What a difference a line makes.

[Pappy13]

...and that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped.

King Arthur: This new learning amazes me, statman. Explain again how sheep's bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes.

[Spider-Dan]

It is amazing (but no longer surprising) that you look at source after source describing QB problems and attributing them to an offensive line, ignore the offensive line part, and praise the rest.

I think there's a term for that practice.

[Dolfanalyst]

It is amazing (but no longer surprising) that you look at source after source describing QB problems and attributing them to an offensive line, ignore the offensive line part, and praise the rest.

I think there's a term for that practice.

I'm not surprised that's your summation, when you seemingly omit from your analysis of my post the parts of it that lead me to that conclusion.

Once again, Seattle's offensive line has been poor since Wilson arrived, and he's been sacked half as often this year as he has been during the rest of his career.

I'm certain, however, that if you continue to cherry-pick from my posts whatever it is that allows you to conclude that I'm biased, you'll continue to find "confirmation" of the bias you perceive me to have.

It takes but a simple, thorough reading to avoid that, however, yet you're unwilling to engage in one.  Agenda, perhaps?

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

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.

My two cents: 1 is false the game is won and lost in the battle between the oline and dline.


2 is spot on.  It is not the team with the best 22 starters that wins the Super Bowl, nor the team with the least number of injuries, but the team that is capable of plugging in backups and still perform at a high level. 

[Dolfanalyst]

My two cents: 1 is false the game is won and lost in the battle between the oline and dline.


2 is spot on.  It is not the team with the best 22 starters that wins the Super Bowl, nor the team with the least number of injuries, but the team that is capable of plugging in backups and still perform at a high level. 

And if that's true, is that a result of 1) the performance of the backups themselves, 2) the talent and performance of the other (uninjured) players who compensate for the presence of the backups, or 3) both?

[masterfins]

...and that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped.

King Arthur: This new learning amazes me, statman. Explain again how sheep's bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes.

LOL, good one.

[Dolfanalyst]

LOL, good one.

You won't hear anyone with a decent counter-analysis or rebuttal, however.

When the point is obvious and unmistakable, one can only cherry-pick and caricature in response.

[masterfins]

You won't hear anyone with a decent counter-analysis or rebuttal, however.

When the point is obvious and unmistakable, one can only cherry-pick and caricature in response.

Actually there has been plenty of decent counter-analysis and rebuttal; however at every turn you refuse to admit that the poor play of the offensive line has had anything to do with Tannehill sometimes having a poor performance.  Conversely you have even suggested that Tannehill is better off with poor offensive line play.  There's a term for this, but I can't use it without violating the terms of the site.

[Dolfanalyst]

Actually there has been plenty of decent counter-analysis and rebuttal; however at every turn you refuse to admit that the poor play of the offensive line has had anything to do with Tannehill sometimes having a poor performance.  Conversely you have even suggested that Tannehill is better off with poor offensive line play.  There's a term for this, but I can't use it without violating the terms of the site.

Actually what I've said is 1) that there is not a strong correlation between the percentage of pass dropbacks in which Tannehill has been sacked and the most important measures of his play on a game-by-game basis, and 2) that, ironically, on a season-by-season basis, there is actually a somewhat weak but positive correlation between the frequency of pressure he's experienced and the most important measures of his play, meaning that Tannehill, over his career, has played better the more he's been pressured.

This page gives probably the best information about the matter, however:

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2016/quarterbacks-and-pressure-2015

Notice the Dolphins' line wasn't significantly worse than the average one in the league in terms of the frequency of pressure it surrendered in 2015.  Also notice that the difference in Tannehill's performance with and without pressure wasn't significantly different from that of the average QB in the league.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

And if that's true, is that a result of 1) the performance of the backups themselves, 2) the talent and performance of the other (uninjured) players who compensate for the presence of the backups, or 3) both?

All of the above but much more than just those two things.

4) Some GMs focus almost exclusively on the top of the roster, others will put considerable effort into making sure player 53 adds to the roster and if their is anybody not on roster that would be better than the current #53, signing that player.

5) Have the versatile non-starters.  A guy who can play multiple roles is more valuable than someone who can only play one position. 

6) Having a solid system and making sure the backups are learning it to the best of their ability.  Does the QB coach care only about the starter or is the backup getting the development he needs to be successful?  Do the backup linemen learn the lingo and tempo so they are ready to go when needed? 

7) Do you have backups in name only or do their strengths fit the system? 

If you have a backup whose skill set is different than the man he replaces does the coach adapt the system or are you asking the backup to do something he is incapable while ignoring his strengths? 

Basically it comes down to the GM and coaching staff.

[Dolfanalyst]

All of the above but much more than just those two things.

4) Some GMs focus almost exclusively on the top of the roster, others will put considerable effort into making sure player 53 adds to the roster and if their is anybody not on roster that would be better than the current #53, signing that player.

5) Have the versatile non-starters.  A guy who can play multiple roles is more valuable than someone who can only play one position. 

6) Having a solid system and making sure the backups are learning it to the best of their ability.  Does the QB coach care only about the starter or is the backup getting the development he needs to be successful?  Do the backup linemen learn the lingo and tempo so they are ready to go when needed? 

7) Do you have backups in name only or do their strengths fit the system? 

If you have a backup whose skill set is different than the man he replaces does the coach adapt the system or are you asking the backup to do something he is incapable while ignoring his strengths? 

Basically it comes down to the GM and coaching staff.

That's all certainly logical and well thought out, but I suspect the most influential variable is simply luck, since injuries are largely random events.

When a team is victimized disproportionately by random events, it's simply unlucky.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

That's all certainly logical and well thought out, but I suspect the most influential variable is simply luck, since injuries are largely random events.

When a team is victimized disproportionately by random events, it's simply unlucky.

So Don Shula was luckiest coach in NFL history, got it.

[Dolfanalyst]

So Don Shula was luckiest coach in NFL history, got it.

If I would've said luck was the most influential variable in winning period (and not just with regard to the effect of injuries on a team), your response would've been appropriate.

[Spider-Dan]

I'm not surprised that's your summation, when you seemingly omit from your analysis of my post the parts of it that lead me to that conclusion.

I did not address your analysis of how you reached your conclusion.

I simply pointed out that you are happy to lean on any external evaluation necessary to prove your point, except those that implicate the performance of the offensive line.  You have consistently ignored only that portion of the various analyses you have cited as supporting evidence.  I mean, you literally just cited an article whose primary point was that Wilson's play has deteriorated due to poor OL play, discarded the main argument of the author, then praised the rest (?!) of the article.

I leave it to the reader as to why it is only the evaluations of offensive lines that we should discard as irrelevant.

[Dolfanalyst]

I did not address your analysis of how you reached your conclusion.

I simply pointed out that you are happy to lean on any external evaluation necessary to prove your point, except those that implicate the performance of the offensive line.  You have consistently ignored only that portion of the various analyses you have cited as supporting evidence.  I mean, you literally just cited an article whose primary point was that Wilson's play has deteriorated due to poor OL play, discarded the main argument of the author, then praised the rest (?!) of the article.

Did the author of the article consider and state that Wilson has been sacked half as often this year as he had been previously in his career?  Given that Wilson is far less mobile this year than usual, do you not consider that a glaring omission in his appraisal of Seattle's offensive line?

Just because someone publishes an article on the internet doesn't mean it's the unassailable gospel truth.

And there wasn't any aspect of the article that I "praised."  I included it simply for background information about the Seahawks, since we're on a Dolphins message board here.

Again, you seem to have a problem with cherry-picking from my posts, since now you're making not only errors of omission, but errors of commission!