Dolphins’ QB Josh Rosen solid in first start with Miami

2nd year with a well below subpar team. New team, new coach, new OC, another horrible o-line, etc. Attempting to use analytics to try and grade/analyze Rosen in his NFL career so far is straight up useless. Good luck figuring out if the receiver and QB were on the same page in diagnosing the coverage, if the receiver ran the right route, which lineman missed his blocking assignment, the overall effectiveness of the playcall made, etc. with a mathematical formula. And concerning Rosen and the very poor teams he has been on, such situations occur at a higher frequency than other even average teams, let alone the top consistent ones, so the comparison examples are pale.

"Carmen Cygni wrote:

2nd year with a well below subpar team. New team, new coach, new OC, another horrible o-line, etc. Attempting to use analytics to try and grade/analyze Rosen in his NFL career so far is straight up useless. Good luck figuring out if the receiver and QB were on the same page in diagnosing the coverage, if the receiver ran the right route, which lineman missed his blocking assignment, the overall effectiveness of the playcall made, etc. with a mathematical formula. And concerning Rosen and the very poor teams he has been on, such situations occur at a higher frequency than other even average teams, let alone the top consistent ones, so the comparison examples are pale.

Analytics are always weaker with small versus large sample sizes.

"The Guy wrote:

Right, but the company he's in there can be informative. Again you have a virtual who's who of young QBs in the league in the 2018 list, Roethlisberger notwithstanding.

When youth and inexperience is such a strong common thread among those QBs, it suggests that youth and inexperience, and not the functioning of their offensive lines, is responsible for their performance in that regard. What are the odds that that list of nine QBs in 2018 is also a list of nine of the worst offensive lines in the league? Slim.

So, it behooves you to look further into the list than just Rosen. Doing so may be informative and may yield a different conclusion. It's entirely possible that Rosen, and not his offensive lines, is the active ingredient in his performance in that regard. His offensive lines could be among the worst in the league, and he could be entirely responsible for his performance in that regard nonetheless.

Just because a QB has a relatively poor offensive line doesn't mean it explains every negative facet of his performance. Some of that could be on him exclusively, and replacing his line with the best one in the league could result in nothing significantly different in that specific regard.

Again, an extreme analogy just to illustrate the point: throw a middle school QB into the NFL with the worst offensive line in the league, and then replace his offensive line with the best one in the league. Will that alone make him play at an NFL level, or will he continue to display inadequacies that have nothing to do with his offensive line?

I’m sure your point is valid but this is one of the worst OL’s we’ve ever fielded and last years AZ OL was a sh** show. Tough to evaluate anyone under these conditions. When 7 guys can’t block 4, you’re not gonna win many football games.

"mlb1399 wrote:

I’m sure your point is valid but this is one of the worst OL’s we’ve ever fielded and last years AZ OL was a sh** show. Tough to evaluate anyone under these conditions. When 7 guys can’t block 4, you’re not gonna win many football games.

Dude.. are you watching this game? Our OL is VERY good so far in the first half. I really hope this is a sign we have a good OL coach.

Regardless.. with sufficient sample size (a full season should be enough for the purpose of comparing Rosen in AZ to Rosen with the Dolphins) stats will show a significant difference if there really is one.

"cbrad wrote:

Dude.. are you watching this game? Our OL is VERY good so far in the first half. I really hope this is a sign we have a good OL coach.

Regardless.. with sufficient sample size (a full season should be enough for the purpose of comparing Rosen in AZ to Rosen with the Dolphins) stats will show a significant difference if there really is one.

I’m in Budapest so no. But I saw the Dallas game and it looks like we’ve given up 3-4 sacks this game. I’m assuming they came back to reality but in the 2nd half?

And yeah, I think he’s getting this group to way overperform the talent level of this group because let’s face it, we have maybe 1 starter on most teams.

"mlb1399 wrote:

I’m in Budapest so no. But I saw the Dallas game and it looks like we’ve given up 3-4 sacks this game. I’m assuming they came back to reality but in the 2nd half?

