Miami Dolphins Ryan Tannehill: Judge me on wins

he averages 3.5 carries a game...and about 3 read option carries a game.

 

This. The argument usually turns into this thing: "Dan Marino never won a Super Bowl, therefore team wins don't matter to a QB." Well...NEWSFLASH: Marino went 147-93. He was +54 in the W column. That's the equivalent of Tannehill going 11-5 for the next 9 years. A QB is by far the most important and influential player on the field; win totals absolutely matter.

 

Pretty comical that it's even being disputed isn't it...

 

Individual players don't win games in the NFL. This is a fact. Undeniable. A QB may have the most influence in determining outcomes, but QB's don't win games by themselves. Anything said from there on, is irrelevant.

 

Yeah, the defense and special teams, and I dunno, every other position, coach, etc. don't matter...its the QB that is responsible for all wins and losses. Fuggit, why even bother fielding anyone else on the team.

 

What you're not seeing is that if A has influence on B, then knowing B tells you something about A. Knowing win/loss record tells you how good the QB is to exactly the same degree that the QB influences the outcome of the game.

The only question is how much does the QB influence the outcome of the game.

 

And what you're not seeing, is that we aren't discussing broad and general concepts that maybe one day will be determined. We are talking about the right now, and if you don't know how to factor in the data, then for this discussion, it doesn't really matter.

 

It does, when someone implies wins don't matter at all. That has to be the first mental correction made. The second one is to understand that while we don't know precisely what the influence is of the QB on the outcome of the game, it's generally agreed the QB influences the outcome more than any other player. That alone should tell you that wins can't have too small a weight.

 

No, no it does not.

Again, we are humans having a human discussion. If you can't tell us how it matters, then in this human organic discussion, it simply does not matter. What you are doing is changing the focus of the conversation to not be about QBs but instead, be about a undetermined system for classification.......that doesn't actually exist yet and in all likelihood, never will.

 

The New Orleans saints were 13-3 in 2011. Drew Brees won the triple crown (Yards, TDs, Comp. %). In 2012 the Saints were 7-9. Drew Brees lead the NFL in yards and TD's. What do these seasons tell you about the relationship between QB play and win %?

Individuals do not determine the outcome of games. And there is absolutely no way to measure how much a QB influences a game, beyond wild generalizations and rationalizations. Settling for the lowest common denominator isn't a solution. It's lazy.

 

You realize almost everything we talk about is "undetermined". But we still talk about it.

Here, I'll give you a decent starting point on how much wins might matter. The correlation between YPA and wins from 1990 to 2011 is 0.43. Now, YPA depends on both the QB and WR. However, WR stats will also depend on both the QB and WR. So on average, their "cross-interference" in each other's statistics should more or less cancel out.

So if the correlation between YPA and wins is 0.43, then with a very common type of statistical model, the "variance explained" is the square of that, in percent. That means by a rough estimate from the YPA correlation stat, you could say that wins should count ~18.5% of any total measure of QB