What a difference a line makes.

[CF DolFan]

Dolphanalyst ... can I ask you a question? Have you ever coached a sport in your life? I'm guessing no because if you had you wouldquickly realize that stats are only a part of the story. And for your story it's always you hating on Tannehill. That makes it really hard for anyone to take you seriously. You may want to lighten up on the Tannehill hate in every single conversation you have on here.

[Dolfanalyst]

Dolphanalyst ... can I ask you a question? Have you ever coached a sport in your life? I'm guessing no because if you had you wouldquickly realize that stats are only a part of the story. And for your story it's always you hating on Tannehill. That makes it really hard for anyone to take you seriously. You may want to lighten up on the Tannehill hate in every single conversation you have on here.

I think Tannehill is an average quarterback who would become significantly better than average if he makes what he did against Buffalo (being aware of and evading pressure) the norm for himself.

If that sounds like "hate" or something that shouldn't be taken seriously, then I submit that the bias lies with the individual who perceives it that way.

[Spider-Dan]

Yes, it must be everyone else on every Dolphins message board (including the ones you've already been banned from) that are biased.
You are the only one who can see The Truth.  You're just dispassionately analyzing stats, with no predetermined point to prove!

Consider that the problem may not rest with literally everyone else.

[Dolfanalyst]

Yes, it must be everyone else on every Dolphins message board (including the ones you've already been banned from) that are biased.
You are the only one who can see The Truth.  You're just dispassionately analyzing stats, with no predetermined point to prove!

Consider that the problem may not rest with literally everyone else.

I just stated the point to prove, and you didn't respond to it.  Instead you're introducing unnecessary drama as a red herring.

Again Tannehill is an average QB who would be significantly better than average if he does normally what he did against Buffalo in the way of being aware of and evading pressure.

Now, would you like to respond and say you consider that "hate" or something that shouldn't be taken seriously, in which case we can have an actual discussion about whether it's you or me who's biased about the issue, or is your goal only to perpetuate unnecessary drama here?

"But, but, but...you...you...have a bad reputation!"

Is that what you've been reduced to?

[Spider-Dan]

I didn't respond to that point because I (along with many others) have already been responding to it since the day you signed up for this site.

Your interpretation of the data has already been thoroughly established.  At this time, I find your continued insistence that you have no anti-Tannehill bias - again, after you've been banned from multiple forums while being given that exact reason as the cause - to be the more interesting point.  Apparently, not only do you believe that your statements appear unbiased, but you are able to easily dismiss the multiple people who are (still!) pointing out to you the clear appearance of an anti-Tannehill vendetta in your posts.

To get back to the actual topic of the thread: looking through this thread, everyone but you seems to concur that the performance of the OL has a significant impact on the play of a QB.  Not only do you reject this notion, but you repeatedly steer the topic back to Tannehill; most recently, when you revived this thread to praise an article as "interesting" for tying QB performance to an OL, just so you can summarily dismiss the entire point of the article and use it as an excuse to snipe at Tannehill (by calling Wilson "Tannehill-esque").

[Dolfanalyst]

I didn't respond to that point because I (along with many others) have already been responding to it since the day you signed up for this site.

Your interpretation of the data has already been thoroughly established.  At this time, I find your continued insistence that you have no anti-Tannehill bias - again, after you've been banned from multiple forums while being given that exact reason as the cause - to be the more interesting point.  Apparently, not only do you believe that your statements appear unbiased, but you are able to easily dismiss the multiple people who are (still!) pointing out to you the clear appearance of an anti-Tannehill vendetta in your posts.

To get back to the actual topic of the thread: looking through this thread, everyone but you seems to concur that the performance of the OL has a significant impact on the play of a QB.  Not only do you reject this notion, but you repeatedly steer the topic back to Tannehill; most recently, when you revived this thread to praise an article as "interesting" for tying QB performance to an OL, just so you can summarily dismiss the entire point of the article and use it as an excuse to snipe at Tannehill (by calling Wilson "Tannehill-esque").

Now you're admitting that placing me under a microscope and talking about me instead of the team is your interest!

Stop.  You're embarrassing yourself.

[Spider-Dan]

Well, yes: I will continue to point out when you are intentionally steering every thread you can into an attack on Tannehill.  That line of discussion is more interesting (or more accurately, less pointless) than trying to discuss your already-thoroughly-addressed dismissal of any culpability for the OL in the performance of a QB.

You know, the original point of this thread.

[Dolfanalyst]

Well, yes: I will continue to point out when you are intentionally steering every thread you can into an attack on Tannehill.  That line of discussion is more interesting (or more accurately, less pointless) than trying to discuss your already-thoroughly-addressed dismissal of any culpability for the OL in the performance of a QB.

You know, the original point of this thread.

The least pointless and most interesting discussion in my opinion would consist of the exchange and analysis of objective data regarding the issue (Tannehill and the offensive line).

The problem you're having, I suspect, is that you've tried that and failed.  I've undermined the objective data you've presented in the past about this issue, and so you're left with nothing but some exaggerated, melodramatic focus on me and my behavior.

In other words, "if you can't attack the evidence, attack the witness."

You've attacked the evidence and failed, and so all you're left with is the witness, hence your approach here.

Realize, however, that every time you focus on me and my behavior, you're implicitly admitting that you've failed in your attempts to attack the evidence I've presented.

If you'd like to continue to embarrass yourself in that manner, be my guest.