1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

2022 Best Case Scenario for Tua

Discussion in 'Miami Dolphins Forum' started by Galant, Jan 25, 2022.

  1. Dolfanalyst

    Dolfanalyst Active Member

    131
    92
    28
    Jan 14, 2022
    Pertaining to what's quoted above, the good news is that teams can apparently help their QBs and pass offenses function significantly better with help at receiver. Obviously that's intuitive as well, but the degree to which it's true may be surprising.

    For the 2017 and 2018 seasons the standardized regression coefficients in predicting EPA per pass dropback team-by-team are as follows.

    84% of the variance in EPA per pass dropback explained, with all independent variables statistically significant.

    PFF QB grade: 0.425
    PFF OL pass blocking grade: 0.198
    PFF team receiving grade: 0.560

    So the league as a whole is more dependent on receiver play than it is on QB or OL play, in terms of pass efficiency.

    When you confine the analysis to Tom Brady's career year-by-year exclusively (NE and TB), you get a roughly analogous finding.

    69% of the variance in EPA per pass dropback explained, with all independent variables statistically significant.

    PFF QB grade: 0.300
    PFF OL pass blocking grade: 0.316
    PFF team receiving grade: 0.630

    So while Brady has been somewhat more dependent than the league at large on his offensive line play for his teams' pass efficiency, he's been hugely dependent on his receiver play.

    So when you consider that the 2021 Dolphins' pass offense was envisioned to function with a premier downfield threat in Will Fuller, capable receivers in Devante Parker and Mike Gesicki, and a highly-touted newcomer in Jaylen Waddle -- and instead functioned with a crippled version of that -- help for Tua and the pass offense could indeed be on the way in the form of personnel changes at receiver.

    A qualification here is that while the correlations between QB and OL grades, and the correlation between OL and receiver grades are non-statistically significant, the correlation between QB and receiver grades is 0.52 and statistically significant. I'd like @cbrad to weigh in on that (and anything else here) if he would.
     
  2. cbrad

    cbrad .

    9,485
    11,368
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Only comments I'd make here:

    1) Is "team" receiving grade a sum of individual WR grades? If so, then it's not removing correlations between individual WR grades, which means the team receiving grade is overestimating the effect of the unit. Same might be true for OL unless they view it as a unit and don't sum up individual contributions.

    2) The statistically significant correlation between QB and team receiver grades suggests they need to put an interaction effect into the linear regression, i.e., a QB*WR interaction effect. If the QB*WR interaction effect soaks up most of the variance then that suggests PFF analysts have a difficult time separating the individual contributions of QB and WR.

    Otherwise it's a good start. One thing PFF doesn't do but should do is transform their grades to a logit scale. When people rate things the difference between ratings K and K+1 don't a priori represent the same difference in an underlying latent variable (in this case the ability of the football player). If you have many graders rating the same individuals there's a mathematics called Rasch analysis that can transform the ratings onto a scale (in logit units) so that the difference between K and K+1 represent the same difference. That automatically would improve predictions, mostly at the tail ends of the scale.
     
    Dolfanalyst likes this.
  3. M1NDCRlME

    M1NDCRlME Fear The Spear

    675
    472
    63
    Oct 26, 2009
    Orlando
    I would absolutely be looking to upgrade the WR group but I havent started looking at which FAs are available yet. But with Parker it's "the devil you know" scenario. By the same token if they decide he's not part of the future plans, I'm ok with that as well. He's never lived up to his potential for various reasons, but it also seems like he's been a good team player (or at least not a locker room cancer).

    IMO when Parker is healthy and involved in the game plan he can be a very good receiver, however his inability to stay healthy creates problems for the team. I wouldn't have a problem with them letting him walk away either. I just wouldn't give him any kind of big guaranteed salary but he has yet to live up to what they have paid him. He's worth a low dollar short-term (maybe 2 years) deal. Just because he would have an incentive package doesn't mean they have to target him just to try and meet his numbers, if they come organically, so be it, it means he's contributing. They could also just offer him a veteran-minimum salary. Lots of ways for this to play out that don't handcuff the team.

    Sorry I kinda rambled on a bit but I think I answer your question.
     
    tirty8 likes this.
  4. Fishhead

    Fishhead Well-Known Member

    941
    709
    93
    Sep 29, 2016
    If Aaron Rodgers leaves GB, I’d push hard for Adams.
     
