The Jeff Ireland Discussion Thread

These people love me!!!!!

 

You also posted stats from inside the red zone.

Do the comparison for once. You always stop short of making it a thorough analysis. A cherry-pick here, a one-sided data collection there, never a thorough analysis.

Again, what I suspect you'll find is that what Hartline and Bess are doing inside the red zone (using your definition of plays that start at the 20 or better), in terms of receptions, yards, and TDs, isn't significantly different from the league norm at this point in the season.

 

And now, once again, make a comparison with the league norm in that regard.

Do you ever do a thorough analysis?

If what you posted above isn't significantly different from the league norm, it doesn't mean ****.

When you do these non-thorough analyses, you give the impression of not "really" wanting to find out whether you're incorrect. You gather just enough data to give the impression you're correct, without going far enough to convincingly show it.

 

I agree. My point was that scoring averages are all encompassing. If you're going to say Thigpen added 7 points on a PR then you should also take into account Carpenter's missed FGs, he's a ST player also. Other teams miss FGs, and other teams return punts/kickoffs for scores also.

I haven't done a specific count but my guess is that at least half of our points allowed on defense came off of TOs. The 4 TOs vs Houston, the pick 6 vs NY, 4 more TOs & a missed FG in Arizona, and all of Cincy's points came after TO's or missed FGs as well. But they still count vs the defenses PPG allowed.

I won't try and explain why that's legitimate, because it's not. I was just pointing out that if you're going to take out ST scores then it's fair to add in times when ST prevented scores.

 

It's pretty simple why you would take away non-offensive scoring from a points scored stat, ESPECIALLY one done on a small sample size. I shouldn't really have to explain that. The variance of those points across the league is pretty wide, especially over smaller sample sizes like only 5 games. For instance, the Chicago Bears have an insane 5 touchdowns off interceptions in only 5 games. Is that going to translate to 16 in the full season? I'm going to go ahead and say no on that. The Redskins also have 4 defensive touchdowns and the Jets have 4 defensive & special teams touchdowns. The Titans have 3 non-offensive touchdowns. Four more teams have two, and 13 more teams have one non-offensive touchdown. And then 11 teams have no offensive scoring. Over this small sample size the impact of these variances is huge.

Even over the full season, the variation associated with non-offensive points scored is far more impactful than the relative variation in field goal success. The standard deviation for impact on points scored per game if everyone had the same amount of non-offensive touchdowns is 3x bigger than if you did the same with field goals.

When you have something that causes a 1.0 point standard deviation in points per game, yeah I'll correct for it because that could shake up rankings significantly. Especially when that jumps closer to 2 points over the small sample size. But when something is only a 0.3 over the full season, give me a break, the impact on rankings is very, very, very minimal.

 

I'm not sure what point you're making here. PPG is a team stat, it's not designed to measure offensive production so all scores are counted equally. There's a tremendous amount of gray area once you begin to dice TD's into offensive and non offensive. What if Thigpen was tackled at the 5 yd line? Or the 20? How long does a drive have to be for it to be called an offensive TD?

Carpenter misses an avg of 6 FGs per season, he's on pace to miss about 14 this season. Obviously that doesn't affect PPG as much as Chicago scoring a defensive TD every week, but I'd stop short of saying one should be factored in and the other one shouldn't.

 

Yes, points per game is a team stat.

I quoted an OFFENSIVE stat, offensive points per game, because I was talking about the offense. So you have no real point here.

What gray area? It's actually pretty clear cut.

That last 5 yards can be very difficult to get through and it's the offense that has to do it. Even the 1 yard line can be surprisingly difficult to come by. Not to mention, these extreme situations you're bringing up (5 yard line, etc) are pretty rare and therefore don't require adjusment.

Carpenter missed 45+ yard field goals. That doesn't carry a high percentage. I don't think it's a big factor. You naturally want to pretend he makes 100% of them but that results in unfairness toward teams that make decisions based on an accurate view of their percentages.