And yeah, I think he’s getting this group to way overperform the talent level of this group because let’s face it, we have maybe 1 starter on most teams.

First half was very good. 2nd half playing like crap. The INT you see by Rosen on the stat sheet was just a pure bone headed throw by Rosen, not even forced. Rosen also took sacks he shouldn't have (twice if I recall) including one on the goal line.

It is what it is. He seems to be good in ideal conditions but he can't be counted on to win a game. Still only game 4.

"cbrad wrote:

First half was very good. 2nd half playing like crap. The INT you see by Rosen on the stat sheet was just a pure bone headed throw by Rosen, not even forced. Rosen also took sacks he shouldn't have (twice if I recall) including one on the goal line.

It is what it is. He seems to be good in ideal conditions but he can't be counted on to win a game. Still only game 4.

So far he’s essentially a quarterback much like Tannehill, who makes his living against poorer defenses, in non-clutch situations.

Someone who, if the Dolphins ever made the playoffs with him, would likely get beaten handily when facing opposing teams with very good quarterbacks and very good defenses.

Of course that can change in the future, but so far he has displayed nothing greater than that.

"cbrad wrote:

First half was very good. 2nd half playing like crap. The INT you see by Rosen on the stat sheet was just a pure bone headed throw by Rosen, not even forced. Rosen also took sacks he shouldn't have (twice if I recall) including one on the goal line.

It is what it is. He seems to be good in ideal conditions but he can't be counted on to win a game. Still only game 4.

I honestly thought that was a safety he took... got away with it.. he played terrible in the second half, looked like Joey Harrington..

Here's a fun and sad little fact: Rosen's passer rating for today's game was 88.9 which was his highest ever in 15 games he's started. Obviously, passer rating has little to no meaning for a single game, but when you can't even ONCE do better than league average (92.9 in 2018) in 15 tries there is something really wrong. And there was no OL excuse today.

Next game is against the first team we might have a chance against: Washington who is 0-4 right now and after playing the Patriots will probably be 0-5 when we meet them. Washington also has the 2nd worst defense by points allowed per game. If Rosen still can't perform at or above average against the Redskins defense, there's something seriously wrong IMO.

3 games in - ready to throw in the towel in a rebuild...no - reconstituting .. no... playing for the 1st Draft pick ...year. EGAD!

"cbrad wrote:

Here's a fun and sad little fact: Rosen's passer rating for today's game was 88.9 which was his highest ever in 15 games he's started. Obviously, passer rating has little to no meaning for a single game, but when you can't even ONCE do better than league average (92.9 in 2018) in 15 tries there is something really wrong. And there was no OL excuse today.

Next game is against the first team we might have a chance against: Washington who is 0-4 right now and after playing the Patriots will probably be 0-5 when we meet them. Washington also has the 2nd worst defense by points allowed per game. If Rosen still can't perform at or above average against the Redskins defense, there's something seriously wrong IMO.

Just for reference, Ryan Tannehill had 7 90+ rated games in his first 15 starts in 2012.

I defended Tannehill because he played well in spots and thought he could extend those spots to his overall game. I’ve learned my mistake and I’m not giving Rosen that luxury. Unless he stands up and delivers consistently and soon then we don’t want to waste more time with him. Let him be another team’s reclamation project.

I was talking with a gentleman yesterday who's a huge Dallas fan. Of course I got the sympathetic smile and eye roll when I told him who my team was. We started discussing offensive lines, present as well as past. Now just to be perfectly clear; I hate the Cowboys, despise them but the one thing I'll give the Cowboys credit for...for years and decades even, they always field a powerhouse offensive line. That dedication to a strong foundation led to the success of Elliott, Prescott, Romo (way overrated), Aikmen, Smith...it goes on and on.

If we would have ever had that powerhouse of an offensive line, the running backs like Ricky Williams (who was already a brilliant talent in his own right), Ronnie Brown, Ajayi, Miller and Drake now would flourish. Quarterbacks such as Henne, Tannehill and Rosen would be household names. But do we build the foundation of a house first in Miami? Not at all. We start building on a sloppy foundation putting up fancy windows and door and roof without making sure we're building on a solid foundation...then complain when the whole damned house falls apart.

