Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Miami Dolphins Forum' started by dolfan7171, Jun 18, 2016.
If that is true why is it reported that Philpin wanted to draft Carr for a more explosive offense?
Because Philbin was a failure as a head coach? I don't know the numbers from last season, but I know in the first two or three seasons, Tannehill was getting rid of the ball faster than almost every other QB in the league.
It made all the sacks even more amazing.
Where did you read Joe Philbin said that? I think you're just making things up.
Where does it say anywhere that Joe Philbin's issues were with the explosiveness of the offense?
Why on earth do you think he would want to draft another QB? To have a LESS explosive offense? HOLY CRAP!
So...you did make it up.
He wanted to draft another QB so that he could try to buy another couple years of coaching, because he could then blame the first three years of terribleness on Tannehill.
Again. You made it up.
There are multiple reasons why he could have wanted a different QB.
You said it was because he wanted a more explosive offense. That was never said. You made that up.
I believe Joe Philbin went after Derek Carr because he didn't think Ryan Tannehill was good enough. He may be right. Ryan Tannehill may wind up not being good enough.
But you're parading around here like it's a fact that Joe Philbin wanted to draft Derek Carr because he wanted a more explosive offense.
I haven't even addressed the fact that insinuated Joe Philbin's offense isn't predicated on a West Coast style of getting the ball out quickly and allowing your WRs to gain YAC for you....which you suggested wasn't how Philbin wanted to run his offense.
It's ok to not believe in Ryan Tannehill. I didn't until we hired Adam Gase. But, just don't make **** up.
Not really. I just posted a stat, where we scored one TD from outside the 20 up until week 15 or so, and that was from like, 21 yards out. After that there were 2, because of Lamar Miller's long TD run. It is more rare for us. We were not explosive. Chunk yardage doesn't come easy for us.
Might be a weekly occurrence for the Steelers.
I think the two are related. They only count passes that actually get off. The other ones he was sacked before getting it off, hence the low time to get rid of football. You have to look at time to pressure too. Think about it, with a crappy oline you'll get your 2 second passes, but not 2.5+
So your time to pass is gonna be real low.
What's the big beef here. What coach doesn't want their offense to be explosive? Yeah, he wanted to draft Carr, not to be more explosive, but to be better at dinking and dunking their way down the field.
Philbin might not have said it, but there is nothing else for him to want, except for the offense to be better. To be better, after scoring 25 pts a game, is to be more explosive. We were the best in the league and inching our way down the field.
Explosive isn't the only way to be better.
Give me one reason a coach doesn't want a more explosive offense.
One 40 yard pass is 1000000x better than 4 10 yard passes.
There is absolutely no reason not to want explosiveness. None. No coach says, we're not looking for big plays. We'd rather small plays down the field.
Philbin talked about chunk yardage a lot, and scoring more points, and that is the crux of an explosive offense.
I think it's more than fair to say he wanted a more explosive offense.
I haven't said he didn't want more explosive. I'm arguing that there hasn't been any proof that that was the reasoning behind Carr. Might have been. But, at this point, it's all conjecture.
And simply replacing Tannehill with Carr wouldn't have made the offense more explosive.
That is not an altruism. There are a couple of situations where 4 ten yard passes are better and they play out in every game every week.
Then name the situation where a coach would rather attempt 4 passes instead of one. It is hard to sustain 80 yard 12 play drives. It's easier to attack vertically which makes everything easier.
Reasoning behind Carr was he didn't feel Tanny was good enough. And if explosiveness is what he was seeking, that's one of them. There are plenty of reasons he didn't want Tannehill anymore. Deep ball one of them.
It's why Tanny "changed' his arc going into last season. They didn't feel it was good enough.
Not disagreeing with the general comment about having an explosive offensive being a good thing, but when asking whether 4 plays of 10 yards or 1 play of 40 yards is better, to make it half-way realistic you have to take into account the probability of actually successfully completing those plays.
