Sure, and once again, the Dolphins didn't experience any more of that than the average team in 2013.
Coaching change winners
- Thread starter FinfanInBuffalo
- Start date
Valandui
Lumberjack Batman
- Joined
- May 11, 2008
- Messages
- 10,211
- Reaction score
- 33
According to a stat biased toward upholding their own arbitrary standard. Who decides what is and what isn't objective stat recording?
Well of course you're free to toss it right in the garbage and believe whatever you'd like. :)
Valandui
Lumberjack Batman
- Joined
- May 11, 2008
- Messages
- 10,211
- Reaction score
- 33
There is no standard application of "pressures" on PFF. They like to pretend there is but there isn't. PFF "employs" volunteers or lightly paid people to grade their games for them. Their standards are rising all the time but it's still sort of a DIY operation.
And when someone here says, regarding quarterback pressure surrendered by the OL, "the Dolphins had one of the worst offensive lines in the league last year," and that's inconsistent with the data provided by PFF, who do you think is more likely to be wrong about the Dolphins' offensive line, PFF, or that person?
Valandui
Lumberjack Batman
- Joined
- May 11, 2008
- Messages
- 10,211
- Reaction score
- 33
Who is more likely to identify the intricacies of an offensive line deficiencies, an unconcerned outsider who may or may not be a football fan or a person with a vested interest in finding ways that their favorite team can improve?
I think it's time to agree to disagree. Thanks for the discussion. :)
One of the first lessons I learned in sports is stats are like a bikini they show you everything except the important parts.
With that said if the argument here is that the OL Miami had last season was a capable OL
That didn't give up more pressure than other teams, its simply a bad argument made by statistician
Because that poorest OL could not block for run plays & gave up 58! Sacks.
BTW a sack is the end result of pressure.
so the absolute measurable here is 58, the most in the NFL last year.
It might be cool or high minded to make a case that Tannehill was the issue and or should be given more blame for this performance in my opinion
He performed well considering they had no run game & this terrible OL.
With that said if the argument here is that the OL Miami had last season was a capable OL
That didn't give up more pressure than other teams, its simply a bad argument made by statistician
Because that poorest OL could not block for run plays & gave up 58! Sacks.
BTW a sack is the end result of pressure.
so the absolute measurable here is 58, the most in the NFL last year.
It might be cool or high minded to make a case that Tannehill was the issue and or should be given more blame for this performance in my opinion
He performed well considering they had no run game & this terrible OL.
How do you know to which part of the team to attribute sacks, Tannehill or the offensive line?
And mostly attributed to the OL by the same organization that so many of the posters use to support their bogus arguments.
Wait.. all of the sudden, the attn whoring stat geek is citing PFF as gospel in support of the foundation of his convoluted premises? "Who's likely to be wrong??" indeed!
Well if you're gonna accept their conclusions on our OL's performance, then don't you have to also accept their methodologies concluding that Tannehill was the 7th highest ranked QB this season also? Of course that's unless you are a red meat drooling Tannagendist coming in with a preconception which enables you to selectively use and parse some stats, ignore others and put those who call out your (sexually?) obsessive #17 BS on "Ignore." (as the loophole allowing you to formerly eliminate any dissent from being posted in your threads was mercifully closed!)
Can someone who agrees please quote this "for the Universal record"
Wait.. all of the sudden, the attn whoring stat geek is citing PFF as gospel in support of the foundation of his convoluted premises? "Who's likely to be wrong??" indeed!
Well if you're gonna accept their conclusions on our OL's performance, then don't you have to also accept their methodologies concluding that Tannehill was the 7th highest ranked QB this season also? Of course that's unless you are a red meat drooling Tannagendist coming in with a preconception which enables you to selectively use and parse some stats, ignore others and put those who call out your (sexually?) obsessive #17 BS on "Ignore." (as the loophole allowing you to formerly eliminate any dissent from being posted in your threads was mercifully closed!)
Can someone who agrees please quote this "for the Universal record"
Quoted, i don't think he's blocked me yet
Wait.. all of the sudden, the attn whoring stat geek is citing PFF as gospel in support of the foundation of his convoluted premises? "Who's likely to be wrong??" indeed!
Well if you're gonna accept their conclusions on our OL's performance, then don't you have to also accept their methodologies concluding that Tannehill was the 7th highest ranked QB this season also? Of course that's unless you are a red meat drooling Tannagendist coming in with a preconception which enables you to selectively use and parse some stats, ignore others and put those who call out your (sexually?) obsessive #17 BS on "Ignore." (as the loophole allowing you to formerly eliminate any dissent from being posted in your threads was mercifully closed!)
Can someone who agrees please quote this "for the Universal record"
I'm on the list but he replies too me sometimes. So I think his ignore list has many variables.
Wait.. all of the sudden, the attn whoring stat geek is citing PFF as gospel in support of the foundation of his convoluted premises? "Who's likely to be wrong??" indeed!
Well if you're gonna accept their conclusions on our OL's performance, then don't you have to also accept their methodologies concluding that Tannehill was the 7th highest ranked QB this season also? Of course that's unless you are a red meat drooling Tannagendist coming in with a preconception which enables you to selectively use and parse some stats, ignore others and put those who call out your (sexually?) obsessive #17 BS on "Ignore." (as the loophole allowing you to formerly eliminate any dissent from being posted in your threads was mercifully closed!)
Can someone who agrees please quote this "for the Universal record"
He wants everyone to forget that the same group already weighed in on who was at fault for the majority of the sacks. It the OL just as so many of us have told him all season.
Does he remind you of another negative agendist you know? One who hypocritically overlooks or under-values some positives on one side while doing the opposite on the other, takes negatives out of context, selectively parses stats, dismisses the ones that don't confirm certain assertions, refuses to acknowledge being dead wrong.... and totally violates the old "people in glass houses...." adage?