Were Bess & Hartline's Number of TDs an Issue?

Your own stats do not consistently support that statement. Matt Ryan had the 3rd highest rookie passer rating and the 3rd highest % of his TD passes to his starting WRs.

 

Hartline has had one Td in each of the last 3 seasons. I don't care if you're throwing him the ball, he needs to do better than that! He was supposed to be the main target this season. He makes a solid #2/3 Wr but Qb is not the main issue here.

 

What decrease? Hartline has had a steady "production" of 1 TD per season.

 

You could argue that Bess and Hartline would have caught a lot more TDs if they played for a team like Green Bay. You could also argue that Bess and Hartline would never see the field if they played for a team like Green Bay.

What can't be argued with is the type of contract Hartline receives and from who. That'll put an end to all of this.

 

Fasano had 5 tds. Fasano is an average TE. He's also catching said tds from the same rookie qb that bess and hartline had throwing them the ball.

I realize he's a big target, but he also managed to get himself open and even at one point he made fantastic catch against the niners I believe.

But bess hartline? They never did any of that in the end zone.

 

I agree, but goes both ways. I saw plays in which a good throw or being thrown to for that matter would have resulted in TD opportunities. Tannehill obviously doesn't have C. Johnson to throw to, who btw only had 5 TDs on 122 catches, but Tannehill had opportunities to pad his TD total.

Yeah, Henne was a roller-coaster ride. First year starting looked a lot like Tannehill this year and I had high hopes. Second year starting he played and looked like a turd but I held out hope it was mostly due to bad coaching and I think that was definitely a part of it. Last year I thought he played pretty good considering he had to implement the offense himself given the lockout and his 7.8 ypa and 7.5 ypr attest to that.

Marshall's tendency to drop TD passes really hurt Miami's offense from having a chance to get rolling imo. Offense started scoring when play-action to Fasano in the KC game was called rather than making Marshall "the guy." Making a WR "the guy" rarely works in the NFL from I have seen. It is about spreading the ball around and getting everyone involved.

I thought Henne would do well getting a change of scenery in Jacksonville. He would have a few good plays, but then goes through long periods of not being able to complete a pass. With the young kids coming into the league and the implementation of the pistol I can't see Henne being anything more than a decent backup at best.

 

sounds like a fishing trip to find things to sweep under the rug with this team to me . why get excited about numbers when our team has looked bad while going 7- 9 for several years . Bess and Hartline would never even be worth being on the practice squad compared to the 80's and 90's wr corp .

my most pressing desire is to see us have some wr's that make highlight reals and make big plays that puts us in the playoffs so all the jiberish about stats does little to make a fan feel better at where this club is really at. stats are ok but when you have been a crappy offensive team for so long now the stats dont mean squat .

if Miami had kept Marshall and had drafted Dez both then Tannyhill would have been more successful and the stats would probally mean more.

 

Bess's one touchdown was a pretty sweet catch. Barely getting his feel down in the end zone in Buffalo.

 

We watched him fall out of bounds and lose sight of the ball in the sun. 50 million dollars. BM with Bryant is oil and water.
You started out not liking stats and ended up caring about stats.

 

Won't lie, turned off the buffalo game midway. I was so angry at how poor we looked during our only primetime game of the season.

 

Somehow I don't think it will.

 

I think the negative correlation to starting WRs and QBR comes in when a QB is reliant on the two starting WRs as avenues for scoring, meaning the opposing defences know where the QB will be forcing the pass to.

In other words having a good pair of starting WRs is good if you have some other weapons, but if they are your only weapons then you become too predictable.

 

This.

/Thread

 

Key words.

 

This continues the streak of one of the dumbest series of threads that I've ever seen on this site. Tannehill got a pathetic amount of help from his starting WRs as per TDs, 2 in total, a measly 16.7% of his TD total. Which is why everyone (with a brain) including Stephen Ross, knows that we have to get more explosive.

On that list of 12 QBs, the top half of the QBs based on their QBRs each got significantly more help from their starting WRs in terms of the percentage of their QBs pass TDs that they caught:

1. RGIII 102.4 QBR 30%

2. Russell Wilson 100.0 QBR 53.8%

3. Matt Ryan 87.7 QBR 62.5%

4. Cam Newton 84.5 QBR 38.1%

5. Andy Dalton 80.4 QBR 55.0%

6. Joe Flacco 80.3 QBR 57.1%

So obviously, another (and I would say better) way to look at this "objective" study is that the top half of this group of QBs based on QBR got at MINIMUM of just about double the help from their starting WRs in terms of percentage of total TDs caught, and in most cases much more than that, up to about quadruple. Imagine if Bess and Hartline actually scored a decent amount of TDs, how much higher would Tannehill's QBR have been?

This whole "ANALysis" smacks of someone with an axe to grind looking for and finding what he wants to see, and a misuse of statistics. Take the same numbers, look at them slightly differently, and you come up with an entirely different conclusion. Do stats lie, or do people who misuse them lie? Or is it just that stats can usually be manipulated to show what you want if you look hard enough, and therefore can be, if misused, a tool of deceit?

Oh yeah, this was yet another lame study brought to you by the person who would draft Tannehill over Kellen Moore, with the sole criteria offered being that Tannehill is taller. That should at least shed some light on why the devotion is such to statistics, because nowhere else have I seen any sign that he is capable of competent subjective analysis when it comes to football. Without stats I'm not so sure that he has much of anything to go on, and the history of posts points to that conclusion.

