So....forgetting the draft, are we a better team than that one exiting the playoffs?

Because you are somehow taking an argument one poster is making, and then taking an argument another poster is making, and somehow assuming both posters feel the same way on both arguments.

That's why you'd be interesting in knowing that.

 

Don't ignore the question, who do you take?

If it's not Gilly then the grade and how they get it is ****ing pointless.

 

I would take Ajayi because he's proven to be a starter but that doesn't make the stat pointless. and it's not a grade it's a stat. YPC is not a grade. Number of touchdowns is not a grade. Success rate is a stat. It's formulation is subjective but not the figuring out the ranking. Fact of the matter is 31 running backs were higher than Ajayi. As Cbrad's stats show above, Gillislee was more likely to get a first down on any carry than Ajayi.

Ajayi gave us 3 monster games, a couple good ones, and a few bad ones. You got a problem with Gillislee? Well let's cut it off at 200 carries instead of 100. Next on the list were Ezekiel, Leveon Bell, Mark Ingram, Lesean McCoy, etc. etc.

It's simple math, and I'm sorry you can't grasp it. But when you have 3 MONSTER games, 25, 28, and 32 carries each game, with averages of 8.2, 7.6 and 6.4 ypc each, but your average for the year is 4.9, that means you had to have a lot of carries on the other end of 4.9 to come to that average. Especially because in your other games you were't getting 30 carries. Only in one other game all year other than those 3 did he have more than 20 carries.

That alone, without pulling out a calculator, tells you Ajayi had to have a lot of subpar carries and games to bring down his average to 4.9. Ajayi still had a fantastic year, and is a fantastic back. But if you want to talk about how many times he hit those marks, which are reasonable marks, it's 43%. Ezekiel was at 57%. Leveon Bell 56%. Success rate is not some convoluted grading system that serves no purpose.

After the Rams, he had one great game against Buffalo, may have had another against Balt (carries and opportunities were too low) but other than that, did not have success. Blame it on the blocking, fatigue, whatever. 4 out of his last 6 games were forgettable. It's easy to forget that unless you dive in deeper.

 

I'm curious as to where I've said Gillislee is better than Ajayi? Has that been said ANYWHERE by anyone? I pointed to one stat where it happens that Ajayi didn't do so well and you guys jump out of the woodwork, as an aside I laugh that Gillislee, our former backup, was #1 in that stat.

The point being, how would Ajayi/Gillislee look right about now. Probably pretty damn good.

All of a sudden it's comparing Ajayi to Gillislee. You guys get more emotional than a teenage girl when it comes to this stuff.

 

The ranking is a grade. It's a grade based on the weighting of a handful of stats.

The grading IS NOT valid because there's not a significant tier system between numbers of carries. That is why it's useless. As has been explained to you, a QB can go 3/3 on the whole year and be considered more successful than an actual starter. If they aren't going to make that delineation, then GRADE as delivered, is ****ing useless and anyone putting credence in it...is useless as well.

 

As I have already written, I'm a big stats guy. However, if you're going to use stats to compare individuals or to determine good vs bad then those stats should be objective and equal across the board.

This debate started because Rock claimed that the left side, and only the left, of the o-line "excelled at run blocking".

Now, what's the purpose of run blocking? Is it not to insure rushing yards? And, if a RB is getting the same amount of rushing yards, with the same amount of carries, on both sides, how can you say that YPC and rushing yards are "useless" stats in regards to o-line effectiveness?

No one, including me, has tried to make the case that YPC and rushing yards are the only way to determine run blocking effectiveness, but so far no one has proven that there is a better way. Even cbrad, after working his statistical magic (which I admire BTW) has concluded that PFF's and FO's methods are subjective and ambiguous, at best. However, YPC and rushing yards are 100% objective and clear.

Anyhow, in regards to Gilly, I liked him when he was here. However, when he starts a game at Buffalo he does nowhere near as well as McCoy. When he was here he did nowhere near as well at Miller (he barely made it on the field). That says a lot.

 

I guess my answer is, did we improve to have been able to beat the Patriots twice with the free agency we've had so far? I mean that is the real question.

