Hate to break it to you, but people view players not only by their impact with the ball, but without. I'm factoring in both. You choose to isolate only one half of the story.
I'd be intrigued by any objective analysis of the effect of Wallace's play without the ball. Certainly there is the theory that there is an effect of it.
Stills has number one potential, but I still think losing Wallace with prove to hurt us. This is what we seem to always do. We upgrade our defense and and downgrade our offense by trading Mike Wallace...
Now you're being oblivious for the sake of defending your argument. Why else would they have signed him? Prior to his arrival defenses suffocated the passing offense. They were stuck throwing short-intermediate throws in traffic all season long with world beaters like Hartline-Bess-Nanee-Gaffney-Marlon Moore.
How would you even begin to know the directions? Can't even acknowledge Wallace's impact on the field unless it's a buried somewhere in a stat. Man you sabermetrics boys are an entertaining group. LOL
If your theory is that Wallace affected others by running deep really fast, then couldn't we literally have any guy run those routes, if he's also fast?
You don't think Stills would have come in instead of Wallace at that time and improved that horrible receiving corp? You don't think Stills would have drawn double teams over Hartline and Bess?
I am fine with high risk moves if they are high reward. Signing Suh is certainly a risk but the reward could be one of our best defensive units ever. Cameron is either going to be really good or we are going to be in the market for a TE next offseason. I don't mind striking out as long as we swing for the fences.
I don't get all the celebrations. We added Suh. Cool. But other than that everyone is just celebrating getting rid of people. How does that equate to taking a shot etc etc ?? We aren't a better team as far as wins or losses right now.
Suh + any NFL caliber DT > Odrick & Starks McCain > Wilson Cameron & Stills > Hartline & Wallace Plus we got money back for more signings.
Wasn't there some reports last year that he wasn't pulling as much double-coverage as was expected? Having a primarily speed guy didn't really work out, when the team didn't have major success in that one area (and a few guys on here predicted that when we signed him IIRC). Kinda lessened his impact a good bit.
Clearly not true when you can't disentangle the relative contribution of two or more things that each had (or are thought to have) a great effect. If you disagree, start with this: Historians still debate to what degree the dropping of the atomic bombs vs. the declaration of war by the Soviet Union on Japan shortly afterwards caused Japan to surrender in WW2 in short order. There's a ton of evidence showing a major effect of both events on the opinions of those that helped make the decision, but historians can't come to any real consensus on what the relative contributions were (not saying that any consensus would be accurate, but still..). Indeed, many say only one of the two events was the primary cause. So, given your statement above, maybe you can enlighten them.
That's a start. So far you're at one game, and there's nothing there to show that any other receiver who drew the opposing team's best corner and was likewise shut down wouldn't have resulted in a similar, or an even better, performance for the rest of the skilled position players on his offense. And yes, I'm making it hard on you, because my goal is to show just how little we know for certain about things like this, despite our ability to theorize plausibly.
Wow, your response is seriously mind numbing. When told that he effects the game even without the ball and given an actual example citing the effect, you still deny. You're a real piece of work.
Cloud Coverage In cloud coverage, one cornerback and two safeties handle the deep part of the field, while another cornerback plays the flat. Bracketed: [video=youtube;Zy0JWtlAx2g]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zy0JWtlAx2g[/video]
Clearly we disagree about whether a sample size of one, without any supporting contextual information coming from other teams in similar situations, should be regarded as conclusive. And I'm not denying that the effect of Wallace without the ball is plausible -- I'm saying neither you nor I know with any certainty whether it's true one way or the other.
In the example I gave, no one seems to be able to settle the question of the relative contribution of the two possible causes. So, no not necessarily. Remember the logic here: if it's true that something that has a major effect => easy to demonstrate objectively, then since no one can yet demonstrate objectively the (relative) effects of the atomic bombing and the Soviet Union declaring war on Japan's surrender, then by your logic => neither had a major effect.
