Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

GaTech's Delicious 2013 NFL Preview (Completed?)
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 18, 19, 20 ... 83, 84, 85  Next
 
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> NFL General
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
iPwn


Moderator
Joined: 10 Oct 2009
Posts: 44886
Location: Warbortles Nation
PostPosted: Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

First one I don't really agree with or that it's a possibility. I think they are an 8 win team. No, they aren't as good as they're being pumped up to be, but I don't see them taking steps back. The only way I think it's possible is if Tannehill hits the sophomore slump, which we've discussed before as not as big of a problem as it's made out to be.
_________________

- Best since day one -
The road to success is always under construction - Gus Bradley
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Warpticon


Joined: 21 May 2010
Posts: 1556
PostPosted: Wed Jul 31, 2013 11:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm just curious. Who is doing this colossal overrating? Because I haven't seen anybody pick them to win the division anywhere, and I don't think I've seen them picked to even make the playoffs by more than maybe 40% of projections I've seen.

I honestly thought this Dolphins assessment was extremely poor, which is a disappointment since I usually appreciate your perspective even if I disagree. This is mostly a bunch of words that say next to nothing. The entire argument boils down to

Wake is godlike but he might not be as godlike since he's 31
Reshad Jones was a 5th round pick
Some good players are almost 30
Tannehill was decent, but other guys are decent too, so who cares?
Miami apparently has 2 players on offense
Miami paid linebackers, what idiots

I was expecting a lot better, honestly.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Phinsfan93


Joined: 02 Jan 2013
Posts: 288
PostPosted: Wed Jul 31, 2013 11:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Warpticon wrote:
I'm just curious. Who is doing this colossal overrating? Because I haven't seen anybody pick them to win the division anywhere, and I don't think I've seen them picked to even make the playoffs by more than maybe 40% of projections I've seen.

I honestly thought this Dolphins assessment was extremely poor, which is a disappointment since I usually appreciate your perspective even if I disagree. This is mostly a bunch of words that say next to nothing. The entire argument boils down to

Wake is godlike but he might not be as godlike since he's 31
Reshad Jones was a 5th round pick
Some good players are almost 30
Tannehill was decent, but other guys are decent too, so who cares?
Miami apparently has 2 players on offense
Miami paid linebackers, what idiots


I was expecting a lot better, honestly.
That's basically what I got.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
KingOfTheHill84


Joined: 10 Jun 2012
Posts: 2808
PostPosted: Wed Jul 31, 2013 11:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jets are still alive baby
_________________

[quote="Ring Worm Sherm"]Revis hasn't done jack since 09[/quote]Fly-A-Jet 2013 Jeremy Kerley
Rec:5 Yards:70 TDs:0 PR Average:7 ypa
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Phinsfan93


Joined: 02 Jan 2013
Posts: 288
PostPosted: Thu Aug 01, 2013 12:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Where do I start? Tannehill just has good pocket awareness, deal with it. So let me get this straight, because Wilson, Luck, and RG3 had good rookie seasons and Tannehill had an average season there's absolutely no room for improvement? Then you say the talent level on defense is declining? LOL. Demarcus Ware is 31 also, I might as well tell Cowboys fans to start looking for another pass rusher. Vikings fans better hope Everson Griffen is the real deal because Jared Allen is too old. Wake may be aging but his play hasn't taken a dive. He has been playing the same way since 09' and I don't see that changing for another two years. Just because a 5th rounder broke out in his third year, which is the time an average draftee would start to produce, it was a fluke? Mind you Jones had 67 tackles, 2 sacks, and 1 INT in 2011 starting 12 games and playing as a back up. He definitely broke out in 2012 but his increased production just didn't come out of nowhere. Starks and Soliai hit 30 in December. Like I said earlier until their play regresses there's no cause for concern. Grimes may be a question mark but he seems to be 100%. You're looking just at the starters which is why "the talent level on that side of the ball is ready to take a dip." is hilarious. Let's not talk about Starks' eventual replacement at DT in Jared Odrick (25) who has accumulated 11 sacks in two years and is actually beating out Starks in camp, or Olivier Vernon (22) who had 3.5 sacks and stopped the run in a limited role as a rookie, or Koa Misi (26) who had his best year at LB, or Will Davis (23) having a good camp at CB as a rookie, and god forbid we talk about Dion Jordan (23) who has been tearing it up in camp the past week. Expect a return back to a top 10 run defense and an improved pass D. Money seems to be everyone's vendetta against Miami. $12 Million is a lot but did it not improve a weakness on the team? You said it yourself that Clabo was a smart move. Money isn't going to depict a team's success/failure, the QB and or defense will. I think it would've been better if you actually pointed out the five games they win and the eleven they lose. I honestly see a 9-7 season if everyone stays healthy.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gotye