 

Not sure if this was posted anywhere and I didn't want to start another JI thread. If it has been posted before I apologize, but it made me chuckle:

http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2012/10/miami_dolphins_fans_heres_the.php

 

Awww, Monsta you mean I gotta start respecting your posts?

Back on topic I feel we have to give Ireland 1 more off-season draft & FA, see what the new coaching staff can do this season and next TC to start really developing talent. I really believe Irish has been above average and give his first drafts without the HOF has-been Parcells looking over his shoulder about a c+ or even a B-. Now that Philbin, Coyle, Sherman and staff have most of the players coached up on our new offense and defensive systems, they should have more time this TC to work on developing young talent.

Also I reiterate while I feel this team is close to being a solid team, 2 plays away from a 3-1 record, we aren't going to the playoffs IMVHO, so much of this season should be used to develop young talent. THAT would go a long way towards being able to give Irish perhaps a B+ and see how well he fills the holes that will be be in need of upgrading. How we finish out this season will also indicate just how close we are to just needing to fill a few holes, train-up some talent (at WR in particular, Egnew & Clay too) to elevate us to the top-tier level of teams that will regularly be in the playoffs and then if Tannehill is what I'm beginning to believe he is, see us in the SB a few times under this regime.

Bottom line IMO is Irish has been relatively decent IMVHO but till now I don't feel he's had a coaching staff that actually taught and developed the talent in the players we've had and Irish brought in here. So I see giving Irish at least another off season and the meshing if his skills with Philbin's staff, no further moves until AFTER next season. The continuity alone should be a help to everyone on the team. JMVHO

 

CK can correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression he was trying to show how PPG as a product of offensive scoring efficiency can be misleading after 5 games if we're incorporating all points scored rather than just offensive points. It's no different than how Hartline can lead the league in receiving yards after 5 games b/c of how 1 game skews the totals.

I agree with you about the missed FGs which obviously affects our PPG, but at the same time IMO that can also be viewed as a reflection of our lack of scoring efficiency b/c the kicker isn't on the field during 1st, 2nd, and 3rd down to eventually lead to the missed kick.

 

Why do I need to do the comparison? I'm not the one arguing against what the stats & performance inside the 40 clearly demonstrates. It's not like Bess & Hartline are efficiently tearing it up inside the 40 and in the redzone, have done so over their career, and I'm trying to argue against the production. The fact is the production inside scoring range is lacking.

You're the one arguing against their poor career scoring efficiency, and you're the one arguing against the demonstrative stats I've provided. It doesn't take any league-wide comparison to show that a 38% reception rate, 0 TDs, and 54.3 QBR are quite substandard inside the 40, and I'm certainly not going to spend hours breaking down every team's top 2 receivers to prove something that's as obvious as obvious gets.

Not to mention, I provided Tannehill's stats inside the 40 when he's not throwing to Bess & Hartline, which are significantly better than when throwing to Bess & Hartline. If it takes the scapegoating of the QB to support an argument that Hartline isn't the scoring problem inside scoring range, then that's essentially saying Hartline is NOT conducive to scoring efficiency inside the 40 and especially in the redzone b/c there are plenty of scoring-capable receivers around the league who do not need a scapegoat b/c they can still put up points w/o Brady, Brees, Rodgers, or Manning throwing the ball. You make it seem like passing TDs are only about pinpoint accuracy by the QB and that no receiver possesses a natural ability to convert when passes aren't right on the money, and that's just completely false.

 

How can you say it's "substandard" without knowing the standard?

And you would need league-wide data to show that isn't the norm across quarterbacks.

I suspect it is, because when the field is compressed and defenders can therefore make easier plays on the ball, passes that travel vertically upfield are going to be more successful than ones that travel more horizontally and therefore take longer to get to their intended targets, thus giving defenders who are already closer to the players they're covering additional time to make plays on the ball.

