypotheses, mosty because we don't have available measures of audibling powers for different QB's. So it's really just opinion at this point with respect to who is more responsible.

    Anyway, there will definitely be some insight on this now that Tannehill has yet another HC/OC with more audibling powers. 17 hours till we get new data!
     
  23. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh Club Member

    72,252
    43,682
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    There's nothing wrong with my question.

    I am not the one making all kinds of definitive statements and judgements. Its you guys. You guys are the ones that make definitive claims that Thill is the problem with this or that. So, if I can't ask a goddamned legit question, simply because you don't have easy access to the answers, then how in the hairy hell can any of you make your definitive statements without that same goddamned information? Its ****ing ridiculous.

    Your guys stance is that until X can proven untrue, then X is true....and nothing works like that other than innocent until proven guilty...which is the opposite of what actually happens around here with Thill. You freely admit you don't have the data to judge him guilty, yet he just is and i should shut up...cause reasons....

    Acting like my question is flawed literally flies in the face of the integrity of the ideals behind all your stat work. All stats are, are comparisons. I'm asking for a comparison. There's nothing outlandish or unreasonable about it either. There's no issues with how to score something. There's no reason to redefine anything (like you do to make it fit a previously held stance, like you've done). Its a simple 1 to 1 comparison, but you, Captain Excel, acts like its absurd.

    Why do teams audible? Why do teams commit to the run? why do teams try to have a decent oline?

    You don't like my question because it sticks a giant dagger right through the heart of your anti-thill narrative. So fine, please list for the class the specific tools used to combat a crap pass blocking oline. If audbiling doesn't help and committing to the run doesn't help, then what exactly does a team do?
     
    resnor likes this.
  24. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    8,697
    10,251
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Stringer Bell's right about the implied suggestion the problem IS the environment the way you ask it. I'm just pointing out there is an undercurrent of validity to asking how QB's are expected to do in Tannehill's situation. And nothing you asked sticks any "dagger" through anything I've said.

    Also, stats aren't all about "comparisons". The primary goal of statistical analysis is to infer from data the probability of an event occurring or the likelihood of a hypothesis being true, given possibly certain assumptions made about the distribution of the data.
     
    roy_miami and Stringer Bell like this.
  25. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh Club Member

    72,252
    43,682
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    No it doesn't, else what you guys say implies its all thill and not anything else then, right?

    ...compared to other data.

    Finished that for you.
     
  26. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    8,697
    10,251
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Nothing I've said implies it's all Tannehill's fault. One can certainly read what you wrote as not logically implying it's all the environment, but it's generally clear in context that you mean it's the environment. That's why I said "suggests".

    No that makes it a false statement. The assumption is JUST about the distribution of that data.
     
  27. Pauly

    Pauly Season Ticket Holder

    3,378
    3,376
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    Firstly to get that figure you conveniently gloss over QB rushing as if it never happens or has an impact on the game

    It is not an insignificant difference. Especially when you look into game situation. http://www.fieldgulls.com/2016/9/3/12785246/run-first-ask-questions-later
    Lazor called 45%+ rushing plays with plays on 1st or 2nd down with 4-10 yards to go, run between the 20s -- essentially those situations where a team can pick its strategy.
    Basically when the phins were going 70% pass/run for three quarters of the season
     
    resnor and Fin D like this.
  28. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh Club Member

    72,252
    43,682
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    If stance "suggests" Thill is not to blame for anything, then your stance "suggests" he is.

    No that makes it a false statement. The assumption is JUST about the distribution of that data.[/QUOTE]

    You haven't provided a single stat, a single piece of numerical evidence, that exists without a comparison.
     
  29. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    8,697
    10,251
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    I properly qualify my statements so that it doesn't "suggest" Tannehill is all to blame. I even explicitly say this yet you keep claiming I do otherwise. You realize that an explicit statement saying Tannehill is NOT all to blame is about as clear as it can get??

    If you want to do the same in this debate, just explicitly acknowledge Tannehill could be partly to blame for not being allowed to audible. Then we know you're not arguing Tannehill's problems are due to the environment he was put in.


    And any "comparison" in statistics occurs after the fact, that is after any assumptions are made. It's not an integral part of statistics. And yes I've provided tons of stats that "exist" without comparison, for example those that just calculate the probability of something occurring due to chance alone. You remember those "coin flip" arguments? Like how likely it is due JUST to chance alone that the Patriots made the playoffs 13 out of 14 years Brady was the QB. That calculation is done without comparison to anything else (so it "exists" without comparison) and is meaningful on its own without comparison. Naturally you can compare after the fact to whatever you like.
     
  30. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    14,488
    8,397
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    He could be partly to blame...but there is no evidence that he was making bad calls, or misreading defenses. In the contrary, there is evidence from coaches that he was good at reading defenses and making the right audible call. The issue was the young QB suffered "rhythm problems" when having audible abilities. So Lazor removed it, instead of working with the young QB to fix the rhythm problems.

    Although, the rhythm problems could also be related to other parts of the offense not being up to speed enough to quickly adapt to the audibles Tannehill was calling.

    However, most people we're arguing with believe Tannehill is bad at audibling, and their evidence is that Tannehill was no allowed to audible.
     
  31. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    8,697
    10,251
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    resnor I agree mostly with you on this. Just arguing technicalities.

