The Talent Surrounding Ryan Tannehill: Part II

I have not made that assumption. You are trying to discredit that idea based on your own assumptions. The only thing you have done is shown that RT has put up typical rookie numbers and that leads you to make a leap in logic to conclude that it means the problem isnt his support cast but in his play. You might be right but you have not proved it.

If RT had Cruiz,Marshall,Welker,Gronk,Gonzales,Peterson,Foster all around him He might put up HOF like numbers. That does not mean he is a HOF QB it would just mean he had a ton of talent around him. Showing RT had an average rookie year does not disprove that argument.

You keep trying to belittle people for disagreeing with you and you have not proved anything other then that RT put up average rookie numbers this year.

 

you've gone from 1) qbr doesn't mean points 2) qbr is effected by multiple positions 3) qbr can't be used because it is effected by multiple positions. I'm not really sure if his not making sense is making you not make sense or what lol You've lost me. Might want to heed your own advice.

 

What beliefs do you think I have. I have stated that I agree with you that RT needs to step up his play. I dont agree with how you came to your conclusion and the idea that improving the talent around him would not help in improving his play too.

 

Right, but someone needed to block for Eli Manning long enough while he was in his own endzone. He had to have the pocket presence to stay there, identify where to go with the ball, and then throw an accurate pass. Now Victor Cruz certainly had a profound effect on that play. Conversely, there are plenty of plays where the QB will move a safety with his eyes, which results in a WR getting open or having one less defender nearby after he makes a catch. The question is how much does each of these players affect the total outcome of games?

 

You haven't followed the argument.

His stance and the stats he uses and conflates are incorrect for his point. i've shown in multiple ways (i.e. 1. qbr doesn't mean points 2. qbr is effected by multiple positions 3. qbr can't be used because it is effected by multiple positions) that his stats don';t work for his point.

You jumped in at random points to argue with me on the broad meaning behind of stats, when that was never my argument. That's why you're lost.

Very specifically, QB ratings depend on a receiver of somekind. This isn't like a RB needs an OL. This is a QB doesn't complete a pass without receiver. Because of that, you can't a broad number like QB rating to show WRs don't affect QB ratings.

 

I dont know how well that would work either because you would have to look at who replaced him too.

It would still be based on flawed logic.

Think of it like this
Say we want to compare cruz to hartine performance numbers and how they influence the QBR.
Cruz averages 10 receptions 100yrds and 2 TDs per game which transulates to 20 QBR points for his QB
Hartlines numbers are 5rec 50yrd 1TD 10QBR points
It would be flawed to say that if we swapped players that Eli's QBR would go down by 10 and RTs would go up by 10. I would expect Eli's QBR to decrease and RTs to increase but because of the variables involved it would be very hard to predict with any accuracy of how much.

 

I just stated what you stated. In what way have I not followed the argument. I jumped in at multiple points and showed that I didn't agree with your multiple points.
Too be honest, I haven't really seen you prove any of those points either. QBR includes tds in what way do they not include points? Most stats in anything include multiple entities. YAC? Well what happens if a wr gets a block down field or a rb draws the defense in with a run fake? They all are effected by multiple positions.
I'm lost because your argument makes no sense to me. It has jumped around and at times just contradicted statistical meanings as a whole. Case in point, most statistics are affected by multiple entities. Hence why I told you it was a view and other views can come into play.

 

But we aren't talking about swapping players. For example, Victor Cruz blows out his knee week 7 next season. You can look at how the Giants' offense performed during the games they had Cruz, and the games they didn't have Cruz. Now certainly this doesn't consider who replaces Cruz. But if you're using a large enough data set, the ability of the replacement player will inevitably gravitate toward the mean. So theoretically you could discover that when a team loses its QB, its offensive efficiency, on average, has been reduced by X%. If you do that for all the positions, you could see the impact each position has.

 

I've already pointed out how superior-to the-norm Minnesota's large mix of QBs looked with one of NFLN's top 10 receiving corps.

