53/25 TD-INT ratio vs. 87/54. I mean, you don't need a math genius to know who has the better ratio there. And if you only count Tanny's first two years, it's 36/30. Ouch! Tanny had a bad wr corps his rookie year, but did you look at Carr's? They dumped their #1 WR after the season ended, and he was cut again by the Giants (only finding relevance with Aaron Rodgers throwing it to him).
I have no beef at all. Dude...again you're crazy assuming. Take your hatred for Tannehill out and actually objectively look at this. dolphan25 said Joe Philbin wanted to draft Derek Carr because he wanted the offense to be more explosive. That is not true. I provided links where Armando and others that reported on it, said nothing of the sort. It simply said that he wanted to draft Derek Carr and that was viewed as he didn't trust Ryan Tannehill. I don't think it's any leap at all to say that he didn't trust him between that, the presser after the London game, and hell it was deserving because Tannehill wasn't good. That is the story. That is the fact. If you're going to assume that it's because he wanted the offense to be more explosive, then say it suggests that he wants it to be more explosive. Also, if it's safe to assume that, then couldn't someone argue that he wanted to draft Carr for multiple other reasons? He believed he was a better prospect. Maybe he didn't think Tannehill has leadership qualities to lead the team. Maybe he didn't think Tannehill was smart enough for his offense. Maybe he was tired of Tannehill taking sacks. Maybe he was scared of Tannehill post-Mike Sherman. I mean hell, maybe it was a Brees/Rivers situation, and Philbin just thought Carr was great competition and was the BPA/Best QB in the draft and worth the value? I mean there are a bazillion reasons why he could have wanted to draft Derek Carr. And again, dolphan25's reply was in reaction to me talking about Tannehill's low ypa and short passing game. So, his term of explosive means to get the ball down the field more...which again if we continue to take leaps I'd say that his offense wasn't exactly one that was dependent on driving the ball down the field. Hell, the guy hated Mike Wallace. The point of Derek Carr vs. Ryan Tannehill is moot (Derek Carr is the better prospect at this point, IMO and Philbin seems right). All I'm saying is to say THAT is the reason why is an opinion, a suggestion, speculating. It's not the known reason why Joe Philbin wanted to draft Derek Carr. To act like it was and to post on a message board to others where they will take anyone's word and run with it, is just wrong and inaccurate.
I agree. I think to make Tannehill's case vs Carr you need some of those advanced statistics and analytics. Those along with some of the precursory, "Well, Tannehill didn't have this...was dealing with this...etc." Personally, I wanted to move on from Ryan Tannehill. I think it's pretty well known through the GDT's and general Tannehill threads that I was a staunchly against having him QB this team another year. However, I'm all in on Adam Gase. I really believe he will find ways to utilize Ryan Tannehill the best way he can be. So, my flip flop on Tannehill is a product of Gase. But...if you gave me Carr with Gase, then ya...I'd drop Tannehill at this point.
But TDs count as completions too! And Ints count as incompletions! the passer rating formula is 100% based on completion percentage Instead of repeating things other people have told you, think about it instead. Let's actually break down what the passer ratig formula does. 1) It creates 4 separate values to measure completion%; ypa; TD% and Int%. 2) These factors are not raw numbers they have weighted to different degrees. 3) based on 2015 NFL Averages the factors are: Completion% 1.7 (30% of formula) Yards/attempt 1.1 (20% of formula) TDs 1.0 (17% of formula) Ints 1.9 (33% of formula) So if we round to nearest 10% to account for how different QBs will have different ratings Completion %: 30% Yards/attemp: 20% TDs: 20% Ints: 30% If we take yards/attempt as equally split between yards and completions%: Completion% accounts for roughly half NFL passer rating. Please stop saying that completion% is counted twice in the passer rating formula. It is more correct to say that completion% represents roughly two fifths the passer rating. The next question is: "Is this approach wrong?" I have calculated the correlation between team passer rating and team win% over the last 10 years. The correlation is 0.67 I haven't done any calculations, but do you know of a measure that has a better correlation to team win% than the passer rating formula?
