Bret Bielema Says Talks To Coach Phins Broke Down In 2012 Because Of Russell Wilson

Regardless of what kind of person you think I am, the data are what they are, and they don't go away when the person posting them is caricatured by someone else.

 

I know that a defense allowing 30 is playing poorly. I'm not sure why you argue some of this stuff. You're arguing with me that a defense that on average (you know, including the two 30 point games) allows 15.8 points a game, then gives up greater than the league average of 22.6, and the Seahawks gave up on average about 10 more points than their average, that they aren't playing poorly. That is poor. It may not be poor relative to another team, but it is poor based on their usual play.

I'll rephrase...when the Seahawks give up more than the league average, they don't fare any better than the Dolphins, when they give up more than the league average, at least not this season.

 

http://www.cleverbot.com/

Have fun with that site.

 

Arguing hypotheticals creates a ton of fun.

 

What is hypothetical about the win/loss record when the defenses allow more than the league average?

 

The root of this "discussion" is Ryan vs Wilson let's be honest. And while the majority of people think Wilson is a better QB regardless of teams, it really is unprovable and creates an army of strawmen.

It's something that will go round and round because it's opinion only on both fronts, thus hypothetical.

 

And when Russell Wilson plays below average, they don't fare any better than the Dolphins. So, is the team being carried by the defense, by Wilson, or both?

 

They won the NFC Championship game when Wilson played below average.

 

Fortunately Aaron Rodgers of all people played well below average that day, as well.

 

This season: I used 90 as my measure for rating. Why? I don't know, couldn't remember what average was.

10/12 - 47.6 rating - LOST 23-30 - 0tds 1 int, i rush td 1 fumble
10/26 - 77.5 rating - WON 13-9 - 1 td 1 int, 0 rush td 1 fumble
11/02 - 63.9 rating - WON 30-24 - 179 yards, 5.1 ypa, 0 tds 0 rush tds (who scored the points??? LOL)
11/09 - 53.7 rating - WON 38-17 - 1 td 2 ints, 1 rush td 1 fumble (again, 38 points scored, Wilson responsible for 14)
12/14 - 69.4 rating - WON 17-7 - 1 td 1 int, 0 rush td
12/28 - 81.9 rating - WON 20-6 - 0 td 1 int, 0 rush td 2 fum

Looks to me that this season, when Wilson plays poorly, his defense certainly bails him out. And his run game. 5-1 record when he plays poorly. Two games with 30 or more points, and Wilson accounted for 14 total. That's 14 out of 68 points scored.

2013 Season

9/15 - 63.9 rating - WON 29-3
9/29 - 49.7 rating - WON 23-20
10/6 - 78.7 rating - LOST 28-34
12/8 - 81.9 rating - LOST 17-19
12/15 - 86.3 rating - WON 23-0
12/22 - 49.6 rating - LOST 10-17

So, even split in 2013...but look how close the losses are, even when Wilson doesn't play great. His defense kept him in it. Every loss there, there only lost by one score, even when he wasn't playing awesome. How would the Dolphins do when Tannehill doesn't throw tds? We know that answer: they put up 7 points with playoffs on the line.

Does this make any sense, about how much easier it must be to perform in that environment, where you know that EVEN if you have an off day, a REALLY REALLY off day, your defense is going to keep you in the game, and give you a chance to make ONE play to win the game?

 

If Tannehill had the defense, we'd be a 12 win team and Tannehill with the stats he complied in 2014, would be the second coming.

 

I love this effort to continue to find more and more completely indirect methods of evaluating Russell Wilson's performance, as opposed to just DIRECTLY evaluating it.

But that's the problem. It's impossible to directly evaluate his performance and make him look bad.