I did it with Washington's '87 SB Champion team that used a lackluster trio of Jay Schroeder, Doug Williams, and Ed Rubbert who finished the season 4th in passing TDs, 4th in passing yardage, and 7th in QBR with another of NFLN's top 10 Receiving Corps.... where backup Wiliams & 3rd string Rubbert combined for a 98.2 QBR with 15 TDs to 6 INTs in 5 starts, not including Williams' 7 post season TDs to 2 INTs and 4 TD game vs a Denver defense that allowed a 62.9 passer rating on the season with just 15 passing TDs. Compare that to Williams' 4 playoff games in Tampa where he had just 2 TDs to 9 INTs with possibly the worst 3 game stretch by a QB in NFL history (with passer ratings of 7.5, 18.1, 16.2). I showed how Washington's "Posse" had the same effect on Mark Rypien.

I did it with Jon Kitna coming in for Romo in 2010 (with Dez, Austin, and Witten) and Dallas's offense either leading or nearly leading the NFL in scoring during his 10 starts.

I used Oakland's QBs when they had Brown, Rice, Jett, Dudley, etc.

I referenced Earl Morrall coming in off the bench for Griese and Unitas and seeing little to no dip in production when a bevy of HOF and Pro Bowl caliber targets are at his disposal.

The problem is, there aren't enough examples b/c the opportunity to show such instances is low by nature, which Shouright conveniently disregards as "cherry picking" despite a correlation existing in this limited sample size.

 

Right, but this needs to be done to an exhaustive degree in order to be conclusive. There needs to be a criteria set and adhered to, otherwise it is cherry picking. I certainly don't expect you to actually do it, but we can't look at these examples as anything beyond anecdotal. Theres nothing wrong with mentioning them though.

 

Thats an interesting thought

 

Take this one-step further. What if you had a team that had Calvin Johnson, Victor Cruz, Gronkowski, and Adrian Peterson, but with the league's worst QB? What if it were Tim Tebow or Ryan Lindley at QB?

 

Im guessing they would all demand to be traded or retire?

Seriously I would expect their stats to be effected negatively and the QB to get a bump in his

 

That's fine and understandable, but no one is arguing that Hartline & Bess are holding back Tannehill from posting a Brady-like 100+ QBR season like you'd expect if he could do all those things you speak of etc at this stage in his career. I'm pointing out how an increase in talent surrounding Tannehill can easily increase his 76.9 QBR to a more respectable looking 80+ just by what his pass catchers do on their end of the play, and by that happening, Shouright would no longer be able to make false claims that Tannehill is an average rookie QB who's holding back his receivers' ability.

Well, they don't hurt your chances of winning games, and many a games have been won either directly or indirectly b/c of a pass catcher making a big play. Of course, if the team as a whole isn't complete (especially defensively) then these big plays will often make less difference in the outcome. However, when you're a good team in a slugfest with another good team, the difference in the game can often stem from one extraordinary play that would've otherwise not happened had the player been a less talented version of himself. Case in point: the 2009 Super Bowl where one receiver carries his team back from a deficit to take the lead, and the other team's talented receiver makes a spectacular play to win it with less than a minute left. It happens enough to say it's impact shouldn't be ignored.

 

Shou is essentially making a WAR for football to prove his point, which is fine, but flawed IMO from the start due to no true individual statistics in football as there are in baseball. As Fin was saying, you NEED a WR to make a catch for a QB to register a positive stat whereas in baseball you have batting average as an 'individual' measure of sorts(I realize a pitch needs to be thrown for an AB, hence the 'individual'). Unfortunately for all of us, there is no real way to make such a stat objectively as there are just too many variables involved.

 

Then it will remain "anecdotal" from a scientific standpoint b/c there likely aren't enough examples of offenses with great pass catching corps who lost their starters mid season in order to qualify the study as being "done to an exhaustive degree". However, the evidence on the field and in the passing game's performance is quite apparent. The best you could hope for is to identify all the offenses with great surrounding casts (which would have to be agreed upon) and then search for instances where backups got to see action. Although, if you took the combined QBR from all these backups and compared it to their combined career average, there's no doubt the QBR will be higher, and we'd no doubt see a significantly greater number of QBs who performed better than didn't.

 

You don't need to use those qualifiers. It shouldn't consider ability at all.

