OK, I'll play along.
Schedule:
He says the Dolphins only won 1 game against "winning teams" in 2016 ... then makes a false-comparison to this year's schedule. OK, let's fix this. The 2017 schedule of which he speaks is PRE-SEASON projection. So, it is determined by the records of the team in the previous year. So, let's compare that 2017 schedule in an apples to apples comparison with the 2016 season ... also a PRE-SEASON schedule comparison. In that case, the Jets had a 10-6 record in 2015, meaning they showed as a winning team in the 2016 pre-season schedule. Also, the Arizona Cardinals were 13-3 in 2015, so they also showed as a winning team. Yes, the Pittsburgh Steelers were also a winning team in 2015 with a record of 10-6, so they similarly showed as a winning team in the 2016 pre-season schedule.
So Mr. Musketfire, the correct metric is that the Dolphins defeated 4 teams that had winning records going into the 2016 season. Also, just FYI, the Bills were 8-8 and we beat them twice ... so if your review had said non-losing teams we had beaten, it would rise to 6. If we beat 4 teams with winning records this year, we most likely will get back into the playoffs, considering 4 of our 6 division games are predicted to be against losing opponents ... and 4 wins against winning teams + 4 wins against losing teams in our division alone + 2 wins against teams with 8-8 records would = 10 wins. That same 10 win marker ... hmmm. So, I'm guessing that your analytics just said we will most likely win 10 games again and be back into the playoffs again. Thanks Mr. Musketfire ... even if you were too dumb to use your own metrics properly. I think your gun jammed on that one Mr. Musketfire.
Tannehill:
OK, so you know our QB's name ... that's a start. You recognize that he missed a few games at the end of the season, good. Now why don't you use those missed games to predict stuff ... ummmmm like his passing yards per game, which were well in advance of your 4,000 yards per season pace. You mention how few times he reached 4,000 yards ... how fortuitous for you! Since he basically was a play or two short in the first season, while setting a rookie record for yardage by a Miami rookie, breaking the record set by some dude named Dan Marino ... ever heard of him? And, Tannehill did it while suffering one of the top 10 worst Offensive Lines in the NFL since we started keeping meaningful OL stats. The only thing that line was ... was offensive. But hey, facts be dammed, we're roasting fish! (mammals actually, but he's on a roll so let's go with it). Too bad you mentioned his completion percentage ... and glossed over the fact that he installed a completely new offense. See, the reason it's too bad is because inside the red zone Tannehill was 3rd in the NFL in completion percentage, behind only Drew Breese and your boy Tom Brady. Oh, and if you're looking for quarterback ratings inside the red zone, well Tannehill topped the list at #1. Tannehill ranked above your boy Tom Brady. But hey, completion percentage ... that's a good enough metric for everything right!? Yards Per Attempt ... meh, might as well leave it out of this article Mr. Musketfire, it doesn't help you to show that Tannehill threw more deep balls, or was one of the top deep ball throwers in the league, or that he was ... oh I dunno ... good.
Let's do this scientifically ... you know, just for shiz and giggles. When a drastic new offense is installed it takes time. The later games are obviously more indicative than the earlier ones. The head coach has done this at several different places and he said it takes about 5 games. Oddly enough, that projected demarcation line correlates with a dramatic shift in performance. You can call it coincidence, but an astute analyst would know better. From game 6 onward we see a truer picture of Tannehill. He was excellent. In those 9 games he threw a bunch of TD's and very few INT's. The offense was productive, which is why we started getting into the red zone for those aforementioned red zone rankings mattered. He was generating high YPA, which is more important than completion percentage if you are going to naively rely on only one passing statistic. In a 7 game stretch Tannehill only threw 1 INT. That speaks volumes for not only Tannehill adjusting to the new system, but also his wideouts ... all of whom return. Attempting to suggest the Dolphins will take a step backwards because of Tannehill is simply not supported by a reasonable analysis. The only analysis that makes sense is that if Tannehill is and remains healthy (seems healthy now), that Tannehill will resemble the guy who played in this same system with virtually the same people from game 6 onward. So, you're expecting the kind of year from Tannehill that the Raiders got from Derek Carr ... a potential MVP type year. I'm not ready to project him that far just yet ... but to suggest that last season or his history (pre-fixing of the OL) somehow indicate a negative ... well that's just blind Cheatriot homerism son. Sorry, but this one blew up in your face leaving bad burns and lots of powder on your face Mr. Musketfire.
Offensive Line:
OK, well you make a good point. Our OL is not great, despite what some posters here might have you believe. This will be the source of a make-or-break aspect of the Dolphins team this year. But, how come you mention it THIS year, as if it is a reason why they will do worse than LAST year? Because it's projecting to be slightly better this year ... not worse. See, we drafted Isaac Asiata, who everyone thinks is going to be a good guard in this league. He was overaged and slipped in the draft from the 3rd to the 5th, but nobody thinks the kid is a gamble or unskilled. If our OL is as bad as you say, and I'm of the mind it was not good, then how does it get WORSE by adding a good solid prospect? I get that we lose Branden Albert, and yes that does hurt ... but we also shift Tunsil out to his natural LT position, which will definitely get improved play from Tunsil and the LT position. Plus, Albert didn't play every game ... he always gets injured, so Asiata isn't just replacing Albert, he is also replacing the first few games of Dallas Thomas and the sub games of Steen. All in all, I'd say that this could be an improvement over last year, even if we insist on playing ostrich about Bushrod's shortcomings. But, reasonable minds may differ, and you have a valid point here.
It does seem disingenuous to me that you mention the OL here as a major bullet point without really addressing how it affected Tannehill in the past or how the improved pass protection last year helped him achieve such high ratings in so many areas last year. Of course, that would require looking at the first 5 games and realizing they were transition time for the offense ... and you've already proven that you missed that obvious fact Mr. Musketfire.
Let's look at the OL objectively. Tunsil looked great when he played at LT last year. Natural, stud, dominant. Once Ju'Wuan James (of whom I am not a fan) started getting the hang of the new OL technique, he actually played a few impressive games. There is no history of consistency there, but there is the glimmer of promise. Mike Pouncey ... we were dominant with him in the lineup, but he only played 4 games. Are you seriously suggesting that he will play 4 or less games this year? Depending on his health? We didn't have his health LAST year Bozo, we're not depending on his health to stay the same, we're depending on his health to get BETTER. Nobody is OK with Urbik as our starting C, Dallas Thomas as our starting LG, Bushrod as our starting RG and Sam Young as our starting LT. Yet those guys played those positions last year. Urbik isn't bad ... but he's not a starter. Neither should Bushrod IMHO. But, James improved. Tunsil projects phenomenally at LT. Asiata looks like an excellent prospect to start immediately at LG. Ted Larsen is an Urbik-level substitute with positional flexibility. He has the physical tools despite only playing OL one season in college. I'm not sure whether we'll be better than last season or not ... but we definitely do not predict to be WORSE, and any depending on Pouncey seems to be depending on him to improve ... because we already know what our misfortunes look like without him. Let's consider that one a near miss Mr. Musketfire.
Continued next post ...