 

And, in the desire for fairness...Mr. Tannehill's numbers for 2014:

9/7 - 79.9 rating - WON 33-20
9/14 - 73.6 rating - LOSS 29-10
9/21 - 70.4 rating - LOSS 34-15
10/12 - 83.3 rating - LOSS 27-24
10/26 - 73.3 rating - WON 27-13
11/9 - 81.8 rating - LOSS 20-16
12/1 - 77.7 rating - WON 16-13
12/14 - 73.5 rating - LOSS 41-13
12/28 - 87.4 rating - LOSS 37-24

So, that's 3-6 win/loss when Tannehill is under a 90 rating in 2014. And look at some of those numbers...19 point loss, 38 point loss, 13 point loss...only two single digit losses, as opposed to that being the norm for Wilson, when he had to depend on his defense and run game. I'd also like to point out, Tannehill's "bad games" didn't even come close to Wilson's "bad games", at least not in the rating department. Pretty interesting, I hadn't really looked at it this much before.

 

The problem is, trying to evaluate Wilson separately from the rest of the team, to try to make him seem more important to the teams wins than he is. Wilson is a phenomenal athlete, and does alot of amazing things. However, his stinkers of games are masked by a run game and defense that can score 30 and 38 points, while Wilson contributes 14 points directly, by throws or rushes. That is the point that I am making. I firmly believe, that if Tannehill had a defense like Wilson, he'd have been in the playoffs the last two years, and everyone would blowing him all over the place. Everything is clouded by winning and making the playoffs. Even if those two things aren't all that dependent on the QB.

 

Why wouldn't they just be saying that he's carried largely by his defense, as some are with regard to Wilson?

 

You're onto something there. This season was definitely different for the Seahawks in that regard. Having that sort of win percentage in games with those QB ratings is definitely unexpected.

It makes sense theoretically, but when the evidence that exists indicates that Wilson plays no differently -- individually -- when his defense plays poorly, it doesn't make sense practically.

 

This is really just not true. It's not that difficult AT ALL to directly evaluate his performance.

 

No one is doing that. You guys keep trying to paint the picture of the argument that way, but that's not what is happening.

 

So you Have his main weakness as lacking some touch down the seam?, cause he is excellent at throwing screens over the outstretched hands of defenders, hmm, Every qb has a weakness, Peyton manning is a sitting duck and has a weak arm..

I can find a weakness in every qbs game..but what does he do overall with his skillset to run an offense Is what this is all about..I can live with a lil height issue..

 

For the past two years, which happens to be the two years that their defense has held opponents to the fewest points in the league, Wilson and the Seahawks are 8-4 when the Wilson has below a 90 rating.

It makes perfect sense in practice. Statistics simply cannot differentiate between a QB's rating on a team with a bad defense, and a QB's rating on a team with a good defense. Rating is rating, it doesn't take into effect the psychological effects that both teams have on the QB, and thus the affect on their play. It's the ultimate intangible. It really doesn't matter that Wilson's numbers don't significantly regress or not when his defense plays poorly, because A) his defense's "poor" play is more like other team's "good" play and B) they play "poorly" pretty infrequently. The argument isn't that Wilson has or hasn't regressed when his defense plays poorly, but rather that due to his defense's consistently dominant play, his play remains relatively stable regardless of what they do, because of the confidence he has in them. That is what I take from the win/loss and rating posts I made. It will be very interesting to see what Wilson's stats, both individually, and wins/losses, look like when he has a defense more in line with the league average.

 

I answered that question in the post that you quoted. Everything is clouded by wins/playoffs/Super Bowls.

 

Is it? Are people saying Drew Brees is a bad QB? Is Trent Dilfer regarded as a good QB?

 

Well said.

It seems like resnor's entire argument is aimed at people who are evidently insisting that Russell Wilson is a good quarterback because his team wins a lot of football games.

The problem is I haven't seen the winning be anything more than a supporting point in arguments in favor of Russell Wilson being an elite quarterback, and mostly with respect to his direct role in comebacks, playoff performance, Super Bowl performance, etc. So everything is still being kept in the context of a direct evaluation of HIS performance.

