The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

In fact, when the Dolphins hired Dan Marino and Marino seemed to get close to Tannehill, Philbin resented it. He wanted only offensive coordinator Bill Lazor and QB coach Zac Taylor in Tannehill's ear.

Ths is just crazy to me. You'd think he'd figure out a way to work with Marino.

So, Philbin was essentially the worst people person in the NFL. Instead of trying to coach difficult players, he wanted to get rid of them.

He didn't even call his own plays as OC in Green Bay. He may be done in this league.

The only question I have now is why in the world didn't they start looking for Philbin's replacement last year?

Assuming all this is true, exactly what personnel expertise enables Mike Tannenbaum and Stephen Ross to overrule Joe Philbin in the assessment of Ryan Tannehill?

Philbin may be wrong about Tannehill, but why should anyone believe Mike Tannenbaum and Stephen Ross are right?

Assuming all this is true, exactly what personnel expertise enables Mike Tannenbaum and Stephen Ross to overrule Joe Philbin in the assessment of Ryan Tannehill?

Philbin may be wrong about Tannehill, but why should anyone believe Mike Tannenbaum and Stephen Ross are right?

Your question is misleading. It makes it seem as though someone said that Philbin was wrong and they were right and that isn't the case.

To break it down for you Parcells style... the cook didn't want to make the dinner with the groceries that were given to him and even worse ... gave up trying and didn't even want someone like master chef Dan helping him to cook dinner. There hasn't been one person to insinuate that these were the best groceries so saying that he is more qualified to evaluate groceriesth an those who bought the groceries is bringing up a whole new conversation.

Great analogy, but may I add that in his first 2 years of being a "Head Chef", he didn't like the Ribeye Steaks and Lobster Tails he was given, so he traded them for Ramen Noodles and Spaghettio's.

Man, add a little spicy Italian snausage, and those spaghettiOs become seriously fucking gourmet...

On the other hand, nobody's livelihood was as dependent on Ryan Tannehill's performance as Joe Philbin's, and nobody had a more high-powered microscope on Tannehill's performance from week-to-week and from season-to-season than Philbin.

Philbin was the guy, long before Tannenbaum showed up, who was reviewing tape of Tannehill's performance every week, with complete knowledge of how closely it approximated what the team was intending to accomplish.  When the team wanted something from a given play call, Joe Philbin was in the best position known to man to evaluate whether Ryan Tannehill was holding up his end of the bargain in that regard.

Again, Joe Philbin could indeed be wrong about Ryan Tannehill, but there probably isn't a person on the planet who has as much of the best kind of information available about how Tannehill measures up as an NFL QB.  We certainly don't have that kind of information available to us on a message board, and I'm not sure Mike Tannenbaum has it either.

Joe Philbin also displayed a bad habit of pushing to get rid of talented players so he could bring in "his guys". So his talent evaluation prowess is certainly not beyond reproach.

Joe Philbin also had very little experience in developing a quarterback, let alone an offense, because he spent most of his time at Green Bay doing whatever Mike McCarthy told him to do.

And again, he could be wrong, but again, I'm not sure there's anybody on earth who has better information about how Ryan Tannehill measures up as an NFL QB.  We certainly don't have that here, and so I don't think we should immediately dismiss Philbin's appraisal, thinking somehow we know better, or thinking we know something else about Joe Philbin that immediately discredits his appraisal of Tannehill.

In other words, Joe Philbin's appraisal of Ryan Tannehill, in the absence of better information, and in the absence of the ability to discredit Philbin with certainty, should be viewed as a fairly weighty piece of evidence in the larger appraisal of Tannehill we're all doing.  Once again, Philbin could be wrong, but we sure can't say he is right now with any certainty.

On the other hand, nobody's livelihood was as dependent on Ryan Tannehill's performance as Joe Philbin's, and nobody had a more high-powered microscope on Tannehill's performance from week-to-week and from season-to-season than Philbin.

