Yes, yes, and no. From my experience its pretty easy to tell who has practical experience vs who doesn't. I grew up playing, coached while I could afford to live on the pitiful wages, then moved on. Most of my friends are ex-players and/or coaches and the one thing they ALL agree on is the tape don't lie. Even with the tape you only have half the info bc you need the play call to go along with it, but for outsiders film is about as close as it gets. As far as your opinion of my opinion, I'm good either way. But let's not pretend like I'm the only one who's told you some variance of please put down the stat sheet and enter reality.
Lol again with the stats? I don't care what the rest of the league is doing. It's totally irrelevant. I'm talkin about the Dolphins, who play in a division where everyone plays good D and will smother your offense if you're pass happy. Watch the NE game from week 1, that's the model. And running is even more important for us late in the year bc we're a warm weather team traveling to cold weather venues. It doesnt necessarily need to be 55-45 but 62% pass ain't gonna cut it unless we have an elite QB, which we don't.
If you look at that game and see the run-pass ratio as the lynchpin in the win, we're likely on two different wavelengths that shall never cross paths.
Last season Miller had a 5.6 ypc avg in games with 15 or more carries while he had a 4.6 ypc avg in games with less than 15 carries
And obviously the validity of the statement the above refers to ("Lamar Miller's yards per carry decrease when he gets more carries") can be determined without the use of "film." Believing one needs "film" to determine the validity of that statement is about like saying one would need "film" to determine whether the Dolphins' quarterback threw more than 20 touchdown passes in 2014.
Even if that were true, I certainly hope the Dolphins won't be using a first-round pick to expand upon the "ceiling" at a position where it got among the best production in the league from its current player.
Idk what you are trying to say here but Melvin Gordon would open up this offense in a way that Lamar Miller couldnt... Its that simple. Lamar Miller is a GREAT complementary RB but by no means is he a workhorse style RB. Melvin Gordon is being compared to Jamaal Charles. Would you take Jamaal Charles in the first round if given the opportunity? Only a bozo would say no to this question.
Well here is how Jamaal Charles compares to Lamar Miller, using the most definitive statistics known: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/rb If you want to spend a first-round pick to achieve that degree of improvement, when it isn't even clear at this point how good Lamar Miller is going to be long-term, that's certainly your prerogative, and I don't expect you to change your mind.
The ratio in that game was 35:32, that's not gonna happen regularly but anytime it does happen you can go ahead and chalk up a W.
Actually it's this website that says it: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/teamoff Naturally everyone is free to choose how much stock they want to put in it.
He had 4 games of 15+ carries, 0 games of 20+, about 13.5 per game, which is right where you want him imo.
Its a quality vs quantity thing. We ran effectively but we couldn't stick to it bc we didn't have any depth at RB. Fix that and then we'll be on point.
http://www.rotoworld.com/player/nfl/7408/lamar-miller The 97 yarder against the jest happened after this and moved his numbers a lot given his low number of carries over 10. So how much weight should that run be given? Without film analysis, with just statistical analysis, that question is not even asked. Stats should be used to confirm analysis, but without that analysis there is no way to properly weigh them.
Regardless, there is a positive correlation (0.32) between his number of carries and his yards per carry during his career. Certainly as he's gotten more carries in a game during his career, his number of yards per carry has increased. The belief that as he carries the ball more, his performance gets worse, is false. Moreover, one doesn't need "film" to treat the 97-yard run as an outlier. That can be done statistically.
1. Danny Shelton, DT, Washington (we let Chris Johnson run for over 100 yds on us....enough said) 2. Eric Kendricks, MLB, UCLA * (trade up if you have to in order to get him...i don't give a damn. there is your defensive captain and tackling machine) 3. Jalen Collins, CB, LSU (our CBs were trash) 4. Shane Carden, QB, ECU (yep, that's right...) 5. Rob Haverstein, OT, Wisconsin (get all the Wisconsin bulldozing linemen you can get from this point) 6. Kyle Costigan, OG, Wisconsin 7. Dallas Lewallen, OG/OT, Wisconsin I'm not even sure this will help because i think we have a garbage head coach. But, this can be a nice foundation for the next guy.
I believe my eyes and knowledge, both of those KNOW Miller isnt even close to Jamaal Charles level. Let me know when Lamar has a career 5.5 YPC average..
