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

How much does a QB contribute to winning?

Discussion in 'Miami Dolphins Forum' started by Pauly, Aug 5, 2016.

  1. Pauly

    Pauly Season Ticket Holder

    3,696
    3,743
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    How much is the QB responsible for the team’s record.

    The first thing I want to mention is that on my first cut of the numbers I didn’t find any useful difference between yards/attempt, adjusted yards/attempt or the NFL passer rating, so I will be using the passer rating for this analysis.

    Firstly I looked at all team’s passer ratings over the last 10 years and correlated this to their win%. Over the last 10 years the correlation is 0.674
    Secondly I looked at each team’s defensive passer rating allowed and how it correlated to win%. Over the last 10 years the correlation has been -0.480.

    Without doing the analysis myself, but others have found a low correlation between rushing and win%. (http://blog.minitab.com/blog/the-st...ball-doesnt-cause-you-to-win-games-in-the-nfl , http://www.bleedinggreennation.com/...hing-numbers-under-further-review-part-iii-iv) There is some correlation between rushing attempts and rushing first downs per game and win%, but most of the variance between winners and losers happens in the 4th quarter when teams with a lead are rushing to chew up the clock. Fumbles and fumble rates also have correlation to win% (treated separately because interceptions are captured in the passer rating)

    Short summary, The efficiency of your own passing is the most important factor in determining a team’s win%, followed by passer rating allowed. Rushing efficiency has close to zero correlation with win% and rushing volume stats are determined more by being in a winning or losing position rather than causing winning or losing.

    *PS a big thank you to cbrad who has helped a lot with statistical analysis on previous threads.
     
    Bumrush and Finster like this.
  2. Pauly

    Pauly Season Ticket Holder

    3,696
    3,743
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    How much does the QB contribute.

    In statistics there is a tool called ‘variance explained’. This says that up to ([correlation]^2) can be explained by the variable. For example if you have a correlation of .500 then [(0.5)^2]% - 25% - can be explained by the variable.

    To calculate how much the QB is responsible for it you get [QB’% of passer rating] x variance explained by passer rating, Then you would need to make a small adjustment for factors not captured in the passer rating such as QB run and, QB fumbles

    So, over the last 10 years, [0.674^2] – 45.4% of the variance in a team’s win% can be the team passer rating.

    LOW: If a QB is 25% responsible for the passer rating (majority of credit belongs to non-QB factors such as receivers, OL, playcalling then a QB is responsible for up to about 12.5% of teams W/L record,
    MIDDLE: If a QB is 50% responsible for the passer rating (credit is split equally between the QB and non-QB factors such as receivers, OL, playcalling) then a QB is responsible for up t0 25% of teams W/L record
    HIGH: If a QB is 75% responsible for the passer rating (majority of credit belongs to the QB rather than factors such as receivers, OL, playcalling) then a QB is responsible for up to 35% of teams W/L reord

    Then I looked at the differences between team passer rating and team passer rating allowed. Obviously both of these have the same average, but team passer rating has a standard deviation of 12.1 and passer rating allowed has a standard deviation of 9.8 What this tells us is that team passer rating is more volatile and variable than passer rating allowed. I believe this is explained by the fact that team passer rating is strongly influenced by one key individual’s performance rather than being the aggregate of many parts. Therefore the LOW range from above can safely be discarded.

    Conclusion.
    A team’s QB is responsible for between 25% and 35% of its win total. Another way to say it is that if you have an average 8-8 team, a very bad QB can be expected to drag it down to 6-10 or 5-11 and a great QB can be expected to lift it up to 10-6 or 11-5.

    This assumes expected wins in a normal NFL season. Firstly teams will have different expected wins to actual wins, no matter the model used. It is also important to note that there is some variance in year to year statistics.
    Correlation of passer rating/passing rating allowed to win% in the last 10 years.
    2015 0.461/-0.767
    2014 0.629/-0.604
    2013 0.673/-0.521
    2012 0.685/-0.520
    2011 0.770/-0.515
    2010 0.653/-0.480
    2009 0.786/-0.453
    2008 0.529/-0.628
    2007 0.745/-0.449
    2006 0.555/-0.538
    Average 0.674/-0.480

    So while we can say on average over the last 10 years a QB is responsible for between 25 and 35% of a teams win total, that number may go up or down depending on the variance of an individual year.
     
