1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Comparing Atlanta to Miami in some key areas that affect wins, losses, & QB play

Discussion in 'Miami Dolphins Forum' started by ToddsPhins, Aug 8, 2011.

  1. REAL TALK!

    REAL TALK! Banned

    29
    8
    3
    Aug 5, 2011
    Let me spell this out slowly so you can get what I'm saying: Matt Cassel did more with a crappy KC team in 2010 than he did with the 2008 Pats. Higher QB rating. More TDs. Much better TD/INT ratio. His "bad" year with the Chiefs was better than anything Henne's been able to muster thus far.

    When anyone disagrees with you, you have to mock them. I feel bad for you. You must have some serious problems that you feel the need to take it out on people who disagree with you on football players. REAL TALK!
     
    gunn34 likes this.
  2. Larryfinfan

    Larryfinfan 17-0...Priceless Club Member

    Don't like numbers, how about names:

    Tony Eason
    Mark Rypien
    Doug Williams
    Troy Aikman
    Kurt Warner
    David Woodley
    Brad Johnson
    Rex Grossman
    Neil O'Donnell
    Stan Humphries
    Kerry Collins
    Rich Gannon

    All QBs who had less than auspicious beginning to their careers who ended up at least IN a Super Bowl...Quite a few were winning SB QBs as well...It can be done...Go back to Hotlanta and cheer on Ryan...

    REAL TROLL !
     
    ToddsPhins likes this.
  3. ToddsPhins

    ToddsPhins Banned

    29,125
    7,721
    0
    Mar 15, 2009
    If Cassel is a "really good QB, no matter who he plays with" then please explain WHY he was so darn terrible in 2009...... not just terrible.... but abominable..... worse than anything you can ever say about Henne. I absolutely love how you dismiss Cassel's horrendous 2nd year but chastise Henne for his, and then go onto ask for examples of QBs who do poorly in the 2nd year. :lol:

    he didn't play better with a crappy KC team. Where do you get your stuff? He played well with an OUTSTANDING NE team capable of winning as a team despite Cassel.

    he then wen't to a crappy (albeit young) KC team that drafted 5th the year he arrived and 3rd after his first full season. Cassel could NOT make a bad KC team win...... and a bad KC team couldn't allow Cassel to succeed. I would say that's not debatable, but someone will come along just to be an antagonist and say that nothing's not debatable.


    You want to know the difference? Here you go:

    2010 Cassel had the #1 rushing game in the NFL.

    2010 Chiefs RAN THE BALL FOR 197 YARDS PER GAME (with a 5.1 avg) AND 11 TDs DURING THEIR VICTORIES!!!!!!!! THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE, NOT CASSEL.

    In KC losses, they ran for half that (with a 3.9 avg) and 2 TDs.

    With games decided by a TD or less, the Chiefs averaged 178 yards rushing!!!!!!!!



    Chiefs 1st down rushing: 1533 yards..... 5.5 avg.... (11) 20+..... 44 1st downs.
    Miami 1st down rushing: 786 yards........ 3.4 avg..... (2) 20+...... 16 1st downs.



    Cassel didn't have to do anything on 1st down and was in MUCH better 2nd down situations than anyone else in the NFL because his GROUND GAME totally gashed defenses on 1st down!


    That's ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW right there.

    2010 Chiefs only had to attempt 475 passes (4th fewest in NFL) thanks to their ground game effectiveness.





    I'll still throw in some other significant stuff though.

    2010 Cassel had 1 year of gelling with Bowe under his belt.

    2009 Chiefs fumbled 31 times (30th in NFL).
    2010 Chiefs fumbled 15 times (5th in NFL).

    2009 Chiefs' defense allowed: 26.5 pts/game, 5.8 avg per play (30th in NFL), 388 YPG (30th), 16 plays of 20+, 87 QBR.
    2010 Chiefs' defense allowed: 20.4 pts/game, 5.1 avg per play (tield for 6th), 330 YPG (14th), 10 plays of 20+, 78 QBR (8th in NFL).

    2009 Cassel sacked 45 times (28th in NFL).
    2010 Cassel sacked 33 times.
    (2010 Henne sacked the equivalent of 52 times during last 6 games IIRC.)