In other words, I suspect passing to the wideouts in the red zone is done both less and more poorly, across QBs, which is why you hear people harp on how important it is to run the ball successfully in the red zone, and why you see lots of passing to the tight ends and fullbacks in the middle of the field.

Now add a rookie QB to the mix who is getting used to the speed of the game, and put him in a compressed field, and you have the results you're seeing.

In other words, I suspect the entire point you're making is far less specific to Bess and Hartline and far more applicable to the league at-large, and that any variation you may find across teams is mediated by QB rating. You have a situational factor that's likely applicable to all teams and is perhaps being amplified by the presence of a rookie QB, and you're using it to make a conclusion about the wide receivers.

It's off-base IMO, but you continue to think it's correct because your analysis of it isn't thorough enough to rule out these other possibilities. You're doing just enough analysis to "confirm" your own theory, without doing anywhere near enough to rule out plausible, alternative explanations.

 

I'm curious as to what statistics inside the 40 represent exactly? What is their significance beyond being a mere subset of a larger group? Are they more representative of ability than between the 0 and 40 yd line? Whats the support here?

 

Well if you can show that a team plays differently inside the 40 than it does elsewhere, then that's a significant finding. However, the finding itself doesn't tell you WHY it's significant, and if ALL teams tend to do that, then it can't very well be because of your specific set of wide receivers.

 

I honestly have no idea how I feel about Jeff Ireland anymore.

All I do know is if this football team goes 8-8 Ross won't fire him. He will be able to point to the overtime loses and say "look at how close we are". At this point, the only way Ireland gets fired is if the season turns into a 4-12 disaster. I just don't see it happening. We have 9 winnable games on the schedule (I had us pegged at 4-12 before the season). If we win 5 of them (which I think is a very reasonable expectation) we go 7-9 with two overtime loses. Ireland will win the argument.

I think his return is inevitable, it's just a question of time. The upcoming offseason is the biggest in a decade in my opinion. We have cap space, premium free agents to resign and we have extra draft picks. How is he going to handle that? He can set himself up for a long run as GM if he hits it our of the park this offseason or potentially set us back 5 years if he craps the bed.

 

All teams play differently inside the 40. IIRC, its something around a 7% decrease in completion percentage on average inside the RZ. The question here is there an inherent skill that makes certain players better inside the RZ, or is it just a case of randomness. I can show stats that a team is worse between the 20 and 40 than they are between the 40 and 60. But that doesn't mean the difference is based on anything aside from randomness.

I've only seen evidence for the QB position, but it does indicate that performance in the RZ is just a random subset of overall performance.

 

Yeah, this coming from the guy who did a quick, extremely CURSORY analysis of a few notable receivers' yards per catch through only 4 games in order to rationalize Hartline as some great & dangerous vertical threat. It was an interesting topic (the whole vertical threat thing) so I spent half a day gathering the data needed to provide a significantly more thorough analysis than your opening post, and it was significantly more thorough than I've ever seen you come close to attempting, so don't ever insult me again with this hypocritical nonsense.

Like I said before, it doesn't take a football statistical genius to know we're currently not scoring efficient once we reach scoring range, nor that Bess & Hartline's stats inside the 40 & redzone are sufficient. I don't have to prove s*** from shinola to show that Bess & Hartline's combined average of 1 TD per every 319 yards is deficient, especially considering we average 374 yards per game. That's as deficient as deficient gets. Julio Jones, for comparison, is significantly more scoring efficient all by himself at 1 TD per 106 yards than Bess & Hart combined. Would you like me to compare these stats to the rest of the league as well?

 

My point was simple. For all the awesomeness with awesome sauce that everyone is talking about with respect to Ryan Tannehill, Reggie Bush, the Offensive Line and lastly the Wide Receivers...this is a 19 point per game offense through the first 5 games. My point was, I don't know how that adds up.

