Gil Brandt likes our chances next year to become winners

That sounds like a Saban tactic.

 

Did Julio prevent them from getting bounced in round 1 last year? Did he help them score a single offensive point in the playoffs last year? So if that is why they traded so much to get him, that trade is a failure so far because he has done nothing to help accomplish what you say he was acquired to help them do. We'll see how it goes this year.

In 2012, the Falcons complete about the same percentage of deep passes with Jones and White as the Dolphins do with Hartline and Bess as the starters. In 2011, with Julio Jones, the Falcons completed fewer deep passes for fewer yards than the Dolphins have this year with Hartline and Bess. In 2011, the Dolphins completed more than twice as many deep passes for more than twice as many yards as the Falcons did with Julio Jones and Roddy White. Brian Hartline has caught more deep passes this year than Julio Jones.

 

I would say that the Falcons are more dangerous this year b/c Jones has developed more big play tendencies. See, I don't see it as just one thing that a big play #1 WR provides. I see it as a combination of things that include spacing for the offense and providing some TDs or first downs. I think that SF is playing better b/c there is better chemistry between Kaepernick and Crabtree. I think that combination has provided some big plays which made things easier for their defense and running game. So it wasn't just having Crabtree, but rather the combination of Crabtree and CK. I thought you saw something similar once Moore got comfortable with Marshall last year. Miami got more big plays from the Moore/Marshall combination during those final 6 games and they were winning. I don't think that was the only factor, but I also don't think it was just a coincidence. It's not really something I would even know how to quantify with stats. I just believe that an offense is so much better off if they can get that occasional big play from the passing game. I think that you get a couple of wins a year directly from that. I also think that just having that quick strike ability makes teams feel their always in the game. It allows your offense to stay balanced longer. It makes opponent's defense play you honest longer.

 

Of course the big play is important. The thing is that doesn't necessarily correlate with WR speed. As noted Brian Hartline is catching more deep passes from Tannehill than Jones is from Matt Ryan. The argument here is whether the mere presence of the fast guy or stud WR opens things up for the short passing game or the running game. I have never seen any real evidence to suggest that it does.

 

I always use the Revis example..Revis is so talented that when he knows his opponent, he knows what he can do and can't do in terms of cheating on space, he measures him based on his opponents talent level, then in route, you will see him executing that theory..if the discrepency between the talents is there, then these principles will exist..it's basically constricting and bracketing an offense.

 

I understand the theory, but I have never seen any empirical evidence of its correctness when applied to an offense/defense as a whole. Not even a little bit.

By way of example, popular opinion suggests that the Dolphins should have a perfect storm for rushing ineptitude. According to most people here, the Dolphins have the worst starting receivers in the NFL, the worst backup receivers, no receiving threat at TE, a rookie QB, a bad OL, a starting RB with no vision or power and a backup "power" RB with no power or speed. If the theory we are discussing had any merit, one would expect to see the Dolphins' running game at the bottom of the league. Truly terrible. But it's not. It's in the middle of the pack. Teams like Atlanta and Dallas should be running wild. They have two very good starting WRs with speed, high end receiving TEs, veteran Pro Bowl QBs, backs with power, speed and vision, etc. Teams should be so terrified that they play all of their safeties and LBs back for fear of the pass. And yet Dallas and Atlanta have two of the worst rushing games in the NFL -- 3.5 and 3.7 ypc respectively. As I noted previously, Julio Jones' presence has not made Ryan any more efficient on the underneath passing game either. Nor has Romo become more efficient on the underneath stuff as compared to before he had Austin and Bryant.

 

It doesn't have to be speed. Sometimes it's size or route running or some other thing that makes a WR successful at stretching the D. As for evidence, I cited to examples where I believe that the presence of a stud WR who was producing some big plays contributed to wins. You can choose to believe it wasn't a factor. I believe it was.

 

Again, I don't doubt that having a stud WR contributes to wins. Of course it does. If a guy catches 110 passes for 80 first downs and 1700 yards the benefits are obvious. My argument is that I don't see the evidence that the player improves everyone around him or opens things up for them in anywhere near the way people seem to believe. I don't think Larry Fitzgerald's presence helps Arizona's running game (except to the extent of his own blocking) or helps open up the underneath passing game.