Our DE's need improvement. Love Wake but c'mon the guy is old. It was luck he got through last year. The mermaid guy from the Cards isn't anything but a backup. So we still have that to address.

CB was eviscerated by injury last year. Need some better depth there.

LB was improved with Timmons but we still need a home run hitter. We need to sign Zach Brown. Let's not get cheap and just sign the dude. We got to the playoffs and now we're going to get thrifty?

Need a guard which should be easy to grab in like round 3.

Love the TE moves. Definitely added at least one or two wins just by better blocking from Fasano and the upgrade for Julius.

I think on offense, we got better. I think on Defense we are an average team which I think sucks. I miss the dominant defenses from years past.

 

Few quick observations-

First, I don't care how old Wake is. He's still dominant and that's all that matters. Big motor, great speed...age is not yet a factor so I don't know why people keep bringing it up.

CB and safety were destroyed by injuries last season. Jones is the best player on the field and having him back changes a lot. Howard has the potential to be a top 5 corner as well. With those two pieces in place our defense is a completely different beast- way better than last season. Timmons is also an upgrade so I agree, we will be "average" or slightly better.

On offense, however, we got better at line and TE, with a squad that already had all-star potential. This is a team that should be putting up 35 a game when everything clicks, which is exactly how NE made all those Super Bowl runs ten years ago. Their D was average, their offense was terrifying. I think we are pretty darn close to that ourselves.

One more thing- Mike Pouncey is the best center in football by a very wide margin. Those back to back 200 yard games by Ajayi- watch the film on each of those runs. Pouncey was critical in creating enough space for him to explode. NOBODY knocks that strong side linebacker on their *** better than Pouncey. So if he's healthy, this offense is way better than where we finished last season.

Make no mistake though, we are WORLD'S BETTER on defense with Jones and other starters returning. Our offense also got a slight upgrade and we're talking about a 10-6 playoff team that played two games essentially without an offensive line at all. We didn't need a whole lot to start looking like one of the elite teams in the AFC and I think we got pretty close just from clearing IR.

Everyone here called me crazy last year when we were 1-4 and I said that we were about to go on a six or seven game win streak. I saw what this offense could be though and it's even scarier now that Fasano is back in the mix. You give me Fasano, Tunsil, Pouncey and Ajayi on the field and I don't care who we're playing...those chains are going to be moving. That's a certified wall folks. And that's also when players like Tannehill, Landry and Stills are their deadliest.

It's not prediction time YET but I will say that this squad should be right back in the playoff mix this coming season. And if our defense is indeed average (16th in the league for run, pass, turnovers, etc.), there will be very few who can slow us down. It's a great time to be a Dolphin fan because these next few years will be magical.

 

I have to say I think you're jumping the gun on a lot of stuff here Key, age is a factor for Wake, he was on a pitch count last year due to his age, he's 35 now, and overall the Dline is thin.

The wheels can come off at any time, you can't look at last year and expect the same results when players get to this age, you hope for it, but father time has never be whipped, he's batting 1000, he will lay Wake low at some point, and there is no getting around that.

I love Jones, but he's no magic panacea, he was there for the first 5 games while we gave up 400 yds per game, and I agree that X has the potential to be a top CB, but he was a slightly below avg CB last year, so we certainly can't pencil him in as a top CB.

Timmons and Alonso both have to learn new positions, and who's playing the other spot? LB is up in the air right now, Timmons will be an upgrade, but to what degree we don't know yet.

There's simply no way to say the Oline is better this year, on paper it's definitely worse, Larsen is not > than Tunsil, and I like Pouncey, but you're giving him way too much credit imo, and that's when he can stay on the field.

TE? I love getting Fas back, I went to school with his cousin, then later worked with him at their family business, I'm sure he'll help with the blocking but he's 33, and Thomas is a ?, both in ability and health.

We have just as many questions, if not more, than last year, it's a full on wait and see off season, as per usual.

 

I agree about Wake, Timmons, Howard, and the TE squad. If everyone can stay relatively healthy our defense and offense, on paper, is better.