Joined: 22 Jul 2013
Posts: 120
PostPosted: Thu Aug 01, 2013 12:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

GaTechRavens wrote:

If Griffin and Wilson can put up historic seasons, if Luck can do whatever you thought Luck did last year


lol. This is awesome.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Jakuvious


Joined: 06 Sep 2010
Posts: 8520
PostPosted: Thu Aug 01, 2013 12:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Phinsfan93 wrote:
Where do I start? Tannehill just has good pocket awareness, deal with it. So let me get this straight, because Wilson, Luck, and RG3 had good rookie seasons and Tannehill had an average season there's absolutely no room for improvement? Then you say the talent level on defense is declining? LOL. Demarcus Ware is 31 also, I might as well tell Cowboys fans to start looking for another pass rusher. Vikings fans better hope Everson Griffen is the real deal because Jared Allen is too old. Wake may be aging but his play hasn't taken a dive. He has been playing the same way since 09' and I don't see that changing for another two years. Just because a 5th rounder broke out in his third year, which is the time an average draftee would start to produce, it was a fluke? Mind you Jones had 67 tackles, 2 sacks, and 1 INT in 2011 starting 12 games and playing as a back up. He definitely broke out in 2012 but his increased production just didn't come out of nowhere. Starks and Soliai hit 30 in December. Like I said earlier until their play regresses there's no cause for concern. Grimes may be a question mark but he seems to be 100%. You're looking just at the starters which is why "the talent level on that side of the ball is ready to take a dip." is hilarious. Let's not talk about Starks' eventual replacement at DT in Jared Odrick (25) who has accumulated 11 sacks in two years and is actually beating out Starks in camp, or Olivier Vernon (22) who had 3.5 sacks and stopped the run in a limited role as a rookie, or Koa Misi (26) who had his best year at LB, or Will Davis (23) having a good camp at CB as a rookie, and god forbid we talk about Dion Jordan (23) who has been tearing it up in camp the past week. Expect a return back to a top 10 run defense and an improved pass D. Money seems to be everyone's vendetta against Miami. $12 Million is a lot but did it not improve a weakness on the team? You said it yourself that Clabo was a smart move. Money isn't going to depict a team's success/failure, the QB and or defense will. I think it would've been better if you actually pointed out the five games they win and the eleven they lose. I honestly see a 9-7 season if everyone stays healthy.


Lots of defensive expectations based off of training camp there.

And Tannehill was NOT average. That's exactly the kind of thing Ga means when he's talking about it being relative. Tannehill was definitively BELOW average as a QB last season.

Expecting a regression from Wake is not simply age. It is logic. Wake will have a worse season next year just like Adrian Peterson and J.J. Watt will.
_________________

Adopt-a-Chief: Brandon Flowers
45 Tackles, 1 sack, 1 Interception, 32 INT yards, 5 PDs
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GaTechRavens


Moderator
Joined: 25 Nov 2006
Posts: 17488
Location: Madison, WI
PostPosted: Thu Aug 01, 2013 1:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Warpticon wrote:
I'm just curious. Who is doing this colossal overrating? Because I haven't seen anybody pick them to win the division anywhere, and I don't think I've seen them picked to even make the playoffs by more than maybe 40% of projections I've seen.

I honestly thought this Dolphins assessment was extremely poor, which is a disappointment since I usually appreciate your perspective even if I disagree. This is mostly a bunch of words that say next to nothing. The entire argument boils down to

Wake is godlike but he might not be as godlike since he's 31
Reshad Jones was a 5th round pick
Some good players are almost 30
Tannehill was decent, but other guys are decent too, so who cares?
Miami apparently has 2 players on offense
Miami paid linebackers, what idiots

I was expecting a lot better, honestly.