 

Well, Tebow or Lindley would perform better than their norm, but the offense will likely still be incomplete as a whole despite those studs winning some games for their QB like Demarius Thomas did for Tebow vs the Steelers in the playoffs.
They'd beat up on poor to average teams but likely wouldn't be able to hold their own against great defenses.

 

I'm not sure I understand as I thought this was about talent surrounding the QB affecting performance. ??

 

It hasn't jumped around at all. You're lost because you aren't paying real attention.

- No position's stats is affected by other players like QB and receivers. Yes, an LG's ability can affect a RB's yardage, but not to the same degree of symbiosis between QBs & receivers. Don't know why you argue this point.
- Because of that, you can't use that stat to effectively proclaim the QB's skill is important and the receiver's isn't for that stats to change.
- Yes, QB's affect points. But there could be a lot of running the ball.

 

I've only pointed out that others are effected. If you argue one for the qb wr you would have to argue the same for the rb and lg unless you can accurately measure and include that in your stat calculation somehow. Otherwise you have the same problem to a lesser degree or not, it still exists.

You can again the question is to what degree.

Sure. That doesn't really render qbr a bad measurement. As I pointed out yac can also be effected by multiple positions, as stringer has also pointed out. TDS, yards, yards rate, etc. There is little to no isolation in football.

 

Thats correct. But I'm not sure why you would limit it to only the best players at a certain position.

 

JMO, but I think they would probably win the SB.

 

Try to understand what I'm about to say:

You are arguing about these stats in a nebulous state. I'm not. I'm not saying these stats don't tell us things, I'm saying these stats don't tell us what Shou thinks they tell us as they pertain to the OP.

And no you don't have to argue for the RB/LG scenario. Not at all. Every position is reliant on other positions to a degree, but none are to the degree of receiver/QB. You're making a weak argument based on common sense. A LG can suck and the RB can still do his job. If the QB ****s up the throw the WR gets no stats. This is not rocket surgery.

The degree is irrelevant in this discussion. The reason its irrelevant is because Shou wasn't arguing degrees. He made definitive proclamation.

The rest of us, who are in our right minds, understand there is importance in talent levels from QB to WR to TE. Shou does not. If you want to argue for degrees, then argue with him. Shou is the one arguing there's isolation and he's doing it with stats that are not obviously isolated, which is why his premise is wrong.

 

You really aren't either a) trying to understand what I'm posting b) just in a state where you don't want to. I've reiterated what you've said consistently. I've argued and acknowledged, yes they are effected by other factors. I've also argued since things like comp, attempts, etc go into the stat and that would be the very relationship between wr and qb it is useable.

No I am telling you unless you can prove its negligible ( a small enough factor), you have to take it into account for both. There is no getting around that for you. Here's what I'm saying : Measure it, or it can be talked about. Here's what you're saying: Naw man, its smaller I'm pretty sure, trust me bro.

I've only argued degrees to argue your points. Because overall I don't agree more with your premise. I don't agree completely with shous methodology, but yeah sorry, none of that's been for the reasons being stated on here.

 

Useable for what? What Shou is saying? How? How is using a single stat that is reliant on the QB & WR both doing their jobs proof the QB's talent is more important than the WR's talent? Explain it.

How many completions does a WR have if the QB doesn't throw him the ball? How many completions does the QB have if the WRs don't catch his passes? C'mon man, you and Stringer are arguing this point simply to argue now. You're basically saying I can't say fire burns unless I give a chart showing all the various things that burn at various temps. Its absurd now.

I know what you've done. Its wrong. What is my premise, that you disagree with? That talent at the various receiver positions can affect the QB's stats?

 

This makes me miss threads arguing about Jeff Ireland.

 

Which is why it can be argued ad infinitum.

It's not about anyone edifying anyone else at this point.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTl9zYS3_dc&sns=em

 

it was useless right after post 1

 

Can you quit it with your "I'm right unless you prove me wrong" bull****? How about, I'm God, so unless you can objectively prove me wrong, I'm your God, and I command you to stop posting, or forever be damned?

Do you honestly believe that 7 of the 10 greatest quarterbacks of all time are active in the NFL right now? I don't. There is no objective statistic to measure this. It's widely accepted, though, that Dan Marino would be in that top 10, and by this metric, he's not.