However, I'm not sure what Patriots teams you've been watching, but their defenses have been the keys to ALL of their Super Bowl runs and wins. Even in their 18-1 season their defense was ranked 4th. Over the past 16 seasons they've had a defense not ranked in the top 10 only 3 times. Yes, their offenses have been great too. And even with Cassel as the QB their offense was ranked 8th in the league. However, once the playoffs have come around their offenses typically scored a lot less points and their defenses give up the same or less points as in the regular season.

 

Yeah, NE has pretty much always had a top defense when they've won their Super Bowls.

 

5th, 1st, 2nd, 8th, 1st in their respective wins.

4th and 15th in their respective losses.

 

Is that the rankings overall, or by ppg? I was arguing with a Pats fan at work, and I went by ppg ranking, and it shut him up real quick. He always wants to credit Brady for the wins, and he didn't like me pointing out what a huge role the defense played.

 

PPG. Yards, IMO, mean little.

 

Yeah, agreed. I only care about ppg. I don't care if you're dead last in ypg, if you're in the top 10 for ppg. Yards don't win games, points do.

 

Because YPC is an overview that doesnt tell you things that watching film will tell you. Again, process > result. That stat is fine to use in combination with other things, but by itself it doesnt tell you much about how the actual run blocking was aside from the results. Hence why I trust the people who actually watch the film rather than seeing a stat and interpreting something from it that doesnt actually insinuate what you think it does.

What you dont seem to get is that no one is objecting that YPC and rushing yards are 100% objective and clear. The whole issue is you taking that stat and saying it means something that it doesnt necessarily mean. passing yardage is 100% objective and clear too, but if i try to insinuate that our punter was good this year because we led the league in passing yardage, that doesnt make any sense. Obviously that is an exaggeration as to what you are doing, but it is an example of a stat being perfectly clear and using that perfectly clear stat to insinuate something that that stat doesnt actually insinuate.

as an overview of our running game YPC is fine in combination with other analysis including other stats and film watching, but as has been said about 100 times now, there are so many variables on any individual play that the only way you are going to get a true picture as to how the run blocking actually performed is by watching the tape. It is the most basic of stat, an average, that doesnt go anywhere near telling you the full picture of how the run blocking actually differed on each side. Even using a median of our runs to each side would probably give you a better indication than the YPC average.

YPC doesnt take into account amount of help from TE's/WR, situation, context, opponent, etc. If the right side of our line always had 2 TE's and 2 WR's to help out, that changes things. If we are going against JJ watt on one side or a terrible run defender like Andre Branch on the other, that changes things. If it is 3rd and 1 and we get 2 yards, or its 3rd and 15 and we get 7, that is a variable that makes a difference. Hence why that stat i provided a few days ago is much more telling than using a basic YPC because it takes into consideration different variables that a basic stat like YPC doesnt.

If we were to average 10 yards per pass, that doesnt necessarily mean our pass blocking is good. If we throw quick screens and rely on after the catch stuff, that is a variable that makes the stat of yards per pass, while perfectly clear and objective, improper to use to say our pass blocking is good.

 

Agree on Wake.
Jones is really good and will be huge when he comes back, but what in the world are you talking about that Howard has the potential to be a top 5 CB. he may well end up being that, but he has done literally nothing to show that. Maybe top 5 CB on our team, but as of now, he has done almost nothing to show he is even a starter let alone a top 5 CB in the league.

Now on to your point about offense, there is nothing to suggest we have gotten better at line. All we've done so far is switch Albert and Larsen and move Tunsil outside to replace albert. You seem like quite a homer, because this is not a team that should be putting up 35 PPG. Once again we still have 2 black holes at the guard position and that will implode this offense yet again if it is not fixed. If you wonder why our offense is so inconsistent, it is because that guard position has ****ed our running game consistency and Tannehill's ability to step up in the pocket for like 3 years now.