  3. Pauly

    Pauly Season Ticket Holder

    3,696
    3,743
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    This leads to another question. If team passer rating and team passer rating allowed are so important and rushing is statistically unimportant, why rush at all?
    This has been something that annoys me about some stat sites, Football Outsiders is one culprit but by no means the only one. Often they will say something like “play action passing is more effective than passing without playaction”. However they compare all play action passes to all other passes without controlling for down and distance, or other game situations.
    Firstly comparing yards/carry, passer rating. And rush/pass split

    NFL AVERAGE: 4.1 ypc; 88.4;
    40.9/59.1%

    1st and 10: 4.2 ypc; 85.6
    50.2/49.8%
    1st and 10+: 4.4 ypc; 84.7
    36.2/63.8%

    2nd and 1-4: 3.5 ypc; 112.3
    61.6/38.4%
    2nd and 10+: 4.4 ypc ; 89.4
    33.3/66.7%

    3rd and 1-4: 3.5ypc; 98.0
    43.3/56.7%
    3rd and 10+: 5.4yps; 77.4
    14.4/85.6%

    Basically what you see is that in situations where a rush is expected ypc goes down and passer rating goes up and vice versa. The only exceptions is 2nd and long.

    If we look at splits by snap type.
    Shotgun: 4.9 ypc; 85.8
    23.6/76.4%
    Under Center: 3.7 ypc, 95.5

    Again where the defense predicts run there is lower ypc and higher passer rating and in passing situation there is a higher ypc and a lower rushing average

    Looking at splits by game win probability
    0-19%: 4.0 ypc; 65.1 (4.1% interception rate)
    27.7/72.3%
    20-39%: 4.0 ypc; 76.4 (2.8% interception rate)
    39.0/61.0%
    40-59%: 4.0 ypc; 87.1 (1.7% interception rate)
    40.7/59.3%
    60-79%; 4.3 ypc; 101.2 (1.5% interception rate)
    42.6%/57.4%
    80-99%: 4.2 ypc; 120.0 (1.0% interception rate)
    53.8/46.2%

    In this case rushing efficiency doesn’t change significantly. But as passing becomes more predictable defenses are able to shot down opposing passers. It is very interesting to me that nearly half of the total NFL interceptions are recorded (225 of 457) occurred when the win probability was below 20% anyway. Which makes me think that interceptions are more likely to be a symptom of losing, rather than a cause of losing.

    Looking at splits by score differential
    Leading 3.9ypc; 92.1
    50.3/49.7%
    Tied 4.1ypc; 90.0
    43.2/56.8%
    Trailing 4.3ypc/84.7
    32.9/67.1%
    Again we see the same pattern, as passes become more predictable, defenses get better at defending passes.

    Conclusion
    The rushing game is only important in how it opens up the passing game. On the offense your goal is to get the defender to commit to the run sufficiently so that it can open up the passing lanes, but there is no significant benefit to being great at rushing. Abandoning the run will allow opposing defenses to set their most efficient pass defenses and will lower your passing efficiency. I strongly believe this is something we saw with Ryan Tannehill last year.

    For defense you only want to commit enough resources to slow down the run to the point where passing becomes predictable. We saw in Vance Johnson’s over the last 2 seasons enough instances where teams forced us to play a safety in the box and then took the top off the defense.
     