So, if you assume (let's say.. and these are realistic enough numbers) a 60% probability of completing a 10 yard pass and a 15% probability of completing a 40 yard pass, then you'll find that the probability of getting a 1st down with at most 4 consecutive 10 yard pass attempts (assuming you stop throwing once you get a 1st down) is 97.5%. The probability you'll go 100 yards doing that is a whopping 77%.
Of course I know football doesn't work that way, but just for kicks.. compare that to trying to go 100 yards with 40 yard passes by getting 2 1st downs and a TD. Probability of getting a 1st down (with that 15% chance of making the 40 yard throw) is 52% and the probability you go all 100 yards is then 14%.
So if everything remained constant (which I KNOW is not the way things actually work), higher percentage 10 yard throws give you a much better chance of winning than low percentage 40 yard throws.
What is the situation like in actual NFL games? I don't know, but the real point of this exercise is to point out you need to take into account the probability of successfully completing the plays when talking about which is better.
I think it's just as reasonable that Philbin was looking for a scapegoat for his crappy tenure, and he thought he could shift all the blame to the QB. If he could have gotten a new QB to replace Tannehill, he probably figured he'd extend his coaching time.
For all the crap Tannehill gets from you guys, I can't fathom how people constantly put stock into anything he has said.
No. Hell no its not. If an offense can rattle off four consecutive 10 yard completions, then that is awesome, and absolutely what I want. Deep balls are a crapshoot with almost any players, but a precision offense that can get mid range completions and move the ball is a thing of beauty that you can rely on.
Deep throwers tend to perform more efficiently:
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
Yeah but those are just averages and don't tell you the probability of making a 1st down or a TD.
Simple example: Suppose you have a 100% chance of making a 5 yard throw. But you only have a 10% chance of making a 100 yard throw.
OK.. in the first case the YPA is 5 yards per throw. In the second case it's 10 yards per throw. But the first case guarantees you a TD every drive while the second case you get it once every 10 drives.
Gotta look at probability of scoring, not just YPA.
And the int% for the depth of throw is?
Everything is more efficient when you remove negative outcomes.
Because so far, Derek Carr looks like the better QB. Because one is mostly wrong, doesn't exclude the facts when one is actually right for once
You don't see what you did there? You assumed all 4 passes would be completions. Yet the deep ball was going to be a crapshoot.
10 yards is not midrange. It's dink and dunk.
I don't get the bold. That is EXACTLY what we had in 2014. It's exactly what we are trying to fix. It's easier to get someone to only pass 10 yards. Go grab Alex Smith why don't you. We don't need a strong arm.
We already had. You call it a thing of beauty. It was ugly as a beast. Can't score TDs. Because when you only can move the ball slowly, that gets infinitely harder in the red zone where the defense isn't worried about getting beat deep and has a finite space to cover.
That's an opinion. His first year he looked like crap. Last year he was better in some categories. Overall, I don't think he looked any better than Tannehill.
And he wasn't dealing with the same sort of oline problems, nor the dysfunction of a coaching staff melting down around him.
I wonder if the Raiders fan base ripped Derek Carr for choking down the stretch last year when they were fighting for a playoff spot.
Based on what, exactly?
Not completion percentage. Not QBR. Not TD-INT ratio. Not winning percentage.
So, what makes Carr better than Tannehill right now?
Funny how double standards are. Ryan Tannehill is expected to do a million things to be considered just an above average QB, but Derek Carr is "the better QB" already having proven very little.
I like Carr a lot, but there are zero facts that show Carr is better than Tannehill right now. Zero.
Sure there are - Carr had a higher passer rating in 2015. I think you could make an argument for both QBs.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
Sure, but does that really tell us he's the better player? Tannehill's 2014 was better than Carr's 2015. And like I said earlier, Carr didn't play well at all the second half of the year with a playoff spot within reach. I'm not saying Carr won't be better in the end, but I don't think it's something you can say right now as an absolute.
