Rebuild a new LaFleur offense or get what Pettine needs on defense?

[GreenNGold_81]

No, you didn't. You just ignored the FACT.

"Monken was the Bucs' offensive coordinator from 2016-2018. Of those three seasons, the Bucs were ranked in the top 10 in total offense twice including this past season where they were ranked third behind the Los Angeles Rams and the Kansas City Chiefs."

3 < 5 for those keeping track.

Again, another source: https://247sports.com/nfl/green-bay...ckers-head-coach-strong-candidate--127537154/

 

[Deleted member 6794]

"Monken was the Bucs' offensive coordinator from 2016-2018. Of those three seasons, the Bucs were ranked in the top 10 in total offense twice including this past season where they were ranked third behind the Los Angeles Rams and the Kansas City Chiefs."

3 < 5 for those keeping track.

Again, another source: https://247sports.com/nfl/green-bay...ckers-head-coach-strong-candidate--127537154/

Total yards is a terrible metric to measure the success of an offense.

 

[GreenNGold_81]

Total yards is a terrible metric to measure the success of an offense.

That's just it though, there are several other stats that I've mentioned to back up my claim. You can't rely on passer rating as a sole argument against the other stats. I'd suggest you re-read my posts. I've also posted two sources to back up my claim. You have posted none.

I'm moving on to allow the discussion to get back on track.

 

[PackAttack12]

"Monken was the Bucs' offensive coordinator from 2016-2018. Of those three seasons, the Bucs were ranked in the top 10 in total offense twice including this past season where they were ranked third behind the Los Angeles Rams and the Kansas City Chiefs."

3 < 5 for those keeping track.

Again, another source: https://247sports.com/nfl/green-bay...ckers-head-coach-strong-candidate--127537154/

lol. You win games in the NFL with points bro.

2016 - 22nd in points
2017 - 18th in points
2018 - 12th in points

But hey. If you want to bloviate about all of the yards that the Bucs were able to compile when there were many games where the opponent dropped 24+ on them in the 1st half (thus leading to a bunch of empty yards against soft coverages in the 2nd half) then be my guest. But you're choosing to see and believe what you want to fit your argument.

 

[mradtke66]

I've rebutted that. See prior posts.

They got a lot of yards, scored a lot of TDs. Also threw a lot of picks. Ending up with a 15th passer rating. I'd call that average.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

That's just it though, there are several other stats that I've mentioned to back up my claim. You can't rely on passer rating as a sole argument against the other stats. I'd suggest you re-read my posts. I've also posted two sources to back up my claim. You have posted none.

Once again, you completely ignore the stats that counter your point. Passer rating isn't perfect by any means but it's more objective than cherry picking a number and declaring the Buccaneers passing offense a top five unit because of it.

I'll put another one out there, according to PFF the Bucs had the 13th best passing offense, Football Outsiders' DVOA has them ranked at #9. Therefore I prefer to ignore your sources and rely on numbers to prove that they weren't top five in 2018.

 

[GreenNGold_81]

lol. You win games in the NFL with points bro.

2016 - 22nd in points
2017 - 18th in points
2018 - 12th in points

But hey. If you want to bloviate about all of the yards that the Bucs were able to compile when there were many games where the opponent dropped 24+ on them in the 1st half (thus leading to a bunch of empty yards against soft coverages in the 2nd half) then be my guest. But you're choosing to see and believe what you want to fit your argument.

And you're choosing to argue your own argument. We are discussing passing offenses, not total offense. Again, you guys have to re-read my posts. If you want to post a top ten analyst (of your choice) to help support your claim, as I have, then that may help your claim. Until then, I think I've posted enough on this subject.

 

[PackAttack12]

And you're choosing to argue your own argument. We are discussing passing offenses, not total offense. Again, you guys have to re-read my posts. If you want to post a top ten analyst (of your choice) to help support your claim, as I have, then that may help your claim. Until then, I think I've posted enough on this subject.