The common thread here seems to be a search for statistics that go against common sense- manipulate them, draw attention to yourself and piss people off. All done under the guise of enlightening us and helping us to "see the light" because our subjective thoughts are skewed. Lord help me.

 

Man can. We stop making new threads to debate same point just with diff stats?

 

Why should he stop when his behavior is validated by the site moderators?

 

No, as I stated it's just a different way of looking at the data, which you use to support a very flimsy argument. You're focusing attention on the percentage of starting WR TD's instead of the total number of their TDs. I mean, seriously, this conclusion of yours:

"What this suggests is that the percentage of TD passes thrown to the starting WRs may actually mean a whole lot less than many people seem to believe, and it's quite possible it may even be detrimental to rookie QBs, in terms of their QB ratings."

Detrimental? Wow. How about just calling it random, useless data misused to support a weak theory of yours? And this is your conclusion in support of your long running thesis, that Bess and Hartline are just fine, do just as much for Tannehill as the Falcons WRs do for Ryan and the fact that they are historically awful at scoring TDs is insignificant? Your whole argument rests on stats that show that the worst QBs on that list (Sanchez and Orton, who were yanked as starters) and another in Weeden, who had much better options at WR than TE and I don't think that Trent Richardson is a terribly potent pass catching threat, threw a higher percentage of their passing TDs to their starting WRs- so what? What seems to be far more relevant as per this data is the NUMBER of TDs, including the number of TDs contributed by the starting WRs. If Hartline & Bess had decent number of receiving TDs Tannehill would have had well over 20- Fasano did his job, the WRs failed miserably at TD production. Isn't that more relevant than a percentage breakdown? Who cares? If RBs and TEs contributed more receiving TDs for their QBs on this list,more power to them.

Ok, so Sanchez and Orton threw a large percentage of TD's to WRs their rookie year- so what? And you use this to come to the conclusion that throwing TD passes to WRs could be "detrimental to rookie QBs in terms of their QB rating"? Really? That's the big conclusion? And without examining on a case by case basis WHY a higher percentage of TDs may or may not have gone to WRs?

The point is, your conclusions seem at best irrelevant, at worst foolish. To wit: "What this suggests is that the percentage of TD passes thrown to the starting WRs may actually mean a whole lot less than many people seem to believe, and it's quite possible it may even be detrimental to rookie QBs, in terms of their QB ratings." That's just a sad and reaching conclusion.

And to make matters worse you try to use them to support your lame general thesis- yet again- that Hartline and Bess are not part of the passing offense problem, when anyone with eyes and a brain can see that they are. Perhaps the more relevant data that you can derive from your research is the obvious- Tannehill got very little help from his starting WRs in terms of scoring TDs. That's simple and obvious enough, and actually you refer to it in one of your big statistical findings:

"The finding in that regard is what many people have pointed out, that Hartline and Bess came up short in terms of being TD targets for Ryan Tannehill this year.

However, here is the more interesting information in my opinion:

The correlation between QB rating and total TDs thrown by the QBs in this sample is 0.73. In other words, the more TDs these quarterbacks threw, the higher their QB rating. This stands to reason, since TD passes are a component of QB rating."

Wow. I mean seriously, thank you, for that stunning piece of research.

 

Why should I they can determine if your violating the TOS without my help and why would you suggest I ignore you when its pretty obvious you want to be the center of attention.

 

The title of the thread is a question.

The answer to that question is yes.

I don't need a chart to tell me that. (I have eyes and most of my chromosomes)

Nothing else to see here. Move along.



edit: I feel like I've read the same thread and data 10 different times with subtle to no differences. It's so damn old already. And here I was thinking this would be something half decent.

 

Not even sure where this thread subject is supposed to be going but I'll say that a sample size of 12 is only just above the bare minimum for statistical significance and a correlation of -0.26 or -0.08 off that size a sample is not statistically significant period. In order words, you can't say that a -0.26 or -0.08 correlation off a n=12 sample pool is anything but random noise.

On the other hand the +0.73 correlation is statistically significant, but it ought to be, since the number of touchdowns you throw is directly, mechanically responsible for higher QB ratings. It's baked right into the formula.

 

Statistically indefensible conclusion.

 

Sigh.

VJ = 147 targets for 72 completions
BH =128 targets for 74 completions

Yet VJ has about 300 more yards, 5 more yards a catch, 7 more TDs, 10 more 20+ yard catches, 60 more YAC and 13 more 1st downs. That is striking in the difference between WR skill.

With those numbers, Tannehill would have had a 83.47 qb rating.

 

Much more defensible how? Using what? Surely not using the statistics you've cited which are not in any way significant.

Either argument is supported only by anecdote and by experience. Neither is bolstered with a statistically significant finding. NEITHER.

 

You can't just take Jackson's numbers and plug them in to benefit Tannehill.

 

The average amount of TDs for #1 WRs is 6. BH had 1. So, if we add just 5 more TDs to Tannehill's numbers, we get a qb rating of 79.51 which is an increas of about 3 points. That's just BH.

 

Wait, I thought the argument was that Bess and Hartline didn't score enough TDs period. Where'd this argument about them vulturing touchdowns would lead to a better offense come from?

 

Sure I can to illustrate the point. The point is, with better WR numbers, the qb rating increases.