The Talent Surrounding Ryan Tannehill: Part II

There should be roughly 20-25 1000 yard receivers by next week's end. Hartline will likely rank about 20th.

To use a baseball analogy,
There were 23 players who hit higher than .285 last year, making that a similar feat to reaching 1000 yards, so Shou's essentially saying a .285+ hitter who hits for nothing but singles and doubles is right up there with baseball's best hitters.


So, by Shou's standard, Alberto Callaspo (.288) is one of the game's best hitters and is as good as Jose Bautista (.302 avg, 43 homers, 103 RBI, .608 slugging) just b/c Callaspo eclipsed that magical .285 mark despite the fact he had only 6 homers, 46 RBIs, and .375 slugging. Also in accordance with Shou's standard, Callaspo is a better hitter than Curtis Granderson (.262) even though Granderson had 35 more homers, 73 more RBI, and a .177 higher slugging.

 

Dude, just because you oput effort into something doesn't mean its valid and it doesn't mean it requires equal effort to refute. Your premise was flawed. Your approach was flawed. Its been proven enough times, by enough people, over enough days that the cumulative time the work involved in refuting you is greater then what you spent.

Sigh. Everyone agreeing isn't going to generate this many responses.

 

The Dolphin receivers didn't drop a lot of passes, yet you want me to show numbers that reflect that they did.

 

I already did.

5 stats make up the qb rating. Of those 5, 3 are equal parts receiver and QB. That means 30% of qb rating is attributable to receivers.

 

Man, i love tannehill.

 

Prove it with a chart.

 

follow the link. http:http://www.facebook.com/pages/Midget-Clowns/357142785976

 

oh yea!

 

Post #2.

Since then we've been trying to explain to you why you lost.

 

"There are no winners, only losers. There are no good wars, with the following exceptions: The American Revolution, World War II, and the Star Wars Trilogy. If you'd like to learn more about war, there's lots of books in your local library, many of them with cool, gory pictures."

Bart Simpson

 

In Citizen's case we could rename the last column "watching Tannehill". In your case we'd probably need to add an extra column.

 

Make it a Joe Philbin column for me. Love. That. Guy.

 

wait, did you guys mean ryan?

 

yummy............. orange.

 

Duh. Makes more sense than trying to prove Hartline & Bess are no different than Julio & Roddy.

 

Part of the problem with your argument is that you keep going back to trying to make a comparison of him to other rookie QBs as if all circumstances are alike. When people give you examples of annomilies of your conclusion you accuse them of cherry picking and mark it up as excepeptions to your rule.

The fact of the matter is that RTs circumstances are unique to his situtation. You can not definitively say whether or not the Dolphins would have or not have more sucess with somebody else.

 

I don't see what is so hard to understand. There is no denying that Bess and Hartline are not as good/talented as say White and Jones. What people are saying is that if Tannehill can do what he's been able to do with these guys, get him a legitimate threat at receiver, someone who makes plays, and Tannehill would look even better. He looks, as Shou says, pretty average this year...but he has a pretty poor receiving corps, and if he looks average with really zero threat at receiver, I think he'd look pretty damn good with a real receiver and TE out there.

 

Last post & I'm out the gate. You seriously have to watch every snap of the season to come to an "objective" conclusion on who was to blame for what.

That aside, the more pertinent question is how do we get better production from the passing game and the offense as a whole in time for next season?

 

I agree ^^ I think if given better talent to throw to, Tannehill will in return be even better. I don't see this in the same light of Chad Henne and his situation here. Seemed as though Henne was worse with Marshall than he was without him. I think Tannehill is different. You get him a guy that can make plays and he like Matt Ryan is going to get better.

 

I dont speak for other people.

 

I think there isn't a strong correlation between YAC and points/winning because there are enough teams that get a lot of YAC and score a lot and those that get a lot of air yards and score a lot, and both vice versa (those that suck at both). You can be efficient/inefficient either way. I just thought it might have been a way to get at WR production somewhat independent of the QB.

 

Well Shou let me take a crack at this, I am no expert but I did stay one night at a Holiday Inn Express...

These stats are from PFF taken from position players...

The stats below represent the 20 teams whose QB's QBR are higher the RT and and a few who are lower...