If we had a solid offensive line that gave Rosen just the flipping opportunity to do his job as a quarterback...for 4 full quarters, then we'd actually be able to determine whether or not he's the guy for the future. But as I said, we don't do that in Miami. Ever since Shula retired, that was no longer a priority and since Marino's retirement, we keep searching for the NEXT Marino. Well if we don't get back to the absolute fundamental BASICS of football, we'll continue to go after skill player this...and skill player that...and change quarterbacks yet again...and again and again and again and the Dolphins will become the Detroit Lions of the south.

And that's just speaking of the offense...don't even get me started on the defense.

"mlb1399 wrote:

Hard to evaluate those numbers when your OL has been that bad. Being on the run, not being able to step into your throw and just generally being under duress will impact that.

I hear ya, but I think we need to consider OL play as generally the same for all when considering QB play. These days they are all feeling the pressure and being made uncomfortable when they drop back. No excuses. Rosen is getting it done or he’s not. Right now he has a long way to go and we are drafting a QB next year, IMO.

"cbrad wrote:

First half was very good. 2nd half playing like crap. The INT you see by Rosen on the stat sheet was just a pure bone headed throw by Rosen, not even forced. Rosen also took sacks he shouldn't have (twice if I recall) including one on the goal line.

It is what it is. He seems to be good in ideal conditions but he can't be counted on to win a game. Still only game 4.

My issue is you referring to any conditions that Rosen has played in as "ideal."

"The_Dark_Knight wrote:

I was talking with a gentleman yesterday who's a huge Dallas fan. Of course I got the sympathetic smile and eye roll when I told him who my team was. We started discussing offensive lines, present as well as past. Now just to be perfectly clear; I hate the Cowboys, despise them but the one thing I'll give the Cowboys credit for...for years and decades even, they always field a powerhouse offensive line. That dedication to a strong foundation led to the success of Elliott, Prescott, Romo (way overrated), Aikmen, Smith...it goes on and on.

If we would have ever had that powerhouse of an offensive line, the running backs like Ricky Williams (who was already a brilliant talent in his own right), Ronnie Brown, Ajayi, Miller and Drake now would flourish. Quarterbacks such as Henne, Tannehill and Rosen would be household names. But do we build the foundation of a house first in Miami? Not at all. We start building on a sloppy foundation putting up fancy windows and door and roof without making sure we're building on a solid foundation...then complain when the whole damned house falls apart.

If we had a solid offensive line that gave Rosen just the flipping opportunity to do his job as a quarterback...for 4 full quarters, then we'd actually be able to determine whether or not he's the guy for the future. But as I said, we don't do that in Miami. Ever since Shula retired, that was no longer a priority and since Marino's retirement, we keep searching for the NEXT Marino. Well if we don't get back to the absolute fundamental BASICS of football, we'll continue to go after skill player this...and skill player that...and change quarterbacks yet again...and again and again and again and the Dolphins will become the Detroit Lions of the south.

And that's just speaking of the offense...don't even get me started on the defense.

Go talk to a Seattle Seahawks fan about how Russell Wilson has overcome their perennially poor offensive line with his individual ability.

"resnor wrote:

My issue is you referring to any conditions that Rosen has played in as "ideal."

Rosen is certainly not good but how many td drops, drops in general plus bad OL play has impacted that. I’m surprised more people aren’t understanding of that. On top of that, we all knew he was a project that needed developing. But he’s got no help around him.

"resnor wrote:

My issue is you referring to any conditions that Rosen has played in as "ideal."

It was as "ideal" as you needed it to be in the first half. OL was fantastic. One key WR drop occurred (that might have turned into a TD), but otherwise an overthrown ball was caught by another receiver bailing Rosen out. Stuff like this happens no matter what team you're on. Yeah, that 1st half was good enough to call "ideal" for a QB. Even the defense kept the score low enough to win.

