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

New Coach and blow it up

Discussion in 'Miami Dolphins Forum' started by my 2 cents, Oct 31, 2018.

  1. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    13,033
    7,136
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    You still can't explain why you think Gase should have the offense scoring 40 a game with almost half our offense being backups?

    And clearly you believe that we should have starting quality players as our backups.
     
    danmarino likes this.
  2. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    7,135
    8,196
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    We're scoring 20 ppg overall. In the first 5 games with Tannehill starting we scored 99 points in 5 games, or almost precisely 20 ppg. In games 6-10 with Osweiler starting we scored 100 points in 5 games, or exactly 20 ppg.
    https://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/mia/2018.htm

    You can interpret that in different ways, saying Gase did well with his backup QB compared to his starting QB or that Gase's offense is pathetic even when he has his starting QB. Both are true. More importantly, 20 ppg = 25th in the NFL. Really bad stat for an "offensive genius".
     
    Pauly, Surfs Up 99 and texanphinatic like this.
  3. danmarino

    danmarino Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    9,613
    10,497
    113
    Sep 4, 2014

    Before RT hurt his shoulder the team was 12th in scoring with 25ppg.
     
    adamprez2003, Pauly and resnor like this.
  4. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    7,135
    8,196
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Parallel discussion in Club. I'll just post what I posted there:

    Tannehill was healthy enough to start the first 5 games this season = 99 points in 5 games. That's just under 20 ppg. If you want to try and argue he had some other health issues not major enough to keep him from starting in games 4 and 5, then you have to apply that standard to all QB's. This isn't dissimilar to that argument people used to give that Tannehill played like an "elite" QB during that 8 game stretch in 2016. Of course when you do the legwork and compare his best 8 game stretch to all QB's best 8 game stretches, the entire effect vanishes and he comes in 12th either way. So if you're going to argue we shouldn't include games 4 and 5 for some reason, then you need to come up with an operational definition of "injury", apply it to all QB's and show what ppg looks like.

    Until then, with Tannehill as starter this year we averaged 20 ppg, and we averaged 20 ppg with Osweiler, good enough for a pathetic 25th.
     
    Pauly, Surfs Up 99 and texanphinatic like this.
  5. danmarino

    danmarino Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    9,613
    10,497
    113
    Sep 4, 2014

    lol...And here is my reply in club:

    I get that and I agree to an extent. The problem I have, though, is that RT was playing terrific until his shoulder was injured. Sure, he played through the pain, but I would think it's safe to assume that it affected his play. I mean, he had a 90, 123, and 155 passer rating his 1st 3 games and then post injury had a 47 and 57. Something other than "Gase sucks" was at play there.
     
    RevRick, Pauly and resnor like this.
  6. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    7,135
    8,196
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    lol.. and my reply (it's an important topic so why not?)

    I'm not against parsing data with greater detail by including more conditions (e.g. injury), but to see where our offense would rank you HAVE to apply the same standard to everyone. So you can't just take the ranking where the shoulder injury issue is applied to one team's QB and then see where that team would rank if that standard isn't applied to any other team. That's the main issue.

    The other issue is that we don't know if the drop in rating is within range of expected for that type of injury. Those would I guess be the two most important stats (that I can think of right now), and in both cases you need to apply the standard to everyone.
     
    Pauly likes this.
  7. danmarino

    danmarino Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    9,613
    10,497
    113
    Sep 4, 2014
    What if you also include the o-line injuries?

    Again, I think it's a safe bet to assume that the offense dropped off, mostly, due to injury. Of course, IMO, opponents factor into that also.
     
    resnor likes this.
  8. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    7,135
    8,196
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Injuries are hard to adjust for, and it's mostly because of how the stats are compiled. First, it's hard to tell whether the player was a starter or not (which is important for assessing impact on the team), then they don't make it easy to find the team that player is on. They do have stats on IR and which games were missed, but really the databases you have to work with are poor.

    So all these are valid questions, but I really don't know what the analysis would look like until it's done. Oh.. and another problem crops up when you talk about OL injuries. Estimating OL impact through stats is already so difficult you've probably noticed I haven't done it. So it's going to be a LONG time before we can have an unbiased estimate of the impact of injuries we've had once you take into consideration injuries for everyone else (e.g., note that the Titans had lots of key injuries in our first game.. want to adjust for that too?).
     