Philbin was the guy, long before Tannenbaum showed up, who was reviewing tape of Tannehill's performance every week, with complete knowledge of how closely it approximated what the team was intending to accomplish.  When the team wanted something from a given play call, Joe Philbin was in the best position known to man to evaluate whether Ryan Tannehill was holding up his end of the bargain in that regard.

Again, Joe Philbin could indeed be wrong about Ryan Tannehill, but there probably isn't a person on the planet who has as much of the best kind of information available about how Tannehill measures up as an NFL QB.  We certainly don't have that kind of information available to us on a message board, and I'm not sure Mike Tannenbaum has it either.

And again, he could be wrong, but again, I'm not sure there's anybody on earth who has better information about how Ryan Tannehill measures up as an NFL QB.  We certainly don't have that here, and so I don't think we should immediately dismiss Philbin's appraisal, thinking somehow we know better, or thinking we know something else about Joe Philbin that immediately discredits his appraisal of Tannehill.

It is fair to say that Philbin evaluated Tannehill more closely than any other person in the league.

The problem is that we have no idea whether Philbin's evaluations were accurate.  To the contrary: what we do know is that Philbin was consistently wrong in his evaluation of other players.

So the fact that Philbin spent lots of time analyzing Tannehill tells us nothing, because there is no evidence that Philbin knows how to correctly analyze QBs; he was the OL coach when Rodgers was drafted, and Rodgers' role as Favre's successor was already determined before he took over as OC (plus, he wasn't even calling the plays in GB).

And so that gets at my point, that we can't necessarily say Philbin was right (I said several times he may be wrong), but whose evaluation of Tannehill counters Philbin's so that we -- John Q. Fan -- can say he's wrong with any certainty?

Who has evaluated Ryan Tannehill as closely as a pro, and had more of his livelihood riding on Ryan Tannehill's play, than Joe Philbin?

If there were answers to those questions with the identity of an individual(s) who knew just as much as or more about Tannehill as a pro than Philbin, we'd have more to go on here, but we have only Philbin, and Philbin's appraisal was reportedly negative. 

At a very minimum, we have Dennis Hickey, Mike Tannebaum, and Chris Grier.

That's actually who we have at maximum, and the first of those individuals was just fired, the third has no experience at his current position and looks to have been placed in a in a fairly conservative role within the organization, and the second for all we know is trying desperately to make the contract he gave Tannehill look sensible so as to keep his job.

Now, obviously if any of their appraisals of Tannehill is at odds with Philbin's, they could indeed be right, and Philbin could be wrong, but questions can be raised about their credibility in this area just as they can about Philbin's.

Moreover, not a single one of them was as privy as Philbin to how well Tannehill was holding up his end of the bargain in helping the team accomplish what it was intending to from play to play and game to game (i.e., reviewing game film with the knowledge of the team's intent from play to play).

You are claiming that the GM - a person whose job it is to decide who to sign, who to cut, and who to extend - is less concerned with evaluating their most important player than the head coach (who also has myriad other responsibilities with the team).

Such a claim requires some supporting evidence.

Why new Miami coach Adam Gase and QB Ryan Tannehill are a good match

The hiring of new Dolphins head coach Adam Gase should have a positive impact on quarterback Ryan Tannehill.

Adam Gase was a hot commodity this offseason, with interviews planned for most teams in the NFL with a head-coaching vacancy. He opted to join the Miami Dolphins, however, and while his motivations for doing so are known only to him, it’s fair to assume that the team having a settled quarterback situation played a part.

Here’s why Gase and QB Ryan Tannehill appear to be a perfect match:

Tannehill has lots of ability: This season was a rough one for Tannehill, as he ranked just 24th in the NFL in PFF’s passing grades – a huge drop-off from his previous performances. He put together an excellent season in 2013, finishing as our fifth-ranked QB. He ranked in the top 10 of our grades in 2014, as well, a sign that this past season may have been more of an aberration than an indication that he isn’t capable of high-level play. And there is reason to believe that Gase could be the perfect coach to get the best out of him.

