Some insight into why Philbin was fired and Gase was hired.

[Dolfanalyst]

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?

That particular pass blocking statistic was actually brought up by someone else in another thread, and I merely responded that the metric 1) was weakly correlated with measures of quarterback play, and 2) did not indicate the Dolphins were more than a standard deviation below the league average.  I said nothing about the validity of the metric.

The metric could be valid or invalid, but either way, however, it doesn't do a good job of supporting the argument that Ryan Tannehill's performance would've been aided significantly by an increase in that metric.

If it's valid, it doesn't support that argument, and if it's invalid, we have to find another one anyway, and it still doesn't support that argument.

[Phishfan]

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.

[Rich]

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.

[Rich]

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.

This is what happens when someone comes around talking about analytics. It gets really boring really quickly and we soon learn that analytics are just like every other argument, full of holes.

So analytics are full of holes and they are boring.

Can we all agree to not discuss them anymore?

[Dolfanalyst]

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.

There is a way of determining their validity.

[Dolfanalyst]

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.

Here are the following deviations from the league average, year by year of Tannehill's career, in the areas of 1) PFF's subjective quarterback grade (first column right of the year), and 2) PFF's subjective Dolphins' pass blocking grade (second column right of the year).

2012   0.098   -0.378
2013   1.22   -0.247
2014   0.424   -1.585
2015   -0.519   -0.714

The correlation between those deviations from the league average in quarterback grade and pass blocking grade is 0.19.

In other words, a mere 3.6% of Ryan Tannehill's deviation from the league average in PFF's subjective quarterback grade is explained by the Dolphins' deviation from the league norm in PFF's pass blocking grade.

96.4% of the deviation from the league average in PFF's grade of Ryan Tannehill during his career has been explained by variables other than the deviation from the league average in PFF's Dolphins' pass blocking grade.

So, as measured subjectively by PFF's staff, when the Dolphins get comparatively better or worse pass blocking, in comparison to the rest of the league's offensive lines, it has little or no effect on Ryan Tannehill's performance, in comparison to the rest of the league's quarterbacks.

[Spider-Dan]

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.

[Dolfanalyst]

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.

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

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?

[Rich]

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.

[Dolfanalyst]

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.

Likewise, there is plenty of evidence that some people on Dolphins' message boards are paranoid, constantly on the lookout for such individuals, largely susceptible to false positives in that regard.

[Spider-Dan]

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

Again, PFF has taken those factors (and many others) into account when evaluating Tannehill as a whole.

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 most obvious answer would be, "Because you don't agree with it."

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?

[Dolfanalyst]

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?

Garbage in, garbage out.  If the subjective grades aren't internally consistent (i.e., they don't correlate with each other), they're very unlikely to produce a valid result.

Let's try this for example.  Tell me the following:

1) Who does PFF subjective grades of players and teams?

2) What is their level of expertise about the game?

3) Are the same people doing it year after year, or have they changed?

4) Do the same people do it game-to-game for each player and each team, or do they change?

5) What is their error rate?

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.

I want Tannehill to succeed just like the next guy.  But I also want to know just how hopeful I should be of that prospect.  I'm about done deluding myself and being let down.

Read my posts if you feel similarly about being let down by the team and its players.  If you want to read posts that allow you to keep your rose-colored glasses on, then don't read them.  I don't do the rose-colored glasses posts.

[Rich]

5) What is their error rate?

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

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

Based on your posts on other forums going back to 2012, you never deluded yourself. You were always on the blame Tannehill bandwagon. And you have always cherrypicked the data that suits your point of view. Don't act as if you had hope the first couple of seasons and then lost it based on the results. You always had a point of view that will remain that way no matter what the results.

[Dolfanalyst]

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?

[Rich]

And you found this information where?

Reporters that have talked to the teams that use PFF.