 

But who needs empirical evidence when you have a theory that sounds really good?

 

The truth of it is that you have no idea who we do or don't scare. And the further truth of it is that it is not necessary to "scare" anyone. They just have to respect the threat. And they do, because every single WR in the NFL can beat you deep. Every one. And no CB or S wants to get beaten deep. None. Especially by a white guy like Hartline. And every single team knows that we can beat them deep because they have seen the Dolphins do it many times. Teams do respect the Dolphins' ability to go deep. They do play their safeties in deep zones. If you think otherwise you simply aren't watching very closely.

 

OK, so let's look back a few years. Kurt Warner was a pretty good QB, wouldn't you say? And he had some pretty good receivers -- not just Fitz, but Boldin too. Did that open up the running game? Nope. In 2007 and 2008, they averaged 3.6 ypc (30th) and 3.5 (31st) ypc, respectively. Why weren't those Pro Bowl receivers and Pro Bowl QB opening up the running game?

 

I think that it's more difficult for a defense to defend the whole field than a constricted area or only parts of the field. If you have potential targets that can threaten the whole field and a QB that uses the whole field than I believe it makes it easier on the whole offense to function efficiently.

 

Wrong. This isn't just about "throwing" the deep ball. It's about using your receiving corps' threat of the deep ball to open up stuff underneath b/c their ability has to be respected. You can throw the ball all game long downfield to Bess if you want but that won't change squat about how a defense plays you; instead you're just risking interceptions and WASTING plays in an attempt to set up a defense b/c you lack the receiver talent capable of setting up a defense just by being on the goddam field. This isn't just about throwing to one receiver running downfield; it's passing concepts that require 2+ receivers capable of actually stretching the field, upward of 3-4 receivers, and these concepts are staples of a passing offense used to defeat certain coverages.

How do you NOT understand that a defense would rather give up a throw underneath or handoff into a non-stacked box than a big play over the top? If you have receivers who force a defense to defend them deep, then it stretches the field and leaves more space in short to intermediate stuff for backs, tight ends, and slot receivers. This is BASIC FOOTBALL. You're arguing with highly successful principles & philosophies. A west coast offense can no longer employ horizontal stretch principles alone b/c defenses, too, have evolved so much that they can defeat it or easily make life very difficult for an offense. Bill Walsh evolved his offense into involving both horizontal AND vertical stretch principles, and now you see Walsh disciples placing an even greater emphasis on the vertical aspect to not only allow more big play capability but to create more space underneath. Then there are Air Coryell offenses, or offenses that use Coryell principles, that entirely revolve around vertical stretch concepts. We're talking about some of the most explosive offenses in NFL history. Basically, what you're purporting is an NFL offense can be equally effective despite removing an ENTIRE aspect of the passing game. That's just foolish. It's like saying a defense could be effective if it removed all of its blitz packages. That's how silly what you're saying is.

Tell that to every successful NFL team that has either heavily incorporated vertical stretch concepts into their passing game or executed an offense based entirely around it, past or present. You'd get laughed at WADR. You want empirical evidence? Look at the most productive offenses throughout modern NFL history.

"Phony memes". LOL. Yup, you apparently know more than the game's best offensive minds.

 

LOL. Can you act more foolish? I'm guessing no, but I can still ask, right. Neither you nor Fineas have shown ANY empirical evidence.

Yeah, sure, the best and most successful offensive minds throughout NFL history only have "theories that sound really good" that have somehow been "empirically proven wrong" by you and Fineas. yeah ok. Tell that to:

• Coryell's '78-85 Chargers (3x #1 NFL scoring offense)... and all his disciples.

• Joe Gibbs's '83-91 Redskins (6 "top 5" NFL scoring offenses, 2x #1. used the deep ball to open the ground game)

• Mike Martz's "Greatest Show on Turf" (3 straight #1 scoring offense. Faulk was a BEAST underneath in this Coryell-influenced offense b/c defenses HAD to respect Holt & Bruce)
• '04-11 Chargers (8 straight top 5 scoring offenses. Air Coryell offense gave Tomlinson room to be a beast)

• Marino and the Marks Bros, Fryer

• Vikings with Randy Moss & Co

• Colts with Manning, Harrison, & Co in Tom Moore's Coryell-influenced offense.

