Tell me again how Tannehill is a bust.

[Rev Kev]

I like Tannehill, but he did make 2 costly mistakes at the end of the game that could have lost the game.

1. he missed a wide open Hartline to move the chains.
2. ran out of bounds on 3rd down, preserving the clock and a timeout for the Chargers.

He had a good game, but he did have a few glaring, potentially costly errors, including the aforementioned, the pick, and the deep ball miss to Wallace.

Except that this is STILL Norv Turner's team(coached by McCoy) that CAN'T finish! -> Mr. Rivers... Calling you out!

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

Every bit of data I've ever posted here is independently verifiable. We don't need to talk about me to talk about the data. You can verify it yourself and discredit it if need be, or you can interpret it in your own way. Again, who I am and what I do has nothing to do with that process.

Of course, it's a whole lot easier to believe one has "discredited" the evidence by discrediting the person, rather than investigating the data oneself and interpreting them another way, but the target has been misplaced in that instance. The data are still there, regardless of who's posting them, and regardless of how credible the person posting them is believed to be.

"If we can believe this guy who calls himself "shouright" on a message board is biased, then Ryan Tannehill really isn't just average, since that's what that guy is saying." This isn't true, however. I can be as biased as the day is long, and Ryan Tannehill can still be just average. :)

The issue isn't the data. It's the interpretation of the data. It is the utter lack of understanding of the context of that data. It's the ignoring of reality in favor of your interpretation of the data. It's the claiming that the data is conclusive to your opinion while admitting that the data is incomplete.

As far as attacking the messenger. Even opinions that people agree with can be conveyed in a repetitive, annoying manner. Imagine the chaffing caused by the relentless expressing of an opinion that most don't share.

 

[Shouright]

The issue isn't the data. It's the interpretation of the data. It is the utter lack of understanding of the context of that data. It's the ignoring of reality in favor of your interpretation of the data. It's the claiming that the data is conclusive to your opinion while admitting that the data is incomplete.

Well we're all going to have our interpretations of the data, and agreeing to disagree isn't a problem for me. :)

As far as attacking the messenger. Even opinions that people agree with can be conveyed in a repetitive, annoying manner. Imagine the chaffing caused by the relentless expressing of an opinion that most don't share.

There is nothing more repetitive or annoying in my opinion than the expression of a positive view of Ryan Tannehill that's expressed in a factual manner when it's based on nothing objective (i.e., "if you can't see it, then you don't know anything about football"). Furthermore, that viewpoint is repugnantly grandiose in my opinion, because it positions the person expressing it as omniscient, superior, and condescending, even though it's based on nothing objective that can be independently verified.

 

[hoops]

Daniel Thomas actually played well which was a shocker!!
His pocket presence HAS to improve. The sace on the obvious safety blitz was horrible

you do realize that mckinnie blew the line call on that play right??? is tannehill suppose to make sure his lineman pick up their assignments and take his eyes off downfield or should he be scanning the field going thru his progressions and try and escape that backside pressure when he feels it late like he did???

i can't believe you blame the qb for that blown assignment by the left tackle...come on man...tannehill saw the blitz he just expected his left tackle to fan out to it instead of double the crashing to the inside player...

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

Well we're all going to have our interpretations of the data, and agreeing to disagree isn't a problem for me. :)

There is nothing more repetitive or annoying in my opinion than the expression of a positive view of Ryan Tannehill that's expressed in a factual manner when it's based on nothing objective (i.e., "if you can't see it, then you don't know anything about football"). Furthermore, that viewpoint is repugnantly grandiose in my opinion, because it positions the person expressing it as omniscient, superior, and condescending, even though it's based on nothing objective that can be independently verified.

It may also be accurate.

Btw, you don't have anything objective either. As soon as you discard data, admit to incomplete data, and use double standards, your objectivity goes out the window. At least everyone admits that they are expressing opinions based on what they see. You are pretending to be unbiased when the exact opposite is true.

 

[Shouright]

It may also be accurate.

Or it may be inaccurate, yet it's stated as though it can't possibly be, and in fact it's stated as though anyone who disagrees is a fool! :)

Btw, you don't have anything objective either. As soon as you discard data, admit to incomplete data, and use double standards, your objectivity goes out the window. At least everyone admits that they are expressing opinions based on what they see. You are pretending to be unbiased when the exact opposite is true.

I'm collecting objective data and interpreting it. Your interpretations of the same data may be different, and that's fine. We can agree to disagree, like I said. :)

The point remains, however; the data are independently verifiable. The subjective impressions are not.

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

Or it may be inaccurate, yet it's stated as though it can't possibly be, and in fact it's stated as though anyone who disagrees is a fool! :)

I'm collecting objective data and interpreting it. Your interpretations of the same data may be different, and that's fine. We can agree to disagree, like I said. :)

The point remains, however; the data are independently verifiable. The subjective impressions are not.