That's what the argument boils down to if you're going to be as simplistic as possible here. I always make sure there's quite a bit of historical context to anything I predict. And the fact is, these things happen. Stars who have career years, especially when it's at an older age, tend to regress a bit the next year. Young late round picks who suddenly break out tend to be flukes more often than young early round picks. Decent starters approaching 30 tend to regress earlier and more dramatically than people ever expect them to (and in Grimes' case, it has likely already happened).

My case against Tannehill is entirely relevant. Everything is relative in the NFL - does Tannehill's rookie season, in the current environment, show that he'll likely be anything but a below average quarterback in his second year? Everything is relative, after all.

Miami didn't just pay linebackers, they overpaid them. Overpaying is bad in a world where the salary cap exists. And there's no disputing that it has historically been disastrous for teams who give out these kinds of contracts to average/decent starters. Why should I expect this to be different?
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GaTechRavens


Moderator
Joined: 25 Nov 2006
Posts: 17488
Location: Madison, WI
PostPosted: Thu Aug 01, 2013 1:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Phinsfan93 wrote:
Where do I start? Tannehill just has good pocket awareness, deal with it. So let me get this straight, because Wilson, Luck, and RG3 had good rookie seasons and Tannehill had an average season there's absolutely no room for improvement?

I don't think you got that very straight. I'm saying that based on the new environment where rookie QBs can come in and succeed so much more easily, Tannehill's current trajectory isn't as promising as his numbers by themselves would indicate (based on what we normally expect from a rookie).

Quote:
Then you say the talent level on defense is declining? LOL. Demarcus Ware is 31 also, I might as well tell Cowboys fans to start looking for another pass rusher. Vikings fans better hope Everson Griffen is the real deal because Jared Allen is too old.

Yes, I would advise those teams to be cautious. Now, Ware and Allen are HOF talents and should still be great for at least a couple of years. But they're not going to be as good as their peaks. After all, look at last year - after incredible seasons in 2011, neither could match that kind of production in 2012. They both were still great players, but only put up about 12 sacks apiece. I wouldn't be surprised if we see the same thing from Wake, simply because career years are so hard to repeat regardless of talent.

Quote:
Wake may be aging but his play hasn't taken a dive. He has been playing the same way since 09' and I don't see that changing for another two years.

Would you expect another 54.3 rating from PFF?

Quote:
Just because a 5th rounder broke out in his third year, which is the time an average draftee would start to produce, it was a fluke? Mind you Jones had 67 tackles, 2 sacks, and 1 INT in 2011 starting 12 games and playing as a back up. He definitely broke out in 2012 but his increased production just didn't come out of nowhere.

I'm not stating it's a fluke, but is it more likely to be one than the typical breakout? Yes. We see these seemingly strange performances out of unlikely players all the time, and a remarkable number of them come crashing back down to earth. Of course he has a chance of being for real, but I would advise you to be cautious.

Quote:
Starks and Soliai hit 30 in December. Like I said earlier until their play regresses there's no cause for concern.

And for me, the predictor, waiting for regression to happen before I think about it will lead to disastrous picks year in and year out. I have to anticipate where teams can improve and regress, and one of the thing I've noticed in past years is that well-established "solid" starters have a surprisingly short shelf life before they fall off. So, if they start to get older, I'm going to be a bit alarmed by that.

Quote:
Let's not talk about Starks' eventual replacement at DT in Jared Odrick (25) who has accumulated 11 sacks in two years and is actually beating out Starks in camp, or Olivier Vernon (22) who had 3.5 sacks and stopped the run in a limited role as a rookie,

Looking at sack numbers by themselves can lead to trouble. Not that I'm 100% comfortable about PFF yet, but both Odrick and Vernon graded out very poorly as pass rushers last year. It's one thing to look at sacks, but are they actually playing their assigned roles effectively? Are they selling out to get to the quarterback?

Quote:
or Koa Misi (26) who had his best year at LB,

Koa Misi is what he is at this point. Solid run stopper, poor pass rusher. It's a good thing to have a player with that kind of role, but it's not going to strike me as a game changing ability.

Quote:
or Will Davis (23) having a good camp at CB as a rookie, and god forbid we talk about Dion Jordan (23) who has been tearing it up in camp the past week.

LOL, training camp.

Quote:
Expect a return back to a top 10 run defense and an improved pass D.

Well, the Dolphins already ranked 7th in points allowed last year. Does this mean you're expecting them to vault into the top 5?