I quoted your post in which you referenced total offense. I don't care what you posted previously, that's between you and someone else. I was quoting something specifically, and simply pointed out that points is what wins football games.

 

[GreenNGold_81]

I quoted your post in which you referenced total offense. I don't care what you posted previously, that's between you and someone else. I was quoting something specifically, and simply pointed out that points is what wins football games.

Ok, let's go by total points from the passing game then... Winston and Fitzpatrick would combine for 36 passing touchdowns. That would put them at 3rd most in the league.

Again, 3 < 5.

This is getting ridiculous. You guys should just accept this and move on.

 

[PackAttack12]

Ok, let's go by total points from the passing game then... Winston and Fitzpatrick would combine for 36 passing touchdowns. That would put them at 3rd most in the league.

Again, 3 < 5.

This is getting ridiculous. You guys should just accept this and move on.

That's a point completely separate from what I was making. How you're not able to comprehend that is baffling to me.

 

[GreenNGold_81]

That's a point completely separate from what I was making. How you're not able to comprehend that is baffling to me.

But your point was obvious. Total yards is not a great metric in and of itself, I will agree, but in the context of building an argument I felt it was necessary. Total yards, air yards, yards per completion, touchdowns, etc. All with stats in the top 5 is how I'm making my point. That's why I've suggested you re-read my posts.

 

[OldSchool101]

I agree that running backs are still important in today's game but it's definitely possible to draft an impact player at the position later in the draft.

Absolutely agree you can get a RB outside round 1 that’s effective.
Whimm, I’m not even really necessarily advocating that WE get a 1st rounder. I was responding to MRAD who said he values RBs the least of all positions. I just think that’s ridiculous is all.

I respect you don’t want to go RB. Hell, you’re probably right. But I like the idea of equipping our QB with better protection in the trenches and one more underneath option so he can dump off when Defenses overpursue. It’s just a personal preference. We sent Monty packing and we no longer have a FB. We need more options than 2 guys

I’d like a dual threat type back similar to Monty’s role

 

[Deleted member 6794]

If you want to post a top ten analyst (of your choice) to help support your claim, as I have, then that may help your claim. Until then, I think I've posted enough on this subject.

Once again, I have posted numbers from three objective sources, none of them considered the Buccaneers passing offense a top five unit in the league. I don't care about what a fantasy football analyst has to say about it.

This is getting ridiculous.

You're right about something for the first time in this thread.

Whimm, I’m not even really necessarily advocating that WE get a 1st rounder. I was responding to MRAD who said he values RBs the least of all positions. I just think that’s ridiculous is all.

You might be surprised by it but I actually agree with mradtke.

 

[GreenNGold_81]

Once again, I have posted numbers from three objective sources, none of them considered the Buccaneers passing offense a top five unit in the league. I don't care about what a fantasy football analyst has to say about it.

You'd care if you wanted to be right. It's not one or two stats that matter here, it's the entire picture. Each individual stat can be picked apart as I assume you know. And the vast majority of offensive passing stats has them in the top 5. I've found an analyst that agrees with me - you haven't. Until you do you're done. Moore analyzes stats for a living, I assume you don't.

You lost. Move on.

 

[mradtke66]

You'd care if you wanted to be right. It's not one or two stats that matter here, it's the entire picture. Each individual stat can be picked apart as I assume you know. And the vast majority of offensive passing stats has them in the top 5. I've found an analyst that agrees with me - you haven't. Until you do you're done. Moore analyzes stats for a living, I assume you don't.

You lost. Move on.

Why should anyone care about analysts and their opinions? We've all got them. I really don't care what a Fantasy Analyst thinks about anything. It's not real football. It's DnD that uses statistics instead of character sheets and dice. What is good for fantasy is not necessarily good for actually winning games.

Actually looking at the stats, yes, the Bucs had some great positive stats in passing.

6th in completions
1st in yards
2nd in yards/attempt
3rd (tied) in passing TDs

And they had some below average to bad stats as well

19th in completion percentage
1st in Thrown Interceptions


And some neutral ones as well

14th (tied) in sacks given up


And we have passer rating, which attempts to normalize all of the other stats into one. 15th.