    2009 Chiefs had 22 sacks (31st in NFL).
    2010 Chiefs had 38 sacks.


    Cassel also played this poorly in 2009 against the 29th ranked strength of schedule (according to Football Outsiders).
     
    CaribPhin, MarinePhinFan and MrClean like this.
  4. ToddsPhins

    ToddsPhins Banned

    29,125
    7,721
    0
    Mar 15, 2009
    No need for name calling here. :shifty:
     
  5. fin13

    fin13 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    1,695
    1,237
    113
    May 29, 2009
    Waterloo
    yes
     
    Stringer Bell likes this.
  6. ToddsPhins

    ToddsPhins Banned

    29,125
    7,721
    0
    Mar 15, 2009
    1st down Rushing

    Miami:. 228 carries....... 786 yards.... 3.4 avg.... 5 TDs...... (2) 20+.... 6 fumbles.... 16 first downs.
    Rams:.. 231 carries...... 935 yards..... 4.0 avg.... 3 TDs...... (7) 20+.... 0 fumbles.... 28 first downs.
    Atlanta: 271 carries.... 1055 yards.... 3.9 avg.... 4 TDs...... (6) 20+.... 2 fumbles.... 29 first downs.
    Bucs:....229 carries.....1087 yards.....4.7 avg.... 6 TDs...... (8) 20+.... 5 fumbles.... 31 first downs.
    Jets:.... 297 carries.... 1297 yards.... 4.4 avg.... 5 TDs...... (6) 20+.... 4 fumbles..... 24 first downs.
    Cheifs: 278 carries..... 1533 yards.... 5.5 avg.... 7 TDs..... (11) 20+.... 3 fumbles.... 44 first downs.


    pretty much self explanatory which young QBs benefited from 1st down running success and which one (singular) did not.
     
    MarinePhinFan likes this.
  7. fin13

    fin13 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    1,695
    1,237
    113
    May 29, 2009
    Waterloo
    When you really look at what happened you can understand why the draft went like it did and why R&R are not here.
    I think they figure QB was the least of the problems the offense had.
     
    ToddsPhins likes this.
  8. ToddsPhins

    ToddsPhins Banned

    29,125
    7,721
    0
    Mar 15, 2009
    Crappy 2010 Chiefs team? are you insane?

    Please read the posts I wrote above.

    Let me spell this out even slower. The catalyst of the Chiefs' offense was their GROUND GAME, not Cassel.

    And how can he do more with the Chiefs when he finished with a worse record than the 08 Pats.......... and the 2008 Pats played the 6th toughest <weighted> schedule compared to Cassel's 25th ranked 2010 schedule. Do you take ANYTHING into consideration besides QB rating and TD:INT ratio? lol.


    You should join a golf forum where you can talk till the cows come home about individual performances....... where nothing affecting the player other than the player himself.
     
    MrClean likes this.
  9. ToddsPhins

    ToddsPhins Banned

    29,125
    7,721
    0
    Mar 15, 2009
    Exactly. You can't do anything offensively if you can't gain yards on 1st down..... especially when your team is configured around the running game. To expect a young QB to do anything other than fail in this type of circumstance is unrealistic IMO.
     
  10. Stringer Bell

    Stringer Bell Post Hard, Post Often Club Member

    44,356
    22,480
    113
    Mar 22, 2008
    You've yet to prove this. Again, correlation does not equal causation.
     
  11. ToddsPhins

    ToddsPhins Banned

    29,125
    7,721
    0
    Mar 15, 2009
    prove what? that he's acting insane? He's doing a good enough job of that himself. lol.


    Regarding the catalyst of the Chiefs offense, if you want to play your little tiring smug game and say that 1533 yards on first down, 5.5 avg, 7 (11) 20+ runs, and 44 first downs is NOT the catalyst of the Chiefs offense, then you're more than entitled to make yourself look silly. The Chiefs ran for almost as many yards on 1st down as Miami did every down combined.


