**Official Falcons Phins Gameday thread***

I love that you love threads.

Seriously, in a low energy season for fans you're helping keep things going.

You are the Jarvis Landry of the mains.

ill scout their sites for some news and post here..

I thought this was a national game but its a 1 banger.

need Parker to tape it up..need this line to be freed from the coke sniffing moron coach and go hit someone moving people off the ball..enough with this lateral crap, teams have figured it out.

Timmons is a beast...and makes a very big difference..

laugh all we want but Rey Mags moves well in the blood zone and also brings a wallop when plugging a hole taking on a lineman and disengaging..misdirection is his weakness though..

Harris off the turf should look real fast.

Unless a video of Matt Ryan snorting rails before QB meeting emerges between now and Sunday, I don't see how we even keep this close.

"dirtylandry wrote:

Atlanta Had two weeks to prepare for this one. Julio will be healthier. However, our defense is playing well. I saw pressure, run defense, and LB's flying all over. I also saw Rashad Jones engaged. Could this be the game that Miami's offense flies? I am hoping that whatever was slowing us down can be either resolved, looked at different or thrown away. I hope coaches and players can swallow their pride and make things work. There is still something rotten. Buffalo really tamed this offense two weeks ago, but Atlanta will make adjustments. With the Jets the following week, and revenge a must, if we could just pull this game off!

Stopping the high school QB didn't excite me this week although take a win anytime. If our defense can clamp down on a top 10 offense like the Falcons I think we can say they are for real!

Well one prediction of mine that's been coming true so far is that Matt Ryan's statistically anomalous year in 2016 (by a massive margin relative to the rest of his career) was just that: an anomaly. Multiple times during the season last year I predicted that this year he'd come back down to his career averages, and that's exactly what's been happening so far.

So while Vegas right now thinks Atlanta is an 11 point favorite, I think they're still influenced by what they saw last year too much. I think the game will be a lot closer and this won't look like the Matt Ryan-led offense from 2016. Doesn't mean we'll win, but I don't think it's the gimme Vegas is saying it will be.

"cbrad wrote:

Well one prediction of mine that's been coming true so far is that Matt Ryan's statistically anomalous year in 2016 (by a massive margin relative to the rest of his career) was just that: an anomaly. Multiple times during the season last year I predicted that this year he'd come back down to his career averages, and that's exactly what's been happening so far.

So while Vegas right now thinks Atlanta is an 11 point favorite, I think they're still influenced by what they saw last year too much. I think the game will be a lot closer and this won't look like the Matt Ryan-led offense from 2016. Doesn't mean we'll win, but I don't think it's the gimme Vegas is saying it will be.

If Cutler can return to form and this offense can get going, then I don't think there's a team our there that we should be scared of- Atlanta included. Heck, if Moore starts, then I think we win this ballgame....but Moore is obviously not going to start.

That's the frustrating part though- we have an unbelievably talented roster and our offense has found the end zone once in three weeks. Think about it- Reshad Jones is tied for the season as our leading scorer. Twilight zone.

"KeyFin wrote:

If Cutler can return to form and this offense can get going, then I don't think there's a team our there that we should be scared of- Atlanta included. Heck, if Moore starts, then I think we win this ballgame....but Moore is obviously not going to start.

That's the frustrating part though- we have an unbelievably talented roster and our offense has found the end zone once in three weeks. Think about it- Reshad Jones is tied for the season as our leading scorer. Twilight zone.

Yeah.. the two most frustrating things for me so far: 1) Cutler not being at least the average QB he used to be, and 2) Gase's play calling. And both can be fixed. I would have started Moore a few games ago. I mean.. if there's no threat to lose your job, why should Cutler change his "I don't care" attitude? Have to light a fire!

And damn Gase. I still think he'll end up being a good HC, but he sucks right now as an OC with no good in-game adjustments. Frustrating as you said.. but then again that run defense dude!! How our worst unit got turned around so quickly.. love it!

