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

[Shouright]

You have never posted a single stat that can be attributed solely to one individual in a team game. Much as you would like to pretend otherwise, only observation of the games can tell the story.

I agree, though I also realize that our observations of games is woefully limited and likely heavily distorted by confirmation bias, and so we ought to be relying predominantly on objective information in my opinion.

Of course you're free to disagree and believe that your perceptions of games, from your vantage point, are more valuable than anyone else's. :)

Also, if watching the games "told the story," why don't we all agree about "the story" all the time, based just on our observations of the games? Why do the same observations of the same games lead to so much disagreement?

 

[dolpns13]

I agree, though I also realize that our observations of games is woefully limited and likely heavily distorted by confirmation bias, and so we ought to be relying predominantly on objective information in my opinion.

Of course you're free to disagree and believe that your perceptions of games, from your vantage point, are more valuable than anyone else's. :)

Also, if watching the games "told the story," why don't we all agree here all the time, based just on our observations of the games? Why do the same observations of the same games lead to so much disagreement?

See dude, this is where your constant statistical analysis completely fails you. You need to have objectivity and understand that not everyone sees the same thing and each different view may not be wrong. This outside the box type of thinking has been instrumental in the success of fortune 500 companies everywhere. These companies ABSOLUTELY would not succeed using only statistical analysis - this is fact, not opinion. Quantitative analysis in conjunction with qualitative analysis is far more efficient and productive than just having one or the other.

 

[realdolphin]

I will only say that Tannehill is progressing and not regressing. that he has showed more character than I thought he had. he always talk smart things to the media. he is playing with 60% of the starting receiving corps, has no running game no pass blocking and still has better numbers than a year ago. he is a stud to me.

 

[Shouright]

See dude, this is where your constant statistical analysis completely fails you. You need to have objectivity and understand that not everyone sees the same thing and each different view may not be wrong. This outside the box type of thinking has been instrumental in the success of fortune 500 companies everywhere. These companies ABSOLUTELY would not succeed using only statistical analysis - this is fact, not opinion. Quantitative analysis in conjunction with qualitative analysis is far more efficient and productive than just having one or the other.

I never said any one viewpoint by any one person is inherently wrong. What I'm suggesting is that when one method of knowing what's going on with the team (watching games) results in so many varying viewpoints, that method can't possibly be considered reliable, and therefore can't possibly be considered valid, if what we're doing is trying to determine the truth of what's going on. We simply don't know who's viewpoint based on watching the games is the correct one, and therefore that method of knowing what's going on should be considered less valuable.

If you, me, and some other guy watch the games, and based on our observations we all come to believe something different about some certain thing about the team (Tannehill, for example), who's right? You? Me? The other guy? Who knows! :)

The clip below by Sterling Sharpe illustrates one problem (of several) with trying to know the truth about the team by watching its games alone. How many people do you think attributed the sacks on these plays to poor play by the offensive line? That would've been the product of a combination of 1) confirmation bias, and 2) an incomplete vantage point (the TV view versus the all-22 view).

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

I agree that qualitative analysis is valuable as well, but it also has to achieve reliability to achieve validity. If no one can agree on what they're seeing, we can't have reliability and can't have validity, even though the analysis is qualitative rather than quantitative.

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

I never said any one viewpoint by any one person is inherently wrong. What I'm suggesting is that when one method of knowing what's going on with the team (watching games) results in so many varying viewpoints, that method can't possibly be considered reliable, and therefore can't possibly be considered valid, if what we're doing is trying to determine the truth of what's going on. We simply don't know who's viewpoint based on watching the games is the correct one, and therefore that method of knowing what's going on should be considered less valuable.

If you, me, and some other guy watch the games, and based on our observations we all come to believe something different about some certain thing about the team (Tannehill, for example), who's right? You? Me? The other guy? Who knows! :)

The clip below by Sterling Sharpe illustrates one problem (of several) with trying to know the truth about the team by watching its games alone. How many people do you think attributed the sacks on these plays to poor play by the offensive line? That would've been the product of a combination of 1) confirmation bias, and 2) an incomplete vantage point (the TV view versus the all-22 view).

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

I agree that qualitative analysis is valuable as well, but it also has to achieve reliability to achieve validity. If no one can agree on what they're seeing, we can't have reliability and can't have validity, even though the analysis is qualitative rather than quantitative.

And knowingly using incomplete data as the only data in the "objective" analysis is wrong.

You have contended on numerous occasions that the OL performance has been average. Why then, did the team choose to replace BOTH tackles? Why did they trade for a player that had recently been benched by a team for poor performance and start him?

What is the correlation between adequate performance and getting replaced?

 

[BONG SHULA]

See dude, this is where your constant statistical analysis completely fails you. You need to have objectivity and understand that not everyone sees the same thing and each different view may not be wrong.

That would be called subjectivity, not objectivity. Objectivity would be relying purely on the statistical analysis, a view you seem to disagree with.

This outside the box type of thinking has been instrumental in the success of fortune 500 companies everywhere. These companies ABSOLUTELY would not succeed using only statistical analysis - this is fact, not opinion.

Not that I disagree with you per say, but this is indeed a opinion. The only way something becomes a 'fact,' if we are to take the term in any proper sense, is something which can be proven with the scientific method, or another logical methodology.

Quantitative analysis in conjunction with qualitative analysis is far more efficient and productive than just having one or the other.

This I totally agree with, but one also has to consider the level of understanding and education, the individual providing the qualitative analysis, has on a subjective level.

 

[Shouright]

And knowingly using incomplete data as the only data in the "objective" analysis is wrong.

You have contended on numerous occasions that the OL performance has been average. Why then, did the team choose to replace BOTH tackles? Why did they trade for a player that had recently been benched by a team for poor performance and start him?