Instead of addressing the point, various people have taken to nitpicking about whether this is a 19 point per game offense or a 20 point per game offense. Is it valid for me to adjust for Marcus Thigpen's return touchdown without adjusting for Carpenter's missed field goals? Etc. It's a classic de-railing of the argument, whether it was intended or not intended. We've now spent multiple posts arguing about whether the 19 point per game estimate in my post is appropriate, or whether it should be 20 points per game.

 

Nevertheless, the Hartline finding stood on far more solid ground because it was based on league-wide data, and even then I stated it as tenuous and preliminary due to the short time span involved.

By contrast, you have this very strongly stated and pervasive theory about our wide receivers that doesn't even rest on the data necessary to make the conclusion you're making!

In other words, there is no hypocrisy here. If I'm uncertain I'll say I'm uncertain.

 

5 gms and 2 Td passes does not speak to a high powered passing attack overall.

 

You know what the support is, Stringer, and you know it b/c I know you're quite intelligent and knowledgeable about the game.
Inside the 40 represents scoring range, as the 39 represents a 56 yard FG, and inside the 40 includes the redzone. It's just another of the many situational aspects of the game. We both know the dynamics change the closer the offense gets to the endzone and the smaller the field becomes (just as the dynamics change when comparing 3rd & short to 3rd & long). Being inside the 40 is no longer just about gaining yards and moving the chains but it also becomes about scoring, as well as offering the threat of score so that we're not made 1 dimensional. If it weren't situationally different than the 60 yards from our 20 to the 40 then our efficiency (namely Bess & Hartline's) wouldn't be noticeably different.

Also, being inside the 40 is quite different than our own 36 b/c it's 25+ yards further down the field, and as we both know, the probability of scoring often has a better chance of decreasing with the greater number of plays needed to be run and/or more yards needed to be gained. Bess & Hartline might be great possession receivers for moving the chains across the field's first 60 yards, however when Bess & Hartline don't offer much of a scoring threat inside our opponent's 40 it places greater stress on the offense to more often perform mistake-free and to execute a greater number of long, successful, ball-controlled drives, as opposed to teams with a Julio Jones or Percy Harvin who can score TDs on their own merit in situations where Bess or Hartline would most often be stopped.

There simply comes a point in a drive where you need guys/playmakers who can score for you (and do so on their own merit) so that not every drive inside scoring range has to make it to the 5 yard line in order to punch it in. Reggie Bush isn't enough, especially when teams can focus on stopping him when our receivers don't scare defenses inside scoring range.

There's a reason Atlanta gave up so much for Julio Jones, and it's b/c of this specific reason. Even with Roddy White, Atlanta lacked enough scoring threat and vertical presence at WR to compete with great teams, especially as the field shortened, and they'd get shut down b/c of it despite their overall good success during the season. Now look at them. Defenses have to respect the combo of Jones & White and, as such, can no longer try to make their offense 1 dimensional. With Jones on the field and defenses being forced to play Atlanta honestly across the entire field, Turner looks as good as ever; Gonzalez is producing like he's 27 again and is on pace for the most TDs of his career; Matt Ryan & the offense are no longer dependent upon the ground game's success; and Ryan statistically looks like a HOF QB. In Miami, Hartline & Bess can have a big day but with Reggie is limited in the process thanks to defenses having the ability to focus more attention on making us 1 dimension. In Atlanta, when Julio & Roddy have great games it's less likely to be at the expense of Michael Turner.

 

I don't understand what you mean when saying "it doesn't tell why it's significant"? It's inside scoring range, the part of the field that's closest to the endzone.
There's a significant amount of significance to the significance of it.
That's the money zone, the put up or shut up zone. Inside scoring range is kinda like a game within the game. It's where you either do or don't convert those yards that begin, on average, at our own 25 yard line. Inside scoring range compared to the rest of the field is roughly as unique as 3rd down compared to 1st & 10.

