What a difference a line makes.

[Dolfanalyst]

The point is that DAL has been able to build a competent surrounding cast while getting exactly zero production from their $20M QB.

And what kind of production, exactly, are they getting from the QB position?

[Spider-Dan]

Well, it would appear that when you have the best offensive line in the league, you can throw in a rookie QB and rookie RB, and they both can do quite well!
Almost exactly how like Miami's offense seems completely different when a competent line is in place.

[Dolfanalyst]

Well, it would appear that when you have the best offensive line in the league, you can throw in a rookie QB and rookie RB, and they both can do quite well!

How do we know those players aren't simply good in their own right?

Almost exactly how like Miami's offense seems completely different when a competent line is in place.

Did you use the word "seems" because we have no real data in that regard?

[Dolfanalyst]

The problem with this line of thinking is that it's based on an untested philosophy:  that the offensive line has a unidirectional cause-and-effect relationship with the rest of an NFL offense.

Many people have spent the last four-plus years believing that Ryan Tannehill has been limited in his play by the quality of his offensive line play, which has in turn created the above philosophy.

It's entirely possible, on the other hand, that no such relationship exists, or that the direction of the relationship in reality is actually reversed, that QB play has more of an effect on offensive line play than offensive line play has on QB play.

Again, there is no reason to believe this untested philosophy has any merit.  Certainly we shouldn't believe it has merit simply because we'd like to believe that Ryan Tannehill is merely a certain degree of offensive line play away from being what we all want him to be.

Certainly the functioning of the NFL as a whole in reality isn't determined by what one set of fans would like to believe.

[Spider-Dan]

Before we proceed any further, can you please clarify which of the following you are arguing:

1) the performance of the offensive line is not that important
2) it is unrealistic to expect Miami's current offensive line to remain healthy

They are two very different arguments, and you have jumped back and forth from one to the other.

[Tenshot13]

What data do we have that tell us the offense plays better with its best offensive linemen, and by how much?

That's your job Dolfanalyst, however, it's football 101 that the game is won in the trenches...who plays in the trenches?  The OL.  Thus, offenses play better when their best offensive linemen are on the field.  I don't need a mountain of statistics to tell me that.

[Dolfanalyst]

That's your job Dolfanalyst, however, it's football 101 that the game is won in the trenches...who plays in the trenches?  The OL.  Thus, offenses play better when their best offensive linemen are on the field.  I don't need a mountain of statistics to tell me that.

By how much?

And you may not care, but if you were running an NFL team and deciding where to allocate limited resources, obviously you'd do your job better with that knowledge.  Hopefully the folks running the Dolphins are investigating these issues with real data and not just personal beliefs.

[Dolfanalyst]

Before we proceed any further, can you please clarify which of the following you are arguing:

1) the performance of the offensive line is not that important
2) it is unrealistic to expect Miami's current offensive line to remain healthy

They are two very different arguments, and you have jumped back and forth from one to the other.

Actually my point has been steady all along, that the fact that the Miami Dolphins have been 7-1 when a certain three offensive linemen have played full games says nothing about the importance of the offensive line in the NFL, or about how resources should be allocated to the offensive line versus other areas of a team.

Again, like I said early on, the study to be done here is on whether the best teams in the league, over the same several years, show the same sort of difference in play on the basis of whether offensive linemen are present or absent.  That, and not something only Miami Dolphins-specific, would provide the definitive information about the issue.

[Tenshot13]

By how much?

And you may not care, but if you were running an NFL team and deciding where to allocate limited resources, obviously you'd do your job better with that knowledge.  Hopefully the folks running the Dolphins are investigating these issues with real data and not just personal beliefs.

You're right, I don't care, and if I were running an NFL team, I'd have guys like you to find that info out for me.  Thing is, I don't run an NFL franchise.

Because I've watching football my entire life, and played the game, I can tell you it makes a difference.  If you want to quantify it, then by all means, have at it, but to me that's like quantifying how much salt is in a glass of ocean water, when all I care about is that fact it is salt water.

Actually my point has been steady all along, that the fact that the Miami Dolphins have been 7-1 when a certain three offensive linemen have played full games says nothing about the importance of the offensive line in the NFL, or about how resources should be allocated to the offensive line versus other areas of a team.

Again, like I said early on, the study to be done here is on whether the best teams in the league, over the same several years, show the same sort of difference in play on the basis of whether offensive linemen are present or absent.  That, and not something only Miami Dolphins-specific, would provide the definitive information about the issue.

So have at it man.  The consensus here is that it does make a difference, yet you seem to be the only one questioning that statement.  If you want to prove something, then prove it.

[Dolfanalyst]

You're right, I don't care, and if I were running an NFL team, I'd have guys like you to find that info out for me.  Thing is, I don't run an NFL franchise.

Because I've watching football my entire life, and played the game, I can tell you it makes a difference.  If you want to quantify it, then by all means, have at it, but to me that's like quantifying how much salt is in a glass of ocean water, when all I care about is that fact it is salt water.
So have at it man.  The consensus here is that it does make a difference, yet you seem to be the only one questioning that statement.  If you want to prove something, then prove it.

My contribution here is merely to suggest that the best teams in the league probably don't have the equivalent of just a 5-11 regular season record when one or more of three of their offensive linemen don't play a whole game.

Unfortunately that's what the Dolphins have done over the past two-plus years, however.

So, does that tell you something about the importance of offensive lines throughout the league, or something about how poorly the Dolphins are constructed elsewhere on their roster?

If anything it signifies an over-reliance on offensive line personnel, and an over-investment in the offensive line, at the expense of the acquisition of quality talent elsewhere.