    To me, it SEEMS like most of the blame should go towards Philbin and Lazor because it did seem like they're control freaks. On the other hand, I doubt Lazor would take away audibling powers from even a new QB that exhibited in practice stuff someone like Peyton (that's extreme of course) can do. I think they put the threshold for giving the QB full audibling powers much higher than was good for the development of Tannehill.
     
  32. roy_miami

    roy_miami Well-Known Member

    1,385
    560
    113
    Oct 11, 2013
    There is evidence. For instance he audibled to a deep pass when we were in range to kick the game winning field goal in OT. Also against the Bills on the infamous sack/strip that cost us the game. It may not have been a bad decision on paper but if you change the play and put the ball in your hands you need to step up and make the play. Instead what happened was the worst case and we handed the ball to them in our territory.
     
  33. Sceeto

    Sceeto Well-Known Member

    12,800
    5,457
    113
    Oct 13, 2008
    New York
    JFTR, I may as well put it here, I am completely behind Tanne and he has all of my support. Yes, I remember my drunken reality. I will say that I supported him and remained supportive of him for almost five years. I broke after the 4th or fifth game last year. Actually, at that point, when where all but petty much eliminated from playoff contention, I mentioned that outside of Landry and maybe Jones, I was done with the whole friggin' team. 5 years is a long *** time to go along with the many years and many s--t bag QBs we all had to endure for many years. Hey, I'm not that old, but who the f--k knows? ..any of us can be fertilizing daffodils in another five. It's just been a burnout.

    I of course acknowledge that Tanne was hamstrung by many other factors, such as, bad OL, bad coaching, etc. However, it all can't be blamed on those. He certainly had some major flaws that needed to be corrected or improved upon. That's for what I am now hoping.

    IMO, he looked very good and much improved this preseason. I seriously hope that continues on through the season.

    Were we already seeing some of the Gase effect on Tanne this preseason? I think so and i think there was also a certain amount of natural growth and maturity going on as well.

    He just may be one of the guys who, for whatever reason, happened to blossom later in his career.

    He already has shown us some very respectable traits and accomplishments. I'm just hoping he can put it all together this year.

    He already, on paper and some through some examples this preseason, has good coaching, a much improved OL and some good receiving threats. So, yes, this is certainly the make or break year. This is it.

    Lets hope he remains the tough SOB he's been and keeps up the solid growth and play this season. It's a tough schedule and he has that going against him, but just like Tom Brady's tampons, things can change a lot from year to year.

    So, in summation.....ALL IN ON TANNE B---HES!!! Wooooo!!!!! Lets do this!!!!! Lets go out and put cases on all these b----hes!!!

    :up: :hammertime:
     
    cuchulainn likes this.
  34. roy_miami

    roy_miami Well-Known Member

    1,385
    560
    113
    Oct 11, 2013
    I don't see how you can say Philbin was a control freak. Philbin was not opposed to audibling, we know this because Tannehill had a lot of freedom under Sherman. Philbin gave control to Lazor, which is the opposite of being a control freak. Lazor wanted one thing and Tannehill wanted another. If Philbin would have given control to Tannehill then he would have been taking control away from Lazor. You can say he created dysfunction by pairing Lazor and Tannehill together but you can't say he was a control freak.
     
  35. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    8,697
    10,251
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Well whether Philbin was opposed to audibling or not isn't really that big of a "test" for whether he cared excessively about order and players falling in line. I mean he helped get rid of all kinds of good (and bad) players due either to off-field problems or not being easily "controlled". That list is long and includes Vontae Davis, Karlos Dansby, Brandon Marshall and Reggie Bush. I mean you as a coach are willing to let players like Dansby and Bush go in good part because they say in public they don't agree you?

    Yeah, I think many other coaches will admonish players behind the scenes but not go so far as to let them go. Those were damn good players you know. And we did hear about players talking about Philbin's excessive emphasis on orderliness.

    Philbin also wasn't very flexible during game-time. So while you're right that Philbin didn't mind giving powers to an OC and DC, I think that's more indicative of just the sheer impossibility of any HC taking over all those responsibilities. "audibling" is a tiny drop of water in a hot pan here IMO with regards to how much Philbin acted like he wanted everyone to fall in line, ie "control freak". At least that's been my perception of him, right or wrong.
     
    cuchulainn and resnor like this.
  36. Fin-O

    Fin-O Initiated Club Member

    10,971
    10,694
    113
    Sep 28, 2015
    Oh look...Mike Wallace 66 yd TD.

    Im sure he is happy to be rewarded for beating the defender like a drum....been a while.
     
    Dolphins_Time and Finster like this.
  37. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    14,488
    8,397
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Miller might get 100 yards in the first half with Houston.
     
    bakedmatt likes this.
  38. roy_miami

    roy_miami Well-Known Member

    1,385
    560
    113
    Oct 11, 2013
    I don't buy that he had much say over who we got rid of with Ireland here. We heard he wanted rid of Incognito after sexually harassing a woman at a team event, if he didn't even have the control to make that happen how does he make anything happen?
     
  39. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    8,697
    10,251
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Philbin wasn't the GM true, but he either had the power to penalize players that weren't easily "controlled", or he supported and endorsed moves by the GM to get rid of them.
     

Share This Page