There's an error in those numbers and it comes from the way they wrote the passer rating formula in wikipedia (or whatever source you're using): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passer_rating I can see for INT you calculated: 2.375 - (INT/ATT x 25) Problem is that 2.375 doesn't really belong to the "INT" category or to any other category. Mathematically it applies to all components equally, so INT should only be (INT/ATT x 25). So the weights are more like (after rounding a bit): Comp% = 39%, YPA = 25%, TD = 21% and INT = 15%
I was using the factors based on how the actual production leads to the numbers. Each factor is added together and then divided by six so they are equally weighted in the final formula. But the number for completion percentage normally comes out between 1.5 and 2.0 nowadays. The number for y/a comes out at between 0.8 and 1.3 TD% between 0.6 and 1.3 Int% between 1.5 and 2.5 So I based my calculations on how the numbers play out in today's NFL
Yeah.. maybe you already have this link, but if you don't it should save you time in the future (I used the 2015 numbers for those percentages in the previous post): http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/AFLNFL/passing.htm
When we look back at the early 1970s when the passer rating was designed: Average completion % was about 50% compared to 63% in 2015 Average Interception percentage was about 5% compared to 2.4% now which are a lot worse than today\s averages Average Y/completion was 13 compared to today's 11.5 which translates to 6.8ypa to 7.3ypa today. TD % was 4.5 compared to 4.6 Which are pretty similar. Putting early 70s kind of average numbers into the passer rating factors would give a weighting of about 1 to completion%, yards/comp, TD% and int% and a passer rating around 66 I was looking at passer rating for individual QBs to get the ranges in rating factors in my previous post. I had the numbers done up in a previous spreadsheet because I wanted to see how all the gears and levers of the passer rating worked.
But in Miami it's always Tannehill's fault. Posts like this are exactly why I keep saying that other QBs on other teams get way more defending from some posters on here. When I say that stuff about Tannehill, you, and a couple others, accuse me of "making excuses" for him.
no, it means score more points. If you think any coach wants to replace his QB with the same or worse scoring QB, you are crazy. Any other argument you try to make is just fruitless. all of those equal what??? A more explosive offense!!! thanks for proving my point.
Fact still is, there is no tangible proof of the claim that Philbin wanted Carr because of explosiveness. Perhaps Philbin realized his coaching gig was about up, and he wanted a QB that he felt could "win now," instead of being patient with Tannehill.
You're hilarious dude. I just posted this in the Manning is rooting for the Dolphins thread. You're unwilling to make the jump that Peyton Manning is rooting for the Dolphins when he says he's rooting for Adam Gase. Yet, you're quick to jump to the conclusion that because Joe Philbin said he wanted to take Derek Carr that it automatically meant he wanted the Dolphins offense to be more explosive? Bananaland...use logic for me one time! As I said in the other thread, this is an easy exercise into what subjectivity and incoherent logic looks like. It's fine. I use my emotions, opinions, and biases to form my statements on here all the time. I just wanted to call you out on it because it really makes your point here/argument here "fruitless".
Obviously you are clueless to think a head coach wants to replace the QB with another that will score LESS points..... OMG that is hilarious. Thank you for continuing to post as I need the laughs from your ridiculous comments.
Never said that. No problem making you laugh. Always enjoy people smiling and laughing. Odd that it's being done over imaginary words and phrases, but whatevs, I'll take it. Anything else you want to infer/speculate/pretend/imagine/lie that was said? You're good at it. Also, I'd be remiss if I didn't point this out. Your original comment was a response to Tannehill and his low ypa and the fact he threw short passes in a WC offense. It wasn't in reference to him scoring points, or the offense scoring points, etc. So again, you've done a fantastic job of making this argument up about it being along the lines of the offense needing to score more points, when it generated from you making this lie up about Derek Carr being wanted by Philbin in response to Tannehill's ypa and the style in which he moved the offense...nothing about scoring points...but again well done sir. #Dolphin25LOGIC #Brilliant
You said exactly that by arguing against my comment. You argued that a coach would not want a QB that made the offense more explosive (score more points) I can see you in the talks in the offensive room: "What should we do about this QB situation?" RDH "I think we should get a QB that will run the offense worse." "Say what?" RDH "Yeah, lets get a QB that will make us score less points." "huh?" RDH "We are scoring points now, why try to score more?"
