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

THE Jarvis Landry Future Thread - News, Updates and Discussion

Discussion in 'Miami Dolphins Forum' started by Galant, Jan 3, 2018.

  1. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Um, it had to be under Philbin because of your argument....

    You said as much here:
     
  2. Carmen Cygni

    Carmen Cygni Well-Known Member

    2,422
    5,732
    113
    Dec 30, 2017
    Neat. I also said under Gase he has the same role.

    Landry is talented and is obviously better than Bess ever was when you apply the intangibles. That said, his production can also be easily replaced. If we dump a large sum of money in Landry's lap, we deserve what we get out of it - which won't be much.
     
    Steve-Mo and aesop like this.
  3. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    I quoted the wrong one. I meant to quote the one where you asked why didn't other slot receivers produce like Landry.

    https://thephins.com/threads/the-ja...ates-and-discussion.92549/page-2#post-3028378

    I know you've been talking about yac, the thread was about yac, I know for some reason you're hung up on yac, but this post only "production" so I thought I'd bring it up.

    You're saying, because Landry got 1 more YAC per catch, comparing Bess, Gibson and Landry (2012, 2013, 2014), 4.5 vs 5.5 yac per reception, that somehow, that trumps the fact that Bess and Gibson were both getting one more yard per target.

    That is your position, right? That if we threw it to each receiver 100 times, Bess in 2012, Gibson in 2013, would get 100 more yards total throughout the season. But Landry was better, because his was more YAC than air yards. They got 750 yards over 100 targets, Landry 680 yards, but Landry is better because more of those yards were yac. Is that right?

    It's a weird position to take.
     
  4. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    How is that evidence that the WR can matter a lot in YAC per reception? I would love to get all the average depth of target data for the past 10 years, and then all the YAC data, and have you do your voodoo on that and tell me if there is a correlation.

    This is Adam Humphries. I want Fin D's take on him. He's nothing special. He's not Landry. Hell, he might even be cut next year.



    7.3 yac per catch in 2016. 7.3! You think it's because of his great physical abilities? No, it's because he's catching so many passes at the LOS.

    WR screen, at the LOS. Runs 6 yards before being tackled. Boom, 6 yac. But 6 yards net. Meh.

    Is there anything about Antonio Brown that makes you think he wouldn't be great out of the slot with great YAC ability? 3.7 yac in 2016. 3.7. Why? Because he's running deep routes, and the DB is usually closer the farther from the LOS you go unless it's a busted coverage. How many times do you see highlights of Antonio Brown catching one and taking it to the house with lots of YAC? Well, if his average is only 3.7 he's being tackled right away on a bunch of other passes then.

    I think YAC is not very indicative of WR's skill unless you're comparing it to another receiver who has a similar average depth of target.

    Here is a guy who apparently did some homework.

    http://intentionalrounding.com/when-does-yards-after-catch-stabilize-for-wide-receivers/

    Don't know who he is, or if he's reliable, and I don't care for most of the article (he's trying to predict future performance) but this is what he says:

    ----------------------------------------------------------
    As seems to be the theme of this post, I think the most valuable information here comes from juxtaposing it with the True WR aDOT standings I posted previously. If we focus on the Top 10 above, we find (unsurprisingly) the usual suspects in a lineup based on “Who runs a bunch of short, zone-attacking routes?” To wit, Golden Tate ranks 1st in True YAC, but ranked 116th in True aDOT, Jarvis Landry ranked 127th in True aDOT, Adam Humphries ranked 129th, Quincy Enunwa ranked 102nd, Cordarelle Patterson ranked 130th, Randall Cobb ranked 125th, and Jamison Crowder ranked 117th. The predictive value, then, comes — as it usually does — from the outliers: Taylor Gabriel ranked a respectable 69th in True aDOT, Tyrell Williams ranked 48th, and Mike Wallace ranked 49th. It seems to me that these three are WRs who were targeted on deeper routes and made the most of it after catching said target. Of course, Gabriel has a new offensive coordinator and Williams has a new coaching staff altogether, so Wallace has the best combination of the three with respect to statistical reliability and structural continuity.

