Let me ask you this: Do you think field goal percentage correlates higher with winning than TD/INT ratio? This isn't to absolve Carpenter of blame or place more on Tannehill. It's just an honest question to anyone who thinks Carpenter is more to blame than the turnovers.
Well at least you started this thread and not me. I'm not sure I've figured it out yet, but there's some reason why this team scored only 21 points despite amassing all those passing yards and having a turnover margin of only -2.
You're saying that if the INT/TD ratio today were 3/2 we would have won. I agree. But it wasn't. And we didn't. So, respectfully, I don't see what the point is.
Don't misinterpret my intentions of starting the thread. Ryan Tannehill is the starting quarterback and deserves to be. I'm just trying to put things in perspective for everyone that is trying to blame the loss on a missed field goal.
Let me answer with this. I'm talking about these last two games. Not a giant collaboration of NFL-wide game stats thrown together. These last 2 games td/int ratio means nothing to me. If the kicks were good, the wins were good. No matter how good or bad tanny or anyone else played in retrospect.
The point is that in the TD to INT ratio of Tannehill, the problem are not the INTs, but the TDs. If the talent was there, there would be more TDs and different ratio. His INTs are not bad throws derived off bad decisions. They have been unlucky and flukesy plays. His INTs are by no means positive, but the lack of talent for him to work with is what is costing us wins.
And I think he should be the starter as well, and I've said so from the beginning, but he's still a rookie.
The TD:INT is pretty cosmetic at this point in regards to Tannehill. The team isn't doing poorly in the red zone. His TD ratio has been artificially ******ed because of a really good running game and really good short-yardage play from Jorvorskie Lane. His interception rate is pretty artificially inflated too. He's had bad luck on some of those plays. He got bailed out with Adrian Wilson this week, but I don't think you can really claim more than two or three were bad decisions/throws, and that's including Naanee limp-dicking it vs. the Texans. Tipped passes are on him, but 2 of 5 being interceptions is bad luck. I think the most I've seen in a season was Ryan Fitzpatrick having 23 tipped passes and he only had I believe two interceptions.
That right there is the main point. TO are gonna come. Whether from bad luck, bad play, or good play from the opposition. You still have a chance to overcome them with talent. This team, as it is, does not have enough talent.
Yes and he therefore will make rookie mistakes which might cost the team in the short run. If all you are concerned with is the here and now, Tanneyhill is going to make you crazy this season. If on the other hand, it is the long term future you care about. Every thing Tanneyhill does this year, good and bad, will only benefit this team and him in the future. I am certainly willing to accept the bad with the good this season from Tanneyhill. Because my expectations are that there will be far more good than bad in the future, in regards to the play of Tanneyhill.
Look at the reasons why drives are ending. It's a variety of issues, from the interceptions, to running-game failures(Bush runs backwards, Thomas/Lane short yardage failures, Naanee "fumbling", etc).
But there's a very good reason that a "giant collaboration of NFL-wide stats" would demonstrate an almost perfect correlation between wins and losses with TD/INT ratio and that field goal percentage would probably be closer to 0 than 1. And that reason is really just common sense. When you compare what it means to the outcome of a game whether or not 3 points goes on the board or doesn't go on the board to what losing the turnover battle does to a teams chances of winning, it's obvious. Yes, when the field goal could have won the game, it makes it very easy to blame the kicker. And the kicker deserves blame for missing those field goals. It's what he is paid to do. But the point is, the turnovers are what put the team in the bad situation of needing to make a long kick to win the game in the first place. Ask yourself this: Would it have a stronger impact on our win loss record if the TD/INT ratio were 4/4 instead of 2/6 or would it mean more to Miami's win loss record if Carpenter makes 2 more field goals? Remember, you have to assume the games are in different situations because of the 2 additional TDs and 2 less turnovers.
No offense, cause I respect ya.. but I'm too drunk for this.... tl;dr will need to come back. Yea td-int matters obviously. Make the f***ING kicks and none of these threads are created. God I'm livid
Arizona's defense is pretty good. But once we get some WRs we''ll score 40 on teams who over play the run like they did today.
None taken. I don't think we really disagree all that much. I blame the kicker for missing kicks too. I'm just placing more blame on the TD/INT and generally the turnovers. I'm livid too. Losing sucks.