 

What I'm saying is that differential play in a certain area of the field doesn't, in itself, tell you what's responsible for it.

 

The dynamics change, but not the ability to succeed doesn't.

Right, using as few plays as possible to gain the most yards is ideal. If you're assessing a WR's ability to do this, you look at yards-per-target. Brian Hartline is near the top of the league in that statistic. By no means is Brian Hartline a possession receiver.

At what point of the drive is this? I would hope its generally accepted that the point where you need to score is as soon as you gain possession.

The reason Atlanta traded up for Jones is irrelevant when assessing Brian Hartline's ability.

And for argument's sake, Atlanta was 13-3 without Julio Jones. They were 10-6 in his rookie season.

 

Are we now suggesting their is a particular skill for succeeding on 3rd downs?

 

What we see with our own eyes is all the proof we need.

But if you must have extra data, I'll give you one nugget for comparison.

26th rated passer, Josh Freeman.

• 75.3 QBR (similar to Tannehill's)
• lower completion % than Tanny (54.6 vs 57.4)
• less yards per attempt (6.6 vs 7.5)
• 17 less first downs (34 vs 51)

Then look at Freeman inside the 40 with 2 playmakers at WR on the field in Vincent Jackson & Mike Williams:

• 99.4 QBR
• 4 TDs (14.3%)
• 50% completion
• 3.9 y/a
• 7 first downs (25%)

The 14.3% TDs (1% less than Matt Ryan's) is quite good, and anyone who's watched Williams & Jackson knows they can score on their own merit w/o passes being right on the money, as well as possess the ability to take an accurate pass and either physically push their way across the goal line or juke a defender for the score in ways that Hartline & Bess can not. By you trying to make it seem like Bess & Hartline aren't scoring threats because of Tannehill, you're omitting what playmakers can do WITH accurate passes that Bess & Hartline typically can not.

The preseason TD to Rishard Matthews is a perfect example. He took an accurate pass with a defender on him and physically bulled his way into the endzone, where as if you substituted Hartline or Bess, they'd be stopped short. They gotta be responsible for making plays on their own rather than throwing the entire onus on the QB, pinpoint accuracy, and play design, and even then it doesn't necessarily mean they'll score as I demonstrated with the Matthews TD.

Now, Bess has enough agility and wiggle to make a few guys miss, but when he's not afforded more space like he was with Brandon Marshall on the field gobbling up defenders, his scoring success will be limited. Hartline will not take a quick pass at the 8 yard line, stiff arm the corner to the ground, and then run over the safety for a score like Jordy Nelson did at least twice last year. So, with Hartline as our primary receiver, we not only lose the fade/jump ball ability, but we lose the quick-pass Nelson TD ability, the push his way into the endzone Matthews ability, and the juke a few defenders Percy Harvin ability. Basically, Hartline either needs to catch an accurate pass off a well-run route inside the endzone or he needs to catch an accurate pass before the endzone in unabated fashion; otherwise he typically either falls down or gets immediately wrapped up.

 

That's largely about public relations and largely has nothing to do with why Ireland has any sort of issues with the fans.

 

Are you suggesting there's not?

 

Agree with it or not, Phinsational has done a fine job stating his case, I think it's an outstanding debate..I respect the opinion and don't understand what's pissing people off about it.

Jmo, I think all he's saying is that certain measurables like explosiveness and strength can get you tds in constricted areas, (which I can agree with), and that currently our starters do not possess them?

Y'all remember Rishard Matthews bulling his way into the endzone from 7 yards out in preseason...strength was the measurable that got us that TD.

I think we all can agree that Bess and Hart are perfect for this run we want to go on, question is, do you think we can win thee game by adding a similar skillset to theirs,or do we need something more dynamic?

 

I thought your argument was that Hartline and Bess aren't good for scoring TDs from inside the red zone?

Vincent Jackson and Mike Williams, combined, have exactly one TD from inside the red zone this season.