Maybe that's the only time Rosen has played where you could say that, but I think the description is accurate enough.

"Pauly wrote:

Just for reference, Ryan Tannehill had 7 90+ rated games in his first 15 starts in 2012.

I defended Tannehill because he played well in spots and thought he could extend those spots to his overall game. I’ve learned my mistake and I’m not giving Rosen that luxury. Unless he stands up and delivers consistently and soon then we don’t want to waste more time with him. Let him be another team’s reclamation project.

Yup.. and in 2012 the league average rating was 85.6 so 7.3 rating points lower than today. A full 8 out of 16 of Tannehill's games in his rookie year he had a rating higher than league average. For Rosen.. 0 out of 15 are higher than league average. It's a stat to keep track of.

"cbrad wrote:

It was as "ideal" as you needed it to be in the first half. OL was fantastic. One key WR drop occurred (that might have turned into a TD), but otherwise an overthrown ball was caught by another receiver bailing Rosen out. Stuff like this happens no matter what team you're on. Yeah, that 1st half was good enough to call "ideal" for a QB. Even the defense kept the score low enough to win.

Maybe that's the only time Rosen has played where you could say that, but I think the description is accurate enough.

And his passer rating during that half was over 120, so you either have to attribute his improved performance, as measured by his passer rating, to the better functioning of his surroundings during that period of time, or you have the stop attributing his performance, good or bad, to his surroundings at all. You can’t have it both ways.

You can’t believe his surroundings function like a ball and chain on him when he plays poorly, and then suddenly believe that when he plays well it’s due exclusively to him, even though his surroundings are just as poor.

"cbrad wrote:

That's correct, though for future reference I think it's important to separate two periods: pre-1978 and post-1978. The rule changes in 1978 dramatically changed the nature of the game, and what you said applies much more to post-1978 than to pre-1978.

From 1966-1977 the correlation between rushing attempts and passing Y/A is 0.3662, which means that 13.4% of the variation in passing Y/A can be explained by rushing attempts. However, from 1978-2018 that correlation drops to 0.1724 which means that only 2.97% of the variation in passing Y/A is explained by rushing attempts.

And both of those numbers are overestimating the actual influence of rushing attempts on passing Y/A because it includes the 4th quarter where the leading team tends to have more rushing attempts AND higher passing Y/A without play action.

So at maximum, since 1978 you can expect to influence about 3% of your ability to pass the ball efficiently through rushing attempts.

Actually, this is a fairly well known result among those who've looked at football statistics. FO probably has the best summary graph but only for the years 2011-2013 (and based on what I just described their results should apply to post-1978):

FO has their own definition of "rush success" which one can quibble with (they set an arbitrary threshold) so if you want you can ignore 3 of those graphs, but the other 3 graphs (top left, top right and bottom middle) should lay to rest the idea that rushing attempts – even rushing attempts designed to decrease predictability – increases passing Y/A in the modern game.

Here's my problem with that....and it's a big one. If you lump together every run attempt since 1978 then OF COURSE you're going to see dismal returns. The whole point of running the football isn't to say, "Look we ran it a few times so we can throw a pass now," it's to actually gain yardage and present a threat in the run game. I believe good run game drastically increases play action effectiveness, but very few teams have a good run game. And unless you can isolate your graphs so show predominately dominant run teams only, then you're trying to reach a conclusion with severely flawed math.

That would be like measuring the vitamin C in oranges by doing a study on all fruits and vegetables and trying to present the median as the correct value. A six month old baby knows that an orange is different from a green bean.

Miami's first drive this week was easy since the defense knew they couldn't handle our ground game. And once they adjusted to bring more in the box, it led to a very easy TD pass. If LA hadn't adjusted though we would have kept running it down their throats- how is that not common sense? If the linebackers step up to defend the run, then you'll have more passing lanes over the middle. That doesn't happen though until you demonstrate that you can run the ball effectively.