• '63-84 Raiders (15 "top 6" scoring offenses, 5x #1. Was alllll about vertical passing concepts & stretching the field)

• '99-02 Raiders (4.3 avg NFL scoring rank over those 4 years)

• 70's Dolphins w/ Warfield stretching the field

• Moon's run & shoot (4.2 avg scoring rank over 6 years)

• '85-98 Niners w/ Rice, Taylor, Owens (3.6 avg scoring rank. 4 straight #1. Backs & TEs FEASTED underneath)

• '66-83 Cowboys (4.5 avg scoring rank. 5x #1)

• '91-95 Cowboys w/ Irvin & Harper (3.2 avg scoring rank. Emmitt's best years rushing & receiving)

• '75-79 Steelers with Swann & Stallworth (16.5 & 17.9 ypc. Harris's best combined years)

• '89-92 Bills w/ Reed, Lofton, Beebe (2.3 avg NFL rank. Thurman Thomas had TONS of space underneath averaging 57 catches, 614 yards, 4 TDs those 4 years. Following 6 years averaged only 34 catches, 273 yards, 1 TD)

• Barry Sanders, IIRC, was in a Dave Levy/Tom Moore "Coryell offense".

• I could going on and on with these vertically capable, high scoring, offensive examples but I'll stop here. Running backs & TEs have ROUTINELY feasted underneath in offenses featuring a strong vertical game and receivers who post a THREAT to stretch the field.

 

And that sounds great in theory, but the issue is potentially that the differences in ability among the players involved at the wide receiver position are so negligible as to make the differences in performance among teams due to completely different things altogether.

In other words, the success of an offense in this regard may not be due at all to an offense's "deep threat" having 4.3 speed as opposed to 4.5 speed, but rather to other variables altogether. A simple 0.2-second difference in speed of one player in the 40-yard dash may not be the "active ingredient" here at all.

 

Julio was a rookie last year breaking into the league.... and Atlanta was still in their previous offense.

Please understand, comparing their "percentage of deep passes" means nothing. It's about the THREAT of the deep play and having the personnel qualified to utilize vertical stretch concepts and a defense having to defend it. It's not a goddam theory, and to think so is as foolish a belief as I've ever seen on this board. Throwing a pass downfield to Hartline or Bess is entirely unrelated to actual vertical stretch concepts and the strategy behind them. We complete a greater percentage of passes downfield b/c defenses do NOT respect our receivers and would rather prefer to play us in a 10-15 yard box at a time to focus on stopping the run and short passing game, knowing that even if a deep pass is completed it's likely to not go for a touchdown.

 

Then perhaps you should go back through history and start watching some games. There's enough evidence to keep you busy for years.

 

The problem with you in relation to these debates is that your standard for verifying your theories consists of nothing but "watching games" and cherry-picking examples that fit your beliefs, which is potentially wrought with confirmation bias and therefore of unknown reliability. "Watching games" proves nothing, and cherry-picking is biased and one-sided.

This is why I have you on ignore. Your posts continually hammer home a biased perspective, often in a condescending manner. When you learn how to collect the proper data to support your beliefs in an unbiased manner, the strength of your beliefs and the "hammering away" you do may actually have some merit.

 

Vertical stretch concepts don't necessarily revolve around just one player. It's an entire receiving corps thing, although 1 player can provide an example of it. Why would Fitz help Zona's run game when the offense doesn't have a QB whom defenses have to respect?