Gase’s track record with QBs is excellent: It’s hard to quantify just how much of Peyton Manning’s success in Denver had to do with Gase, as Manning’s Hall of Fame resume existed well before the two worked together, but Manning certainly speaks highly of his former coach. And John Fox clearly acknowledges Gase’s ability, taking him to Chicago with him to lead the Bears’ offense under Jay Cutler.

Cutler was coming off a dreadful season in 2014 during which he ranked as our 35th overall QB. Gase certainly seemed to have a positive impact, as Cutler ended the year as our 17th overall QB. There are a number of similarities between the offense Gase ran in Chicago and some elements of Tannehill’s offense under offensive coordinator Bill Lazor. Both have a preference for the no-huddle and use the read-option in the run game to hold the backside defender. Gase is likely to keep those features, suggesting an overhaul isn’t required in Miami.

Some insight from PFF on why Gase chose Miami.

I particularly find the bolded paragraph interesting because here is the most used metrics site rating Tannehill very highly in 2013 and 2014 and yet we are being led to believe he's the issue by some people who love quoting the metrics.

Why isn't this metric quoted by those people?

If a metric is to be trusted, its validity has to be determined.  If the metric isn't measuring what it's purported to measure, it's invalid.

How shall we determine the validity of this particular metric?

If you can trust the source for the metrics that are convenient for your argument, you should trust the source for the metrics that aren't and vice versa.

If you trust PFF for pass blocking efficiency to make your argument that the Dolphins offensive line is not significantly worse than the league average, you should trust PFF with their evaluation of passing.

Otherwise, stop quoting PFF.

There is a difference between metrics that are based on objective information, and ones that are based on subjective observations.

The QB rating statistic, for example, is based entirely on objective information.  The metric you're referencing above, however, is based on the subjective observations and interpretations of the PFF staff.

PFF consists of both types of metrics.

I'm happy to use either type, because either type may be informative, but again, I'd like to determine first whether the metric is valid, and I'm open to suggestions as to how to do that.

The pass block efficiency metric is also based on "subjective" information because PFF reviews the film to determine how the offensive line is performing as a whole. But you don't have a problem referencing that metric to make your point.

How have you determined that Pass Blocking Efficiency is a valid metric?

So, after two threads and several pages, all that has been decided is this talk about metrics just leads us to the conclusion they may or may not be valid and most of us are getting bored. Great.

So, after two threads and several pages, all that has been decided is this talk about metrics just leads us to the conclusion they may or may not be valid and most of us are getting bored. Great.

If PFF's Pass Blocking Effenciency is a valid metric and PFF's passer rating is a valid metric, then it demonstrates that Tannehill is a top 10 QB despite having bottom half of the league pass protection.

You should cherish this moment.

You're jumping through hoops.

You're saying that we should trust the validity of PFF's subjective pass blocking grade (as a standalone evaluation of the OL) in order to determine that pass blocking is not that big of an impact on Tannehill's performance.  But there's no need to use PFF's subjective pass blocking grade to evaluate his performance, because PFF already provides a subjective QB evaluation that takes all of their factors into account.  And that evaluation says Tannehill is pretty good.

You're cherry-picking PFF stats to arrive at one conclusion when PFF has already factored in ALL of their stats and provided a conclusion for you.  The only conceivable reason to do so is that you simply don't like the conclusion they've reached.

If I want the Dolphins to win, and if I believe its quarterback plays a big part in that (as I do), then why would I not like any conclusion that points to the team's current quarterback's being the kind of QB who can contribute largely to that effort?

The problem with this question is it assumes every Dolphins fan wants Tannehill to succeed. But there is plenty of evidence on the part of Dolphins fans who will criticize a player or coach and wind up rooting for that person to fail just to be right.

Odd, then, that those measures don't correlate, i.e., my post above.

If I want the Dolphins to win, and if I believe its quarterback plays a big part in that (as I do), then why would I not like any conclusion that points to the team's current quarterback's being the kind of QB who can contribute largely to that effort?