Daniel Jeremiah and Bucky Brooks did a podcast a few months ago debating who they'd rather have between the two. I don't remember who picked who, but one took Tannehill and the other took Carr. So I guess it's something people are keeping an eye on.
Carr was certainly better in his second year compared to Tannehill in his 2nd year, but who's better going forward? Who knows.. I'd prefer to revisit this question after another season.
Tannehill was steadily improving until last year broke the trend, but maybe that's an anomaly and he'll improve more? or maybe that's his ceiling? Carr doing well last year doesn't really tell us whether that's the beginning of a major jump upwards or his ceiling or even an anomaly. This is probably a question better asked in 2017.
Yes, I'll agree here. Way too early to say either way. Everyone seems to be jumping on the Raiders bandwagon this summer. Carr will have to play much better than he did the second half of 2015 for them to have a shot at the playoffs though.
People are jumping on the bandwagon because that is a young well put together team. They have a talented offense and defense. Heck it wouldn't surprise me if Mack is in the conversation for defensive MVP in the next few season.
Getting rid of the ball fast may not always be the correct decision.
Wait...first I was just told he took the sacks because he held the ball too long, and now you're arguing that getting rid of the ball quickly was bad.
This is why I say that Tannehill can't win with his detractors.
It is possible to both hold the ball too long and get rid of too quickly, it all depends on the situation.
Very in depth, good article, complete with analytics, about responsibility of sacks by the QB.
Hmm.. interesting article, but I don't think he's showing what he's claiming he's showing.
Short summary: he's rank ordering the performance of every QB for 5 different stats (sack%, comp%, YPA, TD% and INT%) for any 2 consecutive years where that QB was on one team in year 1 and on a different team in year 2. Then, he finds the correlations across the rankings for those two years to see how much they changed. His argument is that the less they changed (the higher the correlation in rank between the years) the more the stat was influenced by the QB and less it was influenced by the new team. He goes on to show sack% and comp% have the highest correlations, and thus are more due to the QB than other stats.
There's just one flaw in the reasoning: he's not comparing those correlations to the correlations that occur when the QB stays on the same team. A simple example should illustrate why that's necessary.
Example: suppose we have two QB stats, X and Y, and as long as the QB stays on the same team, year-to-year rank for X stays mostly the same (let's say correlation is high at 0.9) while year-to-year rank for Y changes a lot (let's say correlation is low at 0.2). Now the QB changes teams, and when you compare ranks from the last year the QB was on the previous team to ranks from the first year on the next team, let's say correlation for X is at 0.4 while correlation for Y is still at 0.2.
OK.. so for stat X it went from 0.9 to 0.4, while for stat Y it stayed at 0.2. Stat Y is easiest to interpret: the team had NO influence on that stat (statistically speaking) because 0.2 was the natural variation, so even if team strength changed the entire variance was accounted for by the QB. Stat X on the other hand was tremendously influenced by the (new) team because rank stability fell from a high correlation to a low one (0.9 to 0.4).
Of course the author of that article would just look at 0.4 for X and 0.2 for Y in the case where the QB changed teams and conclude that X was influenced more by the QB than Y was, which is clearly totally wrong.
How so? Tannehill had a slightly higher passer rating, but again, passer rating heavily weights completions (counting them twice in the completion percentage and ypa factors). That's why, a guy who threw 5 more TDs vs 1 more INT, and essentially identical efficiency stats (slightly more efficient with a 7.0 ypa) has a lower passer rating. Barely. By a point.
Tell me if you'd rather have 27 TD passes or 32. Carr could turn out to be a stinker after year 2. But as of now, he's matched (or beaten) Tanny's best year, in just year 2. As terrible as Carr's YPA was in year 1, he threw for 22 TDs and 12 INTs which is ... almost what Tanny did in year 4, off by 3 TDs.
Carr's trajectory is higher than Tanny's as of this point.
Carr can definitely make a u-turn and stink the rest of his career, but at this point he's shown more, earlier, than Tanny.