You want examples of backs? Marshall Faulk? Thurman Thomas? LaDainian Tomlinson? Roger Craig becoming the NFL's first 1k rusher 1k receiver when Rice arrived? Garrison Hearst? Priest Holmes? Ricky Watters? James Brooks & Icky Woods? Tony Dorsett? Charlie Garner averaging 1700 scrimmage yards w/ Jerry Rice? Marcus Allen? Eric Dickerson & Charles White benefitting from Henry Ellard & the Rams vertical presence? Walter Peyton's 3 straight years of 2000+ scrimmage yards with Willie Gault after breaking 2k once in his previous 8 years? All these guys were either in offensive schemes that used a lot of vertical concepts or had receivers that scared defenses deep to keep them more honest and open up space underneath for the ground game and short passing.

 

All you HAVE TO DO is watch some actual games. You can see ALLLLLL the evidence you need with your very eyes. You can SEE the space being created and you can SEE players capitalizing on the space. There's no stat that can show you how much space & opportunity is created; you can only see it with your eyes. But, like I said, feel free to look into the players in the post I provided above.

All you keep showing OVER AND OVER is that you don't understand the game of football. Period. Your futile stat mongering has become ridiculous, and what's humorous about it all is that because you think you've found a few stats here and there that fit in line with your false belief you arrogantly think you've discovered the fountain of truth. Again, stop posting insignificant stats and instead do some actual research into these long practiced principles, concepts, philosophies, etc. You want to prove something to us? Then look into what matters. Check out the most productive offenses of the past 40 years and break them down. I've already given you a head start on it. Show me all the great offenses that support this nonsense you continue to spew forth.

 

I cant believe I'm agreeing with you. I hate myself for it

 

Why? You should be proud that you're right for a change.

 

Id rather nail my nutsack to a coffee table than admit that you made a good point

 

deal. I'm good with that.

 

Sure you can. No debate there. But the question is, what causes that to happen?

Here's where you usually reply with a theory that's supported by a one-sided analysis with cherry-picked examples.

 

Where is this stat? It's deep pass as in ball travels through the air not including RAC right? Because so far NFL.com is showing Julio with more deep catches, but that could include RAC.

 

it has to be, hartline falls down within 5 yards of every single catch always

 

You know, I think you're right!

 

Talented and/or fast receivers who command attention cause it happen. They pull coverage with them plain and simple, leaving open space in and around their vacated area. Even Ted Ginn commanded attention over the top and could pull coverage with him. Go back and watch the Greatest Show on Turf and see how much room underneath Marshall Faulk was afforded to operate in. Despite him being the most dynamic & dangerous player in the NFL at the time, defenses had to respect Holt, Bruce, and Hakim first and foremost b/c they represented the potential big play TD over the top on every snap, and as such defenses simply could NOT focus on stopping Faulk; hence Faulk shredded the NFL to a degree not seen during his first 5 years.

[TABLE="class: grid, width: 600"]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]Marshall Faulk[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]rushing yards[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]
ypc[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]
receptions[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]receiving
yards[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]
TDs[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]Scrimmage yards[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]First 3 year avg with Holt, Bruce, Hakim[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]1374[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]5.4[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]84[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]881[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]20[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]2250[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]First 4 year avg in Indy (no Harrison & Manning)[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]1000[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]3.8[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]53[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]474[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]10[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]1474[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1 year w/ rookie Manning & vertical threat Harrison[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]1319[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]4.1[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]86[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]908[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]10[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]2227[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]



Then go back and watch Thurman Thomas with the vertical threat trio of James Lofton, Andre Reed, and Don Beebe all stretching the field and creating space underneath.
[TABLE="class: grid, width: 600"]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]Thurman Thomas[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]rushing yards[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]
ypc[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]
receptions[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]receiving
yards[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]
TDs[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]Scrimmage yards[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]4 year avg with Lofton, Reed, Beebe[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]1359[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]4.6[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]57[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]614[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]12[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]1973[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]next 5 year avg w/o the trio[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]1018[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]3.8[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]36[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]284[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]6[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]1304[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Lofton, Reed, Beebe, Holt, Bruce, and Hakim all helped Faulk and Thomas maximize their potential and achieve HOF honors.

 

And you did:

Are you even aware you're doing this? Do you realize you're using only TWO examples to "verify" a theory, and only ones that are consistent with the theory?