You seem to be taking a lot of effort to selectively cite PFF stats in a way that questions Tannehill's competence, yet you aren't citing their conclusion, which takes all of those stats into account already.  Why?

5) What is their error rate?

I'm about done deluding myself and being let down.

According to the NFL teams that hire them, their analysis aligns 99% up with the analysis of those teams.

And you found this information where?

Can we answer any of those questions?  If we can't, then we can't determine the reliability of those subjective grades, and if we can't determine reliability, we can't determine validity.

When we rest on completely objective information, however, there is no need to assess reliability.  A yard is a yard is a yard.

Reporters that have talked to the teams that use PFF.

But you aren't relying on objective information; you're citing "pass blocking grades" and "DVOA."

So which one is it?  Are we to rely only on objective stats, or are we to cherry-pick the subjective stats that fit our desired outcome?

DVOA is entirely objective.

DVOA EXPLAINED

One running back runs for three yards. Another running back runs for three yards. Which is the better run?

Yep. Go to Google and do a search. That's about as far as I'll help ya. Which is farther than you go to provide your sources.

PFF grades are not great when viewed by themselves, but can add value when combined with other statistics.  I see a lot of potential in the grades assigned by Pro Football Focus, but I think, for now, it’s a potential not fully realized.  Here’s why (and here’s why an analysis of 2008 data may be as applicable as an analysis of 2013 data): PFF normalizes its raw data (you can read more about it here).  But they use the same normalization factors that they have always used.  If you’ve read Nate Silver’s The Signal and the Noise, you know how important it is to review, test, and adjust your methods.  And repeat.  And then do it again.  It’s not clear to what extent PFF is doing this.  So just like navigating the steep grades on route 322, exercise a fair degree of caution when considering their grades.

This doesn't sound objective to me.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/info/methods#dvoa

And now post the rest.

ISSUES WITH DVOA/DYAR

DVOA is limited by what’s included in the official NFL play-by-play or tracked by the Football Outsiders game charting project. Because we need to have the entire play-by-play of a season in order to compute DVOA and DYAR, these metrics are not yet ready to compare players of today to players throughout the league’s history. As of this writing, we have processed 26 seasons, 1989 through 2014, and we add seasons at a rate of roughly two per year (the most recent season, plus one season back into history.)

Football is a game in which nearly every action requires the work of two or more teammates -- in fact, usually 11 teammates all working in unison. Unfortunately, when it comes to individual player ratings, we are still far from the point at which we can determine the value of a player independent from the performance of his teammates. That means that when we say, "In 2014, Marshawn Lynch had a DVOA of 23.1%, what we are really saying is “In 2014, Marshawn Lynch, playing in Darrell Bevell’s offensive system with the Seattle offensive line blocking for him and Russell Wilson selling the keeper when necessary, had a DVOA of 23.1%."

DVOA is entirely objective.

From the link above:

"On first down, a play is considered a success if it gains 45 percent of needed yards; on second down, a play needs to gain 60 percent of needed yards; on third or fourth down, only gaining a new first down is considered success."

Why is 45% of needed yards considered a "successful play" on first down?  Why not 60%?  Why not 80% for second down?

"A successful play is worth one point; an unsuccessful play, zero points with fractional points in between (e.g., eight yards on third-and-10 is worth 0.54 “success points”). Extra points are awarded for big plays, gradually increasing to three points for 10 yards (assuming those yards result in a first down), four points for 20 yards, and five points for 40 yards or more. Losing three or more yards is -1 point."

Why is a 10-yard play worth three points?  Why not two points, or five?
Why is -1 point assigned to a 3-yard loss and not a 5-yard loss?

DVOA is entirely subjective.

Hmm.........

But the PFF guys can do that, subjectively, whoever they are....

The only objective stats are raw stats. They aren't trying to tell you something, they just are what they are.

Unfortunately, raw stats can and often times will, lie to you.

And that's why you have to know how to evaluate statistics, so you can know when that's happening, which is precisely what I'm doing here with regard to the PFF subjective data.