As to your 10-6 comment, we had the lowest strength of victory by far out of any playoff team. We not only beat just about no one, but we were embarrassed just about any time we played an actually good team. If you look at our wins aside from beating the Steelers when big ben got hurt early in the game, the records of the teams we beat were 1-15 (browns), 2-14 (niners), 4-12 (Rams), 5-11 (Chargers), 5-11 (2 x Jets), 7-9 (2 X Bills), 7-8-1 (cardinals). Nothing about that is impressive, especially considering that almost every single one of those games was incredibly close and could have gone either way. We should have lost to the browns, barely hung on against the niners, had a miracle to beat the Rams, were about to lose with the Chargers coming down the field to win as time expired before Kiko had that great return, looked pathetic against the Bills at home and had 6 points until we scored a TD with 18 seconds left in the 3rd quarter, needed a kick return against the jets at home with 5 minutes left to take the lead, and were down to the Bills on the road with a minute left in the game.

We did not win one of those game by more than 7 points. Obviously it is nice to pull out close games and going to the playoffs is the ultimate goal, but you guys really need to stop talking about last season as if it was some sort of impressive or anywhere near contending level team. We simply were not, and every time we played a good team we were shown just how far away we are, especially defensively.

Your comment about being in the "playoff mix" is useless. Almost every non terrible team is in the "playoff mix." The real thing to look at is if we are going to be a contender, and we will not. The playoff cut off of 6 teams is just an arbitrary number. Being the number 6 team in the conference is not special. And our schedule from next year, although impossible to predict how good teams will be, looks much harder.

And i dont think i was here when you made that "crazy" prediction, but there was nothing crazy about that prediction looking at the schedule. Our start was made worse by our OL not being healthy, but once they got healthy, we wont every game we should and lost every game we should. We just happened to have a very fortunate schedule from week 7-week 16 and were helped out when Big Ben got hurt early in that Pittsburgh game. Seriously, if you look at who we played from that game until the finale against the Patriots, our schedule was incredibly fortunate.

We took care of business and as a fan of the team last season was obviously positive, but my overall point is that it wasnt anywhere close to as impressive as people think it was.

 

Phins18, the whole argument started with one person arguing that the left side was excellent and the right was not. The things you're saying are correct...but what if the right side faced premier pass rushers more than the left? You've not provided evidence that the things you're saying actually did occur. So, really, you should be arguing with Rock just as much as you're arguing with others. People are just pointing out that FO and Pro Football Reference don't disclose methodology, and they have plenty of WTF rankings that don't make sense to anyone.

At the end of the day, mitigating factors usually balance out, given enough attempts. So, I'd both sides has similar rushing attempts, and similar yards gained, then they probably performed about the same.

 

In the early 2000's where they made it to several Super Bowls in a row (and lost), it was almost entirely off the offense. I never looked at the stats back then though so I may be mistaken, but it seemed like we would run all over them with Ricky and torch their corners left and right. If memory serves me right, Henne had a monster day with 400+ yards?

Again, it's been awhile though and I know it doesn't represent TODAY'S Patriots. They got to where they are now though with Brady, Welker and several other key pieces on offense that they were able to build around. That's how their defense was able to become elite over the past decade...they had a solid core on offense and not constantly overhauling the line, the receiving corp, etc. Of course, owning the draft and gaining extra picks through free agency was a big factor too.

My only point is that we've finally reached the basis of how elite teams are formed. We weren't even in the same universe under Philbin, Sparano, etc.

 

Please show how the records of team we played is drastically different from the records of teams that other teams played?

I'd love to watch the league where every team plays teams with winning records.

 

Just go look at the stats. The Patriots have been a top 10 defense in points allowed, sometimes top 5, in every super bowl win. The offense always gets the credit, but when their defense has not been top 10, they haven't win a Super Bowl.

Go to post #212. Only one Super Bowl was the Patriots defense not top 5, and for that one they were 8th in points allowed.

 

I understand how the whole argument started, and the left side was better than the right, but I didnt make that point nor do i really care. My entire point is that YPC does not insinuate about run blocking what that guy necessarily thinks it does, at least as a blanket stat by itself.

My point is not that im going to go watch the film and determine whether those things actually did occur, my point is that all those variables play a role in run blocking and thus YPC is a horrific barometer to look at blankly and say, "yup, both YPC on each side equal, thus run blocking on each side equal."

