You go be a vikings fan, on one of their forums then, and I'll come laugh at you at season's end when wallace has another sub par year, with a QB that isn't really great at the deep ball because he's considered to have a weak arm. Let's not forget this is a WR that's a poor route runner, and poor catcher of the football too. Do you even know what you're talking about? Obviously not. http://walterfootball.com/scoutingreport2014tbridgewater.php http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2043843-teddy-bridgewater-nfl-draft-2014-highlights-scouting-report-and-breakdown#articles/2043843-teddy-bridgewater-nfl-draft-2014-highlights-scouting-report-and-breakdown http://www.nfl.com/draft/2013/profiles/teddy-bridgewater?id=2543465 Just stop already...
The Mike Wallace deep-ball-in-stride is a thing of beauty that brings joy to millions of NFL fans. I hope Wallace + Bridgewater have that deep ball chemistry. Wallace + Tannehill were a terrible fit for each other, and they shouldn't have been on the same team. Trading Wallace was like freeing a caged animal. It was the right move for everyone involved.
And that's just me taking what Ive seen, then doing a quick google search for the scouting reports, because, you know, some need that kind of proof. Now I remember why I don't spend much time out here anymore. Unreal. The one area that will really benefit Wallace in Minny, is the supporting cast around him at WR, and RB assuming Peterson comes back.
Somehow, those passes that were in Wallaces HANDS and then dropped, magically don't get dropped, because the person throwing them changed.
The Bridgewater deep ball criticism coming out of college was overblown. Hence he showed up to the NFL and tied for the 10th best deep ball accuracy out of 38 qualifying quarterbacks. Something that would have been claimed impossible by a number of media evaluators coming out of the draft. Similar to how Ryan Tannehill's deep ball was criticized at Texas A&M and then as a rookie he had the 9th most accurate deep ball out of 33 qualifying quarterbacks. Pretty similar. These deep ball narratives have a way of being manipulated to fit peoples' arguments, every which way.
Tannehill with a 114 QBR when throwing to Wallace. Somehow people come up with a silly argument that Wallace only got 10 TDs because the coaches forced him the ball to keep him happy. For real? The same coach that benched his ***? He caught those TDs because he ran his routes and was open.
True. The one thing I HATE about deep ball statistics though, is they start at 20. Thats kind of intermediate to me. I'd like for them to start counting 30+ as a deep pass. 15-30 as intermediate.1-15 as short. But that's just me. It will be interesting to see Teddy B throwing to Wallace and Charles Johnson next year. And I'm excited for Stills. It'll provide us with a chance to see how he performs Brees/Tannehill. I'm very hopeful
Seems like any time someone is railing on deep accuracy (here or otherwise), it usually comes with a whole lot of ignoring that its a chance-y low percentage throw in the first place.
How good is Kenny Stills? Better, faster, more polished, apparently smarter than your average 22 year old WR.
Those are college scouting reports. Teddy Bridgewater has been playing in the NFL, and has already been hitting the high-arcing deep ball in stride, that allows his WRs to accelerate through the ball. Teddy Bridgewater high-arcs a deep ball, and hits Charles Johnson in stride, for a 56 yd TD. http://www.vikings.com/media-vault/...n-The-TD/c21ac6a6-b903-4d21-8a07-967a817fbbfd Teddy Bridgewater high-arcs a deep ball, and hits Adam Thielen in stride, for a 44 yd TD. http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-...Bridgewater-44-yard-touchdown-pass-to-Thielen Are you hoping that Bridgewater + Wallace fail? I'm not. I'm hoping that both Bridgewater + Wallace and Tannehill + Stills light up the scoreboards with deep balls. After all, I'm a NFL fan.
Wallace was a focal point for pretty much every defense he faced. If Stills were getting that type of attention his #s would look very different. Unfortunately they don't have stats for this type of thing, you have to actually watch the games.
So the same throws Tannehill hit on the TD's to Hartline against the Cardinals in his rookie year, or the deep toss to Marlon Moore vs the Rams, or Hartline's TD against the Browns in Wallace's first game, or the ones dropped by Sims or R. Williams this year? I just think this whole thing is overblown. Why were Wallace's stats no different his last year in Pittsburgh than his years here?
Different types of throws & catches. For example.. - The Tannehill to Hartline catch was a 4.5 WR on a crossing route where he turned to face the QB and catch the ball with his hands (his thumbs were facing each other). - The Bridgewater to Charles Johnson catch was a 4.3 WR on a sideline go route, where he caught a high-arcing deep ball in stride, and accelerated through the ball, and kept running all the way for a TD. The second example is a better match for what Mike Wallace specializes in. Maybe because Ben Roethlisberger was injured.