    The only reason you're saying this is b/c people can't speak of football related stuff with the same factual evidence as "water is wet".
    What you're trying to do is no different than me saying Manning isn't the catalyst of the Colts offense b/c you can't actually prove it. I would be right, but at the same time I'd look like a foolish person trying to argue for the sake of arguing.


    You do know what catalyst means, right?
    And you do know that first down comes before 2nd & 3rd down, right?



    Just so we're clear..... lemme get this straight:
    A team runs for 198 yards per game (which is more than its passing yards) during its 11 wins, but Matt Cassel is the catalyst of the offense? lol.


    Since the catalyst is what helps get things going, first down would be considered the catalyst of downs would it not?..... and the 1st QTR would be considered the catalyst of the game would it not? Ok, good...............

    So then tell me----- if an offense runs 100 more times than it passes on 1st down (and it's the most successful 1st down ground game in the NFL) and is more successful than the passing game during the 1st qtr, does that NOT make it the catalyst of the offense?



    Despite your charade, I bet if you asked every DC in the NFL whom the greater catalyst was (the Chiefs ground game or Cassel), they'd tell you Jamaal Charles & the ground game every time.
     
    MrClean likes this.
  12. Boik14

    Boik14 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    75,120
    37,638
    113
    Nov 28, 2007
    New York
    Word of advice, tone it down REAL QUICK or find another place to post. Bullying and forcing opinions on people because you insist on keeping it real isn't going to earn you respect around here.

    REAL MOD TALK!
     
  13. Stringer Bell

    Stringer Bell Post Hard, Post Often Club Member

    44,356
    22,480
    113
    Mar 22, 2008
    Again, your opinion is very valid, and could very well be true. But the statistics don't do much to support the theory. There is a way for you to support this statistically if you choose. Right now the statistics you are using don't support the argument. They just support a correlation.
     
  14. ToddsPhins

    ToddsPhins Banned

    29,125
    7,721
    0
    Mar 15, 2009
    In the Chiefs' 11 victories they averaged more rushing yards than passing.... and chose to run the ball 100 times more. They also chose to call more runs than passes on 1st down and in the 1st quarter.


    Since KC has the choice of going with what they feel is their best option (run or pass), I'm led to believe the Chiefs' staff felt the ground game was the catalyst and more significant aspect of their offense since they went to it more often than the pass during their 11 wins, more often on 1st down (all 16 games combined), and more often in the 1st qtr (all 16 games combined). Conversely, if they felt the passing game was the catalyst, we'd see those numbers reversed.

    In wins, KC called 116 more runs than passes.
    In losses, KC called 35 more passes than runs. That's a net difference of 151 (which is big IMO).


    Therefore, when they could run more than pass and emphasize the run, they won (regardless if Cassel throws for 68 yards, 152, yards, or 314 yards).
    When they had to pass more or emphasize the pass, they lost.


    Now I could break down each win & loss, along with rushing and passing break downs early in the game to see who caused what, but I'm pretty sure it'll support what I said above.
    Or we could just listen to their coaching philosophy (556 rushes-- 475 passes). lol.
     
    MrClean likes this.
  15. ToddsPhins

    ToddsPhins Banned

    29,125
    7,721
    0
    Mar 15, 2009
    Miami is no different thank KC (except results lol). We were supposed to be a running team capable of pounding the ball, which by definition I think includes running equal or more often than passing, running more on 1st down (and successfully), and running more in the 1st qtr to get things started, followed by more running in the 4th to close out a game.

    Unfortunately that wasn't the case. What we were hoping would be the catalyst, was not.
    557 passes--445 rushes. (compared to KC's 556 rushes to 475).



    Because of the Chiefs' outstanding ground game & it's 1st down success, they were able to progressively increase their run calls each quarter (124, 135, 138, 148)..........
    ......... where as Miami's lack of ground game & poor 1st down running success forced us to reduce ours to (122, 105, 99, 114).


    If we ditch all of the 1st quarter plays (b/c the game was ineffective) and focus on plays called in quarters 2-4, it breaks down to Miami calling 437 passes to 318 runs. (compared to KC's 361 passes to 421 runs).


    KC's 1st down success also allowed them to run more often on 2nd down (204 times vs Miami's 154)..... which also saw great success. When you run well on 1st down, and then run well on 2nd down, not a lot has to rest on the QB.





