Tannehill

[Dolfanalyst]

Yes, "Dolphinanalyst", that's what I said, almost verbatim:

"With this newfangled definition of clutch, FootballOutsiders' own statistics are clutch-weighted"

I apologize.

So in the future, please consider that a portion of a post may have gone unread or misunderstood.

[Dolfanalyst]

Again, look at the talent those guys have been surrounded with.

There is normal variation in QBs' performances from year to year, presumably largely as a function of the talent and other situational variables around them (i.e., external factors).  Otherwise, they would perform roughly the same every year based on their own talent and characteristics (i.e., internal factors).

What we find, however, is that when you take a group of elite QBs and compare it to a group of mediocre QBs, the elite QBs' performances vary at a level significantly higher than the level at which the performances of the mediocre QBs vary.

So while surrounding talent and other external factors have their effects, the more significant effect on the QB's individual performance is determined by his own talent, or his own internal factors if you will.  The external factors (surrounding talent, coaching, strength of schedule, etc.) play a significantly lesser role in the QB's individual performance.

So with that finding, it becomes more difficult to attribute Ryan Tannehill's level of play to what's going on around him.  If he were more talented himself, then based on the finding above, he would likely be performing at a higher level individually, despite his surroundings.

I'd rather that finding be different, obviously, because it'd help me be more hopeful about Ryan Tannehill, but I'm not going to delude myself.

[Brian Fein]

OK - WE GET IT - YOU HATE RYAN TANNEHILL!!

Can we move on with our lives now?

[Brian Fein]

I don't understand why we need 16 pages of you cherry-picking statistics to make it seem like Ryan Tannehill is garbage, and that it is impossible to be successful with Ryan Tannehill.

Fact is - you DON'T KNOW that.  Statistics signify trends, but when you ignore the outliers, which you have done over and over, you just skew the results in your favor.  Its pointless.

[Rich]

I don't understand why we need 16 pages of you cherry-picking statistics to make it seem like Ryan Tannehill is garbage, and that it is impossible to be successful with Ryan Tannehill.

Fact is - you DON'T KNOW that.  Statistics signify trends, but when you ignore the outliers, which you have done over and over, you just skew the results in your favor.  Its pointless.

Create a new forum. Call it JOKES and move this thread to it. Then only allow that one person trolling to forums to bash Tannehill to post there and take away his ability to post in other forums.

Those masochistic enough to want to have a discussion can join him there and the rest of us can live happily ever after.

Problem solved.

[Dolfanalyst]

Create a new forum. Call it JOKES and move this thread to it. Then only allow that one person trolling to forums to bash Tannehill to post there and take away his ability to post in other forums.

Those masochistic enough to want to have a discussion can join him there and the rest of us can live happily ever after.

Problem solved.

Paranoid Rich is back!

[Dolfanalyst]

I don't understand why we need 16 pages of you cherry-picking statistics to make it seem like Ryan Tannehill is garbage, and that it is impossible to be successful with Ryan Tannehill.

Fact is - you DON'T KNOW that.  Statistics signify trends, but when you ignore the outliers, which you have done over and over, you just skew the results in your favor.  Its pointless.

If I skewed the results "in my favor," I'd be skewing them in favor of a conclusion that Ryan Tannehill is displaying talent consistent with a Super Bowl win, since as a fan of the Miami Dolphins since the early 1980s, that's what I've wanted.

For you to construe unfavorable results regarding Ryan Tannehill as being "in my favor" is sheer paranoia.

[Brian Fein]

Your argument for the last 16 pages of this thread has been "Ryan Tannehill isn't good enough"

Thus, "in your favor" quickly becomes "convince all these other people to agree with my stance (above)," so you can see how paranoia is not the right word...

[Dolfanalyst]

Your argument for the last 16 pages of this thread has been "Ryan Tannehill isn't good enough"

Thus, "in your favor" quickly becomes "convince all these other people to agree with my stance (above)," so you can see how paranoia is not the right word...