Since you're quoting that site, I'm hoping you know their justifications for why they calculated their stats the way they did. Their "methods" section doesn't explain what exactly they were trying to optimize to get what they call "success points". Here's the link: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/info/methods For example, they say: "We then expand upon that basic idea with a more complicated system of “success points,” improved over the past few years with a lot of mathematics and a bit of trial and error. A successful play is worth one point; an unsuccessful play, zero points with fractional points in between (e.g., eight yards on third-and-10 is worth 0.54 “success points”). Extra points are awarded for big plays, gradually increasing to three points for 10 yards (assuming those yards result in a first down), four points for 20 yards, and five points for 40 yards or more. Losing three or more yards is -1 point." They go on and on, but the point is .. what does "a bit of trial and error" mean? Were they trying to best predict outcomes of games and just trying out all possible sets of parameters that led to the best predictions? Were they trying to make the stats as internally consistent as possible, so that the past history predicted future performance best? They give no indication of what the objective function was (what they were trying to optimize). Do you know? If not, I think it's best to first find out before using it as evidence. There are a lot of people out there who hide subjective reasoning (in this case it would be through "making up" success points) in objective analysis.
And yet through 14 games last year that wasn't the case at all. How is your correlation calculated? If when he runs well early he gets more carries late regardless of how effective those late carries are, does your correlation show whether those carries were as effective late as early? Or, does it just show that when he is running well he gets more carries overall?
It does not matter Shame...they are two runners who are more alike than not..Gordon is awesome, but to go with Miller we need more of a Todd Gurley, David Johnson type of back in my humble opinion.
I kinda agree but to be fair ALL runs on the season count to reach the average no matter when the run happens.
Did your screen name used to be DolphinsUnite? Y'all write exactly alike and you seemed to have joined right around the time he was banned..lol..np..just wondering.
Pretty nice draft but you forgot the playmakers that we need too. We can pick up one of our DT in FA and get one in the draft..We need a big WR with our first pick and maybe another Wideout like Dorsett and a RB like David Johnson and then have at it...imho....your draft is stacked though..What position does Haverstein play for Wisconsin on the OL? I probably spelled his name wrong..Thank you.
I think Gordon would compliment Miller fine. I don't think the size or running style of the compliment is vitally important. I'd rather draft a good back than get bogged down worrying about drafting a bruiser. Two quick backs can compliment each other perfectly fine in a backfield. All you're looking for is production from the running game, so what does it matter whether you have one who is quick and one is who thick or not? Give both Miller and Gordon 15 carries a game and let them go to work. I understand the whole concept of having a big back who will wear down a defense, but just give me a back who gets 5 YPC. The defense is going to get worn down chasing those two backs down the field, too.
Do you think Jaelan Strong would have to be drafted at #14 for the Dolphins to secure him? I've seen differing opinions from mock drafts; I can personally see six receivers drafted in the first round, so I can't see a way he makes it past, at the latest, very early in the second. I really, really like Strong. I assume the question is whether you think he's worthy of that #14 selection. The same goes for Eric Kendricks.... He seems like a guy that could go in the late 20's to 30's range, but he's my favorite ILB in the draft. I'd love Danny Shelton, but I'm not seeing him make it to #14.
The correlation between his number of carries and his yards per carry during the first 14 games of 2014 was 0.27. Again a positive relationship. You seem to be talking about a time period during games in which carries occur (the fourth quarter, for example), whereas I'm addressing the statement that was made that said Miller's number of yards per carry decreases when he carries the ball more.
The eyeballs? ..... nope, more stats apparently. sigh. One of these days you'll realize the game is played on the field and not in a computer or on a spreadsheet. I bet if I took you to a live soccer game and told you it was football, you wouldn't know the difference.
Not sure why you have a perception that Miller should be able to handle more carries than Gordon [who has demonstrated in college that he can handle the carries] just b/c he weighs a tad more and is shorter. Gordon doesn't weight 190 so your silly unsubstantiated argument goes right out the window. What doesn't go out the window is the fact that beyond Miller's initial 10 carries of games he averaged 3.15 yards on 61 attempts, excluding his 1 long TD run against NY to start the 2nd half when he was fresh off his halftime break. There's also his 3.6 avg in the 4th qtr on 52 carries. Wait, but he weighs 224 pounds so that can't be. LOL. Meanwhile, the 199 pound Jamaal Charles averaged 7.5 yards in the 4th qtr and 5.4 yards on carries beyond the initial 10.
But yet what you use here to substantiate your point are statistics: And was that any different for Miller in 2013? How about in college? Are we looking at a "trait" on Miller's part, or possibly a one-year aberration, for which a 97-yard run has to be excluded to arrive at even a tentative conclusion?
You aren't understanding. Per Barry Jackson through 14 games his YPC on carries 1 through 10, 5.5 yrds. All carries above 10, less than 3. Your correlation just proves that when he had more carries he tended to have a higher YPC. This doesn't mean that he was more effective with his carries above 10, because we know that he wasn't. So, how is this correlation explained? If he got more carries when he was more effective (higher YPC) on his first carries it could skew the correlation, particularly when we know that we are working with relatively few carries over 10. If you add film analysis you would know this going in because you would have seen him be less effective late, and there for would understand what your correlation stat means.