The only way to know when the stats are lying is to watch the film, which is exactly what Football Outsiders and PFF do.

And how do we know when one's interpretations of the film are lying?

The assigning of the value 1 point to a gain of 45% of the needed yards on first down is subjective.

Yards are objective.
Points are objective.
Assigning weighted values to the "success" of a play (outside of the yards it gained/lost, or points it scored) is quite obviously subjective, and it's absurd to argue otherwise.

We don't because everyone sees something different from the same film. That's the beauty of it.

Well when you're trying to determine the validity of those interpretations of film, you can hardly do that when people are making various interpretations.  There is no validity without reliability.

If your bathroom scale tells you something different every time you step on it, you can hardly call it valid.

It's just as subjective as saying a person with a body mass index of 30 or more (an obese person) is at-risk for diabetes.

Because if they do, it kind of detonates your entire argument; at that point, any stat that anyone can invent is "objective" as long as it is always applied evenly.

...and it correlates with winning, which determines its validity.

That's the problem with PFF's grades.  They don't do that nearly as well as DVOA.

So essentially, subjective stats are actually great, but only if they are accurate, or something?

Again, you're only making the argument that the subjective stats you like are better than the ones that you don't.  I have no interest in that discussion; that's like, your opinion, man.  If you want to claim the moral high ground on objective statistical analysis, then stick to objective statistics, not Really Awesome Subjective Statistics.

Given your distaste for subjective stats, I look forward to your continued analysis of Tannehill's performance... using only objective stats, of course.

I have removed the off-topic personal attacks from the thread.  Stay on topic or a lock is inbound.

Uh, yes, if they're valid?  Should the statistic not measure what it's supposed to measure?

So you're fine with subjective stats, as long as you feel they are valid?

If we are to correlate PFF's QB evaluation with winning... then why even have advanced stats in the first place?

The best QB is Cam Newton, who won 15 games.
The second-best QB is Carson Palmer, who won 13 games.
The third-best QB is Tom Brady, who won 12 games.

Do we want to know who the best defense was last year?  Why, it was the Carolina Panthers, who won 15 games.  The second-best defense was the Arizona Cardinals, who won 13 games.

Who was the best kicker?  The best tight-end?  etc.

The stats I just gave are 100% correlated with winning, so they are automatically better than any other stat you can provide, right?

So you're fine with subjective stats, as long as you feel they are valid?

If we are to correlate PFF's QB evaluation with winning... then why even have advanced stats in the first place?

The best QB is Cam Newton, who won 15 games.
The second-best QB is Carson Palmer, who won 13 games.
The third-best QB is Tom Brady, who won 12 games.

Do we want to know who the best defense was last year?  Why, it was the Carolina Panthers, who won 15 games.  The second-best defense was the Arizona Cardinals, who won 13 games.

Who was the best kicker?  The best tight-end?  etc.

The stats I just gave are 100% correlated with winning, so they are automatically better than any other stat you can provide, right?

I use the statistics that are most strongly correlated with winning, which gives them their validity.

The entire reason advanced stats exist is to tell you when W-L may be misleading you.

You said that you dislike subjective stats and prefer objective stats.  However, you then immediately turn around and say that subjective stats are great, but only if they correlate with wins... which misses the entire point of advanced stats in the first place.

It adds color to the raw stats because many raw stats can be misleading. A perfect example is Tannehill's game against the Texans. He had a perfect rating, but mostly because his receivers turned short passes into huge plays.

What if a set of subjective statistics and a set of objective statistics are both "advanced" (to use your terminology), but one of them correlates with winning more strongly than the other?

And we don't all need to watch that film to make that determination.  We need only one person to watch the film (assuming he's reliable) and tell us how far Tannehill's passes were thrown in the air, and how far his receivers ran with them.

Objective stats are objective and stand on their own merit.

Any stat (like, say, DVOA) that depends on an arbitrarily-designated weighting of the value of a play is necessarily subjective.  There's nothing wrong with subjective stats, but when you jump on a soapbox and declare that subjective stats (as a whole) are insufficiently rigorous, you cannot then turn around and promote other subjective stats that you need to build the foundation of your preferred conclusion.