PFF does disclose their methodology and yes it is subjective, but i'd rather take an informed and film based subjective analysis as one opinion to listen to rather than looking at one basic stat as better than that simply because it has a formula that is easy to calculate. and FO explicitly explained how they came up with that stat I posted that took into account many of the variables that I explained. YPC is just not a good stat to use by itself to evaluate run blocking.

And no, at the end of the day, you actually have no clue if mitigating factors balance out. Hence why we look at tape.

 

Our strength of victory was by far the lowest of any playoff team. You play the teams on your schedule obviously, but our strength of victory was .341, and it was by far the lowest of any team that finished in the top 9 in either conference.

 

In the early 2000's ESPECIALLY, it was all defense. And they made it to 3 SB's in the early 2000's and won them all. I'm not sure what you mean by several in a row and lost?

The media likes to worship Brady, but the Pats defense is why they've been so dominate these past 16 season. Sure, they're offense has been elite also, but in the playoffs, their offense has played much worse than the defense.

 

Believe it or not, we can actually agree on stuff. I wouldnt go so far as to say their defense is why theyve been so dominant the past 16 years, but people tend to forget how their team actually played before that year they went undefeated with Randy Moss joining them. They werent this hyper efficient offensive juggernaut that they have become nowadays before that year. Obviously Brady was good, but their defense was really ****ing good in the Ty Law, Bruschi, Rodney Harrison, Seymour, Wilfork, etc era.

 

All the SoS talk is absurd. lol

Yeah, the Dolphins are the only playoff team that benefited from an "easy" schedule.



I count 8 playoff teams at a .500 or less. 2 of which were in the Super Bowl. haha....The Pats, being the benefactors of the 2nd easiest schedule suck and shouldn't have even been in the playoffs. I mean, they lost to Buffalo for God's sake! lol

 

Just take a look at the tape before Howard got injured- he was playing fantastic. Gase went as far to say that he was our second best player on the entire defense...that's what I based my comment off of.

A healthy Pouncey with Fasano at TE is massive. Now you have the best run-blocking center in football with the best run-blocking TE, and a young tackle in Tunsil that played out of position last year. I don't know how that's not clearly better considering that we didn't have four of our starting five linemen in multiple games last year.

That's funny, because the Patriots had virtually the same schedule as us. We went 10-6 with one of the most injury plagued teams in the league. If that didn't have you dancing in the streets, then you're not a Dolphins fan. It was an incredible season and I could care less that most games were close.

Tell that to the 20 teams each year that don't make the playoffs. Or the multiple teams that have won it all out of the #6 seed. 2006 Steelers, 2011 Packers...they would strongly disagree with you as well. I could also start naming off 10-6 teams that won the Super Bowl ('07 Giants, etc.) but I think you get the point here.

That's great and all...but I'm not the one here calling other people out. I shared my opinion just like I did last year, and it just so happened that I was the only one on the entire board that was right. It's easy to say, "Oh, I could have predicted that" but an entirely different matter to actually do it.

Just like you did here just now- Howard sucks, sixth seeds suck, our offense is weak and any decent team will blow us out. Let's see what happens when you actually predict something.

 

lol...It's a miracle.

I put together some stats awhile back that showed how the offense played in the post season compared to their defense. I compared their regular season PPG averages to their post season PPG averages. I can't remember the exact facts, but the offense in all but 1 Super Bowl failed to come close to their regular season average while the defense gave up the same or less than their regular season average for points allowed. I think the Carolina game is the one in question.

All one has to do is look at Belichick defense's throughout his career. Not even Joe Montana and Walsh could beat his defense when he was with the Giants.

 

Have to remember.. one reason SoS is often weak for playoff teams is BECAUSE playoff teams tend to have better records. There's a real confound in the SoS stat because of that.

 

Yes, mitigating factors do usually balance out. It's one reason why you look at averages, and not at only the best or only the worst.

 

lol...I never thought of it that way. But BUffalo would have been 9-7 if not for the Dolphins.