    Finster and resnor like this.
  4. dirtylandry

    dirtylandry Well-Known Member

    4,214
    1,750
    113
    Aug 2, 2015
    this is a qb league - period. The key to longevity of success of a team is the consistency at qb. other units could struggle, but the qb can mask it. we had marino for 17 years, the formula works
     
    dolphin25, Finster and Fin-O like this.
  5. Lloyd Heilbrunn

    Lloyd Heilbrunn Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    9,580
    17,701
    113
    Sep 13, 2011
    Jupiter, Fl.
    I was told there would be no math. :)
     
    Surfs Up 99 and dolphin25 like this.
  6. Pauly

    Pauly Season Ticket Holder

    3,696
    3,743
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    Well, sucks to be you doesn't it :tongue2:
     
  7. dirtylandry

    dirtylandry Well-Known Member

    4,214
    1,750
    113
    Aug 2, 2015
    LOL. Here is some math:

    Good QB+ Good Coach= SB's
     
    Surfs Up 99 and dolphin25 like this.
  8. LI phinfan

    LI phinfan Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    1,846
    1,771
    113
    Nov 6, 2013
    WADR. 17 seasons. Marino + Shula = 1 Super bowl...its not that simple
     
    number21, rafael, resnor and 2 others like this.
  9. Finster

    Finster Finsterious Finologist

    3,087
    2,038
    113
    Jul 27, 2013
    Shula had lost it early on in Dan's career, the Fins had the same problems throughout the Dan/Shula era, nothing ever got fixed.
     
    dolphin25 likes this.
  10. Pauly

    Pauly Season Ticket Holder

    3,696
    3,743
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    I pulled out the playoff teams
    When converted to 2015 base the average passer of the NFL of the last 10 years is 90.01

    Average playoff team passer rating: 98.43
    Average playoff team passer rating allowed: 85.77

    When combined with the data posted before about the run game.

    What I would say the recipe for sustained playoff success is:
    Good to great passing offense.
    Solid run game. You don't need to be good, but your run game should be strong enough not to get stuffed and abandoned. A good running game is a cherry on top, but the rest of the cake needs to be built first.

    Good pass defense. If the choice is between upgrading a good pass offense and upgrading a good pass defense you should upgrade the offense.
    Stout run defense. By this I mean your front 7 can handle run stopping duties effectively enough, and you should never be forced into putting 8 in the box to stop the run. Being good or great at stopping the run is a nice bonus but should never be the goal.

    This isn't the only path to a superbowl win, but statistically it seems the most reliable.

    Which, I hate to say, is basically what Bill Belichek has been doing since he got Brady.
     
  11. MonstBlitz

    MonstBlitz Nobody's Fart Catcher

    21,176
    10,130
    113
    Jan 14, 2008
    Hornell, NY
  12. Unlucky 13

    Unlucky 13 Team Raheem Club Member

    51,930
    63,008
    113
    Apr 24, 2012
    Troy, Virginia
    Pauly, thanks for all of that work. Great job, man. :knucks:

    My own take is that I totally believe this quote:

    Beyond that, there's so much grey area between the rest of the players on the offense, the coaching, the defense and ST, that stats can't really tell the story in every case.
     
    Surfs Up 99 likes this.
  13. Finster

    Finster Finsterious Finologist

    3,087
    2,038
    113
    Jul 27, 2013
    Great job with all this Pauly!

    It is without a doubt a changed league from the pre 2000s, but some thing remain the same, success in this league is best gotten by having a good overall D, and a good QB.

    One of these things that has, and probably always will be the same is, having a good overall D, weakness vs either the run or the pass will usually get you gone from the playoffs, but as Pauly stated, being good vs the pass is more important, especially during the regular season.

    Down the stretch and in the playoffs the run does become more important due to weather factors, both on D and O, but more so on D. If you have a dynamic passing game that can cover run deficiencies on O, but having a weakness vs the run on D can be exploited, even if you have great pass D.
     
  14. Sceeto

    Sceeto Well-Known Member

    13,501
    6,246
    113
    Oct 13, 2008
    New York
    A lot.
     
  15. dolphin25

    dolphin25 Well-Known Member

    6,338
    2,400
    113
    Nov 22, 2014
    and talk about no running game, WR not the best, and defense that at times flat out sucked.
     
    Finster likes this.
  16. rafael

    rafael Well-Known Member

    27,364
    31,261
    113
    Apr 6, 2008
    Shula was still a great head coach. He just wasn't a great GM. The problems went beyond the QB and coach. We still had two of the best of all time and it wasn't enough by itself. Reality is it's not as simple as great QB and great coach.
     