  5. M1NDCRlME

    M1NDCRlME Fear The Spear

    675
    472
    63
    Oct 26, 2009
    Orlando
    Its looking like Rodgers and Adams are a package deal. GET THEM BOTH TO MIAMI!
     
    resnor likes this.
  6. cbrad

    cbrad .

    9,485
    11,368
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Keep in mind the cost would be enormous. We'd probably have to give up the equivalent of at minimum 3 and possibly 4 1st round picks for this given the huge interest from other teams. Having said that I'd be for it. Rodgers should be an elite QB for several years at least, giving us a short window for a SB. It would rejuvenate this franchise. Whoever the HC is will also look "impressive" lol.

    If we do this we'd obviously trade Tua. Probably worth at least a 2nd and maybe a 1st given how QB needy some teams are, so that would cushion the cost a bit.
     
    M1NDCRlME likes this.
  7. M1NDCRlME

    M1NDCRlME Fear The Spear

    675
    472
    63
    Oct 26, 2009
    Orlando
    Agreed. This is one of the only scenarios where I'd be willing to mortgage the future to win now.
     
  8. Dolfanalyst

    Dolfanalyst Active Member

    131
    92
    28
    Jan 14, 2022
    In a model with QB grades, receiving grades, and an interaction effect, 81% of the variance in EPA per pass dropback is predicted, and none of the three independent variables is statistically significant.

    As far as I know the team receiver and OL grades are for the whole units, as they're on a scale that's the same as the individual player grades.
     
  9. JJ_79

    JJ_79 Well-Known Member

    3,459
    916
    113
    Nov 25, 2012
    Germany
    Oh and that he fully heals up and stays healthy. Tua is not the QB he was before the hip injury, his body is probably at 75% what is was before maybe a little more and a guy from his statue needs to be healthy to perform. I think when and if he fully heals from that hip injury his ball velocity is going to get a little better and that might be enough for him to become a top 10 QB, hopefully…
     
  10. cbrad

    cbrad .

    9,485
    11,368
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    That's interesting lol. So QB and WR alone (with OL) are statistically significant, but put in the interaction term and they no longer are. That supports the hunch that it's really difficult to tease apart contribution of the QB and WR when evaluating either.

    Anyway, you'll get statistical significance if you increase sample size enough. Question is which becomes significant first, and if multiple factors are significant what are their p-values (or t-values). It will be important to report the coefficients (slopes) at that point to see which has the biggest effect on EPA per pass dropback.
     
    Dolfanalyst likes this.
  11. Dolfanalyst

    Dolfanalyst Active Member

    131
    92
    28
    Jan 14, 2022
    That's the thing about the PFF grades -- they're purportedly evaluating players in isolation from each other, but when it comes to a QB's throwing a pass to a receiver I imagine that becomes very difficult. I suspect that on plays where receivers are just running routes and not being targeted, they're typically getting very nondescript grades (hovering around zero), whereas only when they're targeted is there a far greater probability that they get a grade with some magnitude. Well then of course you're evaluating the QB at the same time on that throw.

    Here's some more on it: https://www.pff.com/grades
     
    cbrad likes this.
  12. hitman8

    hitman8 Well-Known Member

    2,484
    1,680
    113
    Nov 11, 2016
    I think we are missing the forest for the trees here. Let's just stick to good fundamental football and upgrade the trenches. Build from the inside out.
     
    mlb1399, resnor and M1NDCRlME like this.
  13. Dolfanalyst

    Dolfanalyst Active Member

    131
    92
    28
    Jan 14, 2022
    The problem with that approach is that it's belied by the data in the post you quoted. Pass efficiency drives the bus on winning in the NFL, and pass efficiency on a season-long basis has far less to do with offensive line play than it does with QB and receiver play. There is nothing "non-fundamental" about good QB and receiver play -- when it comes to what wins, there is nothing more fundamental in the present-day NFL.

    Right now the Cincinnati Bengals for example are bottom-dwellers with regard to pass blocking in 2021, yet playing for the AFC Championship this weekend against the Chiefs (who they recently beat in fact) primarily because they have Joe Burrow and Ja'Marr Chase -- again QB and receiver play. They gave up 9 sacks last weekend and won nonetheless. Since 2001 there had been a mere 39 games of the 5,376 regular season games played in the NFL (0.7%) that featured a team with 9+ sacks. A mere one team of those 39 won. Cincinnati won last weekend -- again primarily with Burrow and Chase.