 

TWO IS ALL YOU NEED, b/c among those two are HUNDREDS upon HUNDREDS of actual visual on-field examples you can readily see with your eyes if you go back and watch some actual games rather than burying your head into stats. Stats don't play the games; players do. You want your proof, then start watching the goddam games and the organic nature involved in these situations rather than trying to falsely explain stuff away with uncorrelated stats. The plays on the field themselves are the absolute proof as the game is played ON THE FIELD, not in the stat column. I didn't give you a couple popcorn examples to watch. These are premium examples. The fact you call this "cherry picking examples to support a theory" despite not going back to watch these actual games/examples is all I need to know about you, your motives, and your genuine objectivity or lack thereof.

BTW, convenient of you to ignore my previous post (#101) about all the high scoring, vertical threat offenses, many of which opened up some strong rushing performances as well as the passing game to tight ends & backs underneath. But no, instead of actually looking objectively into these teams in search of the real truth, you ignore it all and plod along with your same predetermined argument, which tells me you're either lazy as hell or are completely bias in approach and only interested in the few stats that support your bias. The fact you constantly prioritize stats over the actual play on the field, considering this is the game of football not a science tournament, is as obtuse and asinine as a person can act toward this sport.

 

I give up. I don't think you're ever going to understand the concept.

 

ALL you have used is ONE-SIDED ANALYSIS with CHERRY-PICKED examples.

You said the whole vertical concept stuff put forth by the NFL is just "theory" that has apparently been proven false by yourself & Fineas. However, I gave you a head start list of some of the top scoring teams throughout modern NFL history and how many of those emphasized a strong vertical presence. Where's your counter argument?

• Show me all the productively high-scoring offenses throughout history that lacked a true vertical presence (and by presence I mean as a WR corps as a whole, not one guy who can occasionally get behind coverage). How can you call what I'm saying, "theory", if you won't even compare it to anything or provide a baseline?!

• Show me all the running backs and tight ends who were just as productive w/o a receiving corps capable of stretching the field as they were with one.

• Why have you not researched the actual "vertical stretch concepts/principles" themselves and argued against them, especially considering the vertical aspect has been a major component of the passing game, especially today's passing game, b/c you've done NOTHING so far to debate it other than calling it "theory"!!

• Argue how the other offensive schemes/strategies that don't emphasize vertical concepts are equally as productive as offenses that do. Show me that a West Coast Offense based solely on horizontal stretch principles is equally as good as one that employs both horizontal AND vertical stretch principles together.

• Tell me why Mike Holmgren, Andy Reid, Jon Gruden, Bill Walsh, George Seifert, Mike McCarthy/Joe Philbin are foolish for incorporating a heavier emphasis on vertical concepts into the WCO.

• Tell me why Don Coryell, Al Davis, and their successful disciples like Joe Gibbs, Norv Turner, Mike Martz, Tom Moore, John Madden, and Tom Flores believed in a "false theory". And DON'T give me any, "well the Falcons are scoring as many points per game this year as they did last year" crap. Gimme a REAL argument! I gave you a TON of legitimate examples to look into but it seems like you're either lazy or afraid to, but I'm guessing that's b/c you can't stand to be proven wrong after taking such an extreme opinion. I mean, hey, it's only natural for you to be biased at this point, so I get it.

 

I don't think you'll ever understand the concept of "vertical threat concepts", stretching defenses, and forcing them into defending every blade of grass rather than operating in a 20 yard box, plus how IMPORTANT & INTEGRAL this aspect has become to today's passing game.

 

You see Shou, what you foolishly don't realize you're doing is--- you're actually trying to argue that traditional WCOs are as productive and efficient as modern WCOs like Green Bay's where vertical stretch concepts have been heavily incorporated.

You're basically arguing the early Niners WCO was equal to the adapted version upon the arrival of Rice, Taylor, and Owens. The early one was outstanding (ranking 7th, 7th, 4th, 2nd, 5th, 7th in scoring over 6 years), but the modified one with an emphasis on the vertical game ranked #1 6 times over a 9 year span.

 

Those concepts are easily understandable. The question is, what causes those concepts to be effective in practice? I'm not sure it's the presence of the "deep threat" everybody talks about.