Not a fact. Its the other way around, ESPECIALLY with a **** oline. Dunno. Maybe the fired coach and his fired OC were idiots. And? You're blaming a ****ty oline on the QB when 2 of the 5 positions are worst in the league. You're basically chasing your tail. Lol, here's how ridiculous what you're saying is.....the passing game sucked, so they passed even more. That is so, frankly ignorant, I'm not even sure you're trying anymore.
You run the ball when you have the lead. You build leads by passing efficiently. They sure were. These are the guys that wanted Tannehill drafted. The more logical answer here is that the QB didn't show the ability to read defenses pre-snap. Most NFL OLs are ****ty. That is why the best QBs coming out are able to evade sacks. The content of your argument says it all.
Right. So you only run the ball with the lead. brilliant. Um...You don't know what Philbin wanted and Lazor wasn't there then. But hey you know...you tried and stuff. The more logical answer? Ok. I'm grouping all the last bit of your nonsense together, because its so epically ridiculous and hypocritical it must taken all together. You talk about logic and acting like the content of my argument is ridiculous, but you are literally saying Thill sucks so bad that he hurt his oline, HC and OC and on top of all that.....he's so bad at passing the team was left no choice but to pass more. .... .... ..... ****ing seriously?
The more efficient your passing game is, the less you should run, unless your goal is to run out the clock. Your posts have no content. You aren't arguing anything other than saying Stringer Bell is ignorant. Presumably because the idea that having two OL isn't prohibitive of a QB playing well, or because you can't quantify why Miami's run/pass ratio was prohibitive of the QB playing well.
http://www.miamidolphins.com/multim...War-Room/1168c4ce-e8a4-4bf0-96b4-d586f70c6548 "unanimous decision" Philbin, Ireland and Ross. Has history ever seen a more competent and capable group of decision makers?
I haven't seen anyone question Tannehill's ability to read presnap. I have seen people praise his presnap reads. The knock was, that in his first year, his rhythm slowed, making presnap audibles, but no one complained that he wasn't making the right decisions. It's silly to believe that having a balanced attack isn't important. Even the Patriots have run the ball a ton, while running their passing attacks over the past 10 years or so.
A 107 rating would be good for about top 3 in the league. Unless you believe that Tannehill is close to a top 3 QB most of the time, then it's kind of ridiculous to claim that his rating did not greatly increase in the games where he's had his best 3 OL all game.
You don't get to just declare things that make no logical sense and expect not to be called out on it. What kind of statistical analysis would you expect to negate your bizarre and ridiculous premise that Thill sucks at passing so lets call more passing plays?
You call passing plays if you want to score points. That is not going to change unless you have < 5.5 YPA. There is a reason why rushing efficiency has 0 correlation with winning. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
I'm with FinD, you've gone completely mental... edit: and for God's sake put some effort into your signature. I have to look at that, you know...
Why do you think there is 0 correlation between run efficiency and winning? Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
No. You can try to keep the clock running in other situations. But a high number of rushing attempts are a byproduct of an efficient passing game. If they were the cause of an efficient passing game, then rushing efficiency would have an correlation with winning. But it doesn't - passing efficiency correlates with winning. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
***** that's my line... edit: I mean, I just picked up the dialogue at your quote that there is no correlation between run efficiency and winning. I can't be expected to sift through the minutia of every poster battling grammatical syntax with FinD. If you don't mean that then my bad...
So, being balanced on offense doesn't have a positive effect on passing? I can't believe any teams bother running the ball before they have a lead in the 4th quarter.
You tell me. Support your claim that Miami not running the ball has made Tannehill look worse than he is. But you wont. Rather, you and Fin D will continue making the mains a waste of time. All you guys do is discuss other posters and make off topic posts. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
Uh, you made the claim that running isn't important, except for running out clock when you have a lead. You are claiming that a balanced offense isn't necessary. I'm not talking specifically about Tannehill here, and I didn't think you were either. You made a blanket statement that running had no effect on passing efficiency. I'm asking for you to back that up. And, true to form, as you complain about posters talking about other posters, and going off topic, you do the very thing you're complaining about.
https://thepowerrank.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/nfl_pass_rush.png Literally every thread about Ryan Tannehill is derailed by you guys on a tangent about the offensive line or coaches, or someone else not named Ryan Tannehill. Everyone sees this. There are more Tannehill discussions happening via PM than in the actual forum, simply because posters are bombarded with tangential topics here. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
Nice graph.. I created similar ones myself long ago. I think the ones that best show how playoff teams are built show you standard deviations above/below the mean for playoff teams (and SB winners). Here are the relevant graphs for YPA passing and YPA rushing: http://postimg.org/image/5ek72ti4h/ http://postimg.org/image/b4e7scsg1/ The SB winners are the red circles while the green ones are playoff teams, with the blue diamond the league average. So while I won't speak to how rush or pass efficiency enables the other, one can show how playoff teams are generally built: they are way above average in pass YPA but average in rushing YPA. Oh, and in case you're wondering how their defenses are built, here are those graphs: http://postimg.org/image/5zwawg6wx/ http://postimg.org/image/6v181g8ap/ So playoff defenses are built to stop the pass, not the run (relative to league average).