[Pappy13]

When your QB plays like Romo, you don't need as much talent around him, and so the $20M cap hit for the QB has more relative value.

Except that the $20M cap hit is for a guy that is currently NOT PLAYING, so they have a BACKUP that is doing a fine job managing the team even with paying another QB $20M, so what is your point? That Tannehill isn't worth $20M or that he's no Tony Romo because if it's the latter actually Tannehill is FAR EXCEEDING what Tony Romo brings to the Cowboys which currently is nothing.  If the Cowboys can pay Romo $20M for riding the bench, I think the Dolphins can pay Tannehill $20M to do what he did this passed weekend.

[Run Ricky Run]

Except that the $20M cap hit is for a guy that is currently NOT PLAYING, so they have a BACKUP that is doing a fine job managing the team even with paying another QB $20M, so what is your point? That Tannehill isn't worth $20M or that he's no Tony Romo because if it's the latter actually Tannehill is FAR EXCEEDING what Tony Romo brings to the Cowboys which currently is nothing.  If the Cowboys can pay Romo $20M for riding the bench, I think the Dolphins can pay Tannehill $20M to do what he did this passed weekend.

You try to argue one thing, but you are clueless.  Dak is not managing the team, he is leading the team, and performing leaps and bounds better than Tannehill.  So yes, the dolphins can compete if they can find a player who performs like that while being paid minimal. Whether the cowboys pay romo 20 mil and Dak nil, or Dak 20mil and Romo nil, as long as they are getting performance like they are they will be fine. 

[Pappy13]

You try to argue one thing, but you are clueless.  Dak is not managing the team, he is leading the team, and performing leaps and bounds better than Tannehill.  So yes, the dolphins can compete if they can find a player who performs like that while being paid minimal. Whether the cowboys pay romo 20 mil and Dak nil, or Dak 20mil and Romo nil, as long as they are getting performance like they are they will be fine. 

Calm down Cowgirls fan, I wasn't trying to slight Dak. He's playing great, but he also is getting a TON of help from everyone on the team including his defense which is playing light years better than anyone thought they would. Dak has all day to find receivers as no one is getting close to him. It's easy to play QB when all you have to do is stand there and wait till someone gets open and then thrown him the ball. That's what Dak is doing right now and if no one does get open, he just runs for a 3 yard gain and 1st down because it's always 2nd and 2 or 3rd and 1 with Zeke running the ball. C'mon man T'Hill would be doing just as good as Dak if he were playing behind a stone wall offensive line, have someone who's averaging 5 yards a carry to hand the ball off too and the defense was playing lights out, wait a minute I think I just described this weekend's game against Pittsburgh and T'hill did look great! He could have had a couple TD's if not for Parker's hands and a questionable formation call. Doesn't make T'hill an elite QB, that just means he's doing his job rather than trying to be the entire offense which is what people were expecting from him the first 5 games of the season.

[Run Ricky Run]

Calm down Cowgirls fan, I wasn't trying to slight Dak. He's playing great, but he also is getting a TON of help from everyone on the team including his defense which is playing light years better than anyone thought they would. Dak has all day to find receivers as no one is getting close to him. It's easy to play QB when all you have to do is stand there and wait till someone gets open and then thrown him the ball. That's what Dak is doing right now and if no one does get open, he just runs for a 3 yard gain and 1st down because it's always 2nd and 2 or 3rd and 1 with Zeke running the ball. C'mon man T'Hill would be doing just as good as Dak if he were playing behind a stone wall offensive line, have someone who's averaging 5 yards a carry to hand the ball off too and the defense was playing lights out, wait a minute I think I just described this weekend's game against Pittsburgh and T'hill did look great! He could have had a couple TD's if not for Parker's hands and a questionable formation call. Doesn't make T'hill an elite QB, that just means he's doing his job rather than trying to be the entire offense which is what people were expecting from him the first 5 games of the season.

No Tannehill would be doing shit, like he always has.  It is always somebody elses fault with Tannehill. People drop passes, defenders make good moves on the offensive line. He deals like shit with that.

[Dolfanalyst]

Calm down Cowgirls fan, I wasn't trying to slight Dak. He's playing great, but he also is getting a TON of help from everyone on the team including his defense which is playing light years better than anyone thought they would. Dak has all day to find receivers as no one is getting close to him. It's easy to play QB when all you have to do is stand there and wait till someone gets open and then thrown him the ball. That's what Dak is doing right now and if no one does get open, he just runs for a 3 yard gain and 1st down because it's always 2nd and 2 or 3rd and 1 with Zeke running the ball. C'mon man T'Hill would be doing just as good as Dak if he were playing behind a stone wall offensive line, have someone who's averaging 5 yards a carry to hand the ball off too and the defense was playing lights out, wait a minute I think I just described this weekend's game against Pittsburgh and T'hill did look great! He could have had a couple TD's if not for Parker's hands and a questionable formation call. Doesn't make T'hill an elite QB, that just means he's doing his job rather than trying to be the entire offense which is what people were expecting from him the first 5 games of the season.

How exactly do we know when to make one of the following conclusions:

1) The QB is playing well (or poorly) because of those around him.
2) The QB is playing well (or poorly) because of his own ability (or the lack thereof).
3) Those around the QB are playing well (or poorly) because of the QB.

Any one of those three could be true, but it seems that the beliefs and philosophies surrounding the Ryan Tannehill era for Miami Dolphins fans have made the second and third one impossible.

Instead, the quarterback is viewed as some hapless victim or beneficiary of those around him, unable to exert any meaningful influence on the game via his own ability, and unable to influence the play of his teammates.

All of the arrows of causality point from the other players to the QB, and there are no arrows going the other direction.