And yes the roster is more talented than how it's being used, at least on offense.

"cbrad wrote:

Yeah.. the two most frustrating things for me so far: 1) Cutler not being at least the average QB he used to be, and 2) Gase's play calling. And both can be fixed. I would have started Moore a few games ago. I mean.. if there's no threat to lose your job, why should Cutler change his "I don't care" attitude? Have to light a fire!

And damn Gase. I still think he'll end up being a good HC, but he sucks right now as an OC with no good in-game adjustments. Frustrating as you said.. but then again that run defense dude!! How our worst unit got turned around so quickly.. love it!

And yes the roster is more talented than how it's being used, at least on offense.

I remember several games last season where the offense was stalling, then we came out of halftime moving the ball with ease. That's clearly Gase and his assistants doing their job well so I can't understand why that's not happening this season.

"KeyFin wrote:

I remember several games last season where the offense was stalling, then we came out of halftime moving the ball with ease. That's clearly Gase and his assistants doing their job well so I can't understand why that's not happening this season.

That first NE game was the best example of that. The first half was TERRIBLE. First 4 possessions were 3 and out's, next possession Landry fumbles, next possession Tannehill INT, and only on the final possession of the 1st half do we drive down the field for our reward: a FG lol.

Come 2nd half it's a totally different ballgame. We come out successfully moving the ball only for Ajayi to fumble it. Otherwise, 3 straight drives for a TD, and then last drive we run out of time and end with a Tannehill INT. That was mostly hurry-up offense too, which we never again emphasized for even a full quarter the rest of the season. Still scratching my head over that one.

In any case, across all games, it's not an adjustment in the 2nd half that stands out with Gase but the inability to start strong and then adjust by the 2nd quarter. Here are the stats for average points scored per quarter in 2016:

1st quarter: 2.56 points
2nd quarter: 6.31 points
3rd quarter: 6.94 points
4th quarter: 6.31 points

So Gase showed this tendency to not be well prepared for a game, but then adjust by the 2nd quarter.

btw.. the stats so far this year (1st Q = 3.25 points, 2nd Q = none, 3rd Q = 2.5 points, 4th Q = 4.5). PATHETIC!! and let's not forget 7 of those points were scored by the defense.

"KeyFin wrote:

I remember several games last season where the offense was stalling, then we came out of halftime moving the ball with ease. That's clearly Gase and his assistants doing their job well so I can't understand why that's not happening this season.

Several things...

For one thing, we had better blocking TEs last season with Gray, Nique Jones, and Sims. Urbik was also better at LG than Davis, and also started one of Ajayi 200 yard days at Center. Thomas is terrible as a blocker. He's shouldn't even be out there until we hit the RZ, where he can be a target.

Also, Tannehill, for all his limitations in the pocket, is a much better QB than Cutler in most facets of the position and will stand and deliver. He can also remember to which side he should be handing the football off to Ajayi. Teams were forced to respect his ability to hit them beyond 20 yards, or roll out and throw a strike. Cutler hasn't had a pass play over 26 yards since the Chargers game when Parker was taking 50/50 balls away from defenders and on most of his escapes or roll outs, he simply throws the ball away if his read isn't open.

"cuchulainn wrote:

Also, Tannehill, for all his limitations in the pocket, is a much better QB than Cutler in most facets of the position and will stand and deliver.

You know how I like stats.. (understatement I guess). Well, I was curious as to what the probabilities are that a Tannehill-led offense would have won all 4 games, exactly 3 games, exactly 2 games, or just 1 game of the 4 we played.

Best way I can think of to do this is to look at the distribution of points scored by offenses with Tannehill as the QB, then look at the frequency (probability) with which a Tannehill-led offense put up enough points to win each game we played.

OK.. so in 46.75% of all of Tannehill's games we scored at least 21 points (needed to beat the Jets and Saints who put up 20), 57.14% of all of Tannehill's games we scored at least 18 points (needed to beat the Chargers), and 87% of Tannehill's games we scored at least 11 points (needed to beat the Titans).

You can calculate the probability of beating all 4, precisely 3 teams (there are 4 ways you could win exactly 3 times), precisely 2 teams (6 possible ways), etc..

Looks like the probability a Tannehill-led offense would win all 4 games is 10.87%, the probability we win exactly 3 of 4 is 34.53%, the probability we win exactly 2 is 37.58% and winning only 1 is 15.45% (winning 0 is 1.58%).

So basically at this point it's more or less 50/50 whether Tannehill would have had 2 wins or 3 wins given what our defense gave up (caveat here: I didn't remove the points scored by defense in the Titans game because Tannehill's stats include points scored by defense.. probability of winning would increase a bit if we did that of course).

I actually thought it would be a lot higher with Tannehill, but doing this calculation actually makes me feel a bit better: Cutler's played crappy, but the probability of winning hasn't changed that much because our defensive performances were good in the two games we won (the games where you didn't need to score as much).

"cbrad wrote:

You know how I like stats.. (understatement I guess). Well, I was curious as to what the probabilities are that a Tannehill-led offense would have won all 4 games, exactly 3 games, exactly 2 games, or just 1 game of the 4 we played.

Best way I can think of to do this is to look at the distribution of points scored by offenses with Tannehill as the QB, then look at the frequency (probability) with which a Tannehill-led offense put up enough points to win each game we played.

OK.. so in 46.75% of all of Tannehill's games we scored at least 21 points (needed to beat the Jets and Saints who put up 20), 57.14% of all of Tannehill's games we scored at least 18 points (needed to beat the Chargers), and 87% of Tannehill's games we scored at least 11 points (needed to beat the Titans).

You can calculate the probability of beating all 4, precisely 3 teams (there are 4 ways you could win exactly 3 times), precisely 2 teams (6 possible ways), etc..

Looks like the probability a Tannehill-led offense would win all 4 games is 10.87%, the probability we win exactly 3 of 4 is 34.53%, the probability we win exactly 2 is 37.58% and winning only 1 is 15.45% (winning 0 is 1.58%).

So basically at this point it's more or less 50/50 whether Tannehill would have had 2 wins or 3 wins given what our defense gave up (caveat here: I didn't remove the points scored by defense in the Titans game because Tannehill's stats include points scored by defense.. probability of winning would increase a bit if we did that of course).

I actually thought it would be a lot higher with Tannehill, but doing this calculation actually makes me feel a bit better: Cutler's played crappy, but the probability of winning hasn't changed that much because our defensive performances were good in the two games we won (the games where you didn't need to score as much).

To make it apples to apples use games where Jay Ajayi averaged less than 4 ypc. That matters for any QB

"Fin-O wrote:

To make it apples to apples use games where Jay Ajayi averaged less than 4 ypc. That matters for any QB

It's a good suggestion, but the sample size is just way too small. There are only 10 games so far where Tannehill was the QB and Ajayi averaged less than 4 YPC. So there's just not going to be enough granularity to get good estimates.

However.. it is interesting to note that Tannehill averaged 20.57 ppg over his career, while the average points per game when Ajayi rushed for less than 4 YPC is 20.3. Of course, that's a bit biased because Ajayi was there 2015-2016 while the best offense by points scored with Tannehill was in 2014 where we had 24.25 ppg. I think your intuition is right but for this comparison the sample size is way too small.

We played today? Damn... I guess I missed it.

As for Sunday, you know, 6 days from now... Atlanta isnt as "scary" as I thought they'd be this year, but I still think they take it to us unless we can get the offense going. Defense has really shown up for us lately, so that's a plus, but Atlanta is too good all the way around compared to us IMO.

I don't think you can call this a game day thread.

"cbrad wrote:

You know how I like stats.. (understatement I guess).

OK.. so in 46.75% of all of Tannehill's games we scored at least 21 points (needed to beat the Jets and Saints who put up 20), 57.14% of all of Tannehill's games we scored at least 18 points (needed to beat the Chargers), and 87% of Tannehill's games we scored at least 11 points (needed to beat the Titans).

No, hadn't noticed at all... :shifty:

Do you mean all games throughout his career, or all games under Gase?

And as we're essentially in year 2 of Gase and the offense didn't start clicking last season until game 5, I'd think you'd start there as that makes the most sense to me - picking up where he left off prior to injury.

"cuchulainn wrote:

No, hadn't noticed at all... :shifty:

Do you mean all games throughout his career, or all games under Gase?

And as we're essentially in year 2 of Gase and the offense didn't start clicking last season until game 5, I'd think you'd start there as that makes the most sense to me - picking up where he left off prior to injury.

Had to work with points scored in all games because sample size is way too small if I just take his time with Gase. And if we start from game 6 last year that's only 8 games so as I told Fin-O your intuition may be correct but I can't get the required granularity (error propagation though the calculations is way too great with small sample size).

However.. to get a general idea of where the calculations might go if the 8 games are truly representative, note that 6 of those 8 games Tannehill had 21 or more points, and one of the other 2 games it was only enough to beat the Titans (and the remaining one game we would have lost to the Titans). That gives you a rough idea of what the most likely result would be if the offense from last year was in place this year: we'd most likely be 3-1.
https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/T/TannRy00/gamelog/2016/

"cbrad wrote:

Had to work with points scored in all games because sample size is way too small if I just take his time with Gase. And if we start from game 6 last year that's only 8 games so as I told Fin-O your intuition may be correct but I can't get the required granularity (error propagation though the calculations is way too great with small sample size).

However.. to get a general idea of where the calculations might go if the 8 games are truly representative, note that 6 of those 8 games Tannehill had 21 or more points, and one of the other 2 games it was only enough to beat the Titans (and the remaining one game we would have lost to the Titans). That gives you a rough idea of what the most likely result would be if the offense from last year was in place this year: we'd most likely be 3-1.
https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/T/TannRy00/gamelog/2016/

That's the thing though. It's like basing a current assessment of Alex Smith based on his time in San Fran instead of the past couple seasons. Completely different scenarios and factors that have to be accounted for and discounted or credited.

I completely discount the "Joe Phibin" years in regards to Tannehill, given the level of incompetence that affected the entire team.

That said, the Ryan Tannehill under Gase has us no worse than 3-1 and probably 4-0 right now and I don't see that as an outlandish statement given our defense and the level of play from our opponents thus far.

I'll be at this one boys. Hopefully we can put up a decent show in the Falcon's new digs. I've been to this stadium for an Atlanta United game earlier this year and I can tell you this place is LOUD. Our team is going to have issues communicating in this place so they better come prepared to deal with that. My family and I will be tailgating in LOT B if anyone else is going to this one. Phins up!

You have to get very physical with Julio. He is very injury-prone. I'm sure his hamstring is still gimpy. Ryan looked lost two weeks ago with him out

"KeyFin wrote:

If Cutler can return to form and this offense can get going, then I don't think there's a team our there that we should be scared of- Atlanta included. Heck, if Moore starts, then I think we win this ballgame....but Moore is obviously not going to start.

That's the frustrating part though- we have an unbelievably talented roster and our offense has found the end zone once in three weeks. Think about it- Reshad Jones is tied for the season as our leading scorer. Twilight zone.

Cutler return to form? What form?

"cuchulainn wrote:

That's the thing though. It's like basing a current assessment of Alex Smith based on his time in San Fran instead of the past couple seasons. Completely different scenarios and factors that have to be accounted for and discounted or credited.

I completely discount the "Joe Phibin" years in regards to Tannehill, given the level of incompetence that affected the entire team.

That said, the Ryan Tannehill under Gase has us no worse than 3-1 and probably 4-0 right now and I don't see that as an outlandish statement given our defense and the level of play from our opponents thus far.

Agreed. It makes sense to look at career averages for a guy like Matt Ryan. He has basically been in the same system with similar players (beyond the normal personnel and coach turnover in the league). But with a younger QB like Tannehill who has had so much instability around him, it makes more common sense to look at where he was at to guess as to where he'd be now.

IMO the big issue with our passing game is timing related. While Cutler has more overall experience and as much experience in this system as Tannehill, the one experience advantage Tannehill had is familiarity with these players. He was more successful hitting those medium depth passes which kept the defense back and provided more space for the run game and screen game to work. The OL is not blocking worse than last year, IMO it's better than the last several years. The difference is that we're not threatening the same areas of the field as successfully so the defense is coming up quicker. That does provide hope that our offense may improve if Cutler and the receivers develop more chemistry. (It would be nice to hear that they were putting in extra time working together). There are other factors in that Tannehill is more accurate and tends to not bail as quickly or throw while falling back in the face of pressure as well.

"cbrad wrote:

You know how I like stats.. (understatement I guess). Well, I was curious as to what the probabilities are that a Tannehill-led offense would have won all 4 games, exactly 3 games, exactly 2 games, or just 1 game of the 4 we played.

Best way I can think of to do this is to look at the distribution of points scored by offenses with Tannehill as the QB, then look at the frequency (probability) with which a Tannehill-led offense put up enough points to win each game we played.

OK.. so in 46.75% of all of Tannehill's games we scored at least 21 points (needed to beat the Jets and Saints who put up 20), 57.14% of all of Tannehill's games we scored at least 18 points (needed to beat the Chargers), and 87% of Tannehill's games we scored at least 11 points (needed to beat the Titans).

You can calculate the probability of beating all 4, precisely 3 teams (there are 4 ways you could win exactly 3 times), precisely 2 teams (6 possible ways), etc..

Looks like the probability a Tannehill-led offense would win all 4 games is 10.87%, the probability we win exactly 3 of 4 is 34.53%, the probability we win exactly 2 is 37.58% and winning only 1 is 15.45% (winning 0 is 1.58%).

So basically at this point it's more or less 50/50 whether Tannehill would have had 2 wins or 3 wins given what our defense gave up (caveat here: I didn't remove the points scored by defense in the Titans game because Tannehill's stats include points scored by defense.. probability of winning would increase a bit if we did that of course).

I actually thought it would be a lot higher with Tannehill, but doing this calculation actually makes me feel a bit better: Cutler's played crappy, but the probability of winning hasn't changed that much because our defensive performances were good in the two games we won (the games where you didn't need to score as much).

Yeah, I could have told you that before you went and did all that work. lol

It's NOT Cutler. Has he played well? Nope. But not one person on offense has played well. No rushing offense. No passing offense. Poor blocking. Dropped passes. Crappy play calling.

IMO, it all starts with the o-line. I think (maybe I'm just hoping) that the play calling is so bad because Gase doesn't trust the o-line. Now, that's on him. He should have shored up the line. (Pun intended). He decided to roll with what we have and so far it looks like he crapped out. Can it get fixed? Sure. Will it get fixed? Who knows. I do know that Foerster wasn't helping matters. How dedicated and focused can you be at your job when you're snorting drugs in your office?

"cuchulainn wrote:

That's the thing though. It's like basing a current assessment of Alex Smith based on his time in San Fran instead of the past couple seasons. Completely different scenarios and factors that have to be accounted for and discounted or credited.

I completely discount the "Joe Phibin" years in regards to Tannehill, given the level of incompetence that affected the entire team.

That said, the Ryan Tannehill under Gase has us no worse than 3-1 and probably 4-0 right now and I don't see that as an outlandish statement given our defense and the level of play from our opponents thus far.

As a huge RT fan I would LOVE to agree with you.

However, I just can't. I doubt any QB would be playing well with this o-line and play calling.