 

First off, the dolphins have a lower strength than every one in that picture, but strength of schedule is not the best barometer for what i'm saying, strength of victory is. We lost to every good team we played and got pretty much embarrassed each time. I wasnt making the point that our schedule was so much easier than everyone elses, even though it was easier, my point was that going 10-6 isnt impressive when you actually look not only at who we played, but how close each of those games was. My point was that 10-6 was more of a scheduling induced aberration than it was an indication of our team's proximity to being an elite team.

We obviously deserve credit for winning close games, but we could have easily lost the game against the Browns, Niners, Chargers, Rams, first jets game, both bills game, and the cardinals game. Compare that to how close the truly elite teams like the Pats and Cowboys generally won easily against the teams they are clearly better than.

 

Not that I didn't believe you, but I had to look it up just to be sure I'm not getting senile at 43. I can't find a year by year comparison BUT if you look just at points against, the Pats were incredible in 1999 and 2000, good in 01-03, bad in 04, average in 05-06 and then really bad in 07-2012. For instance, they allowed 276 points for the season in 2000 and over double that in 2007 (589 points) and 2012 (557 points allowed).

That's 36.8 points given up ON AVERAGE in 2007...which is definitely not top 10 in anything. So I guess I was thinking of 2007 to 2012 but imagining it being a little further back.

 

Winning games in the NFL isn't easy. For every "we should have lost and got lucky" (Chargers) I can give you a game we should have won (Seahawks). And as Cbrad mentioned, if we hadn't of beaten the Jets twice, Buffalo twice, etc, out SoS would have been much higher.

 

Pro-football-reference to the rescue haha:
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/nwe/

During Belichick's reign, the average offensive rank by points scored is 6.3 and average defensive rank is 8.2. However, the average offensive rank when NE won the SB is 5.8 while for defense it's 3.6.

The real take home from this is they're good on both sides of the ball.. and we need to be that way too someday lol

 

Except that you dont know how much those mitigating factors go into how teams play, and you dont actually know if they do balance out, you are just using it as a conversational crutch. For example, say if Miami realized that the right side of their line was sub par and the left side was better and they used more protection on that side of the line in the form of a FB or TE, that is not something that is going to balance out with increased sample size. Im not saying that is what happened, just using that as an example of something that is not going to balance out over time.

Or, because YPC doesnt take into consideration context or situation, it can be misleading. Again, if a team is at 3rd and 15 and takes the 10 yards that any defense will give you via the run in that situation or it is 3rd and 1 and the team is not going for as many yards as possible and is just trying to pick up the 1 yard by any means necessary, that context is missed by just looking at YPC. So again, that is why YPC is not a good indicator of run blocking and it is why that FO stat is the best context and situationally based thing you will find other than actually watching the film.

 

Again, strength of victory is the better determinant of what im saying. And the change in our SOS is negligible in reference to what you are talking about.

And you named one game we could have one. I named like 8 we could have easily lost. Aside from that seahawks game, we were thoroughly dominated in every game we lost. The game in New England looks closer than it actually was considering we were down by like 31 points in the first half, the last game of the year New england dominated us, the Ravens absolutely manhandled us, and the Titans and Bengals games were pretty pathetic to watch and were never really close. So no, you cant name a game we should have won for every game that could have gone either way that we lost. There was literally only 1 game that we lost that we realistically could have won.

 

I think you're mixing up seasons or teams.

In 1999 and 2000 they were ranked 7th and 17th, respectively. In 2001, they were ranked 6th, '02 ranked 17th (missed playoffs), '03 1st, and '04 2nd. These ranking are all points against. '05 17th. '06 2nd. And for 2007-2012 ranked better than 10th every year except 1.

In fact...I think you're mixing up points scored and points allowed for certain seasons. In 2007 they SCORED 589 points and ALLOWED only 274, for example.

 

How can you be so dense? If the Bills or Jets swept us, they would have had two more wins. That makes them a stronger opponent on paper.

That's why this entire argument is ridiculous- you're saying we're a worse team because we beat other teams. I guess the only way for us to prove anything is by winning the Super Bowl AND go 0-16 that year.

 

lol...I see you edited your post in regards to saying that SoS wouldn't change if we beat or lose to a team. haha