That link has zero to do with how a run game affects or doesn't affect passing efficiency. You're changing the argument. I was questioning your assertion that good passing improves the run game, and that the run game has no effect on passing. This thread was derailed by people other than "pro-Tannehill" posters, as was another thread recently. Yet you, and others, accuse pro-Tannehill posters of doing the derailing.
If run efficiency has no correlation with winning, how can it have a positive affect on passing efficiency, which is highly correlated with winning???? Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
Why do teams run the ball, other than late in the fourth when they have a lead? Running the ball may not correlate to winning as well as passing. But, running the ball well could correlate to passing well. Like, swing speed in golf may not correlate directly to winning tournaments, but the longest hitters correlate well to winning, and high swing speed corellates to hitting it far. So, just having a high swing speed won't win you a tournament, but, being able to drive the ball farther certainly improves your chances.
Is it not possible for running efficiency to aid passing efficiency that correlates to winning? Thereby, running efficiency is still part of the equation to winning? I would even go a step further and say that running and passing efficiency both correlate to scoring points. Scoring points correlates to winning; especially if you score more than your opponent, lol...
Great question! Actually, I think it's possible. Suppose you have events X and Y and you look at their correlation with event Z. Suppose if X then Y occurs, Z always occurs. However, if X occurs without Y, then Z never occurs. In the first case you have a positive correlation and in the second case you have a negative correlation, assuming Z is random when X is not present. If X then Y occurs exactly as often as X without Y, then X will overall have a correlation with Z of zero (so only observing X makes it impossible to predict Z without knowing whether Y occurred). Now, Y after X has a positive correlation, but you can set Y without X to have any correlation you want.. say 0.6, and if X occurs before Y exactly 50% of the time Y occurs, then that means Y after X has an overall correlation higher than 0.6. Important: X is enabling Y while X on its own has a correlation of zero with Z and Y on its own has a positive correlation with Z.
I tried to say that in English, by comparing to golf with swing speed and long hitters and winning. Hahaha
I was reading some stuff, cbrad, and it made my head hurt...but essentially they were saying that it's easier for good teams to have passing go above the average than for rushing to go above the average. Apparently this helps explain the efficiency of passing being more important to winning than rushing. Also, that it seems that defenses will sell the farm to keep opponents below 4ypc, and let the passing game do what it will do, seemingly making 4ypc a "magic number" that rushing needs to be kept below.
Maybe it's easier to intuit if X and Y are people. Imagine two people where one person on his own fails at a task, the other on his own partially succeeds, but together they fully succeed. That's not difficult to intuit. The person who fails on his own will succeed or fail 50% of time (correlation = 0) if he pairs up with the other person half the time.
http://www.footballperspective.com/why-do-teams-run-the-ball-part-ii/ http://archive.advancedfootballanalytics.com/2010/01/run-pass-balance-historical-analysis.html?m=1 http://smartfootball.blogspot.com/2006/07/runpass-balance-and-little-game-theory.html?m=1 They're all a few years old, but were interesting, even if all the math makes my head spin. Also, interesting stuff in the comments.
This link is basically showing that teams pass more over time, and their passing efficiency goes up over time (those red and black curves in the last graph). It makes sense.. basically you do more of what helps you win most, though keep in mind there are two Y-axes there, one on the left and one on the right, each with different units, meaning they artificially made those two graphs look like they fit together. I think Brian Burke is making a bit of a logical error there. He's showing similar data, but saying he expects as defensive pass efficiency increases (in order to stop offensive pass efficiency), run defense efficiency should go down. That's not logically implied because offensive run efficiency might also be going down, so I think his argument that defenses aren't focusing on pass efficiency is wrong, especially given the defensive stats I showed in post #105. Yeah this third link is I think what you were referring to. It basically introduces game theory into the analysis. Game theory basically looks at the utilities of different combinations of your actions and the opponent's actions. So the theories in there are valid: your passing game might improve not because your offense got better at passing, but because it got better at rushing, requiring the defense to focus more on stopping the run, making your passing game easier (and statistically better) because of the defense, not because of your offense. It's a totally valid point, but damn difficult to find clear evidence for. In any case, the general problem with applying game theory is that you often can't tell what the utilities of different combinations of your actions and your opponent's actions are (the other problem is that there may be too many such combinations for any analysis to be computationally tractable).