darefugee
Club Member
What a healthy Tannehill would do this year?
get hurt.
get hurt.
True you haven't violated any site rules as of yet but when someone starts a thread and immediately insults other members in the first sentence it's probably gonna get little support (which it has)
Tannehill is in the same tier as Bradford, Alex Smith, Dalton, Stafford, and a few other "but who are you gonna replace him with" types I'm probably forgetting, and Cutler was in that tier as well as late as last season. You need a special coach and/or special talent to flourish with a QB in that tier. And by flourish I mean being a team nobody wants to face season in, season out.
Gase had his opportunity to get lucky. He should have demanded we replace Moore when he got here, and you never know, maybe we'd have gotten Dak in the third, Dak would have gotten his opportunity to start and the rest would be history. But Gase's ego got in the way. He wanted to show up Philbin and crew by creating a monster with the exact same QB situation. And now we (continue to) suffer as a result.
And more broadly speaking with regard to 2017, there is little Tannehill could've done to improve the horrendous pass defense (opponents' overall passer rating is currently over 103), as the correlation between offensive passer rating and defensive passer rating throughout the league, on a team-by-team basis between 2004 and 2016, is -0.097, which is extremely weak.
As much as it hurts to think about it, a healthy Tannehill in 2017, performing at his best level for an extended period from 2016, would've been associated with an expected Dolphins record of 5-5.
The horrendous pass defense of 2017 places a sharp limit on what this team can achieve. As I've said before, surrendering an opposing passer rating of 99 to 105 has been associated with a 4-12 record on average in the league since 2004. Even the best quarterbacks in the league can't surmount that to the degree that a team makes the playoffs.
In fact of the 19 teams since 2004 that have surrendered such a poor passer rating, only one of them finished with a winning record, and that was the 2004 Green Bay Packers with Brett Favre, which finished 10-6 and were quickly dispatched in the playoffs by the Vikings and Daunte Culpepper, to whom they surrendered a passer rating of 137.1, in a game they lost 31-17.
In other words, a team with this kind of pass defense is going nowhere.
Cute, but fail to see the point to support your case.
I do think that a QB's performance can have an effect on the D's performance. It may be a small effect, may be a large one, hypotheticals always look good in hindsight.
Let's assume your QB can put up a 105+ passer rating, well that does a few things. For one, it likely keeps the defense off the field for a bit longer, time of possession helps to keep a defense fresh and limits the number of plays it is exposed to.
It is also likely with a higher passer rating you are scoring more points than your opponents. (No, not a given, but possible) If your team is ahead on the scoreboard, you make the other team's offense more predictable, easier to defend. Your own D can be more aggressive at the line of scrimmage, thereby lowering the passer rating of the opposing QB.
So I think an argument can be made that a great QB helps your own pass D, to possibly a greater extent than simply adding talent at a few positions on D.
That argument can be made, yes, because the logic it's based on is plausible in theory. However, the argument can be tested easily with a simple league-wide correlation between offensive passer rating and opponents' passer rating on a team-by-team basis.
We don't have to stop with a mere argument, because the argument can be confirmed or refuted. And that argument is indeed refuted by the correlation I mentioned in an above post, which is essentially zero.
For example, take a look at Drew Brees's recent career. He's had four seasons of the past five in which his passer rating was an average of 99, which is very good, that were losing seasons for the Saints.
The Saints' average opponents' passer rating in those four losing seasons was 100.3, which is poor. The passer rating differential of 99 to 100.3 equaled several losing seasons for the Saints.
Now take a look at the Saints' four most recent winning seasons.
Brees's average passer rating in those seasons was 102.6, similar to his overall passer rating during the Saints' losing seasons. Their opponents' average passer rating in those winning seasons, however, was 84.1, well below the 100.3 average in Brees's losing seasons, and slightly below the league average in fact.
Obviously there is no correlation between Brees's performance and the Saints' performance defensively against the pass.
And you'll find that same thing throughout the league, regardless of how well or poorly an offense passes the ball.
I know what you're saying, my problem is that those numbers are taken over a long period of time with a large sample size. Most of the time that is what you want when analyzing statistics.
However, there is no way of knowing the individual game situations that create those numbers.
For example, lets say in Brees' 4 losing seasons that his passer rating was artificially inflated due to playing catch up football with his team behind on the scoreboard. The argument could be made that if his team was involved in closer games that his passer rating would not be so high. If his team is playing from behind it would be very unlikely his passer rating would have any effect on his defense's pass D rating.
No the other hand, in their winning seasons, if Brees got his team off to an early lead, it would naturally raise his defense's pass D rating.
I think in order to fully validate this theory you need to find examples of team's success in seasons where the only significant variable is the QB. For example, what was Greenbay's Pass D rating prior to the loss of Aaron Rodgers and what is it now with Hundley? What was Rodgers passer rating , and what is Hundley's?
There are alot of variables, strength of opponent not the most insignificant, but I think a situation like that would better help to validate your hypothesis.
Check GB, the Texans, maybe Arizona? I'm curious what you find.
I am not calling to fire Gase. But he should not be excused by loosing RT. There are just so many mistakes since the Steelers playoff game.
Is he a good HC, I don't know. Last season, it seems to be. Since then, absolutely no. The only parallel I can draw is Sparano.
Next year, he should be in the hot seat.
If no drastic improvement in other areas, a healthy RT next year can only do so much.
For Gase supporters , one single excuse comes up every week is this season is a wash because RT went down.
Lets exam this theory. RT was a lower tier qb thru his entire nfl career except last year. Under Gase last year, RT improved somewhat. His qb rating was an amazing 48.6 last season. 24th on the list of 30. It is not even average. It was below average. Lets not make him into a Brady, Brees, Rogers, Wilson or even Sam Bradford. RT is no savior. Can he improve our record this year? may be, by one game if that. RT cannot make the line block better, protect better, eliminate stupid mistakes. RT cannot make Timmons play game one. RT cannot make JT run faster. RT cannot make OL coach stay clean. RT cannot make Manaluga reported to camp in shape and stop drinking in bar early in the morning.
Most importantly, RT cannot make the opposing defense stop stacking the box and shut down the running.
Wake up, Gase supporters. Stop using RT not playing as an excuse. Do you really the RT is the top tier qb that when the run game is not working, put the offense on his shoulder and pass 350 yds to win the game?
Gase cannot get a pass this year. He did a good job last year, may be due to some lucks and weak schedule. But OK, whatever, give Gase credit. But it is a two ways street. Gase sucks this year. And losing RT is not a valid excuse.