    In this context, the flip side is also informative. Among the Top 10 in True aDOT, there also exist the usual suspects vis-a-vis YAC: Robby Anderson’s True aDOT ranked 3rd, but his True YAC ranks 118th. Similarly, Mike Evans True aDOT ranked 5th, but his True YAC ranks 130th, Marquise Goodwin’s rankings were 6th and 108th, Roger Lewis’ were 7th and 93rd, Josh Bellamy’s were 8th and 96th, and Terrelle Pryor’s were 10th and 128th. Analogous to the previous paragraph, this means that Sammie Coates (No. 1 True aDOT, No. 34 True YAC), J.J. Nelson (2nd, 35th), DeSean Jackson (4th, 33rd), and Will Fuller (9th, 43rd) are the outliers. But, as before, these four have to be pared down further based pon their situations heading into 2017. Coates is affected by Martavis Bryant’s return from the cloud and Jackson is affected by switching teams (although his new offense also loves the deep ball). That leaves Nelson and Fuller as the True aDOT WRs that are also respectable with respect to True YAC.
    -----------------------------------------------------------

    The top 10 in WR yac were those who ran short routes, or those who ran long routes but are fast (Gabriel, Wallace, and Tyrell ain't slow at 4.42 40).

    Is there anything about Desean Jackson's skillset that says he wouldn't do well out of the slot? He's fast and quick (as evidenced by his punt returns). But he only ranks 33 in YAC because he runs longer routes. But it is useful to compare him to those who have similar average depth of targets because he gets good YAC, at such a deep adot.

    Line Landry out wide, have him run deeper routes, and see what his YAC is.

    If we are discussing whether it's QB vs WR that is more responsible for YAC, then I'm not siding with the QB. But I believe, usage of WR is more responsible for yac, then the WR himself. Unless we think Adam Humphries is somehow better than Landry and Antonio Brown.
     
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2018
    Steve-Mo likes this.
  5. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    Is this guy at Rotoworld reliable?

    http://www.rotoworld.com/articles/nfl/69265/446/why-receiver-air-yards-matter
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    RACR

    RACR stands for Receiver Air Conversion Ratio. RACR is an efficiency stat that answers the question: “How well does a player convert a yard thrown at him into receiving yards?” The formula for RACR is:

    (Completed Air Yards + Yards After the Catch) / Total Air Yards

    or, simplified as:

    Receiving Yards / Total Air Yards

    Essentially RACR combines catch percentage and YAC into one metric. I prefer RACR over Yards Per Catch because it is over twice as predictive, while giving you similar information. Like all efficiency metrics though, it regresses heavily to the mean each year.

    2017 Buy Low Targets
    That was a lot of talking about metrics. How can you actually use them to find buy-low candidates?

    Below is a list of the top-36 receivers in the NFL last season ranked by WOPR, or Opportunity Rating. Most of the names are familiar. This makes sense since volume correlates very well with fantasy points.

    RACR is included to get a feel for the player’s efficiency along with Air Yards Per Target, which is conceptually identical to Mike Clay’s aDOT. Since catch rate and YAC are dependent on the depth of the targets a receiver gets, you will often see players with low aYPT have a high RACR.

    One shining example is Jarvis Landry. Landry had an aYPT of just 6.5 yards (the lowest on the list) and a RACR of 1.33 (the highest on the list).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     
    Steve-Mo and Carmen Cygni like this.
  6. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    Forget stats. What physical attribute of Adam Humprhies allows him to get a 7.3 yac per reception in 2016, while Antonio Brown is less than 4?

    Why do RBs, slot WRs dominate the YAC charts. Can someone tell me what Landry's YAC is, after 10 adot vs below it?

    Is Brian Burke full of sheets or is he legit? He writes and is cited alot on YAC for some reason:
    http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/18459959/why-nfl-passing-numbers-exploding

     
    Steve-Mo and Carmen Cygni like this.
  7. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Yeah, no. Doesn't matter which of my posts you were trying to quote because I was talking about YAC in all of them. Again, that is easy and plain to see if you had followed the conversation I was having.

    One more yard per catch is significant. Especially when you consider how many more catches Landry had.
     
    shamegame13 likes this.
  8. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Yeah...neat alright.

    I never said don't replace him, I said make sure you replace his YAC. His bulk YAC is generally Top 10 in the league.
     
