Yeah, I'm not criticizing the willingness to add Suh or the willingness to change philosophy after adding Suh (those two acts are consistent with the points I laid out). I'm criticizing the philosophy you're suggesting we change it to. The philosophy you're suggesting would remove the kind of flexibility I was saying has value.
If we sign Suh, it's really a good sign that maybe even Ross (certainly Tannenbaum) isn't willing to just sit back and see what Philbin is really made of for one last year (by only signing Philbin's type of player). Maybe the guy does learn, albeit a bit slowly.
BTW, the percentage of the variation in team offensive DVOA associated with the run-pass balance on offense in the NFL in 2014 was 6.3. In other words, 93.7% of team offensive DVOA is explained by things other than the run-pass balance on offense. And that's a pretty stark indictment of the idea of running the ball more, when one considers that running plays are already far more likely to occur when a team is ahead on the scoreboard and trying to maintain the lead via ball control and time of possession. This here is also relevant: http://archive.advancedfootballanalytics.com/2010/01/run-pass-balance-historical-analysis.html
balanced is different than run first. Arguement was for run first, not balanced. This superbowl, patriots were not a run first team. The Superbowl before this one was Broncos vs seahawks. Broncos are not a run first team. superbowl before broncos/seahawks, was niners vs ravens. Ravens were not a run first team. Majority of teams in playoffs those 3 years were not run first teams.
And to support your assertion: http://archive.advancedfootballanalytics.com/2010/08/passing-winning.html
big misconception about this man..the football field is a dangerous place, sometimes the mindset becomes kill or be killed..I undertand it..I understand the anger that can rear itself when playing the game, you don't just want to tackle you want to rip their fu&^in head off...some players are wired like this, you cannot curb that anger, or else you will kill the payer.
Im painting with a broad brush CB, of course balance is important, but in the short term, if I land Suh, I start to build the defense and run game to be our identity and strengths..you simply must take this approach when you acquire this type of player, its about playing to your strengths, not just doing something because its what looks right on paper.
Well, I don't agree with that. I think for example Tannehill has shown enough promise that one should emphasize building around him too. I mean, let's say White or Cooper is available when we pick AND Shelton is. If we land Suh, I think the best value (among just those choices) is to go WR, not DT. And in general, the idea of having "balance" is not something constrained by whether your goals are short-term or long-term.
The numbers essentially mean that in the NFL in general, the run-pass balance is all but meaningless in terms of offensive production and efficiency. So, shifting from passing more to running more, even with the acquisition of someone like Suh, is likely to produce an effect that isn't significant in any way. Now, if the team ends up running more because, via the presence of Suh, it can surrender fewer points to other teams, have bigger leads at the ends of games, and run the ball to control the clock and end the game, then obviously it'll run the ball more. But that effect won't necessarily represent a philosophical change toward running the ball on offense. It'll be a byproduct of how games unfold via Suh's effect on opposing offenses.
There is no such shift happening. The average team passed the ball 61.56% of the time in 2013, and it passed the ball 61.59% of the time in 2014.
I don't think were that far apart, don't you think building a great running game is building around the qb?..what I'm trying to stay clear from is some inordinate discrepancy in passing offense to run offense..I don't want to be known as a pass first offense. if we land such, he is without question the best player on the team..i think you have to think the ratio of your resources should favor that side of the ball, and to compliment that defense and the qb, you build the running game...
Why not, when there is no evidence that being a pass-first offense is associated with being either good or bad in the NFL? Complementing the defense doesn't necessarily consist of emphasizing the running game. You could just as easily emphasize the pass and point scoring on offense, while using Suh to improve the pass defense and decrease the ability of opposing teams to mount comebacks and outscore the Dolphins. The "1972 Miami Dolphins" model isn't likely to be effective in today's NFL. It's a different game now.
The Seahawks didn't drop back to pass significantly fewer times than the average team in the league in 2014.
Dude.. as long as we're Dolphins fans, we're never that far apart. As to your specific points, I think you need a balanced attack, so yes the running game is important in that regard, but I would be disappointed if we drafted Gordon or Gurley in the 1st (they make sense if you really want to emphasize the running game). And the defense has some big holes (ILB, CB, FS) with or without Suh, so I'd want to upgrade that regardless. But if you get Suh, the need to upgrade those positions decreases a bit, meaning you have greater freedom in choosing where to upgrade than before, even if that means strengthening the passing game.