Let's see.... who are some guys that Chad Pennington and Jeff Garcia are better than? Marino, Favre, Gannon, Kelly, Eli, Tannehill (yeah, let's cut his *** and get Jeff Garcia in here), Cunningham, Freeman, etc..

Oh yeah, by the way, we ****** up big time. Chad Henne > Y.A. Tittle

Why don't you put down your sudoku book, because I have a method for evaluating quarterbacks that is fool-proof: watch the games.

 

[table="width: 500, class: grid"]
[tr]
[td]PATRIOTS[/td]

[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Welker[/td]
[td]Gronkowski[/td]
[td]Woodhead[/td]
[td]TOTAL YAC[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]619[/td]
[td]305[/td]
[td]262[/td]
[td]1186[/td]
[/tr]
[/table]

[table="width: 500, class: grid"]
[tr]
[td]FALCONS[/td]

[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Jones[/td]
[td]Rodgers[/td]
[td]White[/td]
[td]TOTAL YAC[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]418[/td]
[td]378[/td]
[td]277[/td]
[td]1073[/td]
[/tr]
[/table]

[table="width: 500, class: grid"]
[tr]
[td]DOLPHINS[/td]

[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Bess[/td]
[td]Bush[/td]
[td]Hartline[/td]
[td]TOTAL YAC[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]267[/td]
[td]246[/td]
[td]240[/td]
[td]753[/td]
[/tr]
[/table]

Ok, so now YAC is the stat that best shows receiver ability and impact.

The Patriots Top 3 YAC receivers had about 45% more YAC yards then Miami's Top 3 YAC receivers.
Anyone care to guess how many more points the Patriots scored over Miami? About 45%.

The Falcons Top 3 YAC receivers had about 30% more YAC yards then Miami's Top 3 YAC receivers.
Anyone care to guess how many more points the Falcons scored over Miami? About 30%.

Had Tannehill's surrounding cast had just increased their YAC by 30% like the Falcons, which would translate into 30% more points (or 12 more TDs), he'd have a qb rating of 87.8.
Had Tannehill's surrounding cast had just increased their YAC by 45% like the Patriots, which would translate into 45% more points (or 18 more TDs), he'd have a qb rating of 93.3.

There you go. We done?

 

What was Welker's YAC as a Dolphin with inferior quarterbacking?

 

This is a great start. I would try YAC per pass play though.

How did you conclude how many points result per YAC?

 

The numbers are more or less a constant percentage wise. The Patriots top 3 guys racked about 45% more YACs yards. The Patriots also happened to score about 45% more points. It tracked with the Falcons too at 30%. Its no more off base or jumping to conclusion than the OP.

 

Here are YAC per-attempt for every QB:
[table="class: grid"]

[tr][td]C.Newton[/td][td]CAR[/td][td]3.983451537[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]R.Griffin[/td][td]WAS[/td][td]3.943019943[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]R.Fitzpatrick[/td][td]BUF[/td][td]3.774774775[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]A.Smith[/td][td]SF[/td][td]3.709677419[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]P.Rivers[/td][td]SD[/td][td]3.670081967[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]B.Weeden[/td][td]CLV[/td][td]3.668674699[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]C.Batch[/td][td]PIT[/td][td]3.657142857[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]T.Brady[/td][td]NE[/td][td]3.644642857[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]C.Palmer[/td][td]OAK[/td][td]3.640569395[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]C.Kaepernick[/td][td]SF[/td][td]3.623376623[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]A.Rodgers[/td][td]GB[/td][td]3.622362869[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]C.Ponder[/td][td]MIN[/td][td]3.616470588[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]B.Roethlisberger[/td][td]PIT[/td][td]3.537688442[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]A.Dalton[/td][td]CIN[/td][td]3.51059322[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]M.Schaub[/td][td]HST[/td][td]3.449579832[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]P.Manning[/td][td]DEN[/td][td]3.42074364[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]N.Foles[/td][td]PHI[/td][td]3.400921659[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]J.Flacco[/td][td]BLT[/td][td]3.344969199[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]M.Ryan[/td][td]ATL[/td][td]3.250437828[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]D.Brees[/td][td]NO[/td][td]3.160278746[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]R.Wilson[/td][td]SEA[/td][td]3.141643059[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]T.Romo[/td][td]DAL[/td][td]3.125[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]J.Freeman[/td][td]TB[/td][td]3.123667377[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]M.Vick[/td][td]PHI[/td][td]3.098101266[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]M.Cassel[/td][td]KC[/td][td]3.079422383[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]S.Bradford[/td][td]SL[/td][td]2.970954357[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]C.Henne[/td][td]JAX[/td][td]2.949074074[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]J.Locker[/td][td]TEN[/td][td]2.914498141[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]R.Tannehill[/td][td]MIA[/td][td]2.813679245[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]J.Cutler[/td][td]CHI[/td][td]2.790450928[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]E.Manning[/td][td]NYG[/td][td]2.772073922[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]M.Hasselbeck[/td][td]TEN[/td][td]2.764705882[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]K.Kolb[/td][td]ARZ[/td][td]2.737704918[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]J.Skelton[/td][td]ARZ[/td][td]2.736318408[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]A.Luck[/td][td]IND[/td][td]2.712765957[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]B.Quinn[/td][td]KC[/td][td]2.691823899[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]M.Stafford[/td][td]DET[/td][td]2.667153285[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]B.Gabbert[/td][td]JAX[/td][td]2.633093525[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]M.Sanchez[/td][td]NYJ[/td][td]2.248803828[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]R.Lindley[/td][td]ARZ[/td][td]1.80141844[/td][/tr][/table]