  9. seekerone

    seekerone Member

    88
    71
    18
    Sep 19, 2015
    Offer him 12. If they demand 13 or more, craft a contract that keeps him here, but is trade friendly in 2019. We overpay for one year by a couple million, but we reserve the potential to get something for him down the road. Too many other holes to fill this year without having to worry about this. The only catch is if the chemistry bridges have been completely burnt between him and this coaching staff. Unless another comparable slot receiver becomes available, it doesn't make sense to just let him walk and we get nothing.
     
    resnor and adamprez2003 like this.
  10. Carmen Cygni

    Carmen Cygni Well-Known Member

    2,422
    5,732
    113
    Dec 30, 2017
    Bingo. This is exactly what I have been getting at.
     
  11. dolphin25

    dolphin25 Well-Known Member

    6,338
    2,400
    113
    Nov 22, 2014
    Jarvis does not drop the ball in contact and he plays in the middle a lot, plus Landry is known for getting yards after catch. Welker was not known for that at all. I saw him go down quite often on catches. Don't get me wrong I LOVED Welker, but I would say Landry is way tougher.
     
    shamegame13 likes this.
  12. djphinfan

    djphinfan Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    111,648
    67,540
    113
    Dec 20, 2007
    I have welker as a potential hall of fame player, Jarvis has a ways to go to achieve that..Walker was the more dangerous player to a defense..
     
    dolphin25 likes this.
  13. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Yeah, I'd love to get my hands on the data too, ideally play by play data with YAC but they don't report that sadly. I also agree it's fine to argue WR > QB in YAC and "usage of WR" > WR in YAC before collecting data to test these claims, but keep in mind both claims can and should be tested to see if that's really true. And one can test both if you have sufficient variation in QB-WR combinations and sufficient variation in routes run by the same WR.

    But as you suggested with "line Landry out wide and see what his YAC is", unless you think Stills or Parker would have the same YAC per reception as Landry if they played Landry's position (personally I do NOT think this is true), then you'll have to admit that the difference in YAC per reception is due at least in part to the WR.

    Remember.. you don't want to a priori assume you know the answer to the question and that all the observed difference was due to "usage of the WR".

    I'm getting 6.95 YAC per reception for Humphries and 4.12 for Antonio Brown, both in 2016:
    https://www.footballdb.com/players/adam-humphries-humphad01
    https://www.footballdb.com/players/antonio-brown-brownan05

    The difference is much less if you increase sample size btw. Over 3 years for Humphries you get 5.68 YAC per reception and for Brown from 2011-2017 you get 4.77. So the difference isn't as stark when sample size increases.

    Regardless, I do agree this would be an example you might use (if you're using essentially a single data point like I did with Landry) where you would argue YAC efficiency depends on what position you play. Like I said above, we can't estimate the relative influence of WR vs. position unless you have sufficient variation and large sample size.

    Going to have to dismiss this link completely. The guy claims that "r^2 = 0.5 mathematically converts the group’s correlation into the number of games it takes for WR YAC to reflect 50% skill and 50% luck". LOL.. that is completely bull**** (as in he really pulled that out of his ***). r^2 tells you what percentage of the variance that is being accounted for in one stat by another, assuming the relation between the two is linear. Importantly, r^2 doesn't resolve the "correlation doesn't equal causation" argument, so you can't estimate "skill" from r^2.

    He also doesn't seem to define what "True YAC" is btw.. fishy site IMO.

    The stats on the second page seem fine or at least are similar to those on other sites (they are 2016 stats btw):
    http://www.rotoworld.com/articles/nfl/69265/446/why-receiver-air-yards-matter?pg=2

    So I don't see any obvious problem with the site. The bolded statement is what's really of interest to us of course, but he doesn't actually provide the evidence for that. Would be nice to see the evidence.

    Burke is hit or miss. The guy definitely puts in the work though. But some of his inferences are totally off.

    Remember, he was the one who looked at how passing plays per game stabilized over decades while passing efficiency increased and said that's evidence teams aren't utilizing the passing game enough? All he needed to do was to compute the correlation between passing attempts and measures of passing efficiency (which was basically zero) to show they have properly adapted and would gain nothing by increasing passing percentage.

    Burke also doesn't adjust stats for different years/eras correctly. He adds or subtracts respective year averages instead of dividing and multiplying. However.. some of his analyses are totally fine, so it's hit or miss with him.