Quote:
Money seems to be everyone's vendetta against Miami. $12 Million is a lot but did it not improve a weakness on the team?

My thoughts on the receiver position aside, it's all about opportunity cost. Unless you invest that $12 million in Bender's lunar lander, which I'm relatively sure doesn't count against the cap, that money is going to improve the team. Mike Wallace has shown star ability, so he isn't the worst investment a team can make (again, my thoughts on the position aside), but has a bunch of question marks and might not be the best thing for team chemistry.

On the other hand, spending more than $12 million on Ellerbe and Wheeler is a disaster in the making. At their peak, they will combine to be slightly above average at best, and both have the potential to regress greatly and immediately - that's what happens when a guy suddenly breaks out in his contract year. And that's just in the first year - by 2015, if those investments are on the roster they will almost certainly be a waste.

You're not going to see the Patriots or Steelers make those kinds of investment, and that should say a lot.

Quote:
Money isn't going to depict a team's success/failure, the QB and or defense will.

And how is that defense going to be built? With money. How that money is spent determines everything.

Quote:
I think it would've been better if you actually pointed out the five games they win and the eleven they lose. I honestly see a 9-7 season if everyone stays healthy.

Most of their wins will come from their weaker opponents and most of their losses will come from their stronger opponents. I don't like to force myself into picking specific games because upsets happen and I don't want to get lost from the big picture in predicting those - but I do take a look at the schedule to see if there's anything particularly unusual. Usually there isn't.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BaltimoreTerp


Most Valuable Poster (4th Ballot)

Joined: 13 Feb 2005
Posts: 28724
Location: Washington, DC
PostPosted: Thu Aug 01, 2013 1:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

GaTechRavens wrote:
That's what the argument boils down to if you're going to be as simplistic as possible here. I always make sure there's quite a bit of historical context to anything I predict. And the fact is, these things happen. Stars who have career years, especially when it's at an older age, tend to regress a bit the next year. Young late round picks who suddenly break out tend to be flukes more often than young early round picks. Decent starters approaching 30 tend to regress earlier and more dramatically than people ever expect them to (and in Grimes' case, it has likely already happened).


To the bolded, I have a point for you to ponder, which I think is relevant not just to your Dolphins evaluation but rather to the ontological foundation of this entire enterprise. And I pose this not because I have a personal problem with your prediction for the Dolphins, because I don't care about the Dolphins.

I think anyone who is familiar with you as a poster knows that you have a deep appreciation for historical context, and furthermore that you've probably spent more time poring over certain historical trends, and you've used those trends as a predictive tool. And you're not wrong to do so - history does repeat itself.

But I think what I'm sensing in some of the specific criticisms that have come your way, most notably in your Bears and Dolphins predictions, is the sense that there's a certain amount of over-reliance on historical context going on here. As in, there is so much contextualization going on here that to a certain extent the original context has been so far removed.

It's hard, if not impossible, for even the most informed posters on here to know everything about every team. That doesn't mean they can't make decent and correct predictions regarding other teams. Distance is often a virtue, not a weakness - from this series alone so far I've gotten the distinct sense that it's precisely because Titans fans perceive themselves as being entirely familiar with the machinations of the Jerry Gray/Gregg Williams dynamic that they cannot see that this just seems like a terrible idea. Being a neutral fan may mean you possess less information but you may still be able to make a more objective analysis.

But there's only so much one person can know about all 32 teams and even with the best posters that will show. And that shows with you, even if you've likely put more work into understanding all 32 teams than the vast majority of posters on you. The difference is, you come armed with spreadsheets filled with historical context to paper over the specific shortcomings you may have in analyzing every team's makeup, like say... Jake Locker's passing prowess when his pocket collapses or Marc Trestman's ability to commandeer a locker room.

That context matters, and moreso that context is highly educational in informing us on what the future might hold. But I think part of the frustration that some of the detractors in this thread are voicing is the sense that you're making some judgments without producing any sort of micro or individual analysis. To take the most recent example: You have a good point when you say that Reshad Jones could be a fluke based on previous late-round one-year wonders. But it still feels a little incomplete when you, to an extent, write off Reshad Jones without so much as talking about his actual merits as a player - how he plays in coverage, whether he needs to become a better tackler maybe, I don't know. I don't know much about Reshad Jones, but I don't feel like I know any more about him after your blurb about him... all I know now is that he was a low-round draft pick. Useful information, but not the whole story. In a macro sense, yes, trends to replicate themselves... but on a micro level, what are the actual similarities between Fred Bennett and Reshad Jones as players, rather than historical avatars?

