DaBoys Posted December 9, 2018 Share Posted December 9, 2018 I say pay him Ryan Tanny money. $77M/19.2 per... Still over paid imo, because guys like Zeke will never see that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matts4313 Posted December 9, 2018 Share Posted December 9, 2018 2 hours ago, 5x10 said: He was top 10, consistently meanwhile, dak has the second lowest # of Td throws for qbs that have started and played the entire season, only trailing Mariotta #1 in sacks, also known as drive killers its a good thing volume stats have never correlated to winning. You do care about winning, right? 29 minutes ago, plan9misfit said: That makes me want to throw up. He isn’t worth half that amount given his inability to throw the ball and avoid sacks and fumbles. A high completion QB that doesnt turn the ball over. Thats the worst. 9 minutes ago, DaBoys said: That's a potential killer Third most winning QB the last 3 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matts4313 Posted December 9, 2018 Share Posted December 9, 2018 1 minute ago, DaBoys said: I say pay him Ryan Tanny money. $77M/19.2 per... Still over paid imo, because guys like Zeke will never see that As he shouldnt. Zeke is half as important to our team. He should be paid half. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaBoys Posted December 9, 2018 Share Posted December 9, 2018 Just now, Matts4313 said: As he shouldnt. Zeke is half as important to our team. He should be paid half. "From Weeks 11-13, teams that ranked in the top half of the NFL in terms of run-play percentage posted a combined record of 32-13 (71.1 winning percentage). On the flip side, teams that ranked in the bottom half of the league in this category logged a combined mark of 12-31 (27.9). Digging a little deeper with the help of my editorial staff, I discovered that 11 teams ran the ball on at least 45 percent of their snaps during Weeks 11-13. Those teams' combined record? 23-7. That's a robust 76.7 winning percentage. And six of those teams -- the Ravens (who ran the ball a whopping 67.4 percent of the time during this span), Patriots (54.5), Texans (53.6), Seahawks (51.4), Cowboys (47.5) and Broncos (46.9) -- didn't lose a single game over the past three weeks. Considering that the teams that kept it on the ground on less than 40 percent of their snaps in Weeks 11-13 went a combined 11-29 (27.5 winning percentage), it is fairly obvious that consistently running the ball still equates to success in this league. Now, I know the analytics crowd will immediately @ me suggesting that some of those numbers are inflated by the fourth quarter, when a team is ahead and intent on running out the clock. However, we crunched the numbers on the first three quarters, taking the final period completely out of the equation. Teams that ran on at least 45 percent of their snaps in Quarters 1-3 went 19-9 (67.9 winning percentage) in Weeks 11-13. Those that pounded it on 40 percent or less of their offensive plays? 12-22 (35.3)." http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000996948/article/running-the-football-still-works-plus-the-amari-cooper-effect Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matts4313 Posted December 9, 2018 Share Posted December 9, 2018 2 minutes ago, DaBoys said: "From Weeks 11-13, teams that ranked in the top half of the NFL in terms of run-play percentage posted a combined record of 32-13 (71.1 winning percentage). On the flip side, teams that ranked in the bottom half of the league in this category logged a combined mark of 12-31 (27.9). Digging a little deeper with the help of my editorial staff, I discovered that 11 teams ran the ball on at least 45 percent of their snaps during Weeks 11-13. Those teams' combined record? 23-7. That's a robust 76.7 winning percentage. And six of those teams -- the Ravens (who ran the ball a whopping 67.4 percent of the time during this span), Patriots (54.5), Texans (53.6), Seahawks (51.4), Cowboys (47.5) and Broncos (46.9) -- didn't lose a single game over the past three weeks. Considering that the teams that kept it on the ground on less than 40 percent of their snaps in Weeks 11-13 went a combined 11-29 (27.5 winning percentage), it is fairly obvious that consistently running the ball still equates to success in this league. Now, I know the analytics crowd will immediately @ me suggesting that some of those numbers are inflated by the fourth quarter, when a team is ahead and intent on running out the clock. However, we crunched the numbers on the first three quarters, taking the final period completely out of the equation. Teams that ran on at least 45 percent of their snaps in Quarters 1-3 went 19-9 (67.9 winning percentage) in Weeks 11-13. Those that pounded it on 40 percent or less of their offensive plays? 12-22 (35.3)." http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000996948/article/running-the-football-still-works-plus-the-amari-cooper-effect I quoted a 25 year sample size and you dismissed it. You quote a few week sample size and believe it. Which one of us is in denial? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaBoys Posted December 9, 2018 Share Posted December 9, 2018 1 minute ago, Matts4313 said: I quoted a 25 year sample size and you dismissed it. You quote a few week sample size and believe it. Which one of us is in denial? Neither. You quoted a 25 year sample size arguing passing yards don't correlate to winning. You were right. You also showed rushing yards don't really correlate either. I'm not arguing against either. The key is in the rushing attempts, not the yards: "The threat of the run also makes play-action more effective because linebackers overreact to the sight of the ball being handed to the back and that creates big windows in coverage. The mere threat of the running game creates chaos. ... That's why good offensive coordinators focus more on rushing attempts than yards, because it is all about setting up bigger plays in the passing game with play-action and using a persistent running game to wear down the defense." Think of the running game like a boxer's jab. You're not throwing the jab to knock the opponent out; you're using it to set up the big right-hand shots that lead to knockdowns. When you run the ball early and often, defenses have to respect any and all play fakes, thus spawning bigger plays in the passing game off play-action passes. The running game sets the table for devastating vertical strikes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaBoys Posted December 9, 2018 Share Posted December 9, 2018 So you need a back(s) that can handle that load. In order to achieve the desired number of attempts the RB has to be somewhat successful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plan9misfit Posted December 9, 2018 Share Posted December 9, 2018 28 minutes ago, Matts4313 said: its a good thing volume stats have never correlated to winning. You do care about winning, right? A high completion QB that doesnt turn the ball over. Thats the worst. Third most winning QB the last 3 years. High completion QB who can’t throw the ball down field, holds the ball WAY too long, resulting in him taking uneccessary sacks, leads the league in fumbles, and can’t make basic throws. That actually IS some of the worst. If he was even moderately capable, our offense wouldn’t be so anemic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaBoys Posted December 9, 2018 Share Posted December 9, 2018 If he would just scramble more we would be okay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calvert28 Posted December 9, 2018 Share Posted December 9, 2018 Yea Dak stats dont exactly scream for top tier QB money. Now if he can actually hit the receivers when hes needed to and still pull off his "clutch" plays then sure I would be willing to pay him Tannehill type money. But he is not worth a 100m contract at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retrolock Posted December 9, 2018 Share Posted December 9, 2018 8 hours ago, plan9misfit said: At no point in his career was Romo ever a top 4 QB. even in the 2014 season when I think he was 2nd only to Rodgers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
resilient part 2 Posted December 9, 2018 Share Posted December 9, 2018 Dak deserves 200 million. 60 million for his QB pay 140 million from his "hater club" for character assignation as a QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retrolock Posted December 9, 2018 Share Posted December 9, 2018 54 minutes ago, resilient part 2 said: Dak deserves 200 million. 60 million for his QB pay 140 million from his "hater club" for character assignation as a QB. I know you are just salty but dude, you want to get dak his undeserved monies and cripple the team? deym Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matts4313 Posted December 9, 2018 Share Posted December 9, 2018 6 hours ago, Calvert28 said: Yea Dak stats dont exactly scream for top tier QB money. Now if he can actually hit the receivers when hes needed to and still pull off his "clutch" plays then sure I would be willing to pay him Tannehill type money. But he is not worth a 100m contract at this point. You dont follow QB money do you? $25m/yr is Alex Smith. Which most people believe is his comp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matts4313 Posted December 9, 2018 Share Posted December 9, 2018 8 hours ago, plan9misfit said: High completion QB who can’t throw the ball down field, holds the ball WAY too long, resulting in him taking uneccessary sacks, leads the league in fumbles, and can’t make basic throws. That actually IS some of the worst. If he was even moderately capable, our offense wouldn’t be so anemic. Historically he has not had a sack or fumble issue. People get hit alot when they have a crappy OL. When you are getting hit at twice the clip as any point in his history, you are likely to have more fumbles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.