    In this case, I think the biggest problem is that he's only looking at recent history. He mentions right up front that Y/A has steadily increased. Yeah.. but that's only recently in the 2000's. From that 1978 rule change, which had a dramatic influence on the passing game to the point one really shouldn't compare before vs. after (you can look at both means and standard deviations of different passing stats and easily show that), completion percentage has risen very steadily, from around 53% to 63%. Yet Y/A was around 7 back then and is around 7 now.

    In other words, any explanation of why "passing numbers" have steadily increased has to make a distinction between those that really have, like completion percentage, passer rating and INT% (decreasing steadily) vs. those that have remained fairly stable and don't show that trend like Y/A. I'm not sure many of his explanations hold water over a 40 year period (e.g. is it really true that QB's have been making better decisions on average each year over the last 40 years??)

    Anyway, no one knows exactly why we see the steady increase in certain passing numbers but not others, but one thing Burke doesn't consider enough is officiating. Sometimes the rules themselves have changed but often just a different application/interpretation of the rules over time can have a big effect (e.g. 2002 helmet-to-helmet contact is barred; enforcement of PI, defensive holding and illegal changed in 2004; hits to QB below the knees unless a defensive player was blocked was made illegal in 2006; and 2009 prohibited contact to the head of a defenseless receiver). Well.. who knows.
     
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2018
  14. shamegame13

    shamegame13 Madison & Surtain

    3,451
    903
    113
    Dec 15, 2014
    Lol Welker also played with the GOAT Tom Brady lmao... Jarvis is playing with a mediocre QB. I mean, it’s night and day.

    Jarvis’ career is off to a much better start than Welker too.
     
  15. MikeHoncho

    MikeHoncho -=| Censored |=-

    52,652
    25,565
    113
    Nov 13, 2009

    Looks like a Belichick prototype WR.
     
  16. djphinfan

    djphinfan Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    111,648
    67,540
    113
    Dec 20, 2007
    scenario

    No landry.. no #1 tight end...shaky interior line..

    No bueno for Ryan
     
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2018
    shamegame13 likes this.
  17. texanphinatic

    texanphinatic Senior Member

    11,881
    4,834
    113
    Nov 26, 2007
    Detroit Metro Area MI
    Use the Landry savings on high end OL, draft a TE.
     
  18. Carmen Cygni

    Carmen Cygni Well-Known Member

    2,422
    5,732
    113
    Dec 30, 2017
    If our offense falls on it's face again for the 3rd year in a row, at least the good news will be that we'll be getting a new HC . . . hopefully.
     
  19. aesop

    aesop Well-Known Member

    2,150
    1,287
    113
    Nov 2, 2008
    NYC
    White and mediocre. For some reason this combination is consistently gold for Belichick.
     
    Puka-head and shamegame13 like this.
  20. djphinfan

    djphinfan Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    111,648
    67,540
    113
    Dec 20, 2007
    I see where you stand on the coach..

    Year three..gut check time
     
  21. Puka-head

    Puka-head My2nd Fav team:___vs Jets Club Member

    8,605
    6,743
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    Slightly left of center
    upload_2018-1-19_19-28-30.png
     
    aesop likes this.
  22. aesop

    aesop Well-Known Member

    2,150
    1,287
    113
    Nov 2, 2008
    NYC
    Welker is in the halls of the HOF.

    Mainly walking around with a camera around the neck as his father points out the landmarks.
     
    Puka-head and shamegame13 like this.
  23. Puka-head

    Puka-head My2nd Fav team:___vs Jets Club Member

    8,605
    6,743
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    Slightly left of center
    Wondering what it would be like to play for a championship team, and then sweeping the floor and taking out the trash.
     
    aesop likes this.
  24. shamegame13

    shamegame13 Madison & Surtain

    3,451
    903
    113
    Dec 15, 2014
    LMAO
     
  25. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    OK.. I can now answer the question of how YAC per reception depends on average depth of target. It's really stupid I didn't think of this before.. but note that "average depth of target" is basically "total receiving yards" minus "total yards after catch"!! So we have all the information already lol (at least for averages).

    Here's the graph:
    [​IMG]

    Note that the data suggest there are TWO separate relations here, not one. One is mostly for RB's etc.. and the other for WR's etc... Landry falls into the second group because his average depth of target per reception (DT) is 5.17 from 2015-2017 (using these 3 years so we can compare to Parker and Stills like I did in post #72). Parker's DT = 9.83 and Stills DT = 12.28.