    QB and receiver play is foundational in the present-day NFL. The Dolphins' receivers in 2021 were poor overall.
     
  14. Dol-Fan Dupree

    Dol-Fan Dupree Tank? Who is Tank? I am Guy Incognito.

    40,202
    32,701
    113
    Dec 11, 2007
    how many teams win when they throw 3 interceptions? IMO, that had a bigger impact on the victory or at least just as much.
     
  15. Dolfanalyst

    Dolfanalyst Active Member

    131
    92
    28
    Jan 14, 2022
    Turnover margin for Cincinnati was +2. 67 games in 2021 with a turnover margin of +2. The team on the favorable side of that turnover margin won 55 of them (82%). Tennessee had an 18% chance of winning with a turnover margin of -2 in 2021. By contrast Cincinnati had a 2.6% chance of winning with 9 sacks (1 team of 39 since 2001).

    The main point however is that the offensive line doesn't necessarily have to be viewed as a more foundational element of football than the skilled position players. The two strongest predictors of pressure on QBs are time to throw and scoreboard differential. When teams are down big on the scoreboard and in must-pass situations, their offensive lines are at a disadvantage and prone to surrendering pressure (think back to the second game of this season against Buffalo -- what a mess). To the degree that scoreboard differential is determined by scoring and by skilled position players, deficiencies in skilled position play can cause unfavorable scoreboards and consequently deficiencies in offensive line play.

    It isn't just offensive line --> skilled position play. It's also skilled position play --> offensive line. The relationship is bidirectional.
     
    Dol-Fan Dupree likes this.
  16. Dol-Fan Dupree

    Dol-Fan Dupree Tank? Who is Tank? I am Guy Incognito.

    40,202
    32,701
    113
    Dec 11, 2007
    While true the sacks did cost them the opportunity for at least 9 points alone. If the defense didn't play so well they would have won the game.

    It is hard for me to give that game to the skilled position play of Cincinnati.
     
    Dolfanalyst likes this.
  17. Dolfanalyst

    Dolfanalyst Active Member

    131
    92
    28
    Jan 14, 2022
    Remember that Tannehill's performance versus expectation against Cincinnati's defense was far worse than Burrow's performance versus expectation against Tennessee's defense -- and that's even if you attribute the 9 sacks to Burrow exclusively in that calculation. So the difference in QB play won the game, and of course Burrow was aided by Chase. Burrow and Chase are better than Tannehill and AJ Brown. Tannehill laid an egg and lost the game, whereas Burrow surmounted the sacks and won it.
     
    JJ_79 likes this.
  18. Dol-Fan Dupree

    Dol-Fan Dupree Tank? Who is Tank? I am Guy Incognito.

    40,202
    32,701
    113
    Dec 11, 2007
    Yea, that is an interpretation. I honestly think this is putting too much on the quarterback and not telling the entire story. I know people love to blame Tannehill for all the interceptions but the 2nd one was just a really impressive play, and the last one was also a very impressive play with an unlucky bounce. Tannehill didn't have a good game and IMO, neither did Burrow. I don't think Burrow surmounted the sacks rather than the Bengals surmounted the sacks and won it.
     
  19. hitman8

    hitman8 Well-Known Member

    2,484
    1,680
    113
    Nov 11, 2016
    Do not worship at the alter of analytics. Numbers can be very misleading, there are always outliers which skew the stats and lead to wrong impressions. We don't have a great QB that can overcome a bad offensive line, and great receivers like chase are very hard to come by. Either way, even with Burrow and Chase, I wouldn't bet on cinci to win the super bowl with that awful pass protection.

    Again, build from the trenches. Grier fell into that trap of spending a boatload of money on receivers while neglecting the oline. That's not going to work. Especially not with a limited Tua at QB.
     
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2022
    M1NDCRlME, mlb1399 and resnor like this.
  20. cbrad

    cbrad .

    9,485
    11,368
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    The analytics say your best use of resources to win a SB is to build a well above average passing offense and a well above average pass defense. That's based on such large sample size you're not getting misleading results there.

    In our case, we have the pass defense (#7 in passer rating allowed). We probably need a second WR with Waddle, and we need better pass protection. But the single most difficult to obtain missing piece is the QB. The way Tua ended this season it's not looking good. He'll almost certainly get one more chance to prove he can play at an elite level, but if that doesn't work you definitely don't "build from the trenches", you "find that franchise QB" or nothing else will matter much.
     
    Dolfanalyst likes this.
  21. hitman8

    hitman8 Well-Known Member

    2,484
    1,680
    113
    Nov 11, 2016
    Yes we need all those things, but to suggest oline play is actually not that important based on these numbers is just wrong. I feel good old fashioned football sense is better than modern analytics in most cases.

    I remember a few years ago Gase, tbaum and Grier got this genius idea in their heads that guards were really not that important in today's "modern" game, and we proceeded to get embarrassed almost every game because our guards were absolute trash.

    Grier seems to have this same stupid idea that receivers are more important than olinemen, and it's been an absolute disaster.

    Yes we need quality receivers, but we also need a good offensive line. Concentrating too much on one at the expense of the other is a mistake.
     
  22. cbrad

    cbrad .

    9,485
    11,368
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Hard to say exactly where the balance should be, on average of course. But one thing is clear: the NFL is moving more and more towards an analytics based approach. Doug Pederson famously employed analytics in winning the SB. The general trend towards more aggressive play calling, devaluing the RB, and with it also OL play for the running game, is in large part driven by analytics. So it's not just Grier and co. we're talking about, it's the NFL in general (with some notable exceptions like Tennessee etc.)

    Now, this is just the beginning of the trend. In some cases the analytics will be misleading, but not for the reason you state (outliers). It's because they're estimating what will occur in situations where people haven't explored the effects as much, like often going for it on 4th down in situations you otherwise wouldn't have — how do defenses adjust when you keep doing that? That "adjustment" factor is hard to estimate using current analytics.

    Anyway, expect more analytics based decision making in the future. Where precisely the best balance is we'll see, but I don't think we'll see a return to valuing guard play as much as it used to be. So many recent SB winners had not only the QB but also the WR, and many had either an average OL or in some cases a fairly bad OL.
     
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2022
    Dolfanalyst likes this.
  23. hitman8

    hitman8 Well-Known Member

    2,484
    1,680
    113
    Nov 11, 2016
    The key to everything in life is finding the right balance. Analytics is a good tool to have, but it should not determine your every decision. Just because analytics says oline is not that important, it doesn't mean you should completely neglect the oline. There is also a human error and subjectiveness component to analytics and unpredictable variables that you can't account for. Who is actually doing the grading, what is their criteria? I have yet to see a super bowl champion with a trash oline. QBs and receivers, no matter how good, need time to develop their routes, and a good running game makes passing a whole lot easier. This is just common football sense.

    I feel GMs are just looking for short cuts and hacks by relying too much on analytics. The NFL is a copycat league, but the latest and greatest trends are not always the best, and what works for one will not work for all. Relying too much on analytics is a mistake IMO.

    And yes, guard play is absolutely valuable. Whomever does not think so is an absolute idiot football wise. Just lay off the numbers and watch the games for Crist sake, did everybody not see what having Austin Jackson get manhandled and have the pocket pushed back into the QBs face every other play did to our offense?
     
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2022
    resnor likes this.
  24. cbrad

    cbrad .

    9,485
    11,368
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    There have been quite a few actually. 2011 Giants might be the best example. Ranked 31st overall. Seattle also had a really bad OL, including bad pass blocking OL. Steelers 2008 also had a bad OL.

    Most SB winners aren't near the top of the list in terms of OL rankings. Most are mid-tier. QB however? That's another story.
     
    Dolfanalyst likes this.
  25. Dolfanalyst

    Dolfanalyst Active Member

    131
    92
    28
    Jan 14, 2022
    There are many areas of life in which common sense is incorrect and uncommon sense is correct. This is one of them. In addition to what cbrad said above about offensive lines and Super Bowls, there is also the finding that the average correlation among QBs between passer rating and rushing efficiency, game-by-game, is near-zero. The average QB doesn't benefit from his run game on a single-game basis -- he can pass the ball just fine even when his run game isn't efficient, and he can pass the ball poorly even when his run game is highly efficient.

    Similarly, in 2020 there was a 0.23 correlation, team-by-team over the season, between EPA per pass dropback and EPA per rush, meaning that a mere 5% of the variance in EPA per pass dropback is explained by EPA per rush. In other words, over the 2020 season, teams could pass the ball just fine even when their run games weren't efficient. Likewise teams could pass the ball poorly even when their run games were highly efficient. There isn't an inherent symbiosis between the run game and the passing game as common sense would lead one to believe. Uncommon sense is correct in this case.

    Likewise, on a season-long basis the difference between the best and worst QB in the league is far greater than the difference between the best and worst offensive line in the league. What that means is that a team with the worst offensive line in the league and an average or worse QB (the Dolphins) would get more mileage, over a season, from replacing its average or worse QB with Aaron Rodgers than it would in keeping its average or worse QB and putting him behind an average offensive line. An average offensive line isn't better enough than the Dolphins' offensive line to overcome the difference in performance that would be achieved by replacing Tua with Aaron Rodgers, even with the same poor offensive line.

    Again uncommon sense is correct here, because common sense can't accurately determine the degree of variation among offensive lines in the league. This is why we need analytics (statistics) -- because humans can't accurately perform that number and complexity of mental/mathematical operations. We need statistics to either confirm or refute our supposed common sense. When we're watching Tua be pressured quickly because Austin Jackson whiffed on yet another block, we have no idea how that compares to a league average in terms of frequency and severity of poor pass blocking. If every offensive line in the league whiffs on blocks just as frequently and poorly, then the degree of that variation in pass blocking among offensive lines is nil, and that behavior of offensive lines then can't possibly determine variation in pass efficiency throughout the league. The truth of the matter is that while offensive lines do in fact vary, they don't vary enough to supersede the effects of other sources of variation in the passing game -- QBs and receivers primarily.
     
    cbrad likes this.
  26. Galant

    Galant Love - Unity - Sacrifice - Eternity

    19,127
    11,056
    113
    Apr 22, 2014
    I remember a discussion on one of the live PFF streams, discussing whether the Bengals should pick Chase or Sewell (WR or OL) in order to benefit Burrow the most. Beyond the player specific information, they discussed the effect of OL vs WR in terms of buying the QB time, getting the ball out etc. And one of the guys declared that the data clearly showed that WR was the way to go. The going for Chase, while counter-intuitive, would be the best pick for the Bengals in order to help Burrow. IIRC it was somewhat close and the Bengals would need to address OL, but the idea was that a stronger OL with weaker WRs wouldn't help Burrow as much as much better WRs with the same weaker line.

    One season removed and the Bengals have done well, but Burrow has also been sacked a lot. So the answer seems to be - both.
    It seems that top WR talent is the key factor in developing an offense, however, the other side of things is to remember that one year back Burrow got injured badly and one would assume that the more a QB gets sacked and hit the higher the chance he has of being injured in minor or major ways. That being the case, perhaps the ideal model would be an average OL with excellent passing talent.
     
  27. hitman8

    hitman8 Well-Known Member

    2,484
    1,680
    113
    Nov 11, 2016
    I get it, you're a stats buff. I however did not need stats to tell me that replacing Tua with Rodgers or Watson is a better move than just upgrading the oline and leaving Tua as our QB. That is also common football sense. Again the key to life is balance. Don't put all your trust on just stats and analytics is what I'm saying.

    Yes, a great QB and receiver tandem can overcome a below average oline and lack of a running game, especially with today's pass happy rules. But that does not mean that having a good running game does not help open up your play action passing attack for example. Or that having a good oline will make your great QB and Receiver even better. That's just common football sense and you don't need analytics to figure that out. In fact, if you just looked at analytics and ignored your football sense, you would miss that fact and just concentrate too much on the QB and receivers.
     
  28. Galant

    Galant Love - Unity - Sacrifice - Eternity

    19,127
    11,056
    113
    Apr 22, 2014
    If I can jump in, per my post above, I think what cbrad is getting at (and @cbrad correct me if I'm wrong) is where the Dolphins can get the most 'bang for their buck' in terms of draft picks or trades. Upgrading the whole team at once would be the best thing, but of course, it's impossible. So they have to figure out which positions to upgrade one move at a time. I would imagine cbrad believes that an upgraded OL and RB etc. would all be of benefit to the team - that's by definition of 'upgrade'. Instead, the question is, if you can only upgrade one or two players, which ones do you choose? One or two OL, or one or two WRs, etc.