  17. roy_miami

    roy_miami Well-Known Member

    1,385
    560
    113
    Oct 11, 2013
    Football Outsiders breaks up offense and defense to pass and run.

    New England:
    2015
    pass offense 4th
    run offense 12th
    pass defense 15th
    run defense 10th
    2014
    pass offense 5th
    run offense 14th
    pass defense 12th
    run defense 13th
    2013
    pass offense 6th
    run offense 6th
    pass defense 14th
    run defense 27th
    2012
    pass offense 1st
    run offense 4th
    pass defense 23rd
    run defense 6th
    2011
    pass offense 2nd
    run offense 4th
    pass defense 28th
    run defense 25th

    So for the team that has dominated the AFC East and the NFL the common denominator is the pass offense always ranks top 10 and has consistently been the most efficient aspect of the team.

    Seattle
    2015
    pass offense 2nd
    run offense 3rd
    pass defense 3rd
    run defense 3rd
    2014
    pass offense 10th
    run offense 1st
    pass defense 3rd
    run defense 2nd
    2013
    pass offense 8th
    run offense 7th
    pass defense 1st
    run defense 7th
    2012
    pass offense 4th
    run offense 1st
    pass defense 3rd
    run defense 12th

    Cincy
    2015
    pass offense 1st
    run offense 7th
    pass defense 10th
    run defense 8th
    2014
    pass offense 20th
    run offense 10th
    pass defense 7th
    run defense 28th
    2013
    pass offense 12th
    run offense 20th
    pass defense 4th
    run defense 13th
    2012
    pass offense 19th
    run offense 14th
    pass defense 9th
    run defense 23rd

    Miami
    2015
    pass offense 24th
    run offense 13th
    pass defense 29th
    run defense 20th
    2014
    pass offense 11th
    run offense 2nd
    pass defense 16th
    run defense 18th
    2013
    pass offense 20th
    run offense 18th
    pass defense 12th
    run defense 29th
    2012
    pass offense 23rd
    run offense 23rd
    pass defense 17th
    run defense 8th
     
  18. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    This argument is illogical. Two reasons why:

    1) Team passer rating and passer rating allowed are both passer ratings and both involve the QB equally (it's not like you took the QB out in one case). Because the QB is equally involved in both stats, there is no logical way to infer from the differences in standard deviations in the two conditions what percent of passer rating is due to the QB.

    2) So.. why do we get different standard deviations? Better question is why do you expect them to be the same. Team passer rating is a measure of offensive ability while team passer rating allowed is a measure of defensive ability. No a priori reason for the variance in the two to be the same given neither perfectly measures offensive or defensive performance. So the data is what it is but it tells you nothing about how much the QB contributed to the final outcome.


    In any case, like I said before in the other thread, stats are not very useful in determining what percent of passer rating is due to the QB. There is definitely SOME insight from stats like the ability to place a ceiling on what that percent is (and of course even then it's only an average), but in general you have to go the subjective route and use your observational skills. For me, 25% is WAY too high. Assuming offense is at most 50% of total, that 25% means coaches, OL, WR, RB, etc.. contribute at MOST 50% of offense?? Yeah.. that just devalues the surrounding cast too much. Like I said.. I'm more around that 15% level for the QB, so the surrounding cast is at around 65-70% of offense for me.

    Anyway, whatever one thinks is a good estimate, there's no valid statistical argument here.
     
  19. Pauly

    Pauly Season Ticket Holder

    3,696
    3,743
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    Just to go back to some other points.People often point to turnover differential as being a cause of winning or losing.

    We saw that half the interceptions in the NFL occur in when the game win probability is less than 20% i.e. being in a losing situation causes nearly half the interceptions in the NFL, presumably because the QBs are trying higher risk passes and/or defenses are cued for pass defense. Conversely QBs in a winning position throw almost no interceptions, presumably because of risk aversion and defenses geared for run defense.
    In the mess of the deflategate spreads someone posted a link that showed there was a similar link between fumbles forced and game win percentage, although not as dramatic as with interceptions.