    OK.. so now we can answer some key questions.

    1) How good are the three WR's in YAC per reception (YACR) relative to expected given their average DT? Landry's YACR = 5.21 compared to an expected 4.93, Parker's YACR = 3.89 compared to an expected 4.27, and Stills YACR = 3.57 compared to an expected 3.93. So Landry is above expected YACR while both Parker and Stills are below expected.

    2) How much of the difference in YACR is due to the player vs. DT (i.e. effect of how the player is used)? The expected difference in YACR between Parker and Landry is 0.66 YACR but the actual difference is 1.32. So between Landry and Parker basically about half of the difference is due to the WR and half to how they are used. The expected difference in YACR between Stills and Landry is 1, but the actual difference is 1.64, so about 39% of the difference between Stills and Landry is due to the player while 61% is due to how they are used.

    So as you can see.. the kind of comparison done in post #72 does provide evidence a good portion is due to the WR. It's dangerous to presuppose you know the answer to the question and that all the observed difference between any two conditions is due to the one factor that might seem most intuitive.
     
  26. Carmen Cygni

    Carmen Cygni Well-Known Member

    2,422
    5,732
    113
    Dec 30, 2017

    That's not how it works, it's not that simple. The offensive system and what type of role the reciever plays within that system is paramount. You can't just average everything in as if it's all the same. That's what DVOA does and why it's not an accurate resource.
     
  27. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    First of all, the data is the data. The relations you see there are (statistical) relations that exist in the game of football. So yes it does work that way, at least to the degree the variance in the data is explained by the predicted relations.

    Now, clearly there's a lot that's not explained by those relations. If you want to show you can predict YAC on a given play, or YACR (an average), better by taking more things into account, be my guest. But proclamations that you know better WITHOUT providing evidence mean nothing.

    I'm open to further analysis, but you better show you can predict the data better.
     
  28. Carmen Cygni

    Carmen Cygni Well-Known Member

    2,422
    5,732
    113
    Dec 30, 2017
    And the data is flawed b/c it doesn't take into account the factors that actually determine YAC: the offensive system, route progressions, playcalls, line protection and time to throw, accuracy of the QB, . . .

    All these and more can only be determined with actual football knowledge and film study.

    Average depth of target tells us nothing about the route and circumstance (was it a shallow cross vs zone where YAC is prevalent, or a speed out vs man that was only intended to grab 4 yards and the 1st down, etc. etc.).
     
  29. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    LOL.. no the data itself is NOT flawed. That IS data from the game of football. And if you knew how to take into account all these other factors, then you'd be able to predict those averages a LOT better than a simple linear regression (fitting a line).

    Again though.. you keep proclaiming your superiority in all things football to everyone else here (you've been here long enough we can see that), but you're not willing to provide any evidence of it in this debate.

    So it's clear.. no one is disputing that there are many other factors that matter (or could matter). The problem is estimating how MUCH each factor matters. To argue any of the factors you think matters that much isn't already mostly accounted for by depth of target, you have to provide actual evidence, NONE of which you are providing.
     
    eltos_lightfoot likes this.
  30. Rock Sexton

    Rock Sexton Anti-Homer

    2,553
    1,793
    113
    Mar 14, 2015
    If Parker had developed the way the team envisioned - they wouldn't even be having these discussions. Tells you everything you need to know about Landry's value.

    Now they're stuck negotiating, trying to make it make sense ..... especially if they're planning on rolling with Tanny the next few years. If they were to strip down the WR core to Stills and draft new talent, it would take even more time - which this regime doesn't have.
     
    Fin-O and shamegame13 like this.
  31. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    First, your way of determining average depth of target is actually average depth of air yards per catch. But that's okay, we're not talking about efficiency here so targets not caught isn't subtracted.

    Second, assuming your stats formula is gtg, 50-60% is a significant percentage of yac to be based solely on air yards per catch.

    That said, you made a key point. The expected YAC at Landry's air yards per catch is 4.93. A nameless WR who catches his balls at an average of 5.21 from the los is expected to get 4.93. Landry gets 5.21.

