labianca2016 wrote: For the record, that's also my exact opinion of what would have happened to Tom Brady if he ended up in Miami instead of NE. It's clear to me he's about as polished as a bag of a-holes when left to improvise. (see deflategate interviews) It's the culture in NE that made him what he is. (Note, I didn't say system.)

This is incredibly silly.

oh cool, we agree. I can't wait for this weekends game. After that the 2nd half, the expectations have soared to a season high. Meanwhile, in Chicago, Cutler is already injured and expectations have already hit a season low. So, in that respect, Miami is doing much better

paulo187 wrote: Tannehill and Roethlisberger aren't really comparible either, despite what the stats say, and neither is comparing one season of a player against another season of the same player at a different club using a different scheme. This is just using stats to levy your own side of a debate again. I think I agree with your overall TLDR point though (assuming I even get you point); Tannehill is and always will be mediocre to OK at best (although not sure anyone disagrees with that).

So, I guess I wasn't clear. My apologies. Three points to your point on stats.

1. As fans we don't have access to about 50% of the data we'd need to effectively evaluate a player the way coaches do. That forces us to do things like raw statistical analysis and comparative performance using those measures.

2. There is absolutely no feasible argument against the correlation between improved performance and a stable work environment. This goes beyond football, it's basic organizational behavior. If coaches succeed long enough to fully install a system and hire players that fit it, the entire team's performance improves. As the player who touches the ball on every offensive snap, the QB improves most noticeably. That is reflected in statistics.

3. Statistics are normalized to eliminate the variations in scheme as offenses and defenses morph to counter each other. So they do matter regardless of what the "eyeball test" guys will say.

So if you keep changing your coaching staff on a QB, you're artificially retarding his progress regardless of his ability. On top of that the first 3-5 years of a QB's development are most critical, so you really don't help yourself when you change coaches like you have on Tannehill. Habits form.

--- on the overall point ---

Tannehill will continue to be mediocre because his history and all possible environmental variables that could improve him continue to point in that direction. Miami won't have a true elite QB unless their management commits to a system and a QB gets a chance to grow for 3-5 years in that system.

Thanks,
Hit

Gatr22 wrote: So................you're saying Tebow needed a couple more years in the same system. Nice! Seriously though, some good points

I have opinions about Tebow, but those would completely derail the thread so in respect to the OP, I defer.

If you ever want to chat about hybrid offenses that use multiple QBs on the field at the same time under the auspices of a primary and secondary play caller, let me know.

Peace
Hit

labianca2016 wrote: Not really. Some disclosure. 1. Brady is my home team QB and I respect what he's done for our team. 2. He lives a charmed life by any description of the measure. 3. He's not a MENSA candidate by any measure. He works extremely hard. His success comes from being with the same coach in the same place for his entire career, combined with his work ethic. He'll tell you that himself.

This is dumber still.