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

This is an example of where you use statistics as a tool, and I emphasize the word tool, of deceit. The commonly held belief here is that a higher NUMBER of TD receptions from Bess and Hartline would have helped Tannehill, not a higher percentage- who mentioned percentage here besides you? The key part of your lame research is that Mark Sanchez and Kyle Orton had a large number of their TD passes caught by WRs. Wow. Fascinating. Alert the media. The flip side is, as pointed out, that the top half of your 12 QBs in the analysis got WAY more help in terms of starting WR TDs than Tannehill did, in percentage (and who really cares about that) and the actual, relevant, NUMBER of touchdowns.

Your research is garbage, plain and simple. The only things worse are the conclusions that you reach from the resulting drivel. I wish that there was a statistics forum where you put put this crap instead of here on the main forum.

 

I don't agree. It takes good QB play to help a receiver put up those numbers. You can't just assume he will come in here and put up those numbers.

 

You'll notice that VJ and Hartline caught virtually the same amount of balls. The numbers I illustrated indicate stats that are accomplished AFTER the QB did his job. So basically those numbers show what a WR does with the ball in his hands.

I use VJ because he has the same amount of opportunities with the ball in his hand that Hartline did and did a lot more with those opportunities. That's why its ok for me to use those numbers to illustrate my point.

 

I don't need to do that. My point is clear, obvious and correct already.

 

It seems to me that there is probably an optimal ratio of TDs caught by the starting WRs for an offense to run efficiently and that optimal level varies depending on the type of offense run. If the ratio exceeds the optimal level than it could signal problems with the offense or its execution; one dimensional play calling, lack of talent at other positions, a QB locking onto his primary target..... But if the ratio is below the optimal level it also would signal issues in play calling, lack of talent at the WR level, QB moving to quickly through his reads etc... So my conclusion from the statistics presented would be we need to improve the production of the WRs since they contributed well below average but not to the point where we become overly dependent on them.

 

Are you in any way suggesting Hartline just went limp to the ground immediately after having just caught the ball? Preposterous!

 

Ah, you mean your statistically insignificant data.

#fail

 

Again, I don't agree. Touchdowns, yards, yards per catch, and 20+plus yards a catch don't show that. It's reflective of both the QB and WR.

 

They absolutely do show that.

A QB cannot complete a pass if the receiver doesn't catch the ball. A WR can catch a poorly thrown ball. A QB cannot throw for a TD if the receiver doesn't cross the goal line with or without the ball.

Yes, a WR needs the QB to throw him the ball, however, once the ball leaves the hand of the QB the success of the play is ALL on the WRs skill. That is fact.

 

Those are reflective of both, thats not an argument...by anyone.

FinD made the comparison to show the difference after its out of the QBs hands and into SOLELY the WRs hands...the skill and play difference is huge. yet you are saying you do not agree and U-Turning his point.


the thread delivers so much cancerrrr.

 

Except it isn't. A receiver cannot catch a ball that is over thrown by 20 yards when he is wide open deep down field. A receiver cannot catch a ball if a QB is not looking at him despite being open. A receiver cannot catch a pass thrown behind him. Or to the ground. Or if it is intercepted.

The stats you put are a measure of both the QB and WR, IMO.

I agree that YAC mainly shows what the receivers skill is, though.

 

I don't think you have the slightest idea what the debate is here.

 

Goddamn it, this has nothing to do with my authority.

My point has been proven to you in every way possible. My point is the same as most others and they have proven it to you in every way possible. What hasn't happened, is that you haven't been a stand up guy and sacked up and admitted you're wrong, because of you're bull**** authority.

Stop projecting. Stop trolling. Put on your big boy pants and admit you're effing wrong like a man.

 

And? No one is arguing that. Do you or do you not understand a WR doesn't record a catch, a td, 1st dwn, a yrd if the ball is sailed over his head 20 yards?

If YAC is receiver skill, so are the rest.

 

I can paraphrase his comparison on vjax and bh, because the point was what happens AC. That is solely the debate between you two currently, but thats cool. You just agreed on it either way. Maybe you're confused.

 

I didn't say the rest aren't. I clearly said they measure both. Which means the numbers Jackson put up were a function of himself and Freeman, not just Jackson.There is no guarantee he puts up the same numbers here and increases Tannehill's numbers to the degree you stated earlier. Tannehill may not have performed the way Freeman has. He may not have hit the throws Freeman has.

 

I hope your day job doesn't involve use of statistics to draw significant conclusions. Because if so, I don't think you're good at your day job.

 

He makes the comparison of their CURRENT numbers as they are, emphasizing the importance of play after the catch and difference in skillsets (because it was a decent comparison) and you babble this speculation nonsense about IF vjax was here he wouldn't necessarily have done the same thing when NO one was claiming anything like that or trying to make that case?

and i'm the one who has no clue whats going on?

 

Sure or Tannehill could of put up bigger numbers then freeman did. There is no way to say with any certainity either way.

 

If YAC is an indication of WR skill, so are the other stats I mentioned. A QB doesn't do less in those other stats then he does in YAC. Every stat I mentioned requires the same thing from the QB...to get the ball to the WR. That's why I don't factor in attempts, only catches. Tannehill got the ball to Hartline as much Freeman got the ball to VJ. Its as close of a comparison that can be made.

 

I can statistically prove that YAC is a receiver skill, whereas I (or you or anyone else here) can't prove the rest are.

 

Nope, you really don't.

 

Because you're burden of proof does not equal proof of something. You are asking for me to further prove its cold out while we both shiver. That makes it ridiculous.

What makes it infuriating, is that on top of that, you don't hold require the same burden of proof for your own theories.

 

Agree to disagree. It seems some here can't handle a debate like this so I would rather not continue.

 

There's your problem. You're implying the only way to prove something is statistically.

 

Although, you know, I just pointed out that your speculative nonsensical strawman response brought nothing to the debate at hand, same debate you insinuated I didn't understand. For that matter If 'YOU' understand at this point, I'd like the number to your tabs dealer.

edit: Always good to end a debate when your last few responses make no sense and you become defensive.

 

Sure.

 

Perfect, I'm sure its much easier to make strawman-like responses once my immediate surroundings start turning into melting icecream.

'preciatecha.

 

Yea.