No...we're taking about this because I asserted that the run game helped Wilson. So, yes, running the ball the most in the league, and having a back get 1,600 yards, and 11 tds certainly helped Wilson, regardless of their ypc. You want to compare with or without Wilson, it ain't changing what Marshawn Lynch was doing.
I don't care how this started. My post #74 is NOT spin. Make a separate point if you want to but don't claim I'm spinning anything (especially after your accusation came right after my post).
No, what you're missing is that it's very likely he did win us more games than we should have won. You guys have this incorrect notion that great QBs on ANY team can win 10+ games and that is just wrong. The most you can reasonably hope for is a good QB adding 2-3 wins to what your team should win for its talent level. When we went 8-8 for example, it's likely a lesser a QB gets us to only 5-6 wins. A generational QB like Rodgers or Marino might have gotten us to 9 or 10.
I don't need to. My point was clear: Wilson benefited from the run game. You decided to try to disprove that by asserting that ypc without Wilson was worse than with, therefore, Wilson didn't benefit as much. That is pretty much the definition of spinning.
I've already said this multiple times. There are three useful stats on the running game: YPC, YPG and TD's. Even said YPC isn't the be-all-end-all, meaning I'm not claiming you only measure a running game by YPC. It's YOU that's being dishonest acting like that's what I'm saying despite what I just posted. Stop spinning things resnor!
Didn't you and Pauly determine that the most important rushing stat was "carries per game" or just rushing attempts?
Well, all I know, is you started the ypc argument following my stating that Wilson benefited from a good run game.
It has the highest correlation to win% (among those rushing stats), but the causal relation is mostly backwards: you have more rushing attempts BECAUSE you're ahead. In fact, most of the difference is seen in the 4th quarter between the leading and trailing team. So.. when is rushing attempts useful? If you want a proxy measure for how good the team was just by looking at rushing stats. That's when you use it. But to measure how good a running game is, you want stats where (arguably) the causal relation is stats -> wins, not the other way around.
jdang started it. I wanted to make sure people saw the full stats. In any case.. don't dismiss the YPC argument, just use it in conjunction with the YPG and TD arguments. Personally, I'd weight all three equally (because I have no other source of info to decide which is most important.. especially since they measure different things).
Perhaps it seemed you were in agreement with him trying to downplay their run game, apologies if that was not the case. Im not discounting ypc, I'm saying its not that important, given they rushed the ball the most, and Lynch had 1,600 yards and 11 tds. It actually bolsters my argument that they ran it a ton, keeping Wilson from having to throw a bunch... compoared to Tannehill who had to throw a ton.
OK.. this is how I would measure Seattle's rushing game 2012-2016. Use z-scores (standard deviations) above or below the mean for that year for three measures YPC, YPG and TD's. From 2012-2016: YPC z-scores = +1.15, +0.32, +2.57, +1.13, -0.48 YPG z-scores = +1.82, +1.11, +2.84, +1.77, -0.51 TD z-scores = +0.67, +0.27, +1.96, -0.29, -0.17 Anything above +1 and there's at least a ~84% chance the team is truly above average in that stat. Anything above +2 and there's at least a ~97% chance the team is truly above average in that stat. So there you go. In terms of YPC (including RW) Seattle's running game was probably above average in 2012, 2014 and 2015 but WAY above average in 2014 (a +2.57 corresponds to less than 1% chance it is NOT average). In terms of YPG which measures overall impact of the running game and includes commitment to the running game Seattle was above average from 2012-2015. But in terms of scoring Seattle's running game was nothing special except for 2014 where everything was exceptional. If you weight all three components equally, you get this: Average z-scores: +1.22, +0.56, +2.46, +0.88, -0.38 So it does turn out that only 2012 and 2014 are the two really good years if you weight all three measures equally. Whether you want to do that or not is up to you, but personally I like it because they measure different things and it can be applied across the board to different teams in different eras (z-scores automatically scale across eras).
