Uh, no. Coaches, players, watch film. Stats are primarily for fans and media who don't have the time to study tape or the knowledge base to understand it. Stats will never tell you the route combo, coverage, protection scheme, why the pass was intercepted, why the back ran for 12 yards or how the DE made the sack, etc.
And neither do you. You simply propose in theory that those issues are causative, without doing any research or information gathering (of statistics or film) to verify your statements. Again, it boils down simply to "listen to me -- after all, I'm Piston Honda!"
Kinda ironic coming from a guy who needs basic concepts spoon fed to him. Like, Jimmy Graham is really good and defenses must pay more attention to him than they would an average TE. Lol go ahead and say it, "where's the proof that Graham was covered any diff than other TEs?". It's on the tape.
Please provide specific evidence as to this. You've referred to this point I would think in fifty or so posts in multiple threads and I don't recall seeing much if anything backing up this claim. Again, please provide specifics as to your assertion. I would imagine that you have specifics, since your theory revolves around this concept and since you've referred to it ad nauseam.
What I need are basic concepts verified as being true in reality, not said to be true by some nobody on a message board, simply because they're theoretically plausible. Well then by all means, dig it up and show it. This forum supports the showing of tape.
http://www.behindthesteelcurtain.co...11671/steelers-sign-haley-through-2016-season You won't find me talking out of my ***.
How about watch the tape for yourself? But you strike me as a guy who'd turn on the film and have no idea what he was watching. You're pretty good w numbers tho.
Well I'm certainly happy to be instructed in my viewing of tape, here in this forum, by the great "Piston Honda."
No thanks. Continue believing giys like Graham dont receive special attention and I'll continue laughing.
Thank you for posting that. From the article: "In 2012 and 2013, the Steelers' offense was underwhelming, finishing 21st and 20th in yards per game in each season, respectively. An ineffecitve running game in the years prior meant a short passing game was installed to substitute for the nonthreatening running game." -- That would seem to have more impact on the running game than anything else, short passes substituting for a non effective running attack. The thing is, Wallace's effectiveness was muted- significantly- by blatantly blown throws that otherwise would have ended in huge gains and most likely touchdowns. Your stat based analysis breaks down here- the stats can delineate certain things just fine but aren't separating failed plays from blatant screw ups. Wallace so far wide open down the sideline that a division III QB should be able to hit him is far different from a slightly missed play in the real world, but not in your stat book because there is judgement involved- the subjectivity that you abhor is the missing link. Some of the throws that Tannehill botched were huge, game changers. If he made those throws, as he should have, Wallace's stats would have jumped dramatically. That's the bottom line, and although you don't like to trust the eyes of any non front office types, the eyes tell a pretty simple tale. I don't need a statistician to confirm that Greg Norman choked at the Blue Monster years ago or at the Masters in 1996 and I don't need a statistician to confirm that Ryan Tannehill absolutely botched some critical throws to Wallace last year when he was wide open and that effected Wallace's yards and TD stats. These things are self evident, and that's an example of why although you don't talk out of your hiney, your stats dribble out of there from time to time. You think that your statistics encapsualte the whole truth and render visual analysis meaningless (except for the "experts"), and that is your undoing. Watch a little football, see what you're missing.
The question isn't, nor has it ever been, did Tannehill miss throws to Wallace, but WHY he missed throws to Wallace, when there is plenty of evidence that Tannehill had no problem hitting other receivers downfield. There are many reasons that could have played into the lack of chemistry between the two, some of them being lack of protection on the oline, poor route running, tiny catch radius, Tannehill not throwing freely, Tannehill not seeing Wallace coming open earlier, etc etc. The reason why Tannephins looks at Wallace's last year in Pitt is simply because they ran a similar, timing based offense, that wasn't built around Wallace and Rapistberger playing essentially sandlot football.
Is anybody factoring in that Still had Drew BREES throwing him the ball? BREES is one of the best at connecting deep imho. I just want Ryan to get there, that is why I really hope that our OL issues get solved. Give him more time in the pocket.
It would be very easy to have an overall impact bigger than 2013 Wallace. 2013 Wallace wasn't very good or impactful. 2014 Wallace did improve a lot. Not $12 million a lot, but did improve a good amount. When it comes to pay to impact ratio, I believe Stills is going to blow Wallace out of the water.
