Ryan Tannehill: The Objective Evidence | Page 4 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

Ryan Tannehill: The Objective Evidence

-=DolfanDave=- said:
Yes. If it is a large enough sample and the poll is constructed in an unbiased fashion, ABSOLUTELY.

Several options were given, and even if you have a personal agenda, you had a right to let that be known. This being the case, the fans have spoken. Tannehill (out of the options that received at least one vote) is clearly the least of our problems.

Do you really think that henne poll and my poll are comparable? C'mon man.
Click to expand...
Precisely. The fans (of the Dolphins) have spoken. No different from the churchgoers who would tell you God exists beyond the shadow of a doubt.

Go do the same poll on another team's message board and get back to me.
 
I hope you know that one of the new unwritten rules of finheaven is to disregard 9 out of 10 things that you post.
 
We get it OP, you don't like Tannehill, stop the soap box stats and your million threads about it. If you put all your threads together they'd have one stat: 100% on agenda.
 
shouright said:
Do you really think there's any credibility in the polling of fans who desperately want to see one thing and not see another?

That's about like going to a church on Sunday and asking the people there whether there is a God. :lol: ;)
Click to expand...

Pretty much like you wanting so desperately for Tannehill to fail?
 
shouright said:
Precisely. The fans (of the Dolphins) have spoken. No different from the churchgoers who would tell you God exists beyond the shadow of a doubt.

Go do the same poll on another team's message board and get back to me.
Click to expand...

Why is it such a hard concept for you to understand? Or are you just going HAM as Captain Troll? Either way, its obvious you're not a market researcher or have ever taken a statistics course.

Here, let me simplify it for you. My poll is unarguably more insightful than the Henne poll you so poorly chose to support your "argument"...

Are you really trying to make a point that the following polls are equally insightful and unbiased?:
...And, yes, DOLPHINS FANS are predetermined as the target audience for each poll but non-fans are allowed to vote as well (why are you hung-up on this fact?)

So, if the goal is to gauge the feelings of DOLPHINS FANS on a particular topic regarding THE TEAM THEY WATCH THE MOST, which poll produces better data?

Poll A) Would you prefer to see our starting QB succeed and help lead the fins to a SB next year (yes/no)?

Poll B) The one area of this team that I feel needs the most improvement next year in order for us to win a SB is... (multiple options)
 
#1Phins said:
Guys the bottom line is that Tannehill fumble the ball in the last 2 games and we loss those games maybe not all on him but it's part of the problem so who cares about statistics.

Remember you are what your record say you are.
Click to expand...

Good god, when your grammar is this bad there's little beyond keeping things simple you can do, huh?
 
Vaark said:
2m5mc15-1.jpg


this needs updating but you get the "objective" gist

2m76ipy-1.jpg


footnote: Russell Wilson, despite his exceptional mobility sacked 7X (times) last night with 2 substitute tackles and an otherwise decent OL. He needs to go
Click to expand...
LMFAO shonuff!
 
-=DolfanDave=- said:
Pot calling kettle black?
Click to expand...


Mmmmhh, Would you be so kind to point at the supporting evidence that brought such response? Are you not aware of the correct use of clauses and interjections?

Good god (interjection) Interjections do not belong to the structure of the sentence they either open or close and must be separated by a comma.

when your grammar is this (pronoun used as an adverb to represent the statement quoted above) bad there's (correct use of the contraction of there is) little (quantitative adjective) beyond (adverb in this case used to establish an imaginary limit) keeping (gerund, thus a non conjugated verb and part of the following idiomatic expression) things simple you can do (declarative syntax, not a question yet), huh? (widely used interjection used to infer a tag ended or confirmation question).

Do you need any more help dissecting complex English?
 
-=DolfanDave=- said:
Why is it such a hard concept for you to understand? Or are you just going HAM as Captain Troll? Either way, its obvious you're not a market researcher or have ever taken a statistics course.

Here, let me simplify it for you. My poll is unarguably more insightful than the Henne poll you so poorly chose to support your "argument"...

Are you really trying to make a point that the following polls are equally insightful and unbiased?:
...And, yes, DOLPHINS FANS are predetermined as the target audience for each poll but non-fans are allowed to vote as well (why are you hung-up on this fact?)

So, if the goal is to gauge the feelings of DOLPHINS FANS on a particular topic regarding THE TEAM THEY WATCH THE MOST, which poll produces better data?

Poll A) Would you prefer to see our starting QB succeed and help lead the fins to a SB next year (yes/no)?

Poll B) The one area of this team that I feel needs the most improvement next year in order for us to win a SB is... (multiple options)
Click to expand...
You can take polls all day long. There's nothing wrong with that. But to suggest they provide a facsimile of objective reality simply because a consensus has been reached among a highly homogeneous (i.e., 99.99% Dolphins fans) and likely highly biased population (i.e., 99.99% of whom want to see Tannehill succeed) is ludicrous.

Again, go poll churchgoers about whether there's a God. That poll won't be any different in its construction or its ability to provide insight on objective reality. You'll get a heavily biased, consensus opinion that tells us nothing about whether there really is a God.

Or do you suppose that poll would confirm the existence of God for us? :unsure:
 
shouright said:
You can take polls all day long. There's nothing wrong with that. But to suggest they provide a facsimile of objective reality simply because a consensus has been reached among a highly homogeneous (i.e., 99.99% Dolphins fans) and likely highly biased population (i.e., 99.99% of whom want to see Tannehill succeed) is ludicrous.

Again, go poll churchgoers about whether there's a God. That poll won't be any different in its construction or its ability to provide insight on objective reality. You'll get a heavily biased, consensus opinion that tells us nothing about whether there really is a God.

Or do you suppose that poll would confirm the existence of God for us? :unsure:
Click to expand...

Sho, Ya gotta get off this obsession on RT, and now God is entering into the same I enjoy stats as much as the next, likely more so BUT, you are going WAY OVERBOARD in trying to prove a point which does not exist.

Ease up, and try to calculate the human part of the equation, which you have ignored on RT and your posts. Accountants are GREAT with numbers, and for the IRS but, not a Phan favorite when it comes to football. :)
 
Southbeach 2 said:
Sho, Ya gotta get off this obsession on RT, and now God is entering into the same I enjoy stats as much as the next, likely more so BUT, you are going WAY OVERBOARD in trying to prove a point which does not exist.

Ease up, and try to calculate the human part of the equation, which you have ignored on RT and your posts. Accountants are GREAT with numbers, and for the IRS but, not a Phan favorite when it comes to football. :)
Click to expand...
Not trying to win a popularity contest. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom