I want to know how. 90% of the game was my family and I laughing at how inept both these teams were. The line play, muffed punts, fumbles, drops, turnovers, lack of points, wide open fluke ending play...how can you possibly say Miami is a better team than Buffalo considering if you look at Both the eye test and stats from the game Buffalo was the less garbage team?? Explain.
I don't think you can argue we're not better than Buffalo. Were they better they could/would have done more to win and would have won. I think they key thing here is that we showed ourselves worse than many thought we would be/are. That is, it's not that Buffalo are better, it's a shame that we're not.
I can't bring myself to write a game review this week so here's the 5 cent version- Miami really didn't feel like winning, but neither did Buffalo. Somehow we summoned just enough pressure on that final drive to stop them from scoring. The player of the game was Phillips for lighting up Drake in the backfield and then inexplicably body-slamming Drakes foot to keep that drive alive. Side notes- - Allen made Kiko look awfully slow today - The wildcat into a 10-man front? Really? A 2-yard pass against that goal-line defense (anywhere on the field) was an easy TD. - Howard is probably the best corner in the league right now. - Special teams played great as usual. It's a shame we can't just punt, kick off and block punts/field goals every down. - O'Leary caught another pass! Nothing special but it made me happy. - Our offensive line is back to prime form- missing blocks or holding every third play. - Tannehill looked okay and had the better QBR, but Allen sure looked like the better QB.
You could say Xavien Howard alone makes Miami the better team because without him today we lose 100% but does one cornerback truly make you better than another team...maybe but not by a wide margain. I’d say buffalo and Miami are equally inept and bad despite their records.
Most of his passes were dropped because of the velocity- that should be easy enough to correct in the years ahead though. I don't know about Buffalo's receivers either....they didn't look that great (the rookie looked best out of all of them). I think Allen is a guy you can build around as he matures- he looked awfully freaking good evading pressure and that release....wow! He threw a 60 yard bomb flat-footed.
We won due to the power of the throwback uniforms. This was the last winnable game on the schedule though, so December is going to be a miserable time to watch the Dolphins. I hope I'm wrong about that, but this team stumbled into a victory today due to the other team making too many big mistakes. Burke has a ton of work to do, Gase needs to show more too. Tanny? His numbers look better than how he actually played most of the game today. All the little things that keep him from being good-great consistently are alive and well.
It still all boils down to the offensive line with Miami STILL. This is due to injury this year but everyone knows the years of struggle we have it. That line makes it impossible for anything consistent regarding what you can do on offense so, yeah. However, the game plans on offense are also less than impressive and so is the play calling.
JaMarcuss Russell could throw a 60 yard bomb flat-footed. We will see if this athlete can become a quarterback. I am not convinced.
The most important position being played by a quarterback who was good at everything but being a quarterback.
He’s a rookie that ran for his life with little talent at receiver. Idk too early to judge in my personal opinion. Miami’s defense seemed to have high praise for him after the game. He’s young. Also he’s one Charles clay catch away from beating this team but we are 100% better??? No.
For the year Tannehill now has a 98.36 rating when the (current) league average is 94.9, so about 3.5 passer rating points above average. That sounds about right overall IMO. And it's basically the same relative to league average as in his two best years prior: 2014 and 2016. In 2014 his rating was a 92.8 when league average was 88.9 (so 3.9 points above average) while in 2016 he had a 93.5 rating when the league average was 89.3 (so 4.2 points above average). Basically we're seeing no improvement in performance measured by adjusted passer rating from 2014 or 2016 to 2018 so far, which I think jibes with what we see (and by now should be expected).
That win was just papering over the cracks, as we say at English soccerball games. We didn't win because we were better than Buffalo - we won because they were worse than us! Well, worse in every department apart from QB. If anyone thinks that Tannehill is a better prospect going forward than Allen, they must be getting methadone pumped in through their air conditioning. You gotta envy the Bills, having a future franchise QB to build around, while we go bumbling through another season with Mr Below-Average.
98.4 QBR is good for 15th overall (15th if you count Barkley's 25 passes...which we shouldn't)...Brock is 33rd with an 86.0. I noticed there's 9 players above a 109 though and 4 more between 100-102. I think that's due to the league having a few really good teams this season and a ton of mediocre ones. I mean, Miami is still top 10 for wins....as crazy as that sounds. But it doesn't seem like the worst starter should be above Brock's 86....I think it's just a strange year with the new roughing the passer rules. Side note- when I searches for unqualified QBR ratings for the year (since that's how most sites show it), Amendola is #1 (perfect QBR plus his name starts with an A). =)
Believe me, even a dumb-***, knows-nowt limey can see it. We were **** - thankfully they were ****ter..!
Wait.. where are you getting those stats? Pro-football-reference doesn't update today's games until tomorrow, but they have the option of only showing starting QB's. Click "hide non-qualifiers for rate stats" and then order by rating: https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2018/passing.htm Before today's games you have 6 starting QB's above 109 and 7 between 100 and 104 with Brock at #26. Obviously that will change a bit after today but it won't be 9 above 109 with Brock 33rd. Either way you're right it's a strange year. We're witnessing the highest increase in league average passer rating from the previous year in NFL history. Previous record was about 8% increase from 1977 to 1978. Now we're at 9% increase from 2017 to 2018. And the standard deviation is increasing too, meaning that the difference between the best and worst teams increased after the rule change. So yeah.. weird for sure.