 

I'm not pissed off, I just don't think the data rule out other plausible explanations, so they don't permit such a strong conclusion about the proposed inadequacies of two guys who are currently performing very well. If you're going to go against the grain to that extent, your data better support it.

The bolded part I can agree with as well, but the case being made is not strong enough to say our starters don't possess those skills.

Sure, and if you want to boil this down to memorable plays that are visually striking as the "data" we're using to support this theory, take a look at this clip here and tell me you don't think Davone Bess possesses the kinds of skills we're talking about (uh, while Rishard Matthews remains inactive every week ):

[video=youtube;6lxgjPED1Us]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lxgjPED1Us&feature=related[/video]

 

The ability to succeed does change when the situational dynamics change if the team lacks the personnel to allow it to succeed. A team can move the ball up and down the field all game, but if they lack the personnel capable of producing in redzone/endzone then the success will obviously change. I've asked numerous times but no one has offered up evidence that Hartline & Bess are scoring threats (especially inside the 40) despite what their career stats and Miami's offensive stats have demonstrated. I'll even settle for an eyeball assessment at this point of what a poster sees that leads them to believe Bess & Hart actually are threats to score and improve our scoring efficiency when they're on the field inside scoring range/redzone.

Respectfully, I'm not looking at his YPT; I'm looking at what we do, more specifically what Hartline does, when we hit scoring range/redzone where his overall YPT doesn't translate to more Miami TDs or Hartline TDs. I'm not arguing that he doesn't significantly help us get into scoring range so his YPT is irrelevant in this discussion.

IMHO he's a possession receiver with a higher YPT b/c he's a good intermediate threat, doesn't face bracketed coverage that would limit his YAC the way it does with Brandon Marshall, isn't a threat with the ball in his hands hence he's targeted much less often with short, quick passes that would normally pull down a receiver's YPT. For instance, since '09, Brandon Marshall has caught 4 times as many passes behind the LOS. You can't penalize Marshall and others for being playmakers who catch a lot of high-percentage short passes, much of which essentially act as an extension of the running game, so of course their YPT will be skewed. It's not a good thing that there's an aspect missing from Hartline's game that, in its absence, allows him to have a higher YPT. If you want to really break it down, we can do that.

Is Brian Hartline's YPT higher than Marshall's and other playmakers b/c Hartline is better downfield, or is it b/c Marshall receives a significant amount of short passes due to his playmaking ability that in turn significantly brings down his YPT?

Well then we're definitely in trouble considering only 2 of Hartline's receptions off 20+ yard throws have resulted in TDs since '09 compared to Mike Wallace's 35 or so.

It directly relates to us b/c we currently face the same offensive predicament they did prior to Julio Jones.

That 13-3 didn't help them win the big games against great teams, especially in the playoffs, which is what prompted the organization (as per the owner's mouth) to prioritize moving up for Julio Jones despite their inspiring record. You mentioned the key word, "rookie". Julio was a rookie. He no longer is. Atlanta's presently 5-0 and scoring 30 ppg from a balanced playmaking offense, and the extra firepower is allowing their defense to make more plays as well as capitalize on offensive mistakes, so it's no wonder they've already forced 14 turnovers (3rd in NFL) through 5 games and lead the league in TO differential at 10.

 

Nothing that doesn't exist on first and second down.

 

High yards-per-target.

I do not accept the premise, because I don't accept the theory that players have an ability to perform in the redzone that is not the same ability that allows them to perform anywhere else on the field. You can produce as many anecdotes as you want, but I haven't seen any statistical evidence that supports this theory.

The predictament is the same for every team in the NFL. Maximize your resources.

Which means this hasn't proven anything. Its very likely their decision to allocate all those resources on Jones will result in them having deficiencies which negate his performance. As it stands now, they haven't accomplished anything since drafting Jones that they didn't already accomplish before drafting him.