    That's 30 yards above whats expected over 100 catches, am I reading that right?
     
  32. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Correct on all accounts.

    Just to point out though.. we HAVE to do the calculation this way because the question is what percent of YAC is due to the WR vs. "usage of the WR", so both components have to be defined to even ask that question. And YAC isn't even defined if there is no "catch", so all stats have to be "per catch".

    You're right though about nomenclature. DT = "average depth of target per reception" as I defined it is equivalent to "average air yards per catch". Maybe I should use "air yards" since I've seen that used more often.
     
  33. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    What about the expected yac though? Landry is expected to get 4.93 yac based solely on the depth per catch?
     
  34. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Oh dude! VERY important question.

    No.. we can only estimate what percent of the difference in YAC between two WR's is due to the WR vs. usage of the WR.

    The expected value itself just tells you the average effect of all combined factors. It on its own doesn't tell you what percent is due to the WR etc.. So once you have an estimate of X% being due to the WR (from differences), then you can assume that X% of the expected value is on average due to the WR.
     
  35. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    So what are the factors that contribute to the 4.93 expected YAC for Landry? That 4.93 figure there is specific to Landry? So if another hypothetical why receiver at the same average air yards per catch there would be a different expected YAC, correct?

    Also, does your statistics and formula take into account the positioning on the field? This just came to me, but A 5 yard pass down the middle is much different then a 5 yard pass on the far right for obvious reasons.

    The further down the field you go, the differences because less pronounced.
     
  36. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    There are an infinite number of factors that contribute to an outcome, down to all the differences in metabolism and mental state at the time of an event. Some factors are more useful for predicting things than others. The goal is to pick the fewest number of factors that predicts the data best (left over variance is as close to zero as possible).

    All I did in post #105 is look at YACR = YAC per reception (what we're trying to predict) as a function of DT = Depth of Target per reception (one factor out of an infinite number of possible ones). Those lines represent the predicted average YACR for any player with a given average DT. So.. to answer your first question, any WR with the same average DT as Landry (5.17) will be predicted to have the same YACR of 4.926. Of course, no two WR's with the same 5.17 average DT are likely to have the same YACR, but the average of their distribution is what's being predicted by that line.

    To answer your second question.. obviously DT is conceptually different than "route ran", but a good portion of the effect on YACR of route ran is probably captured by looking only at DT. How much? Can't tell unless we have both datasets. And it's not a priori clear that "route ran" is a better predictor than DT either because there's variation in the same "route ran" (that is, we categorize a bunch of actual routes ran into a single "route" category) and that variation might lower predictive power to the point that DT might be the better predictor. Who knows without looking at the data.
     
  37. Carmen Cygni

    Carmen Cygni Well-Known Member

    2,422
    5,732
    113
    Dec 30, 2017
    At this point in time, I'm leaning to let Landry walk and let someone else make the mistake of paying him his demands. If he really wants to stay and be the team player he claims he is, he should take a team friendly deal. Otherwise, sayonara.

    His targets and catches are mostly force fed b/c of our lack of pass protection, and the desperate need to get rid of the ball quickly. Another possible upside of removing him as a comfort blanket is that the ball would be more evenly distributed. Though that would also require the need of a playmaking TE, and fortifying the o-line, which could also be had presuming that the FO acquires and spends appropriately the money that departing with Landry would free up.
     
    seekerone likes this.
  38. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Do you think Carro or even Morgan can give us anything close to what Landry did?
     
  39. Carmen Cygni

    Carmen Cygni Well-Known Member

    2,422
    5,732
    113
    Dec 30, 2017
    Certainly not.

    I think Caroo was one of the more horrible trade-ups in recent Miami history (can't beat out that Dion Jordan debacle) and we lost a lot of valuable draft assests in turn as well. Morgan is too much of an unknown to make a stern assessment.

    What I think can happen though in the absence of Landry is that we will become a more balanced team in both run/pass ratio and distribution of the ball. After all, if Gase is this offensive guru as he is touted to be ( I have yet to see such praise justified), he should be able to modify the offense so it isn't running thru one single player, which happens far too often in Landry's presence.

    Basically, Landry's departure would be addition by subtraction.
     
    dolphin25 likes this.
  40. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Thanks.

    You really think the ball is being forced to Landry and not a situation where he's just open more?
     

Share This Page