Matt Ryan's been better than "average" for most of his years, at least if you go by his stats. Proper way to compare is by z-scores where you look at passer ratings relative to the distribution of passer ratings in the league that year. A z-score of zero is by definition average, a z-score of 0.5 is top 31st percentile and a z-score of 1 is top 16th percentile. Compare Matt Ryan to Tannehill: Matt Ryan: 2008: 0.4440 2009: -0.1409 2010: 0.5987 2011: 0.6028 2012: 1.1736 2013: 0.3039 2014: 0.5051 2015: -0.1358 2016: 2.4746 2017: 0.4553 2018: 1.2679 Ryan Tannehill: 2012: -0.8259 2013: -0.3630 2014: 0.3940 2015: -0.1698 2016: 0.3739 2018: -0.0167 When you weight by passing attempts their career z-scores are 0.6932 for Ryan (top 25th percentile) and -0.1166 for Tannehill (bottom 45th percentile). So Ryan is above average while Tannehill is slightly below.
Thanks, interesting. So when Matt Ryan (or Matt Ryan's rating) had a z-score of 2.5, was he the top QB in football? When his z-score was 1.3 (2018) was he top 5?
Yes to both. If you just want rankings or unadjusted ratings you can get them here (sorting by passer rating): https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2016/passing.htm https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2018/passing.htm
Our line wasn't good last year, yet people are acting like we should pay big money for that RT and ignore a HUGE bounty and soon pay big money for that LT.
I mean, a line is 5 guys. It's easier to build around two and find your last three guys than need all Five over again.
Is it? I mean in a vacuum, where the only goal is to build the best oline in the NFL, then sure you're right. But, what if the having the best oline in the league isn't the goal? I know that sounds like blasphemy, but it is not realistic or attainable to have the best at every unit in the NFL. You have finite resources in terms of salary and picks to acquire AND KEEP talent. You have to understand that there are sacrifices to be made. Maybe, coming from a team like the Pats, where the offense is geared towards getting rid of the ball in under 2 seconds regardless of the pass rush, that the staff doesn't the OL should require a lion's share fo the resources as it likely would have keeping James & Tunsil. Maybe they are planning on building an oline that is just average instead of great. In the past, we've had awful olines, and that killed us. An average line could have been all we needed.
A few thoughts. #1, Look at a team like Philly that prioritized their line for run blocking. We all know the run sets up the pass, keeps the D off balance, etc. and that means they don't have to have the next Joe Montana at QB or the next Barry Sanders running the ball. So that investment up front is about a lot more than just five lineman's salaries....and they've been highly successful because of it. #2, look at all the best QB's in the history of the league- what do they have in common? Besides Russel Wilson, they've all focused on protecting their star player and giving him maximum chances to succeed. If we're drafting a QB at #1 overall then we absolutely must make the #1 priority protecting him. In my opinion, having the best line in the league should ALWAYS be the goal. However, that doesn't mean having the 5 top players at each position; that means having 5 solid linemen that work together really well. I've never thought we needed 5 first rounders up front at all- but we do need to prioritize getting the best possible line coaching, recruiters, etc. to give that group the best possible chance to shine. Plugging in top free agents and hoping for the best IS NOT a sustainable strategy...building from the ground up with the right types of players is.
The Pats haven't followed that format. They don't have the best oline, nor have they tried too. Which is my point. I am not even saying our staff will successfully recreate the Pats offense, my only point is that we seem to act like the only recipe for success in the NFL starts with making the best oline in the league, which is literally just not true anymore.
