And that's certainly a plausible explanation, but again, that means that longer-developing plays in the NFL aren't necessarily a good thing, which is where we started with this. If "your line can block that long," as you said in your final sentence, were anything common, then there would be more than a mere four quarterbacks in the league who improved on throws after 2.5 seconds, and that improvement would be by a magnitude that's closer to the magnitude of the decrease in performance we see from the other 23 QBs in the league. In other words, the evidence is fairly clear that striving for "longer-developing plays" in the NFL generally isn't a good thing.
And generally speaking, he isn't. But that doesn't mean those other parts of the team "don't matter and have no value."
But, we did have a solid run game... Lamar Miller ran for over 1000 and averaged 5.1 YPC while doing it.
And Tannehill had his best season yet. That being said, I like Miller, but I don't see him as a game-changing back.
Same, I want Melvin Gordon, that would take A LOT of pressure off everyone on the offense. However, that still doesn't take away the fact that Miller had a solid year. I can't remember the last time we had a RB get a 5.1 YPC average in a season.
Tannehill's individual performance doesn't covary with that of the running game, however, and so that's an illusory correlation. Also, there are few game-changing backs in the league, and rather than look for something game-changing from the team's starting running back, in my opinion the emphasis should be on whether his success rate puts the offense in more manageable down-and-distance situations. Miller's performance in that regard in 2014 was actually #1 in the league.
wait, you have stats that say that we did very well on first down? And have really favorable down and distances on 2nd and 3rd down?
What we have is the fact that Miller was #1 in the league in success rate, as shown here: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/rb He was also #4 in the league in DVOA, so in essence he was one of best running backs in the league when you consider the following: Miller had both a high DVOA and a high success rate, and so he mixed long runs with getting yards the offense needed to make drives more likely to be sustained.
Sure, so your stats say. However, Miller had his best season, and Tannehill had his best season. You can say they don't covary on a game by game basis, but it covaried on the season. Of course, I knew you would say it didn't matter in regards to Tannehill's play, which was why I made that comment back to Shame.
So for the sake of a hypothetical argument in which we proceed with the belief that one of those things actually did cause the other, how do we know Miller's improvement wasn't caused by Tannehill's?
Low numbers against strong defenses, great stats against the worst defenses. It's a real head-scratcher.
And this is why when you look at stats that adjust for the strength of opposing defenses, you come up with about an average standing: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/qb
Did Albert play the first three games of the season? The level of competition was much higher for that duration...hence Tannehill struggled. It's not hard to figure out why he played way better agains Oak, Chicago, and Jax than he did against NE, KC, and Buf. I mean...really.
A good defense is usually good because it generates a pass rush, all of these things are intertwined and track back to inconsistent and bad OL play which is almost always going to effect your QBs performance. Why are we trying to complicate things yet again with skewed numbers that do not tell the true story.
I don't see why...he struggled in the first few games under a brand new system, but got it together and played very well the rest of the season overall. Even his "struggles" in the first few games would've been massively mitigated but for the horrendous droppage that was going on. The Buffalo game was VERY winnable if not for drops and ST failures, even with Moreno going down. His worse game, to me, was the Jax game, primarily the first half. And just go back and look at all the jailbreaks given up by the line in that half...
^^^This^^^ (But they will continue to claim that is when he figured out "the system" instead of simply seeing he was playing horrible Defenses)
For your point to have merit, it would have to be the case that offensive line play is more strongly related to success against good defenses than is individual QB play. Is that the case? Do you really think that success against good defenses is more a function of offensive line play than it is a function of QB play?
You are overthinking yourself, again. What helps make these defenses "good" generally has a lot to do with pass rush A bad OL can make those average pass rushers good, and the good ones great A QB (unless you are Russel Wilson ) is going to play worse when pressured more often These are basic things that are either confusing you, or you are simply hell bent to believe numbers don't lie. I can appreciate your strong feelings on statistical data, but that's better served in sports like baseball.
This is real simple. If the line didn't affect his play, then it stands to reason you can have no offensive line at all and still produce the same. Now, if that's just not true (which of course is not true), then that means the varying ability of an offensive line and its members affect QB play. You cannot say the line didn't affect his play AND turn around and say you need an offensive line. That's saying they aren't important, but they are important....which is asinine.
In terms of what's bolded above, there was only a -0.39 correlation between frequency of pressure and QB rating among QBs in 2014, meaning that 85% of what drives QB ratings has nothing to do with QB pressure. It seems you have a fundamental assumption about how the game works that isn't supported very strongly by the actual data.
So you are saying that QB play has very little to do with how good or bad his protection is? I really think you need a new hobby other than googling stats about a team game...you sound ridiculous....again.
This is what I've been getting at. If the oline had such a small affect on QB play, so as be considered negligible, and not meriting consideration, then we should just go with the cheapest possible options at oline, and sink the extra resources into other areas.
fixing the oline and getting a good running back sure worked for romo and dallas. a .500 team all of a sudden 1 controversial call away from the NFC championship game in a one year span.....
If you look at the teams our offense struggled against in 2014 you'll see Buffalo, NY, KC, Baltimore, GB, teams with good DL play and/or multiple edge rushers. You'll also see that we spent a ton of $$$ on Albert and a 1st round pick on James. It's really not that complicated.
We need a very good oline for this Qb, so let's go for it...one nice free agent signing should do it.
He needs a great line? I think an oline that lets up less than 100 sacks in two years would be enough for "this" qb.
That amount of variation (no offensive line at all) doesn't exist in the league, however, and so the proposition is meaningless. What we're talking about is the amount of variation that does exist in the league, which is comprised of the various offensive lines that actually exist. The question isn't whether no offensive line versus an offensive line has an effect on QBs' performance, but rather whether the actual variation that exists among offensive lines in the league does.
yes he needs a very good oline to be successful..if he's gonna play the style of game he does, then we must prioritize the oline, cause there's no interest in anything but being a pocket passer, so we must be an excellent pass protecting team or the end result will look the same as it has been.
There is a big difference between our line, and say the cowboys line. Tannehill would absolutly be a better player behind a better offensive line. I dont even see how you can say he wouldnt be
Our oline sucked this year, but he was still successful, so... I do agree with prioritizing the oline though. He would be better with a good oline, but hes at least decent with a horrid one.
And almost all offenses do comparatively worse against those teams, which is essentially why we're able to call them good defenses. The question is, what variables on opposing offenses are driving the bus when those defenses are played against comparatively better? If it were the offensive line, what you'd find is that comparatively poorer QBs with better offensive lines would play better against those teams than comparatively better QBs with poorer offensive lines. That isn't the case, however. Performance against those teams is driven by QB play, primarily.
I'm trying to win multiple championships, and figuring out what's the best path to get there, knowing what we know about our qb, strengths, weaknesses, I would say good pass protecting olineman should be high on the list of priorities..am I telling you something you don't know?
Hes saying there isnt enough varation amongst the olines in the nfl to affect a qbs performance. At least thats what i took it as.