    These stats tell me what I already know:

    that Miami sees itself as a running team and wanted to establish the run early (hence 1st quarter playcalling of 124 runs to 116 passes). Only the results failed.


    This hurt us 2 ways IMO.
    1. Ineffectively trying to establish the run hurt us on those drives where we tried trying to establish the run.
    2. It caused us to drastically shift our play calling toward the passing game despite being built for the run. (We went from 116 pass attempts in the 1st qtr.... to 155 in the 2nd, to 136, and 146.)



    I'm surprised Henne had a quarter of football where he posted a 93 QBR.
    However, It doesn't surprise me that Chad's 2nd qtr QBR was 69.0 after a ground game craps the bed in the 1st qtr with 374 yard, 3.1 avg, (0) 20+ runs, and a long of 14 yards, putting all the pressure on Henne while defenses know our ground game can't do poop.




    Now, I'd like to know how anyone expects a young QB to succeed when he's being asked to chuck it this many times in 3 quarters with little to no game support, poor field position to aid him, an oline that averaged 3.25 sacks per game (the last 3rd of the year), Marshall injured or out of shape, Hartline injured, Fasano injured, no outlet back or big play threat to score in chunks, and 6 or 7 WRs & TEs seeing action who were outmatched and belonged on the practice squad.
     
    CaribPhin and MrClean like this.
  16. BlameItOnTheHenne

    BlameItOnTheHenne Taking a poop

    15,112
    7,311
    113
    Aug 15, 2010
    Davie
    ToddsPhins and MrClean like this.
  17. ToddsPhins

    ToddsPhins Banned

    29,125
    7,721
    0
    Mar 15, 2009
    Considering our defense was great in the first qtr and held offenses to 68 first quarter points while our offense scored 70, I'm inclined to believe that there should have been no need for Henne to throw 155 times in the 2nd qtr (verse 105 runs). That tells me our lack of success came from the ground game not doing it's job and Henne still being too young and developing to have a team put on his shoulders.


    During Henne's most successful quarter (93 QBR 3rd quarter, 0 INTs), the defense allowed our most amount of points of any quarter (97)..... so two things could be argued:

    1. instead of Chad having a comfortable lead or some temporary breathing room when he plays well, the pressure was instead kept on him.

    2. Despite Henne's solid 3rd qtr play, our defense allowed 37 more 3rd qtr points than we scored, and the running game totaled 380 3rd qtr yards all season. That specific 37 point differential should be directed toward the defense, special teams, and ground game rather than the guy who played the best during this period.
     
  18. MrClean

    MrClean Inglourious Basterd Club Member

  19. MarinePhinFan

    MarinePhinFan Banned

    7,612
    1,578
    0
    Oct 11, 2010
    Correct and I wrote that.

    However, the numbers show that running the ball well helps the passing game more than passing the ball well helps the run game.
     
  20. Vendigo

    Vendigo German Gigolo Club Member

    7,723
    5,683
    113
    Nov 30, 2007
    You're still not supporting your argument but a correlation. Right now, using the statistics you've cited, I could legitimately claim, based on said statistics, that Matt Cassell made the KC ground game the powerhouse that it is - and not the other way around. Stringer's perfectly right: Your point might well be accurate, but your arguments don't support it, they only correlate it.
     
  21. MarinePhinFan

    MarinePhinFan Banned

    7,612
    1,578
    0
    Oct 11, 2010
    Not really. I used Marino as an example. If one of the greatest QB's in the history of the NFL couldn't get a good running game what makes a person believe that any other QB can with their play?

    Again, at times the passing game will help the run game...but that's typically the exception and even when it happens it doesn't happen to the extent of how much the running game helps the passing game.

    Another way to look at this.

    If a team is passing the ball well, the defense may drop another player into coverage and may not crowd the LOS as much thus allowing more running room. However, the defense still contains the run because they never let the runner get behind them. (Of course some RB's will break one now and again)

    On the other hand, if the running game is going well, the defense will typically crowd the LOS, and drop less players back. Now if a pass is completed there is a better chance for the receiver to get behind the defense.