The second column shows the WR points scored (rounded to 7 pts per TD); the 3 column shows the QB's comp % to the WR's; and the last column shows the number of WR's on the team with at least 25% of the team snaps...


TEAM, WR-PNTS, WR CMP %, # OF WR'S
MIA 14 63 2
NE 84 65 4
ATL 119 66 3
GB 189 70 4
BALT 91 55 3
WASH 119 71 3
DEN 175 70 4
SEA 119 66 3
PIT 91 61 3
NO 126 62 4
DAL 147 63 3
HOU 42 68 2
CAR 63 57 3
CINCI 112 61 4
SD 91 64 3
OAK 91 51 3
NYG 98 61 3
STL 98 64 4
BUF 77 57 3
CHI 105 62 4
MIN 28 64 4
INDI 98 57 3
CLEV 56 59 2
NYJ 49 60 3
CORR1 0.377 CORR2 0.521
The Average completion % of all the WR's is 62.5 or about the same average that Thill has with this teams WR's...

The correlation #1 requested was between the number of points and the completion % between the QB and Wideouts (0.377). By being only 37% chance of correlation, this shows currently no correlation...
The correlation #2 requested was between the number of points and the number of WR's (0.521). Though slightly higher than CORR1, it shows a 50% chance that the higher number of WR's catching passes can correlate to more points. It still also not statistical proof of a correlation...

My only opinion as to why more points are score by other WR's that are not in the Phins roster has some correlation to QBR, but mostly to do with something that cannot be measured.... INTANGIBLES...

Something that Miami's WR's are currenlty lacking...

Hopefully the chart does not hurt to read...

Thoughts...

 

OMG, 14 points scored by the WR's...i hope we just don't do anything at WR, they don't make any difference..no matter what....this thread looks more and more ridiculous....

 

Al, there was actually 3 TDs by WR's. The 3rd was by Moore, but since hes has not played 25% of the snaps, he was filtered out of the chart...

 

It's pretty clear we have the best WR group in the NFL, maybe in the history of the sport. It's time for Ireland to lock all these guys up to long term deals. Great news we do not need to sign any FA recievers or waste any more picks on this position. When we have the cream of the crop in the NFL. It's all Tennihill fault, so who going to breaks Calvin Johnson record next year? [Bess, Hartline or Moore or all three?]

 

Again shou your failure to provide any concrete proof tells the tale. Thanks for playing

 

Kinda feels like the office Tom Hanks worked in at the beginning of "Joe vs. the Volcano"...




.


.



.



.





Life-sucking flourescent lights of condescension and one-ups-manship


.


.


.


.




Complete with Mr. Waturi "not arguing that with you"...


.


.


.


.

 

The ELO is a ranking system based on wins and losses. It assigns numeretical values placed on players based on their past games. For instance say for example a player ranked 1500 plays someone ranked at 1000. If the 1000 ranked player won the game his ranking would change by 250 and the 1500 guy would drop by 250 for losing to what was thought to be a lesser opponet. However if the 1500 player won as expected it might only increase his rate by 50 and the other guy would only lose 50 because that was the expected results so the value would be much less.

Football being a team sport complicates the use of this type of system but if you break view the team either as one or you break the units down into individuals (like passing offense vrs passing defense, running offense vrs running defense) you should be able to come up with some interesting results.

Where it becomes tricky is how you define a win or a loss for a unit. Im still working on this part but atm I am leaning toward using team stats.
Example say a pass offense averages 200 yrds and the pass defense averages allowing 100 going into the game and the offense put up 300 yrds it would be a win for the offense and a loss for the defense and the rankings would then be adjusted for next weeks matchups.

The problem I am having with using two stats is a couple of scenerios. what if that offense threw for 250 yrds would that be a win for both the offense and the defense because they both stayed within their stastical averages and if so would that skew the ELO iun an inaccurate way. The same thing could happen if the defense averaged giving up 300 yrds a game and they threw for 250. Now your looking at both sides being considered winners in the example I used.

What I like about the ELO rating is it factors in the strength of your opponet with a numeretical value. The problem I am having is defining a win or a loss. Anyhow I think its an interesting concept to investigate so I brought it up to you because you seem to like to play with numbers.