I guess what I'm saying is that an appreciation of history is important but that specific and individual knowledge is as well. Saying that feels unfair to what you're doing because it's not as if this series is devoid of analysis that actually speaks to a player's actual, real-world skills. And I think when you look at the big picture surrounding, say, a team that overspends on a certain kind of player (role player on their previous team being paid to be a franchise guy) in FA, you can safely make some snap judgments, because why not. But I think there's definitely a tendency here to use, say, Fred Bennett's failures to explain why Reshad Jones can be put into the 'pessimism' column. And I can see why that would rankle a fan coming in here to read about their team.
_________________
"The really important kind of freedom involves attention, and awareness, and discipline, and effort, and being able truly to care about other people and to sacrifice for them, over and over, in myriad petty little unsexy ways, every day.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GaTechRavens


Moderator
Joined: 25 Nov 2006
Posts: 17488
Location: Madison, WI
PostPosted: Thu Aug 01, 2013 2:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

BaltimoreTerp wrote:
But I think what I'm sensing in some of the specific criticisms that have come your way, most notably in your Bears and Dolphins predictions, is the sense that there's a certain amount of over-reliance on historical context going on here. As in, there is so much contextualization going on here that to a certain extent the original context has been so far removed.

What I try to avoid doing - though it's hard to completely account for this, is "overcontextualize" to the point where I'm stretching things to come to a predetermined conclusion. That's where you probably thought I was going too far with the Bears - you thought the flaws I pointed out weren't strong enough to send the Bears stumbling all the way down from 10-6 to 4-12.

The thing is, these sharp declines aren't usually gift wrapped in a 2011 Colts-esque manner. There's usually nothing on the surface to explain such massive dropoffs before they happen - but they happen anyway. So, if I'm striving for perfection with my picks, I need to be proactive - perhaps excessively so - and predict the unpredictable year to year patterns we see in the NFL.

When I'm looking at these teams who fell off cliffs in the past, I see patterns. Some are statistical (Pythagorean wins, and the short drive stats indicated quite a bit from what I was able to research historically), and others can be accounted for by pointing to flaws in the roster or the coaching staff. It's rare to see something that, with the benefit of hindsight, can't be pointed to something that may have been foreseeable before the season.

That's where I stand. The NFL has a somewhat predictable rate of improvement and regression, so I try to fit teams in there and make adjustments based on that. That doesn't mean I'm going to force myself to add parity for the sake of doing it - that's a horrible idea. But drastic change does happen, and if I see similar warning signs I'll act accordingly. That doesn't mean I'll pick all of the teams I don't like to go 4-12, because I have plenty of more modest fluctuations in my picks as well. But if a team has a lot of these warning signs at once with nothing obvious to lift them up - and I feel that way with the Bears, that's my basis for expecting a major downfall.

Quote:
But there's only so much one person can know about all 32 teams and even with the best posters that will show. And that shows with you, even if you've likely put more work into understanding all 32 teams than the vast majority of posters on you. The difference is, you come armed with spreadsheets filled with historical context to paper over the specific shortcomings you may have in analyzing every team's makeup, like say... Jake Locker's passing prowess when his pocket collapses or Marc Trestman's ability to commandeer a locker room.

That context matters, and moreso that context is highly educational in informing us on what the future might hold. But I think part of the frustration that some of the detractors in this thread are voicing is the sense that you're making some judgments without producing any sort of micro or individual analysis. To take the most recent example: You have a good point when you say that Reshad Jones could be a fluke based on previous late-round one-year wonders. But it still feels a little incomplete when you, to an extent, write off Reshad Jones without so much as talking about his actual merits as a player - how he plays in coverage, whether he needs to become a better tackler maybe, I don't know. I don't know much about Reshad Jones, but I don't feel like I know any more about him after your blurb about him... all I know now is that he was a low-round draft pick. Useful information, but not the whole story. In a macro sense, yes, trends to replicate themselves... but on a micro sense, what are the actual similarities between Fred Bennett and Reshad Jones as players, rather than historical avatars?