You're underscoring my point in a roundabout way. My point was that if the effect of Wallace without the ball on the rest of the offense was so significant, there should be some way of objectively determining it. If there isn't, then how do we know there was any effect at all, or that the effect wasn't in fact negative? If there is no possible way of determining that effect objectively, then how can someone say that effect was in fact significant? Because the theory of it alone says so?
Yup, it's back to eyeball vs. stats. We can't always quantify things. That doesn't mean those things don't exist or have a major impact.
Well and in this case, we aren't even at the level of "eyeball." We're stuck at a theoretical proposition.
He wants to debate for the sake of debating. Anyone can go look at the game tape and see the coverages Wallace draws. When he commands a DB and safety clearing out one side of the field LOGICALLY we can deduce that leaves more favorable coverages for others.
I want to debate for the sake of illustrating what can be known, and the ways of knowing it that are most definitive.
Yeah, but you know what? His views have changed over time. At one point he wouldn't ever admit that a professional scout's opinion is worth anything IF there were no stats to back it up. That's changed now. And I think it's important to push back against the stats-only approach, even if it clutters the board somewhat (sorry about that guys..).
My position has always been that scouting information that doesn't comport with objective information is weaker than scouting information that does comport with objective information. As a corollary to that, there isn't a person here who functions as a scout when it comes to the evaluations of the Miami Dolphins, because presumably everyone here has an interest in the Dolphins' success, and is therefore prone to bias of some sort. A professional scout has a primary interest in being accurate first and foremost, since his very livelihood depends on it, not in having his favorite team win. We watch lots of football and believe we know a great deal, but we aren't scouts, and we don't function in that capacity.
The problem of bias (or human imperfection) exists with stats as well. The numbers for any given thing are based on observation, just like scouting. There are some things that are objective like yards or timing. For example, is a given incompletion a drop or a bad pass or blown assignment or rushed throw because of pressure or bad wind or etc.? The context of that incompletion is important. That's been proven time and again with the long ball discussions on this site. The result is neither stats or scouting are all that reliable when predicting ability or outcomes.
Brees wanted to get rid of Stills because he did not like him. Brees is one of the best QB's in the game, yet somehow Tannehill who most of the receivers from last year were not happy with is somehow supposed to make Stills better........... okkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk
Stills can stay just the same in terms of his performance, or even worsen somewhat, and the team will be quite well-served by him.
The trick as fans, in my opinion, is to make observations and then determine whether they can be confirmed (or refuted) objectively. In some cases we'll be right, in some we'll be wrong, and in some we'll have to say we still don't know, because even the statistics offer nothing conclusive (as in your example, which I bolded). However, if we make observations and fail to check and balance them with anything objective, we have no way of knowing whether we're arriving at a biased and inaccurate conclusion.
Again, I'm all for doing both, my contention with the stats side is that they aren't 100% objective like they like to believe they can. My contention with the scout side is that they can't be 100% objective like they like to believe they are. I, however, think both are useful and necessary, I just have a problem when the arguments come about defending one or the other.
He was the the 3rd or 4th option on that team. Wait till he goes against a top DB. Wallace was proven, Stills will have to beat the same coverages that Wallace was able to. Totally wishful thinking that Stills will be able to put up those numbers with a QB that cannot take advantage of his speed.
How about instead being a douche and being insulting you answer the simple goddamn question asked of you?
Actually he was the second option on the team, when he was on the field. Marques Colston was targeted on 16.5% of his snaps. Jimmy Graham was targeted on 23% of his snaps. Stills was targeted on 17.5% of his snaps. Stills also led the team in yards per pass route run. Likewise, Mike Wallace was the second option on the Dolphins, as Jarvis Landry was targeted on 24.2% of his snaps, and Wallace was targeted on 21.5% of his. Wallace was also very nearly the third option, since Charles Clay was targeted on 21% of his snaps.