I got them from NFL.com off the QB tab (the "passing tab" there is essentially worthless)....I have no idea if they were updated today or not. There was not an option to sort by qualifying plays but Barkley was the only one in the top 20 that didn't belong there. I didn't think about it earlier but that means Osweiler is actually 32nd overall! He's starting material baby!
Ah.. OK took a look at that. So NFL.com seems to update which is why Cam Newton is now below 100 there but not yet on PFR. Otherwise the only difference is NFL.com doesn't filter out non-starters. I think you want to filter like at PFR because you're counting guys like Brian Hoyer who only had 1 passing attempt and Taysom Hill with 6 passing attempts above Osweiler lol. So there are 6 not 9 above 109 even at NFL.com if you exclude Barkley and Osweiler is 26th if you look only at starters.
Yeah, I counted Barkley and messed up the simple math on top of that...my fault there. Brees, Mahomes, Rivers, Wilson, Goff and Ryan are 109+. Cousins, Watson, Wentz, Fitz and Newton (99.8) are the 5 at 100-102. Then it's Rodgers, Luck and RT between 98-99. I noticed something else- RT and Brock both have 178 attempts where the average starter is around 400. So Tannehill's QBR is basically half as accurate since it barely scrapes the minimum throws you'd want to see. I don't know if that necessarily works in his favor either. The numbers are just weird this year with the worst starter hovering around the 86 range.
And how do you adjust for throwing to 2nd and 3rd string receivers in front of AN offensive line consisting of 2nd and 3rd stringers. Funniest thing I saw today was Kenny stills line up next to the tackle and then stay in to block as if he was a tight end, on a passing down
Oh.. yeah sample size doesn't scale that way. If we treat passer rating as the mean of a random variable (it kind of is actually) then the effect of sample size N on the uncertainty (called the standard error) is proportional to the square root of N. That is.. the square root of 178 is 13.34 while the square root of 400 is 20, so 13.34/20 = 0.667 meaning that the "uncertainty" with 400 attempts is about 2/3 that with 178 attempts. That's a bit simplified way of looking at it, but the point is: twice sample size doesn't mean twice the level of certainty.
I honestly don't know how that factors- Amendola is our top receiver at 66th in receiving yards. Wilson is 85th and Stills is 94th. That's why I'm still clinging to the RT bandwagon as long as I can....I think he's "good enough".
the Gase era brought in with it a three year curse of injuries. We will end up top 12 in adjusted games lost for the third straight year. Only three teams have made the playoffs the last two years with that many injuries and one of those was us during gase's first year. That's a 12.5 % of making the playoffs. Not good odds though we beat them one year. That basically means 8-8 is a good year if you suffer that many injuries. My feeling is it can't continue. Luck has to turn our way. I think we're due for a relatively injury free year and if we get that I think we go 11-5 and win a playoff game. Compare our starting team Sept 1 and now. Gase won't have to call these weird games where he constantly has to compensate for injuries. We just need one healthy year
What is truly terrifying about that ranking is the implication that there are at least 6 teams out there who would be improved by starting Brock Osweiler over their current QB.
Yeah it's the 3 rookie starting QB's: Rosen, Darnold and Allen, he's clearly better than right now rating-wise. The other guys he's above (Beatheard, Bortles, Keenum, Flacco, Smith) have ratings in the 80's so maybe there would be little difference with Brock. https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2018/passing.htm But yeah really amazing how: 1) "bad" today means 80's rating, and 2) how so many teams have QB's as bad as Brock.
How much stock do you put in QB rating? Do you think playing for an exactly league average offense he is slightly above average? Do you have another statistic that you think is more meaningful?
We discussed at length here. https://thephins.com/threads/how-much-does-a-qb-contribute-to-winning.89352/ Passer rating made by the team has a .674 correlation to win%, which means that passer rating made alone explains up to 45% of a team’s wins. That does not include - your rushing - special teams - fumbles - sacks - defensive pass rating allowed (which includes INTs) - defensive rushing allowed So as a single explanation of a team’s performance it is one of the most powerful stats.
I instantly thought that as well. But let's be honest- Brock is not a bad QB. He's just not a natural fit for this offense without our speed guys to catch short passes. Once we got down to just regular receivers, he didn't have too many options without completely overhauling the entire offensive scheme.
Well.. there's no "QB stat" that measures QB ability independently of all other factors so that's one problem right off the bat. But if you have a team stat like passer rating where a large percentage of that rating is due to the QB (some unknown X%) then that team stat is logically speaking X% an individual stat. The larger X is the smaller sample size is needed before it correlates highly with an individual's ability. That's the reason why over very large sample size (i.e., a career) you see passer rating correlate with QB's most people think are great. As far as Tannehill is concerned, if you adjust each year to a common year, weight each year's passer rating by number of passing attempts, look at the standard deviations above/below the mean and then adjust by defense (through the relation between points allowed and win%) you get what's called a weighted z-score rating of -0.1562 for Tannehill from 2012-2017, where a z-score = 0 is precisely average, and about 2/3 of all QB's are between z = -1 and z = 1. That's the best statistical result I can come up with to estimate his ability, and yes it suggests Tannehill is overall around average. Is there a better stat to use than passer rating? Well maybe. Passer rating has 4 components: Yards/Att, Comp/Att, TD/Att and INT/Att. For some applications you might want a simpler stat with high correlation to win percentage. In that case I'd use NY/A = Net Yards per Attempt = (Passing yards - Sack yards)/(Passes attempted + Times sacked) whose correlation from 1970-2017 to win% is 0.6063, which is similarly high to the 0.6321 correlation to win% of passer rating yet doesn't have as many components and doesn't include TD's.