This is why I focus more on "what will change?" than "what does a team have?" I try to watch games, which isn't as easy these days, but I try to digest as much film as I can. But when it comes to Reshad Jones, it's usually unlikely that I'll come to some grand conclusion based on intensive scouting. From what I've read, Reshad Jones was genuinely good last year. If I watch every snap of his, I'll likely come to the conclusion that he was genuinely good. Yet the same goes for a lot of players who mysteriously regressed the next year. This is almost never accounted for when people make predictions, but we see it happen to a good number of players every year. The question I have to ask myself, then, is what conditions are in place that cause this to happen? If Jones fits some of that criteria, and I feel he does, I need to take that into account. That certainly does not mean he is going to regress, and I want to make sure that I'm not relying on that to happen as I make my prediction. But, it's something I wouldn't be wise to ignore and when I see more room for decline with the rest of Miami's defense, it's something that factors in. It wouldn't necessarily be wise to expect all five players I mentioned to regress, but if four out of five do? That's still a huge fluctuation that defense is undergoing, and for most people it will fly under the radar.

Quote:
I guess what I'm saying is that an appreciation of history is important but that specific and individual knowledge is as well. Saying that feels unfair to what you're doing because it's not as if this series is devoid of analysis that actually speaks to a player's actual, real-world skills. And I think when you look at the big picture surrounding, say, a team that overspends on a certain kind of player (role player on their previous team being paid to be a franchise guy) in FA, you can safely make some snap judgments, because why not. But I think there's definitely a tendency here to use, say, Fred Bennett's failures to explain why Reshad Jones can be put into the 'pessimism' column. And I can see why that would rankle a fan coming in here to read about their team.

All I can say is that I'm still trying to figure it out. I've made mistake every year. I made mistakes last year and I'll probably make mistakes this year. But I feel like I'm getting closer. If I can watch all 256 games (by making a hefty salary in the process), that should help. With what I have right now, I'm trying my best - but I do honestly believe what I have goes a very long way.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Phinsfan93


Joined: 02 Jan 2013
Posts: 288
PostPosted: Thu Aug 01, 2013 2:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jakuvious wrote:
Phinsfan93 wrote:
Where do I start? Tannehill just has good pocket awareness, deal with it. So let me get this straight, because Wilson, Luck, and RG3 had good rookie seasons and Tannehill had an average season there's absolutely no room for improvement? Then you say the talent level on defense is declining? LOL. Demarcus Ware is 31 also, I might as well tell Cowboys fans to start looking for another pass rusher. Vikings fans better hope Everson Griffen is the real deal because Jared Allen is too old. Wake may be aging but his play hasn't taken a dive. He has been playing the same way since 09' and I don't see that changing for another two years. Just because a 5th rounder broke out in his third year, which is the time an average draftee would start to produce, it was a fluke? Mind you Jones had 67 tackles, 2 sacks, and 1 INT in 2011 starting 12 games and playing as a back up. He definitely broke out in 2012 but his increased production just didn't come out of nowhere. Starks and Soliai hit 30 in December. Like I said earlier until their play regresses there's no cause for concern. Grimes may be a question mark but he seems to be 100%. You're looking just at the starters which is why "the talent level on that side of the ball is ready to take a dip." is hilarious. Let's not talk about Starks' eventual replacement at DT in Jared Odrick (25) who has accumulated 11 sacks in two years and is actually beating out Starks in camp, or Olivier Vernon (22) who had 3.5 sacks and stopped the run in a limited role as a rookie, or Koa Misi (26) who had his best year at LB, or Will Davis (23) having a good camp at CB as a rookie, and god forbid we talk about Dion Jordan (23) who has been tearing it up in camp the past week. Expect a return back to a top 10 run defense and an improved pass D. Money seems to be everyone's vendetta against Miami. $12 Million is a lot but did it not improve a weakness on the team? You said it yourself that Clabo was a smart move. Money isn't going to depict a team's success/failure, the QB and or defense will. I think it would've been better if you actually pointed out the five games they win and the eleven they lose. I honestly see a 9-7 season if everyone stays healthy.


Lots of defensive expectations based off of training camp there.

And Tannehill was NOT average. That's exactly the kind of thing Ga means when he's talking about it being relative. Tannehill was definitively BELOW average as a QB last season.

Expecting a regression from Wake is not simply age. It is logic. Wake will have a worse season next year just like Adrian Peterson and J.J. Watt will.
Well of course they're based off of training camp. That's the only source for information at this moment.

Below average, average, doesn't matter. Anyway you slice it Tannehill needs to improve.

Regression is definitely logical but so is consistency. Wake has been consistent for the past three years with his pressures, hurries, hits, and pass rush grade increasing annually. I don't think he'll reach 15 sacks in 2013 but I do believe he will be in the 10-13 range.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Phinsfan93


Joined: 02 Jan 2013
Posts: 288
PostPosted: Thu Aug 01, 2013 2:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I think it would've been better if you actually pointed out the five games they win and the eleven they lose. I honestly see a 9-7 season if everyone stays healthy.

Quote:
Most of their wins will come from their weaker opponents and most of their losses will come from their stronger opponents. I don't like to force myself into picking specific games because upsets happen and I don't want to get lost from the big picture in predicting those - but I do take a look at the schedule to see if there's anything particularly unusual. Usually there isn't.
But that's not how the NFL works. The Seahawks and Bengals were stronger than the Dolphins last year and both of those teams lost to the Dolphins, Bengals at home. The Dolphins will sweep the Bills and split with the Jets according to your assumption as you have every other team ranked ahead of them. 3-13 would be more adequate don't you think?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GaTechRavens


Moderator
Joined: 25 Nov 2006
Posts: 17488
Location: Madison, WI
PostPosted: Thu Aug 01, 2013 2:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Phinsfan93 wrote:
Quote:
I think it would've been better if you actually pointed out the five games they win and the eleven they lose. I honestly see a 9-7 season if everyone stays healthy.

Quote:
Most of their wins will come from their weaker opponents and most of their losses will come from their stronger opponents. I don't like to force myself into picking specific games because upsets happen and I don't want to get lost from the big picture in predicting those - but I do take a look at the schedule to see if there's anything particularly unusual. Usually there isn't.
But that's not how the NFL works. The Seahawks and Bengals were stronger than the Dolphins last year and both of those teams lost to the Dolphins, Bengals at home. The Dolphins will sweep the Bills and split with the Jets according to your assumption as you have every other team ranked ahead of them. 3-13 would be more adequate don't you think?

You realize you just completely proved my point, right?
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Warpticon


Joined: 21 May 2010
Posts: 1556
PostPosted: Thu Aug 01, 2013 4:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

GaTechRavens wrote:
Warpticon wrote:
I'm just curious. Who is doing this colossal overrating? Because I haven't seen anybody pick them to win the division anywhere, and I don't think I've seen them picked to even make the playoffs by more than maybe 40% of projections I've seen.

I honestly thought this Dolphins assessment was extremely poor, which is a disappointment since I usually appreciate your perspective even if I disagree. This is mostly a bunch of words that say next to nothing. The entire argument boils down to

Wake is godlike but he might not be as godlike since he's 31
Reshad Jones was a 5th round pick
Some good players are almost 30
Tannehill was decent, but other guys are decent too, so who cares?
Miami apparently has 2 players on offense
Miami paid linebackers, what idiots

I was expecting a lot better, honestly.


That's what the argument boils down to if you're going to be as simplistic as possible here. I always make sure there's quite a bit of historical context to anything I predict. And the fact is, these things happen. Stars who have career years, especially when it's at an older age, tend to regress a bit the next year. Young late round picks who suddenly break out tend to be flukes more often than young early round picks. Decent starters approaching 30 tend to regress earlier and more dramatically than people ever expect them to (and in Grimes' case, it has likely already happened).


Expecting some regression is fine; I expect some myself from older players. The thing is that the Dolphins are less reliant on those older players than they were a year ago. They're younger at every level of defense, and especially at DL and LB (which you have deemed a negative because of money even though the Dolphins saved money with the switch). I would think that matters at least as much as the fact that their two-down tackle is 29.

GaTechRavens wrote:

My case against Tannehill is entirely relevant. Everything is relative in the NFL - does Tannehill's rookie season, in the current environment, show that he'll likely be anything but a below average quarterback in his second year? Everything is relative, after all.


It's barely relevant, and it's honestly pretty lazy. You keep emphasizing how everything is relative, but you're making comparisons to things that don't matter. It doesn't matter how Nick Foles did in a completely different situation. The point is not to compare how he did last year to a bunch of other people in wildly different circumstances; the point is to project how he will do this coming season, given new circumstances. Unless you think players progress linearly based on their first year production (and they clearly don't), it's not actually saying much.