    There are many other examples that show a good running game helps the passing game more often than a good passing game helps the running game.
     
    ToddsPhins and MrClean like this.
  22. Vendigo

    Vendigo German Gigolo Club Member

    7,723
    5,683
    113
    Nov 30, 2007
    And that's a pretty bad example in a statistical argument pertaining to modern NFL players and especially numbers. Statistically speaking, Dan Marino wouldn't have been more than a (slightly above) average QB in most of his NFL seasons compared to current numbers. Kyle Orton had a better rating last season than Marino had in more than half of his career. And Kyle Orton's 2010 rating ranks him at #15. If you particularly want to cite Miami's sub-par running game by today's standards, then you also have to cite Miami's largely average passing game by today's standards. The fact that no one would call Marino's career "mostly average" should give you a hint about how sensible it is to compare stats between decades.
     
    Stringer Bell and GARDENHEAD like this.
  23. MarinePhinFan

    MarinePhinFan Banned

    7,612
    1,578
    0
    Oct 11, 2010
    No he didn't. For the most part Cassel's 2008 season was nearly identical to his 2010 season. Again, there was a 3 point difference in his QBR from 2008 to 2010.

    And the 2010 KC team wasn't "crappy". Granted they weren't as good as the 2008 Patriots, but again, that was Cassel's first time starting a game since HIGH SCHOOL after he was given the responsibility of taking over for Tom Brady after the 16-0 season.

    And Cassel's bad season with KC was worse than any of Henne's seasons.
    Cassel- 69 QBR

    Henne- 75 QBR

    Cassel- INT% 3.2

    Henne- INT% 3.1

    Cassel- TD% 3.2

    Henne- TD% 3.2

    Cassel- Average passing yards per game- 194

    Henne average passing yards per game- 220

    Cassel- 5.1 YPA

    Henne- 6.7 YPA

    Cassel- 10.6 YPC

    Henne- 11.0 YPC


    If I mock you you'll know it. Right now I'm laughing at you as I've totally destroyed everyone of your posts.
     
    djphinfan and ToddsPhins like this.
  24. MarinePhinFan

    MarinePhinFan Banned

    7,612
    1,578
    0
    Oct 11, 2010
    What are you talking about? Did you miss the point?

    In Marino's TIME he was the greatest QB playing. He wasn't able to create even an average running game. The same can be said about many good to great QB's over the history of the NFL.

    And even though it makes no difference in what is being discussed here I'll play along:

    Their sub-par running game was sub-par not only in today's standards, but in the past too. Miami's passing game was not average compared to today's standards. Have you even bothered to look at any of the stats before you wrote this drivel? Marino's stats hold up to anyone's stats today. TD's in a season? Yards passing in a season? TD's total? etc etc...Look them up...Why do you think his records lasted for over 20 years (some still) and even when they were surpassed it was by one or two? Saying that Marino would be "average" today is probably the dumbest thing I've ever read on the entire internet. Marino's numbers surpass or equal all QB's today even though the rules favor the passing game much more today than when he was playing. This is what I was talking about when I mentioned using stats in "CONTEXT".....jeez...
     
    MrClean likes this.
  25. ToddsPhins

    ToddsPhins Banned

    29,125
    7,721
    0
    Mar 15, 2009
    You could make that argument; however, everyone who's watched the Chiefs play knows that's not true. And I could give you the stats you want, but I'm not spending hours pulling up ones to prove causation regarding a topic that's likely one of the least disputable aspects of the 2010 football season. :lol:

    If the statistics' guys who only deal in truths or non-truths want to spend the time, be my guest. lol.

    Combining the eyeball test along with their coach's philosophy, the nightmare called Jamaal Charles, 197 YPG rushing during wins, and 1500 yards on 1st down is more than sufficient evidence without having to spend hours just to dot on the i.

    If Jamaal Charles owes 1467 yards rushing, 6.4 avg (highest in 37 years), 30.4% 1st down conversions (highest in 9 years [150+ attempts]), 427 YAC receiving yards (out of 468) to Matt Cassel, then I'll be a monkey's uncle.

