Why overcomplicate things?

[CpuFan]

This year we did not make the playoffs for two reason:-

1-Pass Protection
2-Lack of running game

Both of these can be improved by simply upgrading the Offensive line. I dont understand why people are clamouring for Eric Ebron, CJ Mosely & Kelvin Benjamin etc.

The strength of the 1st round is Offensive Tackle. Our weakness is Offensive Tackle. Why overcomplicate things?

1 - Sign a Free Agent LT, Collins, Veldheer or Eugene Munroe
2 - Sign a Free Agent OT/OG - Rodger Saffold/Ebon Britton
3 - Draft one of Lewan/Martin/Kouandijio -

LT is set. Centre is set. Have the FA RT/OG and the 1st round pick compete with Garner, Dallas Thomas & Sam Brenner for the remaining 3 spots.

Lets not over complicate this. Resign the players who performed - Starks, Grimes & Chris Clemons and just fix the line.

You forgot that they can't stop the run either.

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

woulda should coulda. they didn't. they got 58. which is not average. 58 sacks is worse in the league.

Everybody should put that guy on ignore. Only a troll would use "objective stats" for all his arguments, then simply play what-if games with the stats that don't support his argument. First it was the sacks are Tannehill's fault, then it was sacks don't matter, now it is "if they didn't allow as many sacks, they would be average...." WTF?

JUST IGNORE THIS GUY

 

[dlockz]

Everybody should put that guy on ignore. Only a troll would use "objective stats" for all his arguments, then simply play what-if games with the stats that don't support his argument. First it was the sacks are Tannehill's fault, then it was sacks don't matter, now it is "if they didn't allow as many sacks, they would be average...." WTF?

JUST IGNORE THIS GUY

Well he is using PFF as his subjective facts and just calling them objective. The 58 sacks are pretty objective to how bad our pass blocking was but he has used every excuse to say that a line that set a dolphin record for sacks is somehow an average pass blocking line.

 

[j-off-her-doll]

Drafting for need is a bad idea. With the way FA is in the NFL, your strengths and weaknesses change too fast for your young players to develop enough to "plug holes." Going into last season, few people would have predicted that our run D would be worse than our pass D. Draft the guys who best fit what you're trying to accomplish.

 

[Shouright]

Everybody should put that guy on ignore. Only a troll would use "objective stats" for all his arguments, then simply play what-if games with the stats that don't support his argument. First it was the sacks are Tannehill's fault, then it was sacks don't matter, now it is "if they didn't allow as many sacks, they would be average...." WTF?

JUST IGNORE THIS GUY

I agree. If discussions about the team based on objective data aren't your cup of tea, by all means, please, put me on your ignore list. :)

 

[Shouright]

Well he is using PFF as his subjective facts and just calling them objective. The 58 sacks are pretty objective to how bad our pass blocking was but he has used every excuse to say that a line that set a dolphin record for sacks is somehow an average pass blocking line.

Call it whatever you'd like, but I'd sure say it has more credibility than the subjective perceptions of people who are heavily prone to confirmation bias about the subject matter. It also permits comparisons among all teams, which no one here is capable of with any rigor.

That said, the better questions are this in my opinion: why do you suppose the PFF grades of the Dolphins' offensive line don't comport with the subjective perceptions of many people here? Would you say that more likely indicates a deficiency on the part of PFF, or the confirmation bias of many of the members of the forum?

 

[dlockz]

Call it whatever you'd like, but I'd sure say it has more credibility than the subjective perceptions of people who are heavily prone to confirmation bias. It also permits comparisons among teams, which no one here is capable of with any rigor.

Its still not objective which is your favorite calling card. I mean you can call something whatever you like, still doesn't make it so.
It has no more credibility than anything else because you have no clue who these people are that are making these observations.
Are they experts in offensive line play? You accept it as gospel but doesn't make them any more credible than anything else. You cant have it both ways and keep calling out people for not using so called objective parameters while using subjective ones yourself.

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

Well he is using PFF as his subjective facts and just calling them objective. The 58 sacks are pretty objective to how bad our pass blocking was but he has used every excuse to say that a line that set a dolphin record for sacks is somehow an average pass blocking line.

It is worse than that. When a correlation of 0.55 suites his argument, he touts it. When it doesn't he claims it shows two variables are largely independent. He selectively applies stats, twists the meanings of words, and blatantly ignores information that contradicts his claims. My biggest issue with the guy is that he purposely tries to deceive people while claiming to be objective.

He is on a mission to convince people that Tannehill isn't very good. No objective person would go on a 20 week mission to find "proof" that Tannehill isn't very good. Even to the point of switching arguments when one is shot down.

