Why is everybody so quick 2 4get that tannehill was supposed to sit for 2-3 years

[J. David Wannyheimer]

Everyone you're debating is the "alpha clown" during that particular debate. You're never the "alpha clown." :)

Shouldn't you be using google search to debate court handling of medical records with an actual clinical psychologist?

 

[Oronde]

Wow man, no need to bash individuals.

So....what would you say of RGIII, Luck, and Wilson? Last I checked all 3 are doing worse stats and QB wise than Tannehill.

Sure you can look into W-L records, but thats a team result not an individual.

Guess Peyton Manning was a bust his first two years ?

What would I say of that? I would say it's made up, because all of them have clearly superior stats to Tannehill. And Manning was a full blown star in his second season, so that little "gotcha" moment you thought you had right there doesn't work either.

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

Well I'm happy to hear a better case for which stats to choose. You got one?

How about not relying exclusively on stats at all? How about using stats to identify general issues and then observing the plays? You know, like the real world works in the NFL.

If you want one thing? How about looking at which players were BENCHED for poor performance? Get back to be when you can explain why the team would bench the players that weren't the problem.

 

[Shouright]

How about not relying exclusively on stats at all? How about using stats to identify general issues and then observing the plays? You know, like the real world works in the NFL.

My approach is to generate hypotheses by watching the games, and then account for my potential for confirmation bias by checking the objective data. Sometimes the hypotheses I generate by watching the games are disconfirmed by the data.

If you want one thing? How about looking at which players were BENCHED for poor performance? Get back to be when you can explain why the team would bench the players that weren't the problem.

We've already discussed that. :)

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

Well when the omniscient being who knows "what is actually happening," whose perspective we can check the objective data against, shows up, let me know.

Or is that you?

How about the coaching staff? They have the advantage of years of experience in the system (more than your current favorite "expert"), the all-22 film, the intent behind the plays that were called, the instructions they gave Tannehill and the OL, and what was worked on in practice. For the life of me I can't understand why you would continue your pointless crusade of who to blame for the sacks when the coaching staff has already answered that question and you were proven wrong.

From now on my answer to you is simple..... the tackles were benched for poor performance.

 

[Shouright]

How about the coaching staff? They have the advantage of years of experience in the system (more than your current favorite "expert"), the all-22 film, the intent behind the plays that were called, the instructions they gave Tannehill and the OL, and what was worked on in practice. For the life of me I can't understand why you would continue your pointless crusade of who to blame for the sacks when the coaching staff has already answered that question and you were proven wrong.

From now on my answer to you is simple..... the tackles were benched for poor performance.

Or they were benched for performance that wasn't adequate to suit the current needs of the QB.

I suspect if those tackles were protecting Peyton Manning and his league-leading release time, and perhaps a significant number of other quarterbacks, as well, they'd still be on the field.

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

Or they were benched for performance that wasn't adequate to suit the current needs of the QB.

That makes no sense and exposes your agenda.

 

[Shouright]

That makes no sense and exposes your agenda.

OK sure. :)

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

OK sure. :)

Great we finally agree. :brewskis:

 

[Shouright]

Great we finally agree. :brewskis:

 

[russianbear]

Well, think that as you might, but the statistics I'm choosing to weight heavily are the ones strongly correlated with winning, since I figure that's the goal of all this.

I thought the goal was to provide "objective" information on our QB? I guess that isn't the case anymore. :idk:

 

[hoops]

Everyone you're debating is the "alpha clown" during that particular debate. You're never the "alpha clown." :)

I debate all the time without issue...if or when you actually get something right they should give you a lifetime achievement badge...

 

[Shouright]

I thought the goal was to provide "objective" information on our QB? I guess that isn't the case anymore. :idk:

What's more objective and relevant than evaluating him with regard to the data associated with variables that are related both to his play and to winning? :unsure:

Like I said, I'm happy to consider a more sound approach if someone can offer one. :up:

---------- Post added at 01:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:15 PM ----------

I debate all the time without issue...if or when you actually get something right they should give you a lifetime achievement badge...

You're always right. :)

 

[russianbear]

What's more objective and relevant than evaluating him with regard to the data associated with variables that are related both to his play and to winning? :unsure:

Like I said, I'm happy to consider a more sound approach if someone can offer one. :up:

Well, first off, any information you provide is more often than not immediately disqualifiable as "objective" because of your set opinion, and ever-present mission of confirming your OWN beliefs. That as you already know is what determines whether information is objective or not :clap:. However, to remedy your miscue I would recommend using a direct comparison of all your silly statistical categories to Tannehill 2012 up to this point, and now. Given that is he the least experienced QB bar none in the NFL you comparing him to the full group of NFL QBs is simply not objective at all :). Any stat you choose that correlates to winning, should be compared only to his position this time last year.

 

[Shouright]

Well, first off, any information you provide is more often than not immediately disqualifiable as "objective" because of your set opinion, and ever-present mission of confirming your OWN beliefs. That as you already know is what determines whether information is objective or not :clap:.

I don't think you have any idea what my "mission" is, but that said, of course you're free to give the information I provide whatever weight or consideration you'd like, and frankly I don't care what that is for you. I do the research I do for my own benefit. What you do with my provision of it to the forum is up to you. :)

However, to remedy your miscue I would recommend using a direct comparison of all your silly statistical categories to Tannehill 2012 up to this point, and now. Given that is he the least experienced QB bar none in the NFL you comparing him to the full group of NFL QBs is simply not objective at all :). Any stat you choose that correlates to winning, should be compared only to his position this time last year.

In terms of those variables, Tannehill has performed more poorly during the first half of this season than he did during the second half of last season.