Several people can watch the film and still come to different conclusions.

One person can say that Tannehill had easy throws all day and therefore did very little.

Another person can say that the footwork and savvy to successfully run a screen play or the ability to throw a slant right where the receiver can catch and run without slowing down was a huge factor in those plays.

Like I said before, the beauty of it, no matter what stat or metric you throw at someone, is that the film still tells the ultimate story.

Objective stats are objective and stand on their own merit.

Any stat (like, say, DVOA) that depends on an arbitrarily-designated weighting of the value of a play is necessarily subjective.  There's nothing wrong with subjective stats, but when you jump on a soapbox and declare that subjective stats (as a whole) are insufficiently rigorous, you cannot then turn around and promote other subjective stats that you need to build the foundation of your preferred conclusion.

Though according to you (above), it tells a story subject to various and wide-ranging interpretations.

If you line up 10 different bathroom scales in a row, step on each of them one at a time, and each tells you something different, what in fact is your weight as measured by those bathroom scales?

Assigning -1 point (and not -2 or -0.5) to the value of a 3-yard loss (and not a 2-yard or 4-yard loss) is as arbitrary as any rationale for pass blocking grades.

Again, another silly analogy. Can you find something better than a device that serves one purpose?

The point I am making in watching film is that this is what the advanced stats sites do. Watch film and evaluate. So at the end of the day, their results may not mesh with what someone else sees. There is no other way to do this.

Lastly, all of these sites are evaluating without knowing what the play call is.

If the assignment of such points corresponds to the probability of obtaining a first down, then it's far less problematic (if at all) than a pass-blocking grade whose rationale is unknown and which may be inconsistently applied across players and teams, as well as across graders.

Do you actually know the "formula" for assigning a value of -1 to a 3-yard loss?  Your comments imply that not only are you aware of this formula, but that it is strictly calculated from historical probability (which, in itself, seems curious given the vast difference in offenses and rules between eras).

Of course, you could try to make the anti-Tannehill argument solely using objective stats, but there's a rather obvious reason why you aren't: it's trivial to take year-to-year objective stats and "prove" all sorts of ridiculous conclusions.

DVOA, at its core, is based on yardage.

Great. But then they look at all this situational stuff that lends itself to subjectivity.

Also, are they paying attention to how good the blocking was and taking that into account?

Also, PFF evaluates based on things such as yardage, broken tackles, fumbles, etc as well.

Just like you pick and choose the advanced stats you want to believe in, you pick and choose the components of the evaluation process that you want to highlight.

There is no objectivity in your approach.

Even if it isn't, the resulting measurements, while perhaps being less valid, would still be something that could permit reliable comparisons among players and teams, because they'd be based on a core unit of measurement (the yard) that's indisputable and can be applied consistently by anyone.

No, DVOA is not based on "yards"; it's based on "success points," which are assigned in part (<--- this part is important) based on yards, but also based on other factors like the current down.

To say that DVOA is reliable because it's "based on yards" is a useless distinction.  PFF's pass-blocking grades are rather obviously also "based on yards": yards of penetration by the defender, yards of push by the OLineman, yards gained, yards tackled behind LOS, etc.   The overwhelming majority of metrics (if not literally all) have at least some connection to yards, which (by your logic) makes them consistently applicable by anyone.

You're still dancing around the core point, which is that DVOA is based on an arbitrarily weighted scoring system.  There is no objective argument for why a 3-yard loss (on any down! in multiple eras!) should be worth exactly -1 point.

That situational stuff is exactly what makes it differ from less sophisticated statistics.  A "garbage time" TD, for example, while worth equally as much as a more impactful TD in terms of the traditional QB rating formula, is worth less in the DVOA system, owing to its lesser value in terms of its probability in helping the team win.  A TD pass against a poorer defense is also worth less than a TD pass against a better defense.

And where is the objectivity in yours?