The Talent Surrounding Ryan Tannehill: Part II

I get it. Which is why you use the other one if you need to as well. But running to a total doesn't make much sense.
That's what I've been stating in this thread. They are all diluted. That's why you take multiple views and put it all together. You don't just do one thing for a company you do all of them. But, in the end rates are always more telling then totals. Totals are hard to gauge as they dont' take into account any sort of efficiency. It's why say you use mpg for a car to see how efficiently it uses gas and not how much gas it holds.

 

I don't know if that makes sense. Yards per catch is relevant, and a small # there would most likely be a negative, as in the receiver doesn't get deep often, or is a nickel and dimer. But maybe it's a reflection of a QBs poor arm strength, who knows.

And a lot of YAC doesn't mean that the avg reception is particularly long or short- it means that the receiver is breaking free from contact and adding to the play- how can that be a bad thing?

 

What about all the dropped passes this season, you have to be blind to think we do not need reciever help? [talking to you Jeff Ireland]

 

The correlation between % of yards from YAC and net YPA is -0.13. So really having a low % of your yards coming from YAC doesn't really signify anything about passing efficiency.

 

Who said it was a bad thing? The effect could be anywhere from negligible to great. I'm just trying to find out where along that spectrum it belongs.

 

Wait, why is that relevant?

 

Why is something correlated with passing efficiency relevant?

 

Huh?

No, why are you correlating YAC per completion with Net YPA?

 

Taking Brady & Ryan and comparing them to a rookie isn't cherry picking? Where's the control?

 

It signifies that Tannehill's WR's aren't doing him any favors, yes. That's the point.

 

No, I'd limit it to teams whose pass catchers (including TE & RB) were not only very hard to defend as a whole but also consistent, reliable, and offered strong playmaking ability. In today's game it'd be a healthy GB, a healthy New England, Dallas, and Atlanta.... and by next year I'd add a healthy Detroit group and perhaps NYG if Nicks is healthy, they keep Martellus Bennett, and have one of their young talents step up to replace the loss of Manningham. Denver's group is on the verge of being there as well, but for me to include them, they'd need another solid receiver added and either have one of their young, talented TEs step up, namely Julius Thomas, or draft one.

 

His control is that every WR in the NFL is a robot, all programmed to the exact same specifications.

 

I don't know if you watch the games, there isn't a receiver that playing with RT today that has had a better season in their career.
Bring in a guy like Megatron and RT would be one of the most accurate passers in the league.
You can compare all you want, but the fact is the talent around RT is below the talent around say RGIII, Wilson, Luck.

 

If they had a good defense behind them I could see that happening for sure, but if the offense had to carry the team I'm not sure how far they'd get into the playoffs.

 

Why would you limit the sample size? What is the benefit?

 

Right, and these "favors" contribute exactly how much to passing efficiency????

 

Because we are trying to determine how much YAC actually contributes to offensive efficiency.

 

so all your stats factored in drops, ints that were the result of tips off receivers hands? It took into account long allowing someone go untouched and hit Ryan causing a bad pass? Your stats account for wrong routes, receivers falling down, it factors spikes to stop the clock or throw aways to avoid a sack?


If they dont u cherry picked

Thats the problem with stats arguments, you cannot possibly factor everything in that has an effect on stats. so you pick and choose which stats to use. if you dont inlude every stat and every factor into each stat, you are picking what fits your argument best or cherry picking

 

42 pages and no mention of how we should fire whatshisname.


Awesome thread Shou.

Youre still wrong though .

 

Ahhhhh, I see now....you don't know what a control is.

 

So why are you looking for a correlation? YAC is part of Net YPA, its not an indicator. And why is Net YPA the benchmark you're using for offensive efficiency?

 

This is yards after catch, not yards after contact or yards after juke. Catching one uncontested pass with 50 yards of daylight in front counts as YAC. There are too many variables involved to truly be able to accept YAC as genuine measure. There are influences from play design & type of offense being run (does it employ routes conducive for YAC or does it rely heavily on routes either coming back to the QB or toward the sideline), the type of coverage faced and how much coverage the player receives.

I'd rather see YAC that involves yards after first contact and yards by avoiding contact like from juking a defender, having the speed to split defenders, or having the speed to pull away from a defender or beat a defender with an angle. Measuring that would most likely show Bess & Hartline at the bottom of the NFL.

 

This is interesting re: YAC because there is the four yard yac that gets you a first down or a td and then there is the 15 yard yac on a bubble screen on 3rd and 20 that doesn't do anything for points but helps qbr.

YAC for first downs or TDs would be curious, if it even exists

Just thinking out loud here

 

I think Bess would be pretty decent at that. He is really good at juking defenders.

 

nah. I already showed that.

 

No they wouldn't and that's point you've refused to understand.

A WR's skill level could be the difference between the catch or not. You do not account for that. In fact, you ignore it exists, and simply declare it irrelevant.

 

If we're focusing on the impact great surrounding casts have on QBs, then the great surrounding casts are what I'd want to initially limit my sample size, too. That'd be a lot of work in and of itself. I'm sure we could come up with some type of agreeable baseline to compare these QBs to in order to measure success. I guess we could take it a step further by comparing these QBs to every backup QB to see action, no, but I think that would make my head spin clean off. Or we could average out each year's full 32 team QB stats and use that as a baseline.
What did you have in mind?

 

I never said you were a moron. i never thought it either.

I'll say what I always said about you and this topic, you backed yourself into a corner earlier in the year, and since then you've doubled down on it. You've done that, because you absolutely care about what the board thinks of you and your opinion..unnaturally so. I think that because of the way you just either ignore or dismiss other real points made to you. You do this because you've invented a scenario that is perfect for the internet forum, a scenario that makes no sense but sounds good when you say it, but since it doesn't make sense you can't disprove it with a chart.

 

Our biggest need is WR help, you have to be blind not to see that. [just my 2 cents]

 

....true, but he typically only jukes defenders for a few extra yards but nothing extreme, and he doesn't split defenders for long gains, doesn't pick up yards by pulling away from defenders, and doesn't typically break tackles for extra yards like seen on Cruz's 99 yard TD vs the Jets.

I'd like to take it a step further and include yards due to legitimate "contested catches" in this category....... and perhaps rename the entire category "receiver created yards" or something like that.

 

The same applies to passer rating.

A 12 yd completion on 3rd and 11 is viewed the same as it would be on 3rd and 25. An INT on a hail mary at the end of a half/game counts the same as an INT on the first play of the game. Did the WR run the wrong route, or was it a tipped pass, bad read by the QB, great play by the DB? Its all just an INT to the passer rating. How bout an unblocked defender on the blitz forcing a throw away, that's viewed the same as missing a wide open WR for the TD when there was no pressure. A 5yd completion is a good thing when its best available option, but not when there is an available target 20 yds down field. Passer rating doesn't account for that either. Nor does it include rushing yards, rushing TDs, sacks, of fumbles. I could go on but my steaks are almost done.

 

No we aren't. Well we are, but its you who doesn't understand what you're saying. I say that with full confidence because I'm going by your own words from the OP. If they aren't what you meant, then the problem is yours.