 

Don't agree. Tannehill was the 14th ranked passer in the NFL. Last year he was the 24th. His stats at this point are slightly above average, which pretty much matches where people have him. He's a little better than average that has shown some improvement. If the Dolphins made the playoffs he'd still be a little better than average and showing improvement.

 

There maybe a couple of posters that have said that Ryan Tannehill is X, Y, or Z because his record is what it is. That is really just a couple of people, and it really isn't even worth debating.

 

Exactly.

 

Huh?

So you think his stats wouldn't have been improved by having a defense hold opponents under 30?

At this point, you guys argument is similar to arguing that going 4-1 is the same as going 15-1, because, you know, there's one loss.

 

Not just under 30, but under 20. Let's remember, that the Seahawks defense allowed an average of 15.8 points a game. I bet the Dolphins defense didn't average that low in the 4th quarter alone (sort of kidding, but sort of not).

 

Isn't one of the best predictors of winning, the QB rating differential? What were the opposing QB ratings in those games? I don't think Wilson's stats will be all that different whether he's backed by a top defense (though it helps because it eases pressure, you make more mistakes when you are forced to do more that's simple logic). Win-Loss won't be the same but Wilson is special. Give him a decent set of WRs (they will need draft picks and cheap FA's) and he doesn't even need an oline.

 

He's more highly regarded because he won it. Would Dilfer even be mentioned now if he didn't win a SB?

 

You're failing to make the distinction between how Wilson's team is affected by the parts of the team other than Wilson, and how Wilson himself individually is affected by them.

If the argument is that Wilson is benefitted individually by what's going on around him, then by definition his individual play should get worse when what's going on around him isn't as favorable. That doesn't happen, however.

 

With that defense, but with our offense (because Tanny would not have those stats with those WRs IMO) we'd make a deep playoff run. Deeeeep.

 

Don't agree all you want. Doesn't really matter. If, for instance, everything stayed the same, but the Dolphins had a defense giving up on average 15.8 points a game, that could easily give them 4 more wins. That makes them a 12 win team. Of course, that's all hypothetical.

 

Right, a 12 win team. That wouldn't change anyone's evaluation of Tannehill, aside from 2-3 people here.

 

I don't agree with what you're getting at because WHEN Trent Dilfer is mentioned, it is almost always in one of two contexts:

1. His work as an analyst/evaluator
2. His being a quarterback that wasn't very good but won a Super Bowl anyway

So you're asking the question whether Dilfer would even be mentioned if he hadn't won it, and I think you're implying that the Super Bowl win has raised peoples' evaluation of what kind of QB he was in his career. But even though the answer to your question is that no obviously we would not be talking about Dilfer if he hadn't won the big one, that doesn't mean the win actually raised peoples' evaluation of him because 99% of the time he's being discussed outside of his work as an analyst, it's to note that he's a QB that won the Super Bowl even though he wasn't very good.

 

Right, because that was never what I was talking about. Never. All I claimed was that when Wilson struggles, his defense and run game carry them. That is proven. It's great that Wilson doesn't regress when the defense gives up more than 20. However, Wilson had plenty of games where he struggled, and the defense and run game came through for them. People want to call Wilson elite...but I don't see a guy carrying his team. That is an elite quarterback. Maybe he will be elite some day, who knows. Maybe he gets some really good receivers, and goes on a tear, and puts all the doubters to rest. Or maybe, they pay for receivers, and as a result, the defense and run game suffer, and his numbers go up, but wins go down. Who knows.

 

That's so bogus, and you know it. If the Dolphins had been a 12 win team the last two season, and had been going deep in the playoffs, and Tannehill put up the stats he put up this year, he'd be talked about every bit as much as Wilson. Both by posters on here, and every national media outlet.

 

Simply put, the supposition above is incorrect.

 

So you agree that Wilson is performing better than Tannehill currently -- again individually -- and that it has nothing significant to do with anything going on around them?