    If the numbers above don't indicate who the catalyst is, then I don't know what does. :tongue2:
     
    MrClean and MarinePhinFan like this.
  26. ToddsPhins

    ToddsPhins Banned

    29,125
    7,721
    0
    Mar 15, 2009
    Some other fun stats about Jamaal Charles' benefit to KC's offense and Cassel:

    -during 33 rushing attempts on 2nd & 8-10, averaged 8.0 YPC. That averages out to either a 1st down or 3rd & short.
    -during 13 rushing attempts on 3rd & 3-7, averaged 6.7 YPC.


    .........and another fun fact:

    Charles had 45 rushes of 10+ yards for 820 yards. WHAT!!!
    That's 86 more yards than Ronnie's 200 attempts combined!!!!

    I don't know whether to laugh or cry.


    Ricky & Ronnie combined for only 28 10+ runs for 448 yards!!! I'm think I'm leaning toward crying.

    ...... and another one:
    Jamaal's 427 receiving YAC during 45 catches is more than Marshall's & Hartline's combined (406).
     
    MarinePhinFan likes this.
  27. Stringer Bell

    Stringer Bell Post Hard, Post Often Club Member

    44,356
    22,480
    113
    Mar 22, 2008
    That is a valid hypothesis.
     
    MarinePhinFan likes this.
  28. ToddsPhins

    ToddsPhins Banned

    29,125
    7,721
    0
    Mar 15, 2009
    I agree with this...... but at the same time, even with poor QB play, you can still run the ball to set up the pass. However, you can't set up the pass if you aren't running the ball when you're supposed to be a running team.

    The Jets have done it 2 years in a row with Sanchez, and it's been NY's established ground game that set up their successful play action. Sanchez is not a scary QB whom DCs worry about, but that hasn't helped defenses gear up to stop the run.

    That's why I don't buy the argument that Henne was holding back the ground game. Carolina's terrible 2009 QB play didn't prevent the Panthers from pounding the ball effectively.
     
    MrClean and MarinePhinFan like this.
  29. Stringer Bell

    Stringer Bell Post Hard, Post Often Club Member

    44,356
    22,480
    113
    Mar 22, 2008
    I agree that there is a correlation. But I see no evidence supporting the theory that running attempts led to their superiority, or if their superiority led to their amount of running attempts.

    What relation do these plays have with the team's current win probability?

    Thats a valid theory. But its also possible they chose to run more when they were winning, as they wanted to control the clock and minimize expected points allowed.

    I'm not sure what this breakdown would include, but I hope it would be more than anecdotal.
     
  30. Ozzy

    Ozzy Premium Member Luxury Box

    That he needs glasses and a calculator
     
    ToddsPhins likes this.
  31. BlameItOnTheHenne

    BlameItOnTheHenne Taking a poop

    15,112
    7,311
    113
    Aug 15, 2010
    Davie
    Stats > your eyeballs


    REAL TALK
     
  32. ToddsPhins

    ToddsPhins Banned

    29,125
    7,721
    0
    Mar 15, 2009
    you're right; that's not clear evidence. The effort to show causality is far from worth it in this case, so I have no problem saying that you're technically right despite the eye test telling a different story.

    Well, the Chiefs ground game had a win probability added of 1.26, which is pretty good, and was higher than both their passing & defensive WPA. (AdvancedNFLstats.com)

    Miami's ground game, on the other hand, had a win probability of -1.32..... which basically means we had little chance to win as a running team.


    And they definitely did do that. When you're running well from the opening whistle, why the need to throw the ball and risk mistakes when you have a playmaking running back averaging 6.4 YPC in a ground attack that had 72 10+ yard carries for 1264 yards? Comparatively, Miami had only 35 carries of 10+ yards for a total of 546 yards. Talk about a big difference.

    nothing anecdotal. Would be nothing more than spending time to show exactly what KC's catalyst was based on how their games played out. Was the run successful early to open up the pass, or was it the other way around? I'd look at impact plays and what seemed to set up what. If Charles busts a few runs and then Cassel hits Bowe for a big gain, then I'm looking at Charles as the driving force opening up the big pass play (in the same way that James Brooks & 1 year wonder Icky greatly opened up the pass game for Esiason, rather than the other way around).
     
