Because my goal was to calculate NET points given up. If we gave up 14 points in a half (after taking away any pick 6's by Tannehill), but the defense scored 7, then net points given up is 14-7=7, so it's subtraction both for Tannehill pick 6's and for our own defense's pick 6's.
Net points would mean that you would have to subtract ALL the points we scored, not just D points scored, why would you single those points out, it has no bearing on how many points were given up by our D. Plus, mathematically speaking, you would be subtracting those points twice, once when figuring offense, and again on defense, so those 28 points turn into 56 points, which is obviously mathematically corrupt.
No the question was originally how many points is the defense giving up. I just proposed looking at net points given up by the defense (so net points scored while it's on the field basically), and to calculate that you only need to look at points given up by the defense and points scored by the defense.
Interesting article on Russell Wilson and his play in the pocket. http://www.si.com/nfl/2015/12/09/nfl-week-14-russell-wilson-pocket-presence-seahawks-offense
Did you read the article? I suspect not. It starts with them pointing out that he needs consistent pass blocking to play in the pocket well. It then goes on to explain that his and the teams season has turned around when they made fixes to the oline. Crazy.
It just burns your tooth to see a guy like Russel Wilson running around improving and making plays while being one of the best QBs in football. Meanwhile you make every excuse you can to apologize for a QB who has shown no ability to do anything well consistently. Sorry, but one is a beast at QB and the other is a mouse. Crazy.
I've never bashed Wilson, you must be thinking of someone else. Are you going to address what was pointed out at all or does it scare you?
Are you finally going to admit how stupid it is to question if an NFL OC evaluated a starting QB's ability to audible? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I guess you're never going to admit it. It's pretty obvious what the truth is. By that logic I can't prove any NFL OC ever has. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Does every OC let their QB audible based on if the QB can do it or not? Do you know or are you just guessing? If yes, please provide some evidence.
What did you point out? How Russel Wilson went from a great young QB to playing like the best QB in the league once his protection improved?? Certainly no arguing that...but its what he DID when the protection was bad that makes him special.
I'm not even remotely interested in that. I'm interested in why you're in denial about this. Since you obviously won't admit it, I'll let it go. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Jesus, just once have an actual conversation instead of being a bating douche. The article points out Wilson needed a better oline. Argue against it or agree with it, but stop the bull**** or put me on ignore, I am not playing this stupid bull**** game with you anymore.
Lazor has an ego problem. Everyone and their brother, hated our staff because they didn't put players on the field who were clearly better than others. Everyone hated our staff because they didn't make proper adjustments. Everyone hated our staff because they focused on the wrong things and ignored the right things...... But I'm now to believe that Lazor, did something simply because you who knows literally nothing about him, said he did? Why? Here I'll play the same game....Lazor called plays from a different playbook then the one the Dolphins practiced. I don't need to prove it, I'm some guy on a message forum, so you have to either admit it or you're in denial.
You're making a huge leap. I don't care how bad Lazor was at his job. He definitely evaluated Tannehill's ability to audible. Anybody other than Fin D feel that's the wrong assumption to make? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You're making a huge leap. You're in denial. I don't care how bad Tannehill is at his job. I'm not remotely interested in that. I'm interested in your denial about Lazor calling plays from different playbook. Its pretty obvious what the truth is.
Yes, since you have no proof. Lazor felt that his scheme gave enough variation in each play to not need audibles. That's evident because he insisted on calling what Tannehill was able to do "audibling," even though everyone knew that Tannehill could not switch into a different play, i.e., audible. Also, why would anyone think it odd that a first or second year raw QB, as Tannehill was with Sherman, wouldn't be allowed to audible? So yes, I don't think your assumption is necessarily correct.
Dan, you're wasting your time, Fin D started digging a fox hole about Tanne, and kept right on digging so deep that he dug a well that he can't climb back out of.
And what proof do you have, that is a wild assumption on your part that is like a fairy tale, amazing the stuff you guys come up with to attempt to defend Tanne.
lol, its crazy how that works. We can't make assumptions but your side can. Spoiler The best part is that resnor is telling the truth and there's evidence to back it up.
What proof?? You're kidding, right? I mean, I get accused of being a troll, and all these ridiculous things. You've read all the quotes from Lazor about Tannehill audibling, haven't you? I mean, Lazor consistently said that Tannehill could change certain things within the play, and Lazor called that "audibling." Everyone who watches football knows that is not "audibling." Lazor had said things that would imply he believed his plays did not need to be audibled out of, i.e., change the play completely. Tannehill just had to find the right option within the called play. It's not a fairy tale I've concocted. It's real life. It's why Lazor got ****canned.