Do you have the link to a site that gives number of tipped passes and the number of the tips that get picked off?
Those ints were definitely badly timed. But like most I have to say our short yardage play and interceptions out of hills control really mess with those numbers...........................Please make the f***ING kicks...
Actually Tannehill has 3TDs not 2. He rushed for one the the Oakland game. I know this isn't about Tannehill, but if you are talking TD/INT ratio, why wouldn't you include all the TDs that he has attributed to him.
3 of his INTs were from either tips at the line or him getting hit while throwing, and a 4th from a WR who slipped after Tannehill released the ball. When looking what went into them, the number is less concerning.
I'm sorry but if you're blaming this loss on Dan Carpenter missing a 51 yard field goal then you need your head examined. We lost this game because we couldn't finish as a team. Same story as last week.
if you think last OT loss against the jets wasnt solely from the missed kick in OT or during regulation, both being very kickable, you are blind. you can spin that wheel any way you want. say any person or group should have played better. either one of those kicks go in, that game was over (REGARDLESS OF ANYONE ELSES PLAY UP TO THAT POINT.). and yes. they should have. thats what he gets paid for and has done much more difficult tasks. you cant cut him any slack, sorry. No need to only 'finish as a team' if your kicker gives you the W and you get to review what went wrong sitting on a positive season record
The Houston game was because of TOs. The Jets game was not. The TOs happened and we still missed two kicks that would have won guaranteed. If we missed the kicks and didn't have the TOs we still may have lost.
When a team loses the turnover battle, winning is extremely rare. Unless I'm mistaken, Miami lost the turnover battle in 3 out of 4 games. And they are 1-3. It's not a coincidence.
since the very beginning I have been in favor of Tannehill, never had a doubt Ryan Tannehill will eclipse any & all QB's Miami has sported over the years Tannehill ! Ryan is the real deal & our new franchise QB, he will reign over a decade of NFL dominance
You're speaking in a vacuum. The Jets loss was not because of TOs. That is a fact. A made kick wins the game on the spot, right then and there. If the TOs don't happen we still could have lost.
You're saying the pick 6 in a game where the Jets offense was struggling to put points on the board has a smaller impact than a missed field goal? If that doesn't happen the likelihood Miami needs a late long field goal kick is minimal. Yes the kick could have won the game, but you're completely failing to account for why Miami was in that position to begin with. It's a testament to the team that they were in a position to win despite the turnovers. If anyone is looking at this in a vacuum it's you and anybody else who is putting more emphasis on missed kicks instead of what factors led to the team needing a field goal to win the game instead of being in a position to run out the clock with a lead.
No its not about perspective. We don't know what would've happened without the pick 6. We have no idea. I do no for an indisputable fact, the kick wins the game. There's no point in anyone arguing this.
You are wrong and I demand the use of your crystal ball so I can get the lotto numbers. Mistakes happen in every game by every team. A kick that would have won the game right then and there is one of the few you can point to. Everything else is speculation.
Nobody is arguing the fact that if the kick is made the game is one. I'm saying turnovers, especially pick 6's, have a much bigger impact on games than missed field goals. You're putting more weight on the kick because of when it happened. There's really no point in arguing pick 6s have a more negative impact on a games outcome than missed field goals. Do I really need to crunch the numbers? Do you need to see the almost perfect correlation for turnover ratio vs. the nearly 0 correlation for field goal percentage? I can do it if that's what it will take.
Oh and Fin D, you know coach Philbin? That guy you and I both really like? From his mouth directly - You all can keep disagreeing with me all you want, just know you're also disagreeing with the head coach.
Sigh. No one is arguing that turnovers aren't important overall. No one. All I am saying is that in the Jets game, turnovers were not our problem.
They were every bit if not more the problem in that game as they were in this. In that game one of them resulted in an at least a 7 point swing.
I guess you may have missed my asking this before, so I'll ask again. Do you have a link to a web site that supplies this info?
That makes no sense. None. With the TOs, we still could have won. How is this not making sense to you?
Without the TOs Miami is never in a position to need to make the kick. How is that not making sense to you? You're looking at one play at the end of a football game with zero regard to what happened to put the team in that situation. And you accuse me of looking at things in a vacuum. Comical.