And how do the Dolphins compare? Pathetic, but here's the data: 2012-2016: YPC z-scores = -0.26, -0.1, +1.28, +0.49, +0.71 YPG z-scores = -0.13, -1.06, +0.26, -0.82, +0.28 TD z-scores = +0.47, -1.1, +0.03, -0.09, +0.03 Averages z-scores: +0.03, -0.75, +0.53, -0.14, +0.34 Looking at the year-by-year differences, this means that we were over 1 standard deviation worse than Seattle in the overall running game each year from 2012-2015. 1 standard deviation from the mean (in one direction.. either positive or negative) covers ~35% of all teams just to put that in perspective.
Mostly agree here. Look at our turnaround last year... did it happen when RT finally made a big change himself? No, it happened when Gase got rid of two bad players on the OL and DOUBLED-DOWN on supporting Tannehill as 'my guy.' Suddenly we're winning a ton. What does that tell you? That Ryan Tannehill was the main problem?
I seem to recall a presser in Philbs first or second year where he emphasized reinforcing the message with Ryan not to break pocket or run too much because he needed all the training he could get to think like a pocket passer first. IIRC the argument we made on the boards was that RG III was not being developed properly by being allowed to freelance so much w his legs and that in the long run it would cost RG III and he'd struggle, while this staff was 'doing it right' by coaching pocket fundamentals into Ryan and making him subsume any run instinct to an afterthought by almost forbidding him from breaking the pocket for awhile until he learned to be a pocket guy first. Now, maybe I am remembering it wrong. It certainly sounded like it made sense at the time. Also, I don't think Ryan ever WAS a guy who was naturally aggressive and looking to run a lot. I think Ryan himself wanted to prove he could develop as a pocket guy. Remember, Ryan wen through the the pain of having to CLAW his way into the coaches letting him play QB in college because his speed made them want him to be a WR. He ws tuck at WR for a couple years while trying to prove to them that he should be seen as a QB. I think that in the NFL he continued to want to prove to himself and others that he was a pocket QB, not just an 'athlete' who could run. My 55 cents.
I remember it that way too (what Philbin or Sherman said.. wasn't here on these boards back then). And I think it was a good idea: force Tannehill to learn how to be pocket passer first and use his mobility when appropriate. The problem was in the execution of this strategy IMO. I'm a fan of always putting the carrot just barely out of reach so that you keep having to improve. That can't happen if you restrict what a player is allowed to do to the point he isn't really tested on something he's not that good at. Have to try and fail. Regarding RG3 I have a different view. That guy was one of the rare QB's that was fantastic from the get-go (rookie year). In a different post I showed that occurs only around 10% of the time for starting QB's in the NFL that end up performing consistently above average. Well.. RG3 was one of those 10%. He had 8 games with 100+ rating his rookie year including being the youngest QB in NFL history to have a perfect passer rating. The blame for RG3 IMO rests squarely on Shanahan, or those who allowed him to go back and play hobbled. Even worse, they cleared him to play in that playoff game leading to much worse, and he's never been the same since. This attitude of playing a guy with a serious injury just so you might win a playoff game bothers me especially if he's the future of the franchise. Contrast this with the injury to Kawhi Leonard. Gregg Popovich decides even a conference championship isn't important enough to play a guy they plan to build a franchise around. I have a lot more respect for that than what Shanahan did.
A run game is not made of just one person. That's why I used yards per game. 1300 yards by Lynch is good for one runner but crappy if it's the entire team. Without Wilson they averaged a little more than 100 ypg which isn't good. Only person spinning is you by focusing Just on Lynch, and not the rest of the team. In 2013 Bills for example they didn't have a 1k runner but Spiller had 933 and Fred Jackson had 890. That's 1800 right there. Wilson was their 2nd leading rusher. If you're going to knock his abilities down because of their run game you have to credit him for their run game the year they won the Super Bowl
Seriously? In 2012 and 2013, Wilson had like 90+ rushes. Now, his runs generally come on broken pass plays. Why would you take the stance that Wilson scrambling on broken pass plays was a bigger help to Lynch than Lynch going off for 1200+ was for Wilson? Turbin had 354 rushes in 2012, and 264 in 2013. It's pretty safe to argue that Lynch was their guy. It wasn't at all like the 2013 Bills.
As for the QB and their effect on wins. You're never going to get a precise number. It's all subjective. I point to 2002 and Jay Fiedler. The team was a damn good one. With him starting they went 7-3 in those games. They went 2-4 the games he didn't start. And Fielder wasn't that great. We had 2500 yards rushing and a top 3/4 defense in the league. That's how important QB is.
Wait....they replaced the terrible oline guys and committed to a rushing attack...... and Thill got better??????????? Golly, I wonder if they let him audible too.....
You are conflating Tanny's peformance, and the team's win loss record. When they committed to the run game, Tanny was throwing for like 200 yards, 150 even. He threw for 150 yards, 5.3 ypa even. You're not winning many games like that even with a commitment to the run, unless you're run game is #1 in the league, with a stellar defense. He started to play better individually around the San Diego game. There were only 22 attempts by running backs that game, which is not some large commitment to the run game. He had another stellar performance against SF, and only 20 attempts by running backs that game. These were great games by Tanny and they didn't rely on some sort of heavy run attack. And he was audibling more freely from the beginning. That didn't help much did it??
I have to disagree. Ray Lucas was much worse than Fielder. Still, you would have to go Lucas/Painter bad to make a big slide. If they had a quarterback at a Matt Moore level, they would have been a fine team. Even Chad Henne.
But the point was to show the level of effect a QB can have on a team. Whether going from great to okay, okay to bad, etc. It is significant.
I do agree. Dolphins would be drafting #1 every year that Tannehill was the quarterback if Painter or Lucas was the quarterback. Top 10 if Matt Moore was.
Is Painter the one who ran out the back of the end zone once. Or was that Orlovsky? I forget. Yeah QBs like that are backups in this league (paging Kaeper ... never mind).
It is a little more complex. My view is that rushing% is important. (Carries per game varies with snaps per game). But teams that are ahead in the 4th Q rush more and teams that are behind pass more. What is important is rushing% relative to league norms. There is a positive correlation between rushing% in a situation and passer rating (ie the more a defense expects run the worse it is at defending the pass and the more it expects pass the better it is at defending the pass) Even then the importance of rushing% is how it affects the passing game, not necessarily the effects of the rushing itself. Defenders committed to the run are less efficient at defending the pass. you need to rush at level that will commit defenders into defending the run. Since passing is generally more efficient at moving the ball downfield than rushing, teams want to reach a Nash equilibrium - or optimum balance. That Nash equilibrium will vary team by team depending on relative talent levels.
You are high. Ray PUKE-us was the worst QB in Dolphins history. But I'm sure even then we had *** hats claiming he was really a great QB, but his Guards let him down. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I didn't conflate anything, if your post wasn't about Thill, then you didn't really read BPK's post at all.
I'm sorry to be snarky, and I don't know if anyone beat me to it cuz I was reading thru from where I left off, BUT, were you in a coma during the Filbert years?!? I'm no expert, just a passionate football ??? whatever fat old dudes who's sole entertainment other than work and fishing has been football since I was 2 are called BUT REALLY??? I don't think Philbert coulda coached his way out of the NY Subway system without a guide. He couldn't coach his way out of bounds! He couldn't have coached himself outdoors for flip sake. That man was worse than McCay from Tampa Bay, hell he was a worse coach than my daughters HS Volleyball coach last year. That guy had no flippin clue what to do with the team, the clock, the game. Seriously, he made Wannstedt look like Bill flippin Walsh in comparison. I CAN"T IMAGINE ANYTHING FLIPPING PHILBERT WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN FLIPPING STUPID ENOUGH TO DO!!!!!!! NUTHIN! NOT ONE FLIPPIN THING! CUZ HE DID THEM ALLLLL!!!!!
LOL Yeah.. let's just say that people here like to give OC's a lot of credit/blame. I mean we hear tons about how bad Lazor and Sherman were etc.. OK.. well don't forget Philbin was the OC at Green Bay during Aaron Rodgers' ascent, all the way from the 3rd year he sat on the bench in 2007 to the best year Rodgers ever had in 2011. So Philbin isn't THAT bad if you give OC's any ounce of credit. And Aaron Rodgers was allowed to use his mobility. Not all OC's transition well to HC and Philbin turned out to be a bad HC, but not even he seems to be stupid enough not to recognize when mobility helps a QB. At least that's how I see it. (you're free to rant again if you want haha)