Taken as a whole, I can't call that a top-5 passing offense, because it ignores the bad and only looks at the good. I'd have to stare at more stats, to come up with more informed opinion, but my gut is the passer rating is about right, possibly higher. Let's say somewhere between 10th and 15th.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

It's not one or two stats that matter here, it's the entire picture. And the vast majority of offensive passing stats has them in the top 5. I've found an analyst that agrees with me - you haven't. Until you do you're done. Moore analyzes stats for a living, I assume you don't.

You lost. Move on.

Actually I have posted three sources analyzing stats in depth with none of them considering the Buccaneers passing offense a top five unit.

I don't care about the opinion of a fantasy football analyst and neither should you when talking about play on the field.

 

[GleefulGary]

Both of you have lost for keeping this going.

 

[GreenNGold_81]

Why should anyone care about analysts and their opinions? We've all got them. I really don't care what a Fantasy Analyst thinks about anything. It's not real football. It's DnD that uses statistics instead of character sheets and dice. What is good for fantasy is not necessarily good for actually winning games.

Actually looking at the stats, yes, the Bucs had some great positive stats in passing.

6th in completions
1st in yards
2nd in yards/attempt
3rd (tied) in passing TDs

And they had some below average to bad stats as well

19th in completion percentage
1st in Thrown Interceptions


And some neutral ones as well

14th (tied) in sacks given up


And we have passer rating, which attempts to normalize all of the other stats into one. 15th.

Taken as a whole, I can't call that a top-5 passing offense, because it ignores the bad and only looks at the good. I'd have to stare at more stats, to come up with more informed opinion, but my gut is the passer rating is about right, possibly higher. Let's say somewhere between 10th and 15th.

They're also top 5 in completed air yards, intended air yards, aggressiveness, air yards to the sticks(nextgenstats) in addition to the aforementioned stats. How can one say that the third highest scoring passing offenses with numerable other top 5 passing stats is not top 5. Yes, they had three particularly bad games with a horrible passer rating (40's) but again, we're not debating the best passing offense in the league, just top 5. The interceptions slowed once Winston became the regular starter towards the end of the season.

We have like 10+ top 5 passing statistics. At some point there should be some acceptance with this mountain of evidence. Relying on two or three stats to counter doesn't outweigh every other stat.

I can appreciate that a fantasy football analyst is not ideal given your perceived biases, hence the challenge put forth for anyone to find someone who analyzes stats for a living to chime in. I'd be all ears. It's not like I asked him who to start or sit, this was his opinion as someone who knows the ins and outs of probably EVERY stat there is and is consistently in the top 10 in terms of accuracy using this information. You may discount him for what he is, but he's more experienced than probably everyone in this forum at analyzing who is and who isn't amongst the top 5 at any position.

 

[mradtke66]

They're also top 5 in completed air yards, intended air yards, aggressiveness, air yards to the sticks(nextgenstats) in addition to the aforementioned stats. How can one say that the third highest scoring passing offenses with numerable other top 5 passing stats is not top 5. Yes, they had three particularly bad games with a horrible passer rating (20's) but again, we're not debating the best passing offense in the league, just top 5. The interceptions slowed once Winston became the regular starter towards the end of the season.

So if we are going to exclude the early season interceptions, are we going to exclude the early season yards, touchdowns, and completion?

We have like 10+ top 5 passing statistics. At some point there should be some acceptance with this mountain of evidence. Relying on two or three stats to counter doesn't outweigh every other stat.

Mountain is quite the stretch. We have 4 good stats, 2 bad. And the interception stat is really bad.

I can appreciate that a fantasy football analyst is not ideal given your perceived biases, hence the challenge put forth for anyone to find someone who analyzes stats for a living to chime in. I'd be all ears. It's not like I asked him who to start or sit, this was his opinion as someone who knows the ins and outs of probably EVERY stat there is and is consistently in the top 10 in terms of accuracy using this information. You may discount him for what he is, but he's more experienced than probably everyone in this forum at analyzing who is and who isn't amongst the top 5 at any position.