    What I would say is that winning tends to causes a positive turnover differential and losing tends to cause a negative differential.
    NOT the differential causes the winning or losing
     
  20. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Posted these plots before, but it's worth hammering the message home. What matters efficiency-wise for playoff teams (green circles) and SB champions (red circles) from 2002 to 2014 are passing Y/A and opponent passing Y/A, with run Y/A and opponent run Y/A hardly mattering:

    https://i.imgsafe.org/6966cd9c54.png
    https://i.imgsafe.org/6967fe1400.png

    https://i.imgsafe.org/6963d4e51c.png
    https://i.imgsafe.org/6965114254.png

    Note how the green circles are mostly above the mean (blue diamond) for offensive passing Y/A and mostly below for defensive passing Y/A, but they hover around the mean for run efficiency.
     
    Stringer Bell likes this.
  21. Pauly

    Pauly Season Ticket Holder

    3,696
    3,743
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    Cbrad,

    This is where it gets to opinion.

    The reason I come to the conclusion is because of the difference in the standard deviation of team's offensive and defensive passer rating allowed.

    What is another explanation for variance in standard deviations between offence and defense?

    I believe this is due to a higher variance in one key element. For me the QB. Although more accurately it is QB performance, which can be influenced strongly by coaching,play design and playcalling too.
     
  22. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Yeah you're not getting the argument I was making. You are looking at the SAME set of games in both conditions. All "team passer rating" and "opponent passer rating" do is group those passer ratings (games) differently. In one case you group by the team's offense and in the other case by the team's defense. But they are the same set of data grouped differently, meaning the QB is contributing EQUAL amounts to both data sets.

    That's actually not opinion but fact.


    All your stat is saying (and it's actually worthwhile to note) is that on average when you take a given team offense, its performance will vary more when it plays different defenses than when you take the same defense and let it play different offenses, at least when measured by passer rating.

    If that somehow doesn't make sense, let's try a toy example. 4 teams exist: A, B, C and D, and we'll assume the defenses are ranked A>B>C>D. Specifically, assume that defense A gives up a rating of 50 on average, B gives up 70, C gives up 90 and D gives up 110. OK, now let's just suppose there's no variation when you group passer ratings by defense. That is no matter who plays A, they get passer rating 50.. no matter who plays B they get passer rating 70, etc..

    So standard deviation for each team is zero when you group by defense.

    Group by offense and the standard deviation is large (certainly positive). Offense of A will play B and get 70, play C and get 90 and play D and get 110, giving you a standard deviation of 20, etc..

    Point is, by grouping the SAME numbers differently you can get different standard deviations. Nothing magical going on here. And of course the same principle applies when you take means and then look at standard deviations (so instead of doing this game by game, you do season by season, etc..).
     
  23. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Although running the ball may not correlate to winning, it has to matter somehow, even if not shown statistically. Otherwise, why would teams bother to run the ball?

    Or is it simply the threat of running? In other words doesn't really matter if you average 2 ypc, you still need to run the ball a decent amount, to keep the defense honest? But, then, if THAT were true, why would any team pay running backs over the minimum? And why would ANY backs be drafted in the first round, or at all?

    There has to be something that just isn't shown with statistics.
     
  24. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    I explained that in the other thread, but let me do so again because the question is really important.

    Pass efficiency not correlating much to run efficiency, or run efficiency not correlating much to winning, simply means that in the conditions in which we are measuring these efficiencies (i.e. NFL team passing and run offenses), improving one doesn't directly help improve the other that much. That's a useful result that comes from stats because it seems to run counter to what most people believe.

    Well.. actually what stats say and what most people believe aren't that far apart. All the stats are saying is that ONCE you are at NFL-level for passing and rushing offense, improvement in one doesn't help the other too much, or improvement in rushing offense doesn't help winning that much.