    MarinePhinFan and MrClean like this.
  33. CaribPhin

    CaribPhin Guest

    I find it sort of funny that those long posts got dismissed as correlation while this was Fist Pumped as fact.
     
  34. ToddsPhins

    ToddsPhins Banned

    29,125
    7,721
    0
    Mar 15, 2009
    2nd round drafted Boomer Esiason is a prime example of how a QB's play is affected by external forces (namely by a dynamic running back, or lack there of).

    With the stud, James Brooks, (and 1 year wonder Icky Woods) in the backfield, Boomer was a 2 time All Pro, won an MVP, and had a SB swiped away by the greatest QB-WR tandem in NFL history. Brooks opened up the passing game, and Boomer's increased yards per attempt, QBR, and TD totals back it up.

    He looked like a great QB when defenses had to worry about Brooks; without a great back, he seemed unable to carry a team.



    In Boomer's 5 years with a great dual-threat, playmaking back (Brooks):


    averaged: 26.2 TDs, 8.17 y/a, 89.5 QBR. (1.72 TD:INT ratio)




    In his 7 years without a great back. (minimum 275 attempts)


    averaged: 14.3 TDs, 7.05 y/a, 72.3 QBR. (0.97 TD: INT ratio)



    ****When Brooks was injured in 1987 and only started 7 games,
    Esiason's numbers completely dropped off to 16 TDs, 19 INTs, 7.5 avg, 73.1 QBR.
     
    MarinePhinFan and MrClean like this.
  35. Stringer Bell

    Stringer Bell Post Hard, Post Often Club Member

    44,356
    22,480
    113
    Mar 22, 2008
    Ok, this is a start.

    I was referring to the team's probability of winning the game as a control for their running production. But using the win probability stats is a good start, as they provide more context in assessing performance. And those numbers do support the theory that KC had a better running game than Miami (although I don't think anyone has disputed that).

    But whats real interesting, is that Matt Cassel had a win probability of 1.18 (17th in the NFL), while Chad Henne had a win probability of -1.28 (36th in the NFL).

    But unless you were able to control for all the variables, it would be still be anecdotal. Charles busting runs doesn't necessarily mean Cassel wouldn't have hit Bowe for a big gain, or that if Chad Henne had Charles busting runs that he would have hit Bowe for a big gain. You've yet to prove that Henne is as good as Cassel when they are in the same exact situation.
     
    ToddsPhins likes this.
  36. ToddsPhins

    ToddsPhins Banned

    29,125
    7,721
    0
    Mar 15, 2009
    Well, it's true. I'm not gonna argue against something completely valid just b/c I don't want to appear wrong. lol. I think we both know there's a flaw to each side in this particular case. :lol:


    I find that interesting too ...... that (over the past 2 years) when each team runs well, their QB plays well...... and when they don't run well, their QBs play poorly. Then again, if you're a team that wants to run the ball and your ground game has a win probability of -1.32, it's plausible that the QB's negative win probability was a direct reflection of this.



    In 2009, Ricky & Ronnie's win probability added were 0.06 & 0.15..... and as a result, Henne's win probability added was 0.90. (no causation, but strong correlation)
    In 2010, Ricky & Ronnie's WPAs were -1.6 & -0.6...... and as a result, Henne's WPA was -1.28.....(again, no causation but strong correlation)....... Despite R&R's poor WPA, Henne's expected points added was 9.2 (nothing exciting, but at least it's not negative).

    When we lose 5 games by 15 points, I'm pointing fingers at Ricky & Ronnie's expected points added of -25.1 & -11.9. To me, this is saying (along with what my eyes told me) that Henne didn't really cost us games, but at the same time he wasn't able to do enough to pick up the slack (which for me, based on mitigating circumstances, is ok).

    I realize that these correlations don't necessarily mean a hill of beans for all 32 teams b/c teams that succeeded throwing the ball won't always have a positive run win probability or will be affected by a negative run win probability. I try to take it within the context of the specific team, offensive philosophy, etc.


    I find it interesting that, in 2009, when Cassel had a horrible year (-1.68 WPA), his ground game's win probability was -0.15.