The data is also incomplete to the point of being worthless on its own.

 

[Shouright]

The data is also incomplete to the point of being worthless on its own.

Well when you consider that stuff like this:

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-playbook/0ap2000000269528/Playbook-Dolphins-vs-Patriots

...makes subjective observations just as or more worthless on their own, what would you put your money on? Objective data that, however incomplete, enable us to compare Tannehill to other QBs along the same variables, while controlling for confirmation bias, or subjective impressions that are just as incomplete on their own, are likely wrought with confirmation bias, and don't enable us to make any comparisons at all?

Either method is going to be right some of the time, and wrong some of the time, but I'd put a whole lot more money on the objective method every time, and I suspect I'd come out a big winner in the end. :)

 

[vt_dolfan]

Well when you consider that stuff like this:

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-playbook/0ap2000000269528/Playbook-Dolphins-vs-Patriots

...makes subjective observations just as or more worthless on their own, what would you put your money on? Objective data that, however incomplete, enable us to compare Tannehill to other QBs along the same variables, while controlling for confirmation bias, or subjective impressions that are just as incomplete on their own, are likely wrought with confirmation bias, and don't enable us to make any comparisons at all?

Either method is going to be right some of the time, and wrong some of the time, but I'd put a whole lot more money on the objective method every time, and I suspect I'd come out a big winner in the end. :)

See..thats the thing Shou. As long as YOUR the winner..all is gravy in your book. But some things cant be quantified with a stat..some things are much more inate then that. At some point, your gonna have to pull your nose out of the book, or guess what, all you will have is numbers, because everyone else is gonna be sick of listening to it.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Shouright]

See..thats the thing Shou. As long as YOUR the winner..all is gravy in your book. But some things cant be quantified with a stat..some things are much more inate then that. At some point, your gonna have to pull your nose out of the book, or guess what, all you will have is numbers, because everyone else is gonna be sick of listening to it.

Not everyone. :)

And whoever is can certainly put me on his ignore list.

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

Well when you consider that stuff like this:

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-playbook/0ap2000000269528/Playbook-Dolphins-vs-Patriots

...makes subjective observations just as or more worthless on their own, what would you put your money on? Objective data that, however incomplete, enable us to compare Tannehill to other QBs along the same variables, while controlling for confirmation bias, or subjective impressions that are just as incomplete on their own, are likely wrought with confirmation bias, and don't enable us to make any comparisons at all?

Either method is going to be right some of the time, and wrong some of the time, but I'd put a whole lot more money on the objective method every time, and I suspect I'd come out a big winner in the end. :)

There is your fatal flaw. You think it has to be one or the other. You ignore the video evidence and the actions of the coaching staff. You ignore simple logic. You discard or trivialize data that doesn't fit your preconceived conclusions.

Btw, that's like the 5th or 6th time you've posted that same link in response to one of my posts. You have the audacity to wonder why people sometimes attack the poster rather than the post? I realize you are trying to be annoying. I think your ignore suggestion is a good one.

 

[Shouright]

There is your fatal flaw. You think it has to be one or the other. You ignore the video evidence and the actions of the coaching staff. You ignore simple logic. You discard or trivialize data that doesn't fit your preconceived conclusions.

I discard or trivialize data whose basis can't be ascertained.

 

[russianbear]

Well we're all going to have our interpretations of the data, and agreeing to disagree isn't a problem for me. :)

There is nothing more repetitive or annoying in my opinion than the expression of a positive view of Ryan Tannehill that's expressed in a factual manner when it's based on nothing objective (i.e., "if you can't see it, then you don't know anything about football"). Furthermore, that viewpoint is repugnantly grandiose in my opinion, because it positions the person expressing it as omniscient, superior, and condescending, even though it's based on nothing objective that can be independently verified.

Let's just say having a debate or discussion about FOOTBALL with you, is similar to having a conversation with a brick wall. Only instead of a conversation I'm smashing my head against it repeatedly.

 

[Shouright]

There is your fatal flaw. You think it has to be one or the other. You ignore the video evidence and the actions of the coaching staff. You ignore simple logic. You discard or trivialize data that doesn't fit your preconceived conclusions.

Btw, that's like the 5th or 6th time you've posted that same link in response to one of my posts. You have the audacity to wonder why people sometimes attack the poster rather than the post? I realize you are trying to be annoying. I think your ignore suggestion is a good one.

Oh I think it's definitely a good one. The approaches you and I have to analyzing this game are rarely going to find common ground. :up:

---------- Post added at 04:37 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:36 AM ----------

Let's just say having a debate or discussion about FOOTBALL with you, is similar to having a conversation with a brick wall. Only instead of a conversation I'm smashing my head against it repeatedly.

And I would have to do what to eliminate that feeling for you? Agree with your point of view? :unsure:

 

[The Goat]

*cough*