Bret Bielema Says Talks To Coach Phins Broke Down In 2012 Because Of Russell Wilson

I like Wilson and was rooting for them. Don't throw #@&% at me for having eyes and a opinion.

 

Bret Bielema Says Talks To Coach Phins Broke Down In 2012 Because Of Russell ...

Honestly of RW3 played in Miami, I'd probably feel the same about him as I do RT. Good player, chance to be great. He's obviously done more to this point that RT has, but he also has better coaches and a stud RB. I don't think if RW was on this team with this staff and this WR corps that he's be a whole lot different than RT. RT at this point has been the cog running our offense. In SEW without Lynch RW has struggled. Make him pass 30 times per game and I think they're the same.


Edit;

This is what I mean on RT vs. RW. RW is playing very well, but he's not being asked to do as much as RT IMO

2013 season

Games with under 20 pass attempts
RT - 0
RW - 3

Games over 30 pass attempts
RT - 14
RW - 4

Games over 40 Pass Attempts
RT - 5
RW - 0

2014

Games with under 20 pass attempts
RT - 0
RW - 1

Games over 30 pass attempts
RT - 15
RW - 7

Games over 40 Pass Attempts
RT - 4
RW - 0

RT IS our offense. RW is a cog in a machine. I'm not sure how he'd do in Miami, but he hasn't been "the man" yet. If Lynch walks, we'll likely find out.

 

Pretty certain I was seeing these exact comments about Tom Brady back in 2004 or 2005.

I'm patient. I'll let you guys find out on your own how special he really is, at your own pace. No need for everyone to recognize it so early.

 

And I was seeing the same comments about Brady as are flying about Tannehill.

Like has been said before, the problem is when people try to use Wilson to somehow sh#t all over Tannehill (not saying you're doing that, CK) and then people want to point out the flaws in Wilson's game, and where he comes up short compared to Tannehill.

They're both good, young quarterbacks.

 

Yup and one more reason why they are winners. They realized the need for a franchise QB and didn't rest with Flynn. They had no issue paying him and sitting him as the franchise has continued to move forward.

 

They're nowhere near the same. In Tannehill's 37 games with 30 to 39 pass attempts, his win percentage is 0.405 (15-22), he has an average QB rating of 84.6, and he has an average YPA of 6.8. In Russell Wilson's 14 games with 30 to 39 pass attempts, his win percentage is 0.643 (9-5), he has an average QB rating of 97.8, and he has an average YPA of 7.5. That's quite a difference.

 

1. Care less about win percentage.
2. Tannehill has almost 3 times as many games, I'm sorry, I don't think Wilson's numbers stay that steady if he had to throw as much as Tannehill, game in and game out. Wilson is basically asked to do that 4 times a year.
3. What were the scores in those games? Was Wilson throwing 30+ times to score more than 15 points? 20 points? Tannehill is routinely asked to score 22+. If Wilson is throwing that much, it's probably because they aren't able to run, but I bet his defense is stool keeping the game close.

 

If you don't care about win percentage, then why would what else is going on in the game matter to you? Certainly you could argue that Wilson wouldn't have performed the same way over the number of games Tannehill has played of that nature, though that argument isn't falsifiable. No one can confirm or refute it definitively because the data to support it or refute it don't exist. You're hinging the argument on the unknown and the unknowable.

 

I don't care about win percentage of aQB because it's too heavily influenced by things out of his control.

 

I wish I could go to an alternate universe where the Dolphins have a stud defense, and see how Tannehill is viewed by fans when he's routinely going deep in the playoffs.

 

It's also heavily influenced by what he does individually, and Wilson's numbers in those games are consistent with the win percentage of his team in those games. Likewise for Tannehill. Neither player's team's win percentage is discrepant from what would be expected based on his individual contribution in those games, in terms of QB rating and YPA. In other words, neither player's win percentage was influenced inordinately by the performance of the rest of his team. The win percentages are consistent with their individual contributions.

 

The 49ers did that with Alex Smith and a stud defense in 2011, after going 13-3 in the regular season. They lost the NFC Championship game on an overtime field goal. The following season they replaced Alex Smith with Colin Kaepernick.