This has been posted before, don't know why so many forget it.....: http://miamiherald.typepad.com/sports-buzz/2015/11/exploring-exasperating-dolphins-issues-including-tannehills-lack-of-freedom-on-audibles-um-coach-sea.html You guys will find, if you actually read the article, that Tannehill is not allowed to audible and how that is a hinderance to the offense according to teammates and other QBs. You'll find the reason given is audibling slowed his rhythm down a little when Sherman was here. Shocking for a raw first and second year player, I know. You'll find that players lobbied for Lazor to change and he refused (hence why he's no longer here). You'll also find that many of the short plays are actually designed that way and not because Tannehill sucks. Basically what we have is an OC who was too stubborn and egotistical to allow for change and to try and solve his oline problem he tried to shorten routes since Tannehill had less time to throw, instead of trying to fix the oline. But please, tell me again how I'm an idiot and a troll when I say Tannehill is hindered by a bad OC, bad oline and the inability to audible.
Hey, check out the other thread where Finster is actually talking about how bad the defense is. Yet when I point that out, people argue with me, and tell me I'm making excuses. It's crazy. The constant flipping of the arguments, the moving of the goalposts. There's a couple of us who have consistently said the same things going on four seasons, in regards to the team, yet we are the ones accused of flipping stances, and making excuses.
Let's add to the list from earlier: I've actually been told by you guys that Tannehill sucks because look at his record, but when we win, it was in spite of him. I've been told the audible thing is a big deal, then not a big deal, then of course he just fails at it which proves he sucks! I've been told he thinks too much and that he's too stupid to assess the field. I've been told that you shouldn't make assumptions, while those same people are making assumptions all over the place and not only that but those assumptions are actually PROOF!!!!!!! I've been told he doesn't see the field and he doesn't see the rushers. I've been told no one says he sucks and then I've been told he sucks. I've been told he sucks because can't throw the long ball and when he does throw it, any QB can do that. I've been told he's not a leader because....look at his face in the huddle the few times they show it! I've been told the defense is good enough to win games but they also suck because Suh has done nothing to improve them.
It really blows my mind when these arguments get listed out like this, and then I think of all the crap I've gotten from certain people over the past almost four seasons.
Meanwhile our message has never faltered or contradicted itself: - W/L record is not a QB stat, unless you can define it and prove it. - Our oline coaching have hindered Tannehill - Tannehill is not perfect but he certainly on the right track until this season's ridiculousness derailed him a bit - The deep ball was more a problem of Wallace's poor route running & tracking the ball in the air plus a dose of bad play design. That's it. That's what you, I and few others get blasted for.
So childish. What did I say about Lazor? Quote me like I quoted you. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What??? You also believe Lazor didn't even evaluate his ability to audible??? This is an NFL OC. I'm not even talking about if Tannehill should've eventually been given the chance in a real game (I've already said go for broke). Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Tannehill not being able to audible was a hinderance to the offense??? The ONLY evidence we have shows it was a hinderance TO let him audible. Literally the only evidence is the complete opposite of what you're saying. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No, when you copycat to mock me and insert things I've never said, it's childish. It's trolling, actually. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
WHAT?!?!?!??! Hahahahahahahaha, unbelievable. Tell me again....who is in denial? You didn't read the article did you? You made an assumption and insulted me for not accepting it. I returned the favor so you would see what its like. Then I turn around and literally prove my claims which also disproves yours and you still go with your assumption. And I'm still somehow, the troll. Bravo
Do you have ANY proof that the reason Tannehill did not get to truly audible is BECAUSE Lazor evaluated him, and determined he could not handle it? I've seen plenty of statements from Lazor that suggest that he did not want the QB going to plays other than what he called. He believed he had enough options already on his called play that the QB could just go with a slight variation of his called play. Lazor called that "audibling." That is a fact. A fact is something you have not provided to prove your assumption that Lazor didn't allow true audibling because he evaluated Tannehill as not being able to do it. It most certainly was a part of it.
Please ignore me. You are so far gone, you won't admit you're wrong no matter how obvious it is. You troll and mock and mimic to belittle me. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You don't get to frame the question. It's already been discussed and you chose to ignore the question and response. The question was to Fin D. He responded there's no proof Lazor evaluated Tannehill's ability to audible at all. We're talking about an NFL OC. Even you and I would think of that. The fact that even THIS is being debated is mind blowing. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