  9. KeyFin

    KeyFin Well-Known Member

    6,135
    7,947
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    I'm not saying to absolve him- he's definitely responsible win or lose. Injuries have been WAY above the league average the past two years though and that's hard for anyone to overcome. We're basically one of the "scrub teams" from the strike decades ago while playing the pros- it's like that movie "The Replacements" unfolding before our very eyes.

    Pain heals. Chicks dig scars. Glory lasts forever.

     
    resnor, Surfs Up 99 and danmarino like this.
  10. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    13,033
    7,136
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Look, I don't think anyone is arguing about where we rank. The fact is, to use only stats, regardless of other teams, to gage the effectiveness of Gase or his offense, without considering the injuries, is short sighted at best. Clearly your starting QB trying to play through a shoulder injury is going to negatively impact your offense. Perhaps the reason Tannehill was trying to play through was because the team felt that Tannehill at say 70% was better than Osweiler at 100%.
     
    KeyFin, Surfs Up 99 and danmarino like this.
  11. Surfs Up 99

    Surfs Up 99 Team Flores

    1,616
    1,506
    113
    May 5, 2016
    Some good discussion. My take is:
    ** Fire Tannenbaum or reassign him to a non-football related position. If we have a chance to grab a legitimate and proven GM/ talent evaluator then Ross needs to pay the man. (note: it could be he would want to bring in his own HC. If so, that could screw up my keep Gase comment, but a guy might not come otherwise. Better to have someone with vision who knows talent)
    ** Keep Gase. Lets not Churn the HC. The longer we can keep a system in place the better for everyone on offense
    **Keep Tannehill (if healthy), but bring in some real competition at QB (through the draft and/or in free agency) and let the best man win. If during the season, you need to pull a guy and insert the runner up, do it. Don't settle for mediocrity, keep them hungry
    ** Seriously upgrade the OL and give whoever we have at QB a fighting chance
     
    RevRick, KeyFin and resnor like this.
  12. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    13,033
    7,136
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Cbrad, no one is arguing that we aren't what our record is. The argument is that judging Gase based on stats and record, is incredibly unfair based on the myriad of injuries. This team looks nothing like the team from the first three games.
     
    The_Dark_Knight and KeyFin like this.
  13. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    7,135
    8,196
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Yeah I understand your argument. It's just that for me, a statistical analysis that properly adjusts for injuries is necessary before I can incorporate injuries into my decision making the way you do. There's so much bias humans have that I just don't trust looking only at our injury situation and, however terrible it feels like, assuming that's so bad it skews the key stats I'm using to suggest we get rid of Gase.

    And for reference those are:
    1) Most successful coaches show it early (by year 3.. with most HoF coaches actually by year 2).
    2) Gase is on track to be the first Dolphins coach to have 3 consecutive years where BOTH his offense and defense ranked below average
    3) Gase on average helps you win 2 more games than expected (per season) based solely on point differential.

    Point #3 suggests Gase is doing better than expected, while points #1 and #2 are powerful stats IMO that have to be adjusted in an unbiased way before I disregard them. So while I agree injuries are huge, I don't yet have the evidence most of those other coaches never dealt with major injuries, and as pointed out before injuries are up across the board so you have to adjust for that too (e.g., Titans game).

    So that's where I stand right now.
     
    Surfs Up 99 and Pauly like this.
  14. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    13,033
    7,136
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    But that's the thing... I'm not comparing Gase to any HoF coaches. Really, I'm not that concerned with it. I know that running with backup QBs is not a recipe for success the vast majority of the time. I don't need to get too in depth into stats for that. So, I don't think it's at all unreasonable to look at the situation over the past three years, and give Gase a pass. Or, even look at this year, and I don't really even care if any other coach has had this extent of injuries, but just look at the Dolphins, see a backup QB starting, three starting receivers out (at one point 4, I think?), three oline out, and say, Yeah, I give Gase a pass, or maybe I congratulate him for being in the Wildcard hunt still.
     
    RevRick and The_Dark_Knight like this.
  15. KeyFin

    KeyFin Well-Known Member

    6,135
    7,947
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    We are missing 9/11ths of our offense. Statistically, isn't 81.8% of something being broken/missing far past the typical "point of no return"?
     
    resnor likes this.
  16. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    7,135
    8,196
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Don't know.. we haven't missed a beat in terms of average points scored per game in games 1-5 vs. games 6-10. So exactly how impactful are these injuries on offense? That's ultimately the question and you need to find the average impact to properly adjust, which you can't infer just by listing what percentage are injured in a specific case.
     
    KeyFin likes this.
  17. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    13,033
    7,136
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    You don't see the issue with comparing offensive production from the first three weeks of a season to production in weeks 6-10?

    Is it your belief that teams don't get better offensively as the season progresses? You actually believe that the team that started the season would be having the same results as they are now?
     
  18. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    7,135
    8,196
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    I'm saying I don't know how much to adjust expected win% for the injuries we have.
     
    Surfs Up 99 and KeyFin like this.
  19. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    13,033
    7,136
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    And I'm saying who cares? I understand you want a numerical value, I'm just saying that it's meaningless to me. I just know there's no way that the offense can function as designed missing that many starters.
     
    adamprez2003 likes this.
  20. Pauly

    Pauly Season Ticket Holder

    3,077
    2,928
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    If we want to look at other stats, team passer rating made, yards per passing attempt, yards per carry, time of possession can also be used. Also the rating/ranking of the Ds faced could impact.

    Ppg also includes defensive points scored so that could be skewing results too.
     
  21. Drizzy

    Drizzy Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    1,384
    1,398
    113
    Nov 18, 2017
    If you want any shot at the best and brightest executives then yes, you’ve got to give them authority to make a change at HC, even if it’s immediate, forcing a coach on a new GM is how we ended up settling on Hickey after the better candidates turned us down. I don’t even like Tannenbaum but if he goes everyone goes, Gase, Mike T, Grier, their fates should be tied together.
     
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2018
    Surfs Up 99 likes this.
  22. The_Dark_Knight

    The_Dark_Knight Defender of the Truth

    8,360
    6,518
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    Melbourne, FL
    Gase's second season as HC, I have to toss out the window as it pertains to the offense. Last year, we didn't have our starting QB so any ability to further evaluate Tannehill for Gase's system...or afford progress from the 2016 season just wasn't possible. Tannehill unfortunately was shaking the rust off before his shoulder injury but even in that 3 game stretch, the TEAM played well.

    With all of the injuries...21 of them by my last count, well to paraphrase Mr Myagi from Karate Kid

    "One to one problem yes. Five to one problem too much ask anyone"

    When you literally don't HAVE your starters....there's only so much you can do with back-ups....and to be in Wildcard contention with this many back-ups playing?
     
  23. Surfs Up 99

    Surfs Up 99 Team Flores

    1,616
    1,506
    113
    May 5, 2016
    Giving you an up vote for the paraphrase of Mr. Myagi alone! Love that guy!

    As I said before, great discussion. I don't think there is a simple answer or explanation. Too many variables at play.
     
  24. adamprez2003

    adamprez2003 Senior Member

    37,266
    14,586
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    new york ciity
    I generally feel that Gase is a good offensive coordinator. I think his biggest problem has been fielding a healthy team. It took him two years to replace players that didn't fit with ones that would flourish in his system and this was really the first year where you got a sense of the potential of the offense. The first three weeks was more about not clicking then playcalling. Tannehill was rusty after 600 days of not starting, especially with the deep ball. The line was trying to jell. The receivers were trying to get on the same page. Gesicki is a rookie. And yet we won. We won having barely scratched the potential of the offense. Had we staid healthy I have no doubt we would have one of the most dangerous offenses in the NFL.

    That's not to say he doesn't have faults. I think he gets away from the run game a bit too easily. Seems like he prefers to outsmart you then beat you physically. To me when you are winning the physical battle you stay with it. It's only when you are in a stalemate or losing the physical battle that you try to out think your opponent.

    I also think his insistence on playcalling keeps him from having a better pulse for where the team is at. His teams tend to have a penchant after sustaining injuries of falling apart for a week or two. He shows his genius in being able to patch up everything that's thrown at him but I wonder if he had an offensive coordinator would he be able to anticipate better when trouble was coming.

    Some.people blow these negatives way out of proportion. In the grand scheme of things he is doing way more right than wrong. We just need the Gods to allow us to have a relatively injury free season to show how dynamic his offense can be
     
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2018
    resnor likes this.
  25. Deus ex dolphin

    Deus ex dolphin Well-Known Member

    2,629
    1,248
    113
    Dec 2, 2007

    So, I read that as 2017 and 2018 not really counting against Gase due to injuries. So, do you give him 2019 as the do-or-die season? What I mean by that is if Gase still believes in Tanny as his guy, then he gets 2019 to show what his offense can do when not wrecked by injuries. If Tanny gets hurt yet again, or the team fails to make a playoff push (going 10-6 but missing the playoffs due to tie breakers would be enough to keep Gase for example) then you clean house for 2020.

    If Gase admits he has serious doubts about Tanny being healthy or playing well again? Give him a one year contract extension and let him draft a QB to develop. Or if Gase wants a free agent/trade QB like Bridgewater? Go get him (the Saints can't keep him unless he signs cheap again to sit for another year behind Brees but Miami would be starting money and a starting spot).

    If Ross believes in Gase, then hitting reset on his time in Miami is the way to go. I'd need to hear from Gase what his plan is though, and betting on Tanny at this point just seems foolish.
     
  26. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    7,135
    8,196
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    It's hard to estimate how much we should adjust expected win percentage given the specific injuries we have, but it's REALLY important that any discussion of injuries include comparison to the rest of the league or you'll have no idea how bad your situation is relative to others. Here's one article that classified teams into tiers based on what they perceive the severity of injuries is at midseason (Nov 7th). Worth looking at whether you agree with them or not:
    https://www.actionnetwork.com/nfl/nfl-injury-report-midseason-healthiest-most-hurt-week-10-2018

    They placed Miami in tier 3 out of a total of 4 possible tiers which are: Tier 1 = "Healthiest NFL teams", Tier 2 = "Recovering teams", Tier 3 = "Struggling since camp", and Tier 4 = "Most hobbled teams". So they think we're worse than average injury-wise, but they don't think we're excessively bad in terms of injuries.

    Something else interesting is that they list a statistic: "Total missed games". Dolphins had the 8th fewest total missed games at 86. The correlation between win% and "Total missed games" is a whopping 0.0489.. or essentially NO correlation! Granted, "total missed games" isn't the same thing as "total missed games by starters" which they don't list, but it is still VERY interesting that total missed games has no statistical effect on win% (I doubt most people would have predicted that).

    Anyway, like I said the purpose of this post is to nudge people into looking at injuries for all other teams instead of just looking at injuries for one team only. Not saying their classification has merit, not saying it doesn't, but it's worth discussing.
     
    Pauly likes this.
  27. KeyFin

    KeyFin Well-Known Member

    6,135
    7,947
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    Okay, but at the same time it was a new offense with many new pieces/parts that we expected to take some time to gel together. Only, we kept getting new pieces and parts since people kept getting hurt. Our current offense has exactly 1 game of experience together where some teams have up to 10 games. To me, that's where your PPG deviation (or lack of) comes from.
     
  28. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    13,033
    7,136
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    I'm sorry, I don't put much stock in an evaluation that doesn't have use in the worst tier when considering we missing like over 2/3rds of our starting offense.
     
    djphinfan likes this.
  29. adamprez2003

    adamprez2003 Senior Member

    37,266
    14,586
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    new york ciity
    So why don't you get back to us when you do. Until then this is nothing more than garbage in garbage out
     
  30. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    7,135
    8,196
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Yeah.. on both sides it's just opinion (or bias). Never claimed otherwise.
     
    Redwine4all likes this.
  31. IdrA

    IdrA Rebuilding for Eternity.

    3,315
    1,159
    113
    Oct 15, 2011
    Upstate, SC
    Lol I'm not going to go fishing to see if I did, but I did say it when we were 3-0 this year.
     
  32. The_Dark_Knight

    The_Dark_Knight Defender of the Truth

    8,360
    6,518
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    Melbourne, FL
    The first 3 games of this season, the "mighty" Patriots scored only 19 ppg.
     
    resnor likes this.
  33. Redwine4all

    Redwine4all Well-Known Member

    1,216
    686
    113
    Feb 4, 2016
    If only championships were won in September.
     
  34. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    13,033
    7,136
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Literally has nothing to do with what we're discussing.
     
    Redwine4all and adamprez2003 like this.
  35. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    7,135
    8,196
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    From 1990 when the NFL introduced the bye week, and excluding 1993 when they had 2 bye weeks, the maximum difference in average ppg by week played (from weeks 1-17) is just under 1.1 points. It's true that the lowest scoring week is week 1 with an average of 20.72 ppg, but the highest scoring is week 12 with an average of 21.80 ppg, and as you can see that difference is WAY too small to affect my argument.

    Actually, if you separate it by weeks 1-5 vs. weeks 6-10 you get an average of 21.19 ppg for weeks 1-5 vs. 21.45 ppg for weeks 6-10. So there's no argument here that one should expect weeks 1-5 to produce fewer ppg.
     
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2018
  36. adamprez2003

    adamprez2003 Senior Member

    37,266
    14,586
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    new york ciity
    Except yours is as you admit based on incomplete input ergo the garbage in garbage out quote.
     
  37. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    7,135
    8,196
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    lol.. no that's not how you determine whether input to a statistical analysis is "garbage" or not. IF it was true that incomplete info = garbage in, then ALL statistics is garbage. Statistics summarize data and thus always involves incomplete info.

    No, to show input is garbage you either have external evidence clearly demonstrating this (e.g., the measuring instrument was found to be broken afterwards) or you do a statistical analysis including the new info and show it vastly changes the conclusions. And that's precisely what's so hard to do with injury data. So right now it's just opinion whether including injuries or not will vastly change the key stats I listed.
     
  38. adamprez2003

    adamprez2003 Senior Member

    37,266
    14,586
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    new york ciity
    First off injuries is just one variable you're missing to have a qualified assessment. There are are tens if not hundreds of others. You are working with 1 to 5 percent of what you need and are arriving with a conclusion. It would be like mathematicians for NASA calculating miles and fuel needed and leaving out gravity, weight and the other hundreds of inputs needed to land on the moon. Would you want to be in that rocket?
    I said it once and I'll say it again. You can't use statistics to analyze individual performance in football. There are too many variables. If you want to use your time productively stick to team stats. There is a manageable amount of variables to account for with team analysis.
     
    resnor likes this.
  39. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    7,135
    8,196
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    The high correlation between passer rating and what most observers think are the best QB's in history suggests it actually does become a good measure of individual ability WHEN sample size is huge (e.g., over a career of 5+ years or so).

    Secondly, how much information you use isn't necessarily correlated with how good your model is. To predict the orbits of planets think about how little information is used: mass, current position and velocity etc.. All the fine details of geological (or in Earth's case, biological) changes, or even what other forces like magnetism do is ignored and you get very accurate results. Furthermore, the more variables you put in your model the more sources of error you introduce. Often predictions get worse beyond a certain level of complexity.
     
    Pauly, Surfs Up 99 and KeyFin like this.
  40. KeyFin

    KeyFin Well-Known Member

    6,135
    7,947
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    That's the biggest problem with science- you need to start with the "known" to eliminate those wild variables. But that's hard to determine in sports when there's so many elements to consider. For instance, we often hear that teams with 25+ carries win football games. But we also know that those carries only come in the 2nd half by the team that's already winning and trying to run out the clock. The extra carries are a by-product of already doing something else well...they're not the reason for victory.

    We could just as easily say that Miami is undefeated when their QB takes a knee in the 4th quarter with less than a minute left. Does that mean taking a knee guarantees a win? It's a "stat" that flat out lies to you despite being accurate.

    I understand passer rating is one of the greatest predictors of success, but we know that to be unreliable in Miami. Tannehill had great numbers the first three games yet the wins came from special teams and the defense making plays down the stretch. With Brock on the field, passer rating is even less reliable since we went almost three weeks without a TD....the rating means nothing without the points. Because let's face it- the best predictor isn't passer rating, it's the team that scores more points than their opponent. That also has a variable based on defenses, special teams, etc....one team might have to score an average of 30 PPG while another only need 24.

    So while I agree with you that more touch points leads to more room for model error, you have to be positive on what matters/what doesn't matter to have any sort of accuracy. Our QB's for the past 5 years have been slightly above average, yet our offense has been among the worst (save the 2016 season). That tells me passer rating isn't the stat we should be focused on to analyze this team....at least not by itself.
     
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2018
    resnor, Surfs Up 99 and adamprez2003 like this.

Share This Page