 

its probably some weird form of jealously mixed with regret toppled with protection of ones own covered in a poor instance of player evaluation skills.

 

well then don't mock folks who have the ability to compartmentalize their loyalty and strictly evaluate.

 

A strict evaluation would give equal measures to an other-worldly defense and awesome run game.

 

do you know how well the qb has to play in many different scenarios to get to and play in a game of that magnitude, and to make a game of it against a qb of that caliber?

 

do you remember the three drop in the game for critical downs, one play his receiver tripped, another was the perfect pass for about 35 yards over the shoulder by the sideline..

the first drive they ran three times and then brady milked the whole first quarter...

 

The only way to do that with any objectivity is to determine whether Wilson's individual performance changes as a function of how his defense and/or running game play. It doesn't. In other words, while his defense and running game may be good, his individual performance doesn't depend on how either of them play. While the team may certainly benefit from its great defense and running game, Wilson's individual play is independent of them.

 

he doesn't need to throw as much because he can cut you in multiple ways to convert, he doesn't need to throw that much because his skill set threatens opponents derivatively.

 

interesting, the info of one of the smartest analytics people on this board agrees with what i see on the film.

 

So Bret Bielema as Head Coach and Russell Wilson as QB? Sign me up.

 

He plays well, no one is debating that. He doesn't have to be phenomenal to get a team to a Super Bowl. The teams success is largely a product of their defense and balance offense.

Case and point, Trent Dilfer

 

You can't play like that because like The Sound of Thunder, one move at the beginning changes everything behind it.

 

Wait...so having the defense that held opponents to the fewest points on the league two years running doesn't affect Wilson's performance? Having a seven gabe steak of the defense allowing an average of 8 points a game djent affect Wilson's performance?

Please. It takes all the pressure completely off him. Much easier to play better when you aren't shouldering all the burden.

 

And when his defense doesn't play that way, he plays no differently individually.

 

Yeah, it seems hard to believe right? Anyway, I ran some simple tests myself on three stats: RW's passer rating vs RW's rushing yards per game vs Seattle's rushing yards (NOT including RW) per game. Because I'm lazy, I didn't look at defensive stats, but Tannephins is right regarding those 3 stats.

You sort any of those three lists (over regular season) from least to greatest, and there's really no effect on the other two. I mean, there's a SMALL effect of RW's rushing yards to that of the rest of the team (they correlate weakly) and there's a greater effect on the variance (larger variance in the rest of the team's rushing yards the more RW rushes), but as a general statement, at least on those 3 stats, he's right.

If you want to argue against his assertion (which still seems hard to believe), I suggest arguing over things that aren't directly represented by stats.

 

Course there is. There's not a huge difference between RW and RT at this point though. RW is playing well, he's running the system he's asked to run. He's not the best player on the offense though. And struggles when they can't set up the run. RT is the the best player on our offense.

 

As always, we can certainly retreat to the unknown, the irrefutable, and the unfalsifiable when what we believe is refuted by objective evidence.

 

His individual performance has nothing to do with the running game. Those variables are very weakly correlated.

 

It's worth keeping in mind you can objectively evaluate how good people's evaluations are of things, even if you can't represent the "things" they are talking about in any meaningful way statistically. All you need to do is to have a measure of the person, not the "thing" they're talking about.

There is actually an entire field that grew up (first in cognitive psychology, then in educational psychology, and now importantly in medical science) to do this. It's called Rasch analysis, and it allows you to put on a single scale what are called "item measures" and "person measures". Anyway, the point is, you could take the evaluations of everyone here, for example on who they think will be considered a success vs a bust from a given draft, or their prediction of the 2015 records of all NFL teams, and as long as they can be categorized in some way (true/false, or somewhere on an ordinal scale), you can objectively determine who's analysis is better.

 

So what does that mean? I pointed out earlier that they only won one game this year when the opponents score more than 20.

 

In the first post above it sounded like you were talking about Wilson's individual performance in relation to how the team's defense plays. In the second one you're talking about team wins in relation to the defense's performance. What exactly are you saying is related to how the team's defense plays?