The team's offensive passing efficiency is easily the part of the team the furthest below the league norm in its area. The running game, the run defense, and the pass defense are all well closer to, if not above, the league norm in their areas. Furthermore, passing efficiency is probably the most important area of a team in today's game of football, and so it's the last part of a team you want to be the weakest.
I do not believe you can analyze the effectiveness of the passing game based on just that stat alone. Brady and Tannehill are basically the same in YPA this season. I see that our offense was much more efficient this year based on points scored. RT was also 11th in passing yards, so while it may have come in smaller chunks it worked well enough that we scored our most points since 1995. The defense was 20th in points allowed after being top 10 the three previous seasons. If the defense would not have regressed, the team could have made the playoffs. Even if the only offensive change was at the guard spots, re-sign Clay, and cut Hartline, if the defense can get back to the form of the previous 3 seasons, the team is a playoff contender. Even if your main priority was just improving YPA, getting rid of the best WR seems like a poor way to go about it.
You can broaden the analysis beyond passing efficiency and YPA, and the result is still the same. The pass offense is by far the weakest part of the team. If you want to fix that, I think you have to start by making the receiving corps a much better fit with what the quarterback does well, which is throw accurately short and intermediate.
I'll be the first to agree that there is much better evidence of it than the number of times a person on a message board says it.
I think Wallace is gone, but I also don't think it will happen until free agency plays out. I think we will try to sign a vet or two, and if we can get a decent player, I think that seals the deal for Wallace's departure. I also don't expect Gibson to be back, and although I think Hartline should also be ousted, I think the FO keeps him because of our lack of depth after Wallace and Gibson. Long shot scenerio: Wallace gets traded for a late round pick after agreeing to a new contract with his new team, and the new contract reduces his 2015 cap hit but gives him more guaranteed money overall. Steelers, Carolina, or 49'ers maybe.
When Tannehill threw to Wallace his rating was over 100%, what are you Tannehill lovers going to do if they get rid of Wallace? Tannehills stats will actually go down. Tannehill needs wallace
Tannehill also had a 91.1 passer rating when targeting Hartline. What are we going to do when the almighty Hartline falls down for another team?
What about his 59 rating throwing to Wallace in 2013? Stupid argument in favor of Wallace...and I happen to think that we should keep Wallace, just wish we could get his price to something more reasonable.
So you cry about people using the term "butthurt" then call other people's legitimate arguments stupid?? You are the most agenda driven poster I've seen in a while, you make every excuse for Ryan and when someone brings up a good point you say what about 2013....so when you want to credit Ryan for his improvements last season and I reply with..what about 2013? You will begin with your laundry list of excuses with RT being about the 7th reason the offense was mediocre that year. Kinda funny really.
Give me another WR or two with Landry's fire...with a tad more speed and height. Wallace and his production could easily be overshadowed by a go-up-and-get-it type receiver...speed not as crucial in that scenario.
This is ridiculous. Dude points at 2014, and Tannehill's rating throwing to Wallace, and then says that if we don't have Wallace, Tannehill will regress. I ask how his 2013 rating applies in this theory, and I'M the agenda driven guy? Not to mention, he used personal attacks in his post. Absurd.
You keep bringing this up, and it's been answered many times already. They both got better, they got better playing with each other, and lazor removed his achilles hill which is the deep ball on go routes to someone as fast as Wallace. Unless you think Sherman is magically going to come back you don't expect such regression again. If you're not going to credit Wallace and Tanny for getting better, then any argument to keep Tannehill I'm going to ask, "Well what about Tanny's 76 rating in 2012???"
I'm not arguing anything. I'm simply pointing out that looking at rating is pointless. We all know that receivers numbers, even the greats, can have a great amount of variation year to year. Wallace got 10 tds this year, increasing the rating. If he doesn't get 10 next year, what happens to the rating? Yes, they both played better last year. I even said that I would be in favor of keeping Wallace. I just think looking at the rating of 2014 is kinda pointless.
Wallace wasn't targeted significantly less often deep in 2014 than he was in 2013. The main differences in the two QB ratings when throwing to Wallace were that in 2014, Tannehill threw one interception every 108 times he threw to Wallace, and a TD about every 11 times he threw to Wallace, whereas in 2013 he threw an interception every 15 times he threw to Wallace, and he threw a TD about every 27 times he threw to Wallace. Given that TD and INT rates for receivers, on a per-target basis, vary wildly from year to year, you could certainly argue that Tannehill's QB rating when throwing to Wallace in 2015 could in fact plummet, and that argument wouldn't be implausible in the least. In other words, there is nothing to suggest that the 114 QB rating for Tannehill when throwing to Wallace in 2014 represents anything stable or predictable. Given that, it's difficult to say that it represents anything about their abilities with each other. It could easily be a single-year anomaly that has nothing to do with their "connection."
Single year anomaly is a self serving statement. I could argue that Ryans improvements which frankly began about week 5 this past year was a 9-10 week anomaly compared to his average at best career to that point. But then I would be ignoring the factor of people improving which is silly. Yet here we are with the "maybe 2014 was an anomaly" in regards to Wallace. It amazes me how folks will use an argument to defend one player then disregard it to shine a negative light on another. It's called an agenda, and it's rearing its ugly head in the mains of late.
You just have to learn that not everyone is going to view Ryan as some victim of his surroundings and being held back from greatness by everyone besides himself.
That's a great theory, Fin, but not realistic. I'm not viewing Tannehill as a "victim," but as a passive actor in parts of the game. He cannot control the defense. Look at the games from last year where the defense allowed more than 20 points. It was a lot, and it was usually 30 or more points that they allowed. Not many QBs are winning a majority of their games where the defense is allowing over 30 points.
Do quarterbacks show the same degree of year-to-year variation as do receivers in terms of TD and INT rates when thrown to?
Obviously not. But we all know that. Must be a coincidence that as Ryan improved, so did Wallace. Must be another anamoly.
Tannehill's QB rating in general went up 11 points in 2014, yet his QB rating when throwng to Wallace went up 55 points. What explains that discrepancy?
So does that mean Wallace was absolutely horrendous in 2013, when Tannehill had a QB rating of 59 when throwing to him? Tannehill's overall QB rating that year was nearly 82.
So what does the 24.1-point decrease in Peyton Manning's QB rating between 2013 and 2014, when throwing to Demaryius Thomas, mean? Did their "connection" get worse?
There was no significant decrease in Wallace's rate of being targeted downfield (20+ yards in the air) in 2014.
You hate Mike Wallace and you're reaching at any thing you can to prove some bs theory. Must be an ANAMOLY...lololololol
Even if that were the case, the relevant objective evidence in the matter would still be what it is. The objective evidence doesn't suddenly go away just because someone is thought to be biased.