Just for ****s and giggles, let's do a thought experiment/game to understand the basic concept of resource allocation as it pertains to an NFL team. Let's say you have 15 quality points (qp) to spend on your starting 5 olineman. A single lineman must have at least 1qp. 1qp = awful player 2 qp = mostly negative 3 qp = average 4 qp = slightly above average 5qp = top 5 in the league >5qp = HoF worthy Each guy starts with 0qp. Allot the points across the 5 starters to build what you think is the most effective oline. LT = LG = C = RG = RT =
I'd protest and say that you need to give me at least 20 points to protect my quarterback...optimally 23. I'd either want straight 4's all the way across or maybe an average center/guard with a 5 point guard and tackle on the other side. With the switch to lighter, faster DE's, you could also make the argument that you need two 5's on the outside and at least 4's in the middle. LT = 5 LG = 4 or 5 C = 4 RG = 4 RT = 5 The point is, maybe teams try to spend "15 points" on their line...but NE and Pitt have a "20+ point" line because of coaching/scouting...they didn't have to drastically overpay and invest heavy resources (NE has a 1st, a 3rd, two 5th and a 7th as their front five and protection is very good). Dallas, Indy and Philly a "25+ point" line because they paid the price and it's served them well. Yet when you start looking at teams with those 10 and 15 point lines, you're not seeing very many 8+ win teams without saying the words "Russell Wilson." There's a reason for that...the line is infinitely more important than you give it credit for. If the goal is consistent playoff contender, then you need that 22-23 point line ASAP.
Well, we don't have to waste any resources at LG. Dieter is right on pace with Zach Martin (2018 probowl) & Trai Turner (2018 probowl) this year. Thru 2 games, PFF has... Martin = 66 Dieter = 65 Turner = 63 Our rookie is keeping up with probowl guards so far. Now, let's use your 15 quality points on 4 offensive linemen... LT = 3 C = 3 RG = 4 RT = 5 (Tua's blind side)
WADR Key, you've done 2 things: 1. Completely missed the point of the exercise. 2. Shown you are not actually looking at things realistically.
You also missed the point. You also don't get to just subtract a player a from the equation for...reasons... Resources were spent on the player.
I am absolutely looking at things realistically- you need a solid line to compete in the NFL. The part you're missing is that we can have that line with 3rd-5th round picks if we also have the right leadership.
No you aren't. You literally just said we need an oline built with 3 top 5 guys and 2 above average guys to go to playoffs. And then called that line only "solid". That's not realistic at all.
The goal isn't to go to the playoffs though- it's to be a "long-term, perennial contender"....which means we're going to have a top 10 offense and defense each season. The easiest path to accomplish that is having above average linemen all the way across the board and preferably two borderline elite tackles. Your grading system jumped from slightly above average to top 5, so maybe that's where we disagree. I'd want to aim for two top 10, top 15 tackles.
Well if you had two above average players I'd say youd be closer to average than without them, yes. I understand you cant be the best at every unit and there were reasons for each move. I'm reserving final judgement on everything until next season, just saying how I feel about the moves.
Yeah, that charles harris pick pretty much told me all I need to know about grier and his talent evaluation ability. That was grier's pick. I was absolutely livid when we picked harris. We should have traded down or picked some of the other pass rushers that were available like TJ watt or Takk Mckinley who are a lot better players than harris.
One person cannot possibly tell you everything you need to know. That's insane. Every GM makes bad picks. Belichick makes bad picks. What makes you think either actually gets to free agency? Especially Scherff, whom the Skins will be loathe to let go considering the Williams situation likely won't be resolved next year.
It was Grier's pick based on the coaches scheme at the time (joke of a wide9). Don't look so negatively into such picks without understanding the premise behind them first. Worth mentioning too, Watt and McKinley didn't fit our scheme so it's no surprise they wouldn't be a primary consideration as both were a 3-4 scheme fit. The new defensive scheme will allow for a lot more talent to be available to the Dolphins come draft and FA periods.
Despite being the GM he's actually the 3rd best evaluator in his own front office. Allen and McKenzie are better. He should've been let go along with Gase and Tannenbaum.
Scheme doesn’t absolve him of picking busts in the first round. Bottom line, this draft will define this organization for the next 5 - 10 years and I don’t faith in Grier to deliver.
Lol. According to our fans.... We've had the worst quarterbacking, the worst coaching, the worst FO, the worst owner, the worst oline for years, even though we haven't had the worst record for awhile. Now that we might have the worst record, we are considered to be tanking because we should play better than the worst but aren't.
You couldn't make it anymore obvious that you don't have a damn clue how a football staff and front office works together. Your erroneous explanation is the equivalent of blaming the QB for a multitude of team problems.
Well the wide-9 is based on the idea that your offense can build a lead and once you force the opposition into obvious passing situations you can put lots of pressure on the QB. It doesn’t take a genius to work out what the problem is with using it as a base defense, but Gase stuck with it for 3 years.