First, I don't give a shit who is convinced of what.  I'm 43 years old and I'm well aware by now that people think whatever the hell they want.  Christ, the guys who steered the airplanes into the World Trade Center thought that was the "right" thing to do.  Do you really think anybody is going to think differently about Ryan Tannehill if he doesn't want to?  I post information I find interesting and compelling, based on the information gathering and analytical methods I believe are the most rigorous available.  Do with it whatever you will, and in the end think whatever you want.  Again, I don't give a shit.

Second, how was this post of mine from another thread skewed?  This took a good solid couple hours of work on my part.

I'll give you the stats associated with that sort of thing as well.  Lest you fall asleep, i.e., the picture above, stay tuned -- the ending is quite good.

There was a 0.62 correlation between Football Outsiders' Adjusted Line Yards (a measure of offensive line play) and quarterbacks' DVOA.

If the Dolphins were to have the very best Adjusted Line Yards in the league, it would likely be associated with a change in Ryan Tannehill's DVOA from -10.6 (his 2015 value) to 12.61.

Based on the 2015 correlation between quarterbacks' DVOA and win percentage, that would likely be associated with a 51.5 win percentage, or roughly an 8-8 record.

So an improvement in the Dolphins' offensive line, such that the team would have the very best offensive line in the league, via its impact on Ryan Tannehill's play, would likely be associated with two more wins in a season.

Now, let's look at what's more likely.  Let's say the Dolphins' offensive line improves to one standard deviation above the league average in Adjusted Line Yards.  Less than the best in the league, but significantly above average if you will.

That would likely be associated with an increase in Ryan Tannehill's DVOA from -10.6 to 7.73, which would in turn likely be associated with a 48.6 win percentage, or, again, roughly an 8-8 record, or two more wins in a season.

Now, let's add an improvement in the Dolphins' offensive line play to one standard deviation above the league mean, to the effect on Ryan Tannehill produced by Adam Gase, which I illustrated in the second post in this thread (above).

That would boost Ryan Tannehill's DVOA to 28.25, which alone would likely be associated with a 61 win percentage, or just under a 10-6 record.

I'm sure that's the sort of boost in offensive performance the team will be looking for with whatever moves it makes in the offseason, including the hiring of Gase.  If you couple that sort of improvement on offense alone (to just under a 10-6 record) with improvement in the team's pass defense (which was poor in 2015), a playoff season certainly isn't unlikely by any means.

There are a lot of "ifs" in that equation, obviously, but this team can go from 6-10 to 11-5 with significant improvements in Tannehill (via the presence of Gase), the offensive line, and the pass defense.

Please, focus on the information and the team, and leave me out of it.  The paranoid nonsense is sickening.

[Rich]

First, I don't give a shit who is convinced of what.

And yet four forums later, here you are with the same schtick. If you don't care, don't share.

[Dolfanalyst]

And yet four forums later, here you are with the same schtick. If you don't care, don't share.

Is information sharing only for the purpose of convincing others of things, paranoid Rich?

[Rich]

Is information sharing only for the purpose of convincing others of things, paranoid Rich?

You either usually share information because people have requested it (no one here has or cares for what you want to share) or to make an argument. Every time someone gives an opinion on Tannehill that you disagree with, you jump in and present the information you want to present to counter that argument and has been well-documented here, you omit the information that isn't convenient for your argument.

So your intent is crystal clear, even if now you want to act as if you don't care what other people think.

You either do care what other people think, because you're on your fourth forum, or you enjoy pissing people off, which is why you're on your fourth forum.

Either way, you're certainly neurotically obsessive about accomplishing something... what that is... only you know and only you care.

[Dolfanalyst]

You either usually share information because people have requested it (no one here has or cares for what you want to share) or to make an argument. Every time someone gives an opinion on Tannehill that you disagree with, you jump in and present the information you want to present to counter that argument and has been well-documented here, you omit the information that isn't convenient for your argument.

So your intent is crystal clear, even if now you want to act as if you don't care what other people think.

You either do care what other people think, because you're on your fourth forum, or you enjoy pissing people off, which is why you're on your fourth forum.

Either way, you're certainly neurotically obsessive about accomplishing something... what that is... only you know and only you care.

Well it sure seems like you care, paranoid Rich!  We're down to your posting here only in response to me!

[CF DolFan]

Thank you for allowing me to put an end to this train wreck of a thread. This thread has run it's course and is locked.