    The answer may well depend on the individuals available. If there are no great WRs available but there is a stud LT or C, then in that case the most bang for the buck might come there. But, the specifics of each individual aside, there's data to indicate that an elite WR can do more for your passing game than an upgraded OL, and so you pick the elite WR over the elite LT - depending on what you've got on your team already.

    Would that be a correct understanding of your point, cbrad?
     
  29. Dolfanalyst

    Dolfanalyst Active Member

    131
    92
    28
    Jan 14, 2022
    You do need analytics to determine that. That's been debunked:

    https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2018/rushing-success-and-play-action-passing
    Again uncommon sense trumps common sense there.

    Nobody is arguing that having better personnel doesn't make a team better. Obviously a better offensive line and a better run game makes a team better. But when resources (draft picks, salary cap) are limited, you have to make decisions about what to prioritize, and run games and offensive lines should not be prioritized over QBs and receivers.
     
  30. Galant

    Galant Love - Unity - Sacrifice - Eternity

    19,127
    11,056
    113
    Apr 22, 2014
    Is there any data to indicate a point at which this becomes untrue? For example, where an OL (per position or the whole line) or an RB or the whole run game, are so poor that they're too detrimental to the team and need to be prioritised for an upgrade?
     
  31. Puka-head

    Puka-head My2nd Fav team:___vs Jets Club Member

    7,890
    4,851
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    Slightly left of center
    This thread is making me want to go to the library. And hide out back from the Teachers while smoking a joint.
     
  32. TheHighExhaulted

    TheHighExhaulted Well-Known Member

    4,148
    3,326
    113
    Jan 15, 2008
    New York
    [​IMG]
     
    Puka-head likes this.
  33. hitman8

    hitman8 Well-Known Member

    2,484
    1,680
    113
    Nov 11, 2016
    Yeah, another example of why I'm not a blind follower of analytics. Anybody who has ever played football knows that a team with a great rushing attack is a threat with play action passes. If they are running it down your throat the linebackers and safeties are instinctually going to creep up and crowd the running lanes at the threat of the run, which opens up the defense over the top and over the middle.

    In terms of the numbers, there are a lot of teams and coaches that don't know how to run play action, or call it at the wrong times or with bad play designs. Or maybe the QB and RB are not good at masking the ball and executing correctly.

    There are many factors that could influence the overall numbers. But the logic behind play action is rock solid if you have a dangerous running attack and the coaches and players know when and how to execute it.
     
  34. cbrad

    cbrad .

    9,485
    11,368
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Only thing I'd note is that the argument should be made from actual stats instead of PFF grades. Best stats I've seen for OL are ESPN's PBWR and RBWR (as much as ESPN's QBR should be dismissed, I think they got something right with these OL stats lol).

    Yup that's correct. Question is where we can get the most bang for the buck.

    One limitation of all stats is they only show you what occurs over the range of what we actually observe in the game. So while those stats about very low correlation between pass and run efficiency are valid over the range of what NFL teams actually do, there's no question that relationship will fall apart if for example rush efficiency is zero (e.g., you decide not to run at all). If the defense knows you'll never run it's obvious it will affect passing efficiency a lot.

    This is like that 4th and short thing I mentioned earlier. Analytics said you should be more aggressive, and many coaches heeded this advice, but it's very possible that they went over-aggressive (not yet clear). The stats saying you should go for it more often did so only based on data from games where defenses rarely faced such aggressiveness, so how defenses adjust to such aggressiveness could not have been taken into account.

    So the short answer is we don't really know yet. Not enough teams have pushed this idea of devaluing the running game so far that it is actually detrimental.
     
    Dolfanalyst and Galant like this.
  35. Dolfanalyst

    Dolfanalyst Active Member

    131
    92
    28
    Jan 14, 2022
    There is no such thing as a "dangerous rushing attack" in comparison to the threat the passing game poses in the present-day NFL. What you're saying is a vestige of an antiquated era of football. In the present-day game, teams stand to suffer so much greater defensively from failing to defend the pass than from failing to defend the run that defenses err far greater toward defending the pass. Run defense isn't even a significant predictor of win percentage in football in the present era when the other major facets of the game are considered (pass offense, pass defense, and rushing offense). Teams can be very poor at defending the run and have very good season records nonetheless. If that's the case, how much attention do you think the opposing run game is going to get? If I can defend the run poorly and still finish 12-5 on the season for example, why should I defend the run all that much? Certainly a play-action fake isn't going to bother me when I know I have to defend the pass well or get beaten.