Here's another angle- why do they pull McMillian out on obvious passing downs? And how do they know they're obvious passing downs to begin with? And what happens when McMillian is on the field on passing downs matched up against a slot receiver? This line of questioning should show the MASSIVE FLAW in the logic you're trying to pass as true.

"KeyFin wrote:

Here's my problem with that....and it's a big one. If you lump together every run attempt since 1978 then OF COURSE you're going to see dismal returns. The whole point of running the football isn't to say, "Look we ran it a few times so we can throw a pass now," it's to actually gain yardage and present a threat in the run game. I believe good run game drastically increases play action effectiveness, but very few teams have a good run game. And unless you can isolate your graphs so show predominately dominant run teams only, then you're trying to reach a conclusion with severely flawed math.

That's easy to answer. Just compute the partial correlation between rushing attempts and passing Y/A controlling for rushing Y/C.

That partial correlation from 1978 is 0.1474 which if you notice is very slightly less (within margin of error though) than the 0.1724 when you don't control for rushing Y/C. So the effect of allowing differences in rushing Y/C to affect the result change the correlation by only the tiniest amounts (0.1724 > 0.1474), well within the margin of error.

"cbrad wrote:

That's easy to answer. Just compute the partial correlation between rushing attempts and passing Y/A controlling for rushing Y/C.

That partial correlation from 1978 is 0.1474 which if you notice is very slightly less (within margin of error though) than the 0.1724 when you don't control for rushing Y/C. So the effect of allowing differences in rushing Y/C to affect the result change the correlation by only the tiniest amounts (0.1724 > 0.1474), well within the margin of error.

Again supporting the notion that the quarterback drives the bus on offensive functioning in the NFL.

"The Guy wrote:

And his passer rating during that half was over 120, so you either have to attribute his improved performance, as measured by his passer rating, to the better functioning of his surroundings during that period of time, or you have the stop attributing his performance, good or bad, to his surroundings at all. You can’t have it both ways.

You can’t believe his surroundings function like a ball and chain on him when he plays poorly, and then suddenly believe that when he plays well it’s due exclusively to him, even though his surroundings are just as poor.

I agree with this 100% and it's really the only three ways you can look at it.

Edit: Meant two ways..what the hell phone?

"cbrad wrote:

That's easy to answer. Just compute the partial correlation between rushing attempts and passing Y/A controlling for rushing Y/C.

That partial correlation from 1978 is 0.1474 which if you notice is very slightly less (within margin of error though) than the 0.1724 when you don't control for rushing Y/C. So the effect of allowing differences in rushing Y/C to affect the result change the correlation by only the tiniest amounts (0.1724 > 0.1474), well within the margin of error.

Again though, you're talking about margins across every team- others are talking about specific teams in specific years that ran the ball effectively. Philly was a recent example with their high-scoring offense and it earned them a Super Bowl.

What I'm saying is, you can't solve a specific problem with generalized data. We're not trying to measure the league-wide effectiveness of running the ball- we're trying to measure how good running teams fare when they choose to pass. Do their QB's face the same levels of pressure? Do their completion percentages or average pass distance vary from league averages? Do they tend to score more or less points than the average team? That's where the actual data is that would answer this question.

For instance, last season the Ravens rushed for 205.8 yards per game to lead the league. The Ravens also tied with he Chiefs for most points per game even though they were 7th overall in passing (Chiefs were 1st overall passing, 20th rushing). That's two completely different offenses with the same end result, so I'm not sure how you can twist this to say running isn't effective and/or doesn't benefit passing. Mahommes was elite last season and the only reason they hung with the Ravens to begin with.

Who was the worst rushing last season? The Bengals, Skins and Dolphins- three lousy teams. Who was the best? The Ravens, 49ers, Vikings, Bills and Cowboys....three of five won their division.

"The Guy wrote:

Go talk to a Seattle Seahawks fan about how Russell Wilson has overcome their perennially poor offensive line with his individual ability.

Then go be a Seattle Seahawks fan. You always have a “yea, but” reply to everything instead of discussing the merits of a point someone makes.

It’s obnoxious and getting flat out annoying