---------- Post added at 08:27 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:25 AM ----------

Its still not objective which is your favorite calling card. I mean you can call something whatever you like, still doesn't make it so.
It has no more credibility than anything else because you have no clue who these people are that are making these observations.
Are they experts in offensive line play? You accept it as gospel but doesn't make them any more credible than anything else. You cant have it both ways and keep calling out people for not using so called objective parameters while using subjective ones yourself.

The same group ranks Tannehill 7th. Does he accept that?

 

[dlockz]

Any argument that contains we had an average oline last year is already based on a very bad foundation.

 

[dlockz]

It is worse than that. When a correlation of 0.55 suites his argument, he touts it. When it doesn't he claims it shows two variables are largely independent. He selectively applies stats, twists the meanings of words, and blatantly ignores information that contradicts his claims. My biggest issue with the guy is that he purposely tries to deceive people while claiming to be objective.

He is on a mission to convince people that Tannehill isn't very good. No objective person would go on a 20 week mission to find "proof" that Tannehill isn't very good. Even to the point of switching arguments when one is shot down.

---------- Post added at 08:27 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:25 AM ----------



The same group ranks Tannehill 7th. Does he accept that?

wELL I MUST ADMIT that ranking is not as idiotic as the line ranking but its just another reason PFF is no more than a fun stat site. This site also claims Romo was better than Foles last year. Its also rates Jo Bell from Detroit as way better last year than Knowshon Moreno.

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

wELL I MUST ADMIT that ranking is not as idiotic as the line ranking but its just another reason PFF is no more than a fun stat site. This site also claims Romo was better than Foles last year. Its also rates Jo Bell from Detroit as way better last year than Knowshon Moreno.

I also admitted that 7th was very high for Tannehill. That's why I posted another ranking from NFL.com that put him 14th. I am also on record for saying that any ranking in the 12 - 18 range is totally defensible.

 

[Shouright]

Its still not objective which is your favorite calling card. I mean you can call something whatever you like, still doesn't make it so.
It has no more credibility than anything else because you have no clue who these people are that are making these observations.
Are they experts in offensive line play? You accept it as gospel but doesn't make them any more credible than anything else. You cant have it both ways and keep calling out people for not using so called objective parameters while using subjective ones yourself.

You're dancing around the question.

---------- Post added at 08:44 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:44 AM ----------

It is worse than that. When a correlation of 0.55 suites his argument, he touts it. When it doesn't he claims it shows two variables are largely independent. He selectively applies stats, twists the meanings of words, and blatantly ignores information that contradicts his claims. My biggest issue with the guy is that he purposely tries to deceive people while claiming to be objective.

He is on a mission to convince people that Tannehill isn't very good. No objective person would go on a 20 week mission to find "proof" that Tannehill isn't very good. Even to the point of switching arguments when one is shot down.

---------- Post added at 08:27 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:25 AM ----------



The same group ranks Tannehill 7th. Does he accept that?

Can you talk to me directly, or do you have to go through a third person?

---------- Post added at 08:45 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:44 AM ----------

I also admitted that 7th was very high for Tannehill. That's why I posted another ranking from NFL.com that put him 14th. I am also on record for saying that any ranking in the 12 - 18 range is totally defensible.

Then we're in agreement. He's currently average.

---------- Post added at 08:46 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:45 AM ----------

Any argument that contains we had an average oline last year is already based on a very bad foundation.

Or perhaps you and others here are falling prey to confirmation bias. How do we know?

 

[dlockz]

You're dancing around the question.

---------- Post added at 08:44 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:44 AM ----------

Can you talk to me directly, or do you have to go through a third person?

---------- Post added at 08:45 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:44 AM ----------

Then we're in agreement. He's currently average.

---------- Post added at 08:46 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:45 AM ----------

Or perhaps you and others here are falling prey to confirmation bias. How do we know?

I didn't dance around anything. PFF ratings are no more gospel than a poster's opinion esp their line ratings

---------- Post added at 07:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:01 PM ----------

The only irrefutable fact about our oline and pass blocking is they allowed a dolphin record 58 sacks. The year before they allowed 35.

 

[normaniii]

Gravity my OP was how I would handle offseason. Your argument is that you believe that RT is part of the problem. If so, how would you handle offseason???

 

[Shouright]

Gravity my OP was how I would handle offseason. Your argument is that you believe that RT is part of the problem. If so, how would you handle offseason???

I would have Bill Lazor study Ryan Tannehill's 2013 game tape and statistics extensively, with the intent of designing an offense that revolves around his strengths while concealing and minimizing his weaknesses, hoping to hell that the 2013 offense itself wasn't designed in that way.