Thats a great point. He's only 22, has a ton of football ahead of him and coming from Nawlins I doubt he'll have much of a learning curve in terms of technique and how to attack coverages. My only concern is how he'll respond to be being the main target in Miami after being pretty much an afterthought for defenses who faced the Saints.
He was also injured in 2010, Wallace's best year as a pro. The problem was that the Steelers shifted to a timing pass offense, like the one Miami runs, and Wallace's performance has never been the same since then (2012).
This is why expected points added per play is the better statistic, because presumably the best receivers are still making plays that are typically associated with points scored, even if they aren't necessarily on the receiving end of as many touchdown passes some years.
There's a lot of nuance that gets missed when looking at EPA, WPA, DVOA, and AV. I think a lot of folks get stuck on the old milestones and tend to miss what those other stats can tell you.
I think the reality is that deep balls start closer to 25 yards down the field but I've seen deep verticals at 21 yards, so it's not that big a deal. If you're throwing a ball 70 feet horizontally (half the field is 80 feet) and 75 feet vertically, that's a 34 or 35 yard throw. And as someone that tracks throw distances a lot, I can tell you that's a deep ball. It may not be a Ryan Tannehill to Mike Wallace 55 yard deep ball but it's definitely a Peyton Manning to Demaryius Thomas or Eric Decker deep ball. People have to realize those 30+ yard downfield throws happen like...I forget it's something like maybe 2 times a game. The 20+ yard downfield throws are more important.
Well aside from using any other stat, the first and most obvious problem with just looking at std/mean for TD scored is that it assumes no two consecutive years are any more related in a WR's TD production than two randomly chosen years.
At least EPA and WPA have a sound basis. They are limited in explanatory power, but make sense to use. DVOA and AV aren't really stats as far as we know. AV is transparently subjective and DVOA looks like it's based on subjective assignment of "success points" (doesn't help that it's proprietary). The proprietary part is also why I'd dismiss QBR from ESPN.
This is why I prefer clutch-weighted expected points added on pass attempts, which is a component of ESPN's QBR, and which gives you this in 2014: http://espn.go.com/nfl/qbr/_/sort/cwepaPassesCondensed
Do they tell you how "clutch" it is? That weight may be one of those subjective parts, in which case it's not a good stat.
I think the bigger problem is they don't separate cases where the ball was thrown deep vs. when the receiver broke free from a shorter pass and went deep.
Here's the explanation: http://theclassical.org/theclog/the...-understanding-the-controversial-clutch-index
Very nice, thanks for sharing. OK, then "clutch" is the same thing as leverage index in baseball and is just a ratio of WP at any moment in the game to WP at the start of the game, so nothing subjective about that.
Do you mean off a scramble? Because if a ball is thrown at 5 yards and the receiver catches it and breaks it 60 yards for a score, it's not going to go under PFF's 20+ yard category.
Oh interesting.. just looked it up. PFF's "deep passing" stat only considers passes that travel in the air for 20+ yards. Didn't know that. Thanks.
I'm not a fan of QBR either. I don't recommend AV as a strict performance rating stat, but it is probably the best way to determine if a guy is going to the Hall or not. DVOA is in there for two reasons: it at least tries (how successfully depends on how much weight you give their arguments) to adjust for the opponent as well. Secondly, it probably "feels" the most right when you're looking to evaluate a players performance at the end of the year. I'm not happy with the fact that they've begun including QBR, but outside of that when I'm checking out the DYAR/DVOA rankings it just seems right.
And that's a big reason why it shouldn't be dismissed outright in my opinion. If a team or a player is routinely "getting right" against the bad competition, and playing poorly against the good competition, obviously that's a factor to consider. And the folks at Football Outsiders are adding a tremendous amount of work to what they do to account for that issue.
Correction. YOU don't know that w any certainty. Its football 101. A WRs numbers are affected by the amount of attention being paid to them by the defenses they face. That's not to say lesser numbers indicate a lesser player, stats are just too dumb to tell the difference. If Stills attracts more attention it opens things up for his teammates, helping them and the offense as a whole so even if his #s look different it doesn't necessarily mean he's not performing bc at the end of the day a player's worth is determined by how much he helps his team win.
Stills was like 4th option on New Orleans. Wallace was the 1st option here. Also Stills had an elite passer along with a great coach and offensive system, things the Dolphins dont have. I predict Stills will have an ok season. For some reason players a lot of players don't play well here but once they leave the dolphins they become much better and turn into stars. The culture and just overall system here that not to great.
Your correction is flawed, because you don't know that with any certainty. You have no clue whether or not having more attention will cause a diminish in Still's numbers. Logically it makes sense, however it needs to be proven on the field to have certainty. Plus, also, how much more? That is a big question.