You got me. It was me that led to Joe Philbin getting fired and us not drafting Derek Carr. I mean John Madden said it. The team that scores the most points wins...and I could even follow that. Pobrecito! Dude - I mean look at your thanks history...it's nothing but thanks on posts against Tannehill. You're a one trick pony. At least give us something that isn't so easy. All I'm saying is don't go lying and saying things that aren't real. Had you said that Philbin was suggesting the offense needed to be more explosive, then I'd have no issue with it. But you say it, then someone else says it, then everyone believes it and that well, isn't true. The article never detailed why he wanted a new QB. Once again you never addressed the fact that it COULD be other factors why he wanted Derek Carr over Tannehill. And that's the point. It COULD be other factors because what you're stating is a COULD be too. And that's because it was never stated originally why he wanted Derek Carr. But that good Dolphin25 logic is on point. Peyton Manning rooting for Adam Gase does not equal Peyton Manning rooting for the Dolphins to do well. Joe Philbin entertaining drafting Derek Carr does equal Ryan Tannehill not having enough explosive plays on offense. I like how you get to your points...#Brilliant #Logic
Exactly. He was clearly addressing the statement that Tannehill dinks and dunks, operates under a WC offense, and has a low ypa. There is nothing about points there, but now he's moving it towards that. Also, would anyone categorize the Patriots offense in 2013 and 2014 as explosive? I mean they won the Super Bowl. In 2014, Tom Brady had a ypa of 7.1, 2013 it was 6.9. So again, explosive doesn't mean points. But, I'm sure he'll find some ridiculous argument to make.
If you cannot comprehend that more points IS explosive, I got nothing more for you then pity. Even the "points" that you tried to make on why Philpin would want another QB all point to a more explosive offense. Again explosive is scoring more points. As far as your Patriots comment about their offense not being explosive (scoring points) 444 points (27.8/g), 3rd of 32 in the NFL, looks pretty explosive to me..... I do understand that you would not want any part of that.
So, explosive is ONLY scoring more points? Getting chunk yardage, which Philbin and Lazor loved to talk about, is explosive. Even if it isn't scoring points, 20-30 yard plays are explosive. The Patriots have been able to score many points, all while running, many years, "dink and dunk" offenses.
Again never said that or insinuated that. You're REALLY good at lying and making stuff up. You've gotta be a magician, right? I mean just have to be. Explosive at this point has turned to a game of semantics. I believe the term is different that you do. That's just whatever. The fact still remains. The article never states Joe Philbin wanted a more explosive offense, thus preferred Derek Carr. You've done a great job morphing an argument into another, into another and into another without ever actually providing, you know facts or links to support your claim/argument. But whatever. It's over. #Dolphin25LOGIC #Brillaint #TrollJobIs100
http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/20...1_joe-philbin-ireland-and-philbin-paul-soliai http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/20...1_joe-philbin-ireland-and-philbin-paul-soliai Are we still on explosiveness? Did Philbin come out and say he wanted Carr because of explosiveness? NO. Because we have no direct quotes from Philbin at ALL on Carr. But we know he's said, multiple times, he wanted more explosiveness on offense. http://www.sportsworldreport.com/ar...llace-ryan-tannehill-admit-lack-chemistry.htm It's just about the biggest thing he's said about the offense and Tanny publicly. http://nationwidenewspaper.com/rise-n-grind-dolphins-want-more-from-ryan-tannehill/ He's been so vocal about wanting more explosiveness out of the offense, so when he wants to replace the QB, the biggest piece of the offense, you're pushing back on the idea he wanted more ... explosiveness? After having to go from Rodgers to Tanny in 2012, he's done nothing but talk about explosiveness out of the offense. http://www.wptv.com/sports/miami-dolphins-season-doomed-by-lack-of-explosive-plays-turnovers When talking about the disappointment of 2012 the first thing to come to mind on offense is explosiveness. And then, "oh yeah, points per game is also unacceptable. yeah that too."
You are arguing that when I said explosive I meant big plays. HOWEVER, I never said that. Ironic you are the one accusing others of saying things they didn't say in fact you are the one doing it. To me as I stated explosive is a more potent offense, as in they exploded for 34 points, 19 is not an explosion.
Annnnnddd...those don't cite Tannehill as the one at fault. You take quotes about the offense, and attempt to condense it to just about Tannehill. Take the quotes for what they are: quotes saying he wants the offense to be more explosive. Receivers breaking a tackle and getting a big gain is explosive. Oline opening holess and allowing big runs is explosive. Running backs breaking tackles and getting big gains is explosive. There are many things that encompass explosive that don't involve the QB. Please note, this is NOT me saying that Tannehill couldn't have been more explosive. I'm pointing out how other pieces of the offense were failing. Unless you still hold to the magic sack idea, and still believe that Tannehill just want reaching into his magic sack and pulling out explosive plays.