    However.. the absolute amount of influence rushing would have on passing (or winning) could be (and probably is) HUGE. That is.. if you replaced an NFL rushing game with a high school rushing game (note: NEVER happens in the NFL so it won't show in the correlation) you could get a massive effect. Point is.. NFL offenses are already so well calibrated in terms of run/pass balance and efficiency that you really can't improve these relationships too much, leading to a low correlation.
     
    resnor likes this.
  25. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Yeah...but what happens when the run pass balance isn't calibrated well? Like, for instance, last year. Is it reasonable to say that it's likely that the underutilized run game negatively affected the offense? Probably. The question is, how much?

    But there are people who will point to the lack of correlation of run game to winning as proof that the run game didn't negatively affect the offense last season.
     
  26. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    I think in those debates it's important to understand that rushing Y/A is an effect, not a cause. So playoff teams may have better passing efficiency but not better rushing efficiency compared to non-playoff teams, but that doesn't really tell you WHY they do. What it does tell you is that the desired effect IS better passing efficiency.

    It's in the WHY where there's real room for debate. I mean.. maybe their running game was the real reason the passing efficiency was better. Hypothetically, you could improve the running game, forcing the opposing defense to play the run more, leading to better passing efficiency. Or maybe greater passing efficiency was due to a better QB.

    And even for things that look like they are causes, like run/pass ratio, one has to keep in mind there are real costs and benefits due to game situations that will push that ratio one way or the other, meaning that while you can theoretically say run/pass ratio is a cause (OC decides he will run X% of the time), in practice game situation can dictate the play and thus that ratio.

    Point is.. in those debates you simply have to point out the stats are usually an effect, not a cause. Yes, the stats constrain hypotheses (not everything fits the data), but there's really a lot of room for debate as to why we are observing the numbers in question.
     
    Unlucky 13 likes this.
  27. Pauly

    Pauly Season Ticket Holder

    3,696
    3,743
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    If we go back to my post #3.

    What that showed was that in situations where the offenses ran at a higher % than average that there was an increase in pass efficiency. This was consistent across a wide range of situations. Down and distance, shotgun -v- under the center, win probability. There are some other game situations I looked at but didn't post about, for example leading -v- trailing, which havethe same trend.
    Basically NFL defenses are worse at defending the pass when they think a run is more likely

    The opposite is also true, wit one exception. In situations where teams pass at a higher rate than normal their passer efficiency goes down. The exception being 2nd and long, where I thnk a reasonable explanation is that the offense settle for a short completion short of the sticks.
    NFL defenses are more efficient at defending the pass when they expect a pass.

    Now this starts moving away from straight statistical analysis and more into a game theory analysis. A simple game theory analysis is that if you have to split your defensive resources between X or Y the more you concentrate on X the worse you get at Y.

    What the statistics show is that the efficiency gains/losses for passing is larger than the efficiency gains/losses in the run game. Again using game theory analysis this makes sense because when you defend the pass you are also defending against long runs, but when you are defending the run you are losing efficiency against long passes.
     
  28. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    I think it should be a relatively simply matter for you stat guys to compare pass efficiency (PA) to rushing attempts (RA), instead of rushing efficiency (RE).

    Its been shown that RE doesn't really correlate with winning or PE, BUT we know the run sets up the pass. So it would make sense to compare PE to RA and see if there's a compelling correlation.
     
    cbrad likes this.
  29. djphinfan

    djphinfan Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    111,651
    67,546
    113
    Dec 20, 2007
    How much is Ryan tannehill responsible for the offense being called out yesterday.?

    Does leadership from that position play a role in a juiceless performance.?
     
    resnor and Fin D like this.
  30. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

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

    Finally, a Thill criticism levied at the right time for the right reason.
     
    resnor likes this.
  31. pumpdogs

    pumpdogs Well-Known Member

    5,185
    2,907
    113
    Sep 22, 2009
    delaware
    I cant see this happening up in new england.Brady wouldn't allow it.
     
  32. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Yeah, agreed. If the offense is lacking "juice," at this point you have to levy criticism at your fifth year starting QB.
     
    Fin D likes this.
  33. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Hey, nice observation!

    From 2012-2015 the correlation between RA and PE is very steady at around 0.3 to 0.35, which as you predicted is higher than the correlation between PE and RE (that can range from near zero to 0.25 or so depending on the year).
     