There are two problems with the previous paragraph.

1. It's not our job to provide an expert. You made the claim, you provide the evidence. You provided the evidence, we analyze it, we say "we are unconvinced by your argument and evidence." It is the responsibility of of the positive claimant to provided it.

2. Saying that we must trust this person because of his credentials is a logical fallacy, specifically an appeal to authority. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/21/Appeal-to-Authority

 

[GreenNGold_81]

So if we are going to exclude the early season interceptions, are we going to exclude the early season yards, touchdowns, and completion?



Mountain is quite the stretch. We have 4 good stats, 2 bad. And the interception stat is really bad.




There are two problems with the previous paragraph.

1. It's not our job to provide an expert. You made the claim, you provide the evidence. You provided the evidence, we analyze it, we say "we are unconvinced by your argument and evidence." It is the responsibility of of the positive claimant to provided it.

2. Saying that we must trust this person because of his credentials is a logical fallacy, specifically an appeal to authority. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/21/Appeal-to-Authority

You're incorrect, it is not a logical fallacy as I have provided his credentials and achievements ("Without any other supporting evidence offered" is a key facet of establishing that as a logical fallacy based on the link you have provided).

We're not discounting their positive stats at all. My point is that what pulled that passer rating down significantly were three bad games - which accounted for a large part of the interceptions, obviously. It's all in context. We're not arguing the top 3 passing offenses as a result as many stats would place them in.

 

[mradtke66]

You're incorrect, it is not a logical fallacy as I have provided his credentials and achievements ("Without any other supporting evidence offered" is a key facet of establishing that as a logical fallacy based on the link you have provided).

I assure you, it is a fallacy. The literal definition, from the link I provided (and I would be happy to provide more, should you find this link insufficient)

Description: Insisting that a claim is true simply because a valid authority or expert on the issue said it was true, without any other supporting evidence offered.

 

[mradtke66]

We're not discounting their positive stats at all. My point is that what pulled that passer rating down significantly were three bad games - which accounted for a large part of the interceptions, obviously. It's all in context. We're not arguing the top 3 passing offenses as a result as many stats would place them in.

Ah, but what IS passer rating. A formula that takes into account attempts, completions, yards, TDs, and interceptions.

While imperfect, it's a fairly agnostic way to determine general passing efficiency.

 

[GreenNGold_81]

I assure you, it is a fallacy. The literal definition, from the link I provided (and I would be happy to provide more, should you find this link insufficient)

Description: Insisting that a claim is true simply because a valid authority or expert on the issue said it was true, without any other supporting evidence offered.

Supporting evidence provided: award winning podcast host, top 10 analytical accuracy. How is that not supporting evidence? His @twitter profile is in my uploaded photo as my source.

 

[mradtke66]

Supporting evidence provided: award winning podcast host, top 10 analytical accuracy. How is that not supporting evidence? His @twitter profile is in my uploaded photo as my source.

You're missing the point: I'm not dismissing his credentials. The logical fallacy is assuming they matter; they do not.

If there were such a thing as a PHD in football, and this person had that PHD, it still would not matter. The fact that there are credentials behind the statement is irrelevant.

What you are doing is a textbook example of an appeal to authority. I ask you to please read the link I sent.

 

[GreenNGold_81]

You're missing the point: I'm not dismissing his credentials. The logical fallacy is assuming they matter; they do not.

If there were such a thing as a PHD in football, and this person had that PHD, it still would not matter. The fact that there are credentials behind the statement is irrelevant.

What you are doing is a textbook example of an appeal to authority. I ask you to please read the link I sent.

I have read your link and a key facet to prove your point is a lack of supporting evidence. I have provided supporting evidence, the fact you find them irrelevant is your opinion which is the exact heart of our discussion.