Sure, but how do you feel about obtaining a receiver who, at his rate of production, would've caught 85 passes for 1,259 yards had he been targeted the number of times Wallace was, even though he was receiving those passes from Drew Brees? Pick the best quarterback of all time if you want. Do you not want a receiver whose rate of production would've translated to 85 catches for 1,259 yards with that quarterback?
And the same thing happened in 2012 with Ben Roethlisberger, only Roethlisberger actually threw a lower percentage of catchable passes downfield to Wallace than Tannehill did in 2014. And that's apparently what you need your "statistician" for, since that's where we started with this originally: You go around Robin Hood's barn on this, challenging me to support what I'm saying, and then end up saying nothing but what you did originally, which is far more completely understood when incorporating the relevant data that you abhor.
You are ignoring that before the WR AHEAD of him on the depth chart got hurt, Stills was on pace to only get 640 yards.... but hey, injuries aren't stats so i guess injuries don't matter.
The only thing that really would have changed then, is the number of targets. The other guy not getting hurt wouldn't negatively impact his ability. It's kind of like Wes Welker, for instance. He averaged around 10 yards a catch here in Miami, but only got like 70 balls a season. He goes to NE, and gets 100+ balls a season, and suddenly is getting 1k+ yards, and is in the Pro Bowl. His actual play didn't change, just the amount of targets. It's about identifying talent, and then using it appropriately.
What you have is a WR who's primary weapon is speed & running vertical stem routes, in an offense designed to throw shorter/quicker passes, w an OL that struggles in pass pro to put it mildly. You can pin the lack of success on MW if you'd like but Imo it was much more of a team issue than an individual one.
Wallace was over paid and feuding with the staff, no mystery to why he was let go. Stills though, why trade a young/cheap WR for a 3rd round pick and an under achieving LB?
To be honest I think the Saints are going to use the extra draft picks and trade up to select someone.
You really have nothing to go on besides the Pittsburgh 2012 argument, which is questionable at best, which is why you have to continually refer to Pitt 2012 post after post, in thread after thread. That way you can conveniently discard every other year since they contradict your statistical model. That's a weak, redundant and one dimensional argument. Cherry picking only what serves your purpose- this is a great example of how stats lie, and at the same time you dismiss any "non expert opinions" of what is actually seen from watching the games and film. Sorry dude, weak argument.
It's not cherry-picking to compare the seasons where he played in a timing-based offense vs seasons where he abd Ben were able to do whatever the hell they wanted. You want to call it cherry-picking so that you can discredit it. I'm sorry, but what Wallace did when they could play sandlot football is meaningless, unless you want to bring him into a team that is going to allow that style of play.
For Wallace, three years (2009 to 2011) in one kind of offense, three years (2012 to 2014) in another. The QBs in both offenses threw better downfield when either 1) they weren't throwing to Wallace (i.e., Tannehill to Hartline in 2012), or 2) the offense was different (i.e., Roethlisberger to Wallace from 2009 to 2011). Real simple. Obviously Wallace isn't cut out for a timing-based pass offense.
I'm surprised that there's so much debate about whether "Kenny Stills + Tannehill" will be better than "Wallace + Tannehill". I'm going to make this prediction for the 2015 season: Both "Stills + Tannehill" AND "Wallace + Bridgewater" will have more effective deep ball production than what "Wallace + Tannehill" had during their two years (based on the above deep ball stats for completion %, yards per reception, yards per pass attempt, TDs per pass attempt).
I can't wait for all the hand-wringing around here on the first deep ball highlight of Bridgewater to Wallace. It will be a sh!tstorm of epic proportions.
And I'll bet Wallace doesn't do significantly better with Bridgewater, while Stills does much better than Wallace did with Tannehill.
So, you're saying it was the QBs who had trouble and this trickled down to both of the top two WRs' Antonio Brown and Mike Wallace, depressing their numbers? Because that's what that quote says. Yeah that article didn't work out too well for his argument.
That's a tall order. Tannehill threw for 114 rating to Wallace last year. Let's see what Stills does. I'll be very happy if he does but 114 rating is no joke.