    From this, I could deduce 2 different things:
    1. If Cassel was the reason for their 2010 offensive success, he should've been unaffected by an average, up & down ground game in 2009.
    2. if Cassel's poor play was the reason for the ground game's lack of dominance in 09, I doubt KC would go into 2010 with Matt as the focal piece of the offense.

    Either way you cut it, I don't see him as the main reason for their offensive success. It seems that when the ground game wasn't outstanding, Cassel struggled. However, when he struggled, the ground game wasn't quite as affected to a similar extreme. Matt seems more dependent on the ground game than the ground game is on Matt.



    I don't think it's possible to truly say Henne is better or worse unless put in KC's 2010 offense and we were somehow able to replay the season duplicating each play to a tee. Or if Cassel were in ours.

    I'm sure I could look at enough situations regarding Cassel & KC's ground game over the past 2 years to establish to near certainty which was the catalyst.
    I could probably take every offensive series and see what percentage of Cassel's big plays came after effective runs. You could try and key in on the defense to see what scheme they were in when these big plays occurred, and whether or not they were creeping up to the line. I could also watch the ground game and see what schemes or coverages were being run, and whether or not these runs were a result of defenses being prepared for the pass. I'm sure I could come up with some sort of percentage or ratio.

    The bottom line is---- for years, teams have been pounding the ball to open up the big pass play. That's how it typically works unless you're a Manning or Marino and don't need much assistance. If you're not successful at it, then why should teams risk giving up the big pass play? Since this has been a football philosophy for years, I'm sure you could use past data to create some sort of baseline.

    KC's run game was inconsistent in 2009, and Dwayne Bowe had only 4 TDs, 12.5 YPC, and targeted 24.1% deep (beyond 15 yards).
    KC's run game dominated in 2010, and Bowe had 15 TDs, 16.1 YPC, and targeted 37.6% deep.
     
  37. ToddsPhins

    ToddsPhins Banned

    29,125
    7,721
    0
    Mar 15, 2009
    Further..........

    2009
    Charles: 0.48 win probability added....13.8 expected points added.
    Cassel: -2.30 WPA..... -58.4 EPA.

    2010
    Charles: 1.13 WPA.... 48.2 EPA.
    Cassel: 1.28 WPA.... 73.9 EPA.

    Again, technically no causation....... however, this is football, and we don't necessarily need explicit causation when we know enough of the variables involved to draw a likely conclusion.

    IMO, when determining the true catalyst of KC's offense, the burden should rest more on Cassel supporters proving he is the guy rather than Charles supporters trying to prove why Cassel isn't.


    It looks like---- when Charles was up and down, it negatively affected Cassel...... however, Cassel being affected (and subsequent poor play) didn't appear to consequently affect Charles.


    Basically, if Charles were the problem, I'd expect to see a snow ball affect of bad play.
    IE: Charles isn't consistent in 09; Cassel struggles; Cassel struggling causes Charles to struggle as well. But we didn't see that.
     
  38. Stringer Bell

    Stringer Bell Post Hard, Post Often Club Member

    44,356
    22,480
    113
    Mar 22, 2008
    The burden rests on whomever is making the argument. I never argued one way or another. Your subjective opinion is valid, but the statistics you've cited don't do anything to support that opinion.
     
  39. Stringer Bell

    Stringer Bell Post Hard, Post Often Club Member

    44,356
    22,480
    113
    Mar 22, 2008
    It absolutely is possible. All you need to do is remove circumstance and make apples to apples comparisons. Your argument (I presume) is that Cassel was better statistically, because of the situations he was put in. He was put in less third and longs, and more third and shorts than Chad Henne. So just compare them in similar situations. What was their QBR in 3rd and 6+? What was their QBR in 3rd and short? If you can determine that each played equally in similar situations, but one was put in less successful situations more often, then you're making progress.
     
  40. ToddsPhins

    ToddsPhins Banned

    29,125
    7,721
    0
    Mar 15, 2009
    I agree with you.

    Sorry for the misunderstanding, I was only making a generalization, not just speaking specifically about this thread.
     

Share This Page