Appreciate the quotes. It's clear Joe Philbin wanted more explosive plays from Ryan Tannehill. I think it's a pretty safe assumption to say he wanted to move on from Ryan Tannehill because he believed Derek Carr could provide those things. Even if that wasn't the case, because we will never know, to assume that is fair based on those citations. I was wrong.
This is comical. A misunderstanding of the word explosive is now accusatory and making things up. Here if you'd like an apology I'll give you one. I'm sorry. I hope you can now continue to work in piece in this imaginary world known as the internet.
Aaaaannnnd whos the one he wanted to replace with Carr? Lol. I don't recall him saying, Ryan is capable of these plays but our receivers, man, we need to replace those guys with more explosive guys. He tried to replace our QB right before the draft.Not saying he's wrong. But those were his intentions.
Fair. Thumbs up. Yeah he never out and said it, but we don't know what he said because it was a second hand account. He wanted more explosiveness. Always did. Hell he came from Aaron Rodgers! He wanted that, and he wanted Tannehill gone. It isn't that much of a jump to believe, he wanted someone who could complete more chunk plays.
Phil bin seemed to want half the team gone at one point. He traded a top 5 young CB in football for christi sake...why did they ever listen to this idiot.
True. And I'm never going to pine for Joe Philbin, but in THIS instance, as of now, he seems to have been right about Derek Carr vs. Ryan Tannehill. That could absolutely change this year, though.
Or they could both be good. Thats my perspective. I think that in a few years, once a lot of the older QBs are retired, those two will be considered clear top 10 QBs.
Annnnnddd you know all the players he wanted to replace how? I mean, really. The quotes even point to a lack of faith in the offense, nor simply Tannehill. Given how bad Queasy seemed to be, I really don't think it bolsters your argument a while lot that he wanted to draft Carr to replace Tannehill. Would have just been another in a long line of bad moves for Ol' Queasy.
Not sure if you're being obtuse on purpose but it doesn't matter who he wanted replace. The QB is the most important position in football by a country mile. And he wanted it replaced, on the eve of the draft. As for whether I'm right time will tell. Not saying I'm going to be 100% right, but the NFL agrees with me. Remember after 2014 when they polled 35 coaches and front office peeps, to rank QBs into tiers. Tanny landed in tier 3 which some thought was okay and some thought it was the greatest travesty since Shakespeare in Love won over Saving Private Ryan. Tannehill was ranked 17. This was after this best, and most promising season of his career. But the people in the NFL didn't think that highly of him. Carr was ranked 20. Just 3 spots behind. After throwing for 5.5 ypa. After a not so great season with not a lot of wins. So now that Tanny took a step back and Carr took a huge step forward, he'd probably outrank Tanny by a bit. These are guys who are in the NFL and do this for a living.
You were mixing up what Philbin did with what he said. He said he wanted more explosiveness yet His first act as HC was to get rid of Brandon Matshall. He installed the curl route and comeback route offense of Mike Sherman. And then had to be forced into firing him after the system's complete lack of spark, let alone boom, had become obvious. He kept guys who were making explosive plays in limited action like Lamar Miller and Rishad Mathews on the pine behind guys like Daniel Thomas and Brian Hartline until injuries forced him to play them. He talked up fast tempo offense as a way of generating explosiveness yet only used it in pre season games. He let Bill Lazor abandon the run allowing opposing Ds to call pass prevent defenses. Quite simply even if Carr is a better/more explosive QB under Philbin it would have been more of the same. Talking about being explosive but doing nothing to make it happen.
Exactly. I feel like Philbin said the things he said in an effort to keep his job. I truly believe he wanted to draft a QB because then he'd have another reason to keep his job. "Oh, it's not MY fault, we gotta give the rookie time to develop." Just like Tannehill was his scapegoat. It wasn't his fault, or Lazor, it wasn't the oline, it wasn't the receivers, it was Tannehill. He should have freaking threatened to bench his oline in the London game, but it was Tannehill he went after. The offensive scheme wasn't the problem, it was Tannehill. The more stuff we hear about Philbin, the more I realize how truly inept he was, and I put even less credence into the stuff he said.