What is the correlation between adequate performance and getting replaced?

It's entirely possible that: 1) the tackle play on the team has been inadequate for the quarterback who's playing on it, 2) the team sought to remedy that with new players, and 3) the quarterback's play, in at least some areas, isn't explained entirely by the tackle play.

Now, to investigate that possibility, you would need a whole lot more information than you have access to in watching games on TV.

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

It's entirely possible that: 1) the tackle play on the team has been inadequate for the quarterback who's playing on it, 2) the team sought to remedy that with new players

Your are correct because neither Houdini nor Superman were available to play QB for the Dolphins.

Seriously, this is the lamest attempt to cover for crappy OL play ever. The OL is far and away the biggest problem and the personnel moves prove it.

 

[Shouright]

Your are correct because neither Houdini nor Superman were available to play QB for the Dolphins.

Seriously, this is the lamest attempt to cover for crappy OL play ever. The OL is far and away the biggest problem and the personnel moves prove it.

Then it should be only too easy to support that view with statistical information.

Where is it?

 

[roy_miami]

Then it should be only too easy to support that view with statistical information.

Where is it?

sacks

 

[Shouright]

sacks

Tannehill is pressured no more often than the average QB, yet is sacked astronomically more often than the average QB when pressured.

That statistical information, in my opinion, is an indictment of Tannehill, not the offensive line, and Sterling Sharpe's authoritative opinion based on his view of the all-22 film here supports that:

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

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

Then it should be only too easy to support that view with statistical information.

Where is it?

Did you miss the part about the personnel moves? A team does not replace their starting tackles if they are happy with their play. Is there to room for simple logic in the mire of "statistics" you like to play with?

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

Tannehill is pressured no more often than the average QB, yet is sacked astronomically more often than the average QB when pressured.

That statistical information, in my opinion, is an indictment of Tannehill, not the offensive line

And your opinion, in the coaches option, is wrong. If the QB is at fault, you do not make changes on the OL. Period. Tannehill has not been perfect but he is far from the biggest issue on the offense.

Sterling Sharpe's authoritative opinion based on his view of the all-22 film here supports that:

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

God you are a repetitive <fill in the blank>.... EVERY QB WHO HAS EVER PLAY MORE THAN A FEW SNAPS HAS DONE WHAT TANNEHILL DID ON THOSE TWO PLAYS!!!!!!!!!!!! Now if you can get Sharpe to review ALL the sacks and come to the same conclusion, fine. But, that is not going to happen because most of the sacks are on the OL and I am not the only person who thinks that:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/13/s...g-pieces-dolphins-are-pushed-around.html?_r=0
http://www.boston.com/sports/blogs/goingdeep/2013/10/miami_dolphins_momentum_swing.html
http://miami.cbslocal.com/2013/10/07/fins-pass-blocking-woes-continue/
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1793607-dolphins-o-line-holding-back-entire-miami-offense
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...ggest-question-mark-for-miami-dolphins-season

There are many more of these types of articles written all throughout this season. For every one that you find that puts most of the blame on Tannehill, I'll find 10 that put it on the OL.

 

[Shouright]

Did you miss the part about the personnel moves? A team does not replace their starting tackles if they are happy with their play. Is there to room for simple logic in the mire of "statistics" you like to play with?

Sure, and I addressed that here, in the post above:

It's entirely possible that: 1) the tackle play on the team has been inadequate for the quarterback who's playing on it, 2) the team sought to remedy that with new players, and 3) the quarterback's play, in at least some areas, isn't explained entirely by the tackle play.

Now, to investigate that possibility, you would need a whole lot more information than you have access to in watching games on TV.

Now tell me this: Peyton Manning gets rid of the ball faster than any QB in the league, and his YPA and percentage of downfield throws and completions are among the best in the league. How do we know his tackles are playing any better than Tannehill's, especially when we consider the following?

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

In other words, the team's belief in its need for better tackles may be just as much or more a function of Ryan Tannehill's particular needs at this point in his career as it is the play of the tackles themselves. Peyton Manning doesn't give his tackles a chance to "fail," whereas Ryan Tannehill may give his plenty of one.

There's a reason why lots of teams have drafted a quarterback high and immediately drafted a left tackle high shortly thereafter. It's because the developing quarterback typically needs better than average protection.

Again, what we're talking about here is quarterback pressures and sacks, and once again, Ryan Tannehill isn't pressured any more often than the average QB in the league. That alone speaks volumes, and you really have to do a good bit of cognitive gymnastics to make sense of that in a way that doesn't lay the blame on Ryan Tannehill.

 

[Shouright]

God you are a repetitive <fill in the blank>.... EVERY QB WHO HAS EVER PLAY MORE THAN A FEW SNAPS HAS DONE WHAT TANNEHILL DID ON THOSE TWO PLAYS!!!!!!!!!!!! Now if you can get Sharpe to review ALL the sacks and come to the same conclusion, fine. But, that is not going to happen because most of the sacks are on the OL and I am not the only person who thinks that:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/13/s...g-pieces-dolphins-are-pushed-around.html?_r=0
http://www.boston.com/sports/blogs/goingdeep/2013/10/miami_dolphins_momentum_swing.html
http://miami.cbslocal.com/2013/10/07/fins-pass-blocking-woes-continue/
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1793607-dolphins-o-line-holding-back-entire-miami-offense
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...ggest-question-mark-for-miami-dolphins-season

There are many more of these types of articles written all throughout this season. For every one that you find that puts most of the blame on Tannehill, I'll find 10 that put it on the OL.

Are any of those 10 based on the opinion of a would-be Hall of Fame player who played in the same offense and who's perspective is based on the all-22 film? Are they even based on a review of all the sacks, as you said?

Sharpe's perspective fits with the objective data, whereas the opinions in the articles above do not.