More importantly, though, how come Tannehill and Clabo were only players you mentioned on offense, period? Do you not think the rest of the offense will matter? Hell, you missed some good opportunities to justify why you don't think they'll win more than 5 games along the offensive line. If I were making that argument I could comment on Tannehill's efficiency on third down last year, on the question of whether Martin can hold down LT, and concerns over whether they can run effectively enough to take advantage of play action, where Tannehill was at his best. You didn't get into any of that, though, because you were spending a paragraph talking about what a good deal Clabo was and saying basically nothing about the other 9 positions on offense. (incidentally, why is a 31-year-old Clabo a good deal at $5m for 1 year, but a 27-year-old Ellerbe, who is essentially on a 2-year, $14m contract (because we all know only guaranteed money matters), is a terrible deal?)

GaTechRavens wrote:

Miami didn't just pay linebackers, they overpaid them. Overpaying is bad in a world where the salary cap exists. And there's no disputing that it has historically been disastrous for teams who give out these kinds of contracts to average/decent starters. Why should I expect this to be different?


"Overpaid" by your standard, okay. You don't have to like the financials, and that's understandable--but they're pretty irrelevant to how the players will perform in 2013, which is what you're supposed to be projecting. And in that world where the salary cap exists, the Dolphins are currently $14m under it--they saved money by signing those players versus keeping their predecessors. It's also interesting that you insist on projecting that all the Dolphins' older defenders are likely to decline this year (some decline is expected, as most players peak around 25-27), but you don't account for the positions where players got younger...such as at those linebacker spots, for example. What I take issue with is that your evaluation of the linebackers stopped at their wallets.

I'd like to see more examples of these historical precedents you're claiming, as they seem awfully anecdotal to me. I'm not saying they don't exist, but I have a hard time believing they have produce nearly as strong correlations as you're suggesting.

And I'm still trying to figure out who all these colossal overraters are. They're not on this site, and I don't see them in the media. Is expecting them to be about as good as they were a year ago, maybe a little better, colossal overrating? Because that is the overwhelming consensus I have seen.

BaltimoreTerp wrote:
I guess what I'm saying is that an appreciation of history is important but that specific and individual knowledge is as well. Saying that feels unfair to what you're doing because it's not as if this series is devoid of analysis that actually speaks to a player's actual, real-world skills. And I think when you look at the big picture surrounding, say, a team that overspends on a certain kind of player (role player on their previous team being paid to be a franchise guy) in FA, you can safely make some snap judgments, because why not. But I think there's definitely a tendency here to use, say, Fred Bennett's failures to explain why Reshad Jones can be put into the 'pessimism' column. And I can see why that would rankle a fan coming in here to read about their team.


I can't speak for other fans, but if I'm "rankled" it's because I thought his historical analysis was poor and did very little that speaks to a player's actual, real-world skills (which is pretty atypical of GaTech). I am pretty optimistic about the Dolphins and have my target at 9+ wins this season and would be somewhat disappointed if they failed to do it. But I also know they have some legit question marks that are open to projection, and those questions will determine how likely they are to reach that potential. I came expecting to find some interesting analysis of those questions and came away with a bunch of fluff.

For example, it is totally reasonable to doubt Tannehill's degree of growth, but "other QBs did well as rookies too so his rookie year wasn't that special" is a bad reason, especially when the argument is based around relativity yet ignores the most important aspects of that relativity. Case in point: every single one of the other rookie QBs he named had at least 15 more college starts than Tannehill and a superior group of targets to pass to. Every one. Tannehill used the year he was supposed to sit and learn and instead started 16 games and was reasonably effective in most of them, even though he still has fewer career starts above high school level than Luck, Wilson, or RG3 had in college, and even though he had a poor overall receiving corps and he never practiced with his #1 receiver until the week of his first NFL start. (on the flip side, you could argue he had an advantage by playing in his college system and that it inflated his numbers--I disagree (not that it was an advantage but that it inflated his numbers), but it's a legit argument.) Of course, other QBs had hardships and growing pains too, but their circumstances were different enough that it makes that sort of evaluation shallow enough to be mostly meaningless.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> NFL General All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 18, 19, 20 ... 83, 84, 85  Next
Page 19 of 85

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group