    Fin D likes this.
  34. Fin-O

    Fin-O Initiated Club Member

    11,375
    11,392
    113
    Sep 28, 2015
    Ryan was 4-6 22 yds, other QBs had 1 completion each and the Rbs had a collective 2 yards rushing.

    Ryan wasn't the issue, the entire offense was.




    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  35. pumpdogs

    pumpdogs Well-Known Member

    5,185
    2,907
    113
    Sep 22, 2009
    delaware
    He is the Qb.He needs to lead them and not except lackluster effort.Like I said could you see this happening in new england?
     
  36. rafael

    rafael Well-Known Member

    27,364
    31,261
    113
    Apr 6, 2008
    Well I didn't watch the practice, but in general I would say yes. I'd like to have seen Tannehill being as pissed on the field as Gase was afterwards. Maybe he was, I don't know. I'd think Peyton would have lit into his offense in that situation. Maybe Peyton watched and if he did and Tannehill didn't try to light a fire then it would be a great learning opportunity for Tannehill.
     
    resnor likes this.
  37. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Hey.. following up on Fin-D's idea.. you know where there is a serious correlation? Passing attempts to rushing efficiency.

    Not surprised of course, but the strength of the relationship is surprising to me. From 2012-2015 the range is between -0.31 and -0.73 with a mean of -0.51, meaning the better your rushing efficiency the fewer pass attempts you have. I know correlation doesn't equal causation but the more plausible explanation here is of course RE => fewer PA, not the other way around.

    It's actually statistical evidence of the impact of Seattle's running game (always been high in efficiency) during Russel Wilson's time (says nothing about how good a QB Wilson is.. just why he has to throw less).
     
  38. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    But that's always been a thing. I mean if you get to third down and only need a yard or two because you ran the ball ball well in downs 1 and/or 2, then its easier to pass because not only do you not need less yards, but you, most importantly, have the defense where they have to guess. Are you gonna try and run for the 2 yards or pass? If you pass are you going deep if they sell out on stopping the run? It causes all kinds of pre snap problems for the defense.

    This is why we've been screaming for years, that when you don't run the ball (like last year) the defense has less to worry about. They know all they have to do is defend the pass. They also know that since our line is so bad, they can rush the passer with 4 or 5 guys leaving more players to defend the pass if we can actually get the ball out.

    Its at this point that a Russell Wilson separates himself. His Barry Sanders-esque scrambling ability keeps the defense from selling out against the pass like they can against Thill. But its thats ability that helps Wilson post the numbers he does passing. There's less d-players covering the pass because they need multiple guys spying Wilson in case he runs. Again, this happens because the defense doesn't know what the offense is gonna do...run (QB) or pass.

    All of this brings us back to Thill. This is why a few of us have been saying you need to give Thill tools to counter our **** oline. The defense knows what's gonna happen every play (pass) and they know our line is bad enough that they can disrupt the QB by penetrating the pocket with a minimal rush, so they can have a maximum of players to disrupt the pass on the receiver side of the play. The defense doesn't have to guess and can cover more space. So since you can't improve your oline in season, nor can you give Thill Wilson's legs, then you have to keep the defense on their toes by running the ball or letting Thill audible out of plays based on defensive looks.

    Everyone thinks we're making excuses, but we're really just making a common sense football strategy. The more you look into this the more you'll see it.
     
    resnor likes this.
  39. Fin-O

    Fin-O Initiated Club Member

    11,375
    11,392
    113
    Sep 28, 2015
    How do we know he didn't say things in the locker room? The old saying goes praise in public, chastise in private.

    And by the sounds of things the DL was dominating. Maybe Pouncey and Albert need to take the lead on that.

    I'm sure they have had similar experiences in NE and everywhere else. Gase is the HC Gase is calling the offense out in the media and that's what we need. His comments will piss off the offense creating more competition at a high-level.

    It's all as it should be.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  40. Stringer Bell

    Stringer Bell Post Hard, Post Often Club Member

    44,356
    22,480
    113
    Mar 22, 2008
    The benefit is visible statistically - there is a value to a running clock.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
     

Share This Page