    If someone played football in high school, where passing games aren't typically anywhere near as developed and lethal, then that may have been their experience, and it still may apply to today's high school game. But among the best college teams in the country, and certainly in the NFL, that no longer applies. Teams are defending the passing game at the expense of defending the run game, and by a wide margin.
     
  36. Galant

    Galant Love - Unity - Sacrifice - Eternity

    19,127
    11,056
    113
    Apr 22, 2014
    I think the counter point here, as touched on just now in cbrad's reply, is that this idea of not defending the run can only work up to a point. If a team chose to never defend the run that would clearly lead to teams marching up the field. It would never happen. A defense would then have to defend the run or lose. Now, we may not know the formula for the magic balance, but somewhere in there the run game matters, even if it plays a clear second string to the passing game in today's NFL.

    We have to be careful in how we address things because it's easy to overstate things, or seem to be overstating things, and come across as saying that the run game has no value at all. The truth is that the value of the run game and passing game change as the NFL changes and as teams adapt and create new strategies. Right now, the NFL heavily favours a passing attack, and teams can inform their decision making by following the trend. At the same time, there will always be innovators who break rules and find new ways to change things.

    So the run game for Miami does matter, the question is how do we value it correctly in terms of picks and contracts.

    Miami do need to improve OL play. I think better coaching will help, and better play calling, but some talent and experience is necessary too.
     
    M1NDCRlME and Dolfanalyst like this.
  37. Dolfanalyst

    Dolfanalyst Active Member

    131
    92
    28
    Jan 14, 2022
    Right, I'm not saying teams can get away with not defending the run at all. But there is a reason why, empirically, there is no significant relationship between run game variables and play-action passing effectiveness. That reason presumably has a lot to do with the fact that the relationship with win percentage is far stronger for pass defense than for run defense. Getting burned by the passing game after biting on a play-action fake stands to do me far more harm than erring toward defending the pass and having the QB hand the ball off.
     
  38. KeyFin

    KeyFin Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    9,806
    12,043
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    With our cap space, I disagree. We can effectively upgrade WR, OL, LB, DE, RB and other positions all in this draft and free agency.

    However, that's not the problem. Better players won't be an automatic fix. Sure, if we draft another Waddle or a Chase, it pays immediate benefits. But you also have to have the offensive scheme to make that work. After all, if you throw the ball to Chase instead of Waddle on the same route...is it really much of a net gain overall? Nope.

    Coaching and execution has been the problem. That's fixed with a competent offensive mind and solid positional coaches. That's where we've been sorely lacking for a long time and drafting replacements is not the go-to answer here. I think our line and our LBs are salvageable. I can't say the same for WR. But we can fix all of these problems with the right coaching staff in place and bringing in the right types of players.
     
  39. hitman8

    hitman8 Well-Known Member

    2,484
    1,680
    113
    Nov 11, 2016
    Well, that's exactly the problem with putting too much faith in stats and analytics. When you say well stats show guards are not important, then we proceed to place two scrubs at guard who get our plays blown up every other snap, then Guess what, guards just became important. Which is something that actually happened to us a few years back.

    Saying a good oline and running game are not that important might have some truth to it statistically, but if you go all in on that and completely neglect the online and running game, then they will become very important. Which is exactly what we went through this season.
     
    Sceeto likes this.
  40. KeyFin

    KeyFin Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    9,806
    12,043
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    Personally, I'm not a stats guy because I like to trust my eyes. And I agree in theory- the 12th best offensive line won't be much of a difference from the best offensive line. Maybe it generates 1 or 2 less pressures per game, and maybe it earns an extra 30 yards rushing. That's not a massive deal all in its own.

    However, Miami did not have the 12th best line or even the 31st best line...we were dead last by a huge margin. There's no comparison to the rest of the league because we failed on almost every down.

    In my world, stats are a good baseline to start with. But you have to figure out what the stats are telling you, where the trend is to improve. Without that interpretation, they're just numbers on a page. Because that's the thing- statistics aren't made to stand on their own...it's a part of a conversation in how to make improvements.
     
    M1NDCRlME, hitman8 and Dol-Fan Dupree like this.

Share This Page