 

That list which you refer to is ridiculous. Marino at #17? Dan Fouts is #62 and John Elway is #63, and ahead of them at #61 is... Steve Beuerlein? So if your're really going to buy into these objective stats, then John Elway = Josh Freeman? That's how it works? And with a straight face you can actually say that:

"If you could make a strong case that the list on the following page isn't strongly correlated with the general consensus of the individual ability of the QBs listed on it, I'd be much more inclined to give room to the bolded point above that QB rating has such significant input from players other than the QB"

Really? The carnage on this list, the idiocy of it, is striking. So if you go strictly by this objective data and don't want to be swayed by your eyes and actually watching the games- then John Elway is just slightly better than Tony Eason, Kyle Orton and Elvis Grbac? David Garrard is better than Roger Staubach, Bob Griese and Jim Kelly? Daunte Culpepper is better than Dan Marino?

This is a great example of how worthless some statistics can be, and how worthless statistics can be used in an attempt to prop up a weak theory. It also points out how statistics only show part of the story. If anyone were to judge the all time best QBs and went strictly by this list- they's be laughed out of the building. You consistently discredit the importance of watching the games as a means of judging players, because of the subjectivity involved. This list demonstrates a high degree of idiocy that can be involved in rating QBs purely by numbers. If statistics are an attempt to find truth in numbers, then I would consider this ranking of QBs based upon statistical passer ratings a massive fail in that regard.

As to this droning argument of yours:

"Now, can anyone really make that case objectively? Can you show an in objective, unbiased manner, without cherry-picking exceptions to the rule, that the correlation on that page between QB rating and QBs' ability is driven to a significant extent by players other than those QBs?

If you can, I'm all ears. We're more than 700 posts out here, and I haven't seen any of that kind of objective evidence as of yet."

There probably isn't objective data, because you would have to separate the components of a reception or failed pass subjectively: how good or bad was the pass? How good or bad was the reception? Was the ball catchable? Did the receiver make the most of his YAC possibilities? Did he run the correct route? This would have to be judged SUBJECTIVELY pass after pass. Even if someone did undertake this massive kind of analysis, you could turn around and say that there was subjectivity involved.

 

Again asking someone to prove something impossible to prove while not acknowledging your point is impossible to prove and that it is just your opinion is the equivalent of you wanting everyone to make your opinion the prevalent opinion unless it can be proven wrong. doesnt work like that.

Cherry picking stats? That is all you have done. pot meet kettle

so basically you have an opposite opinion as many others. both are valid opinions and the truth is probably a combo of both

 

He didn't play the same position, nor did he have the same amount of catches.

It works out to about 4 YAC per catch with Miami and 5 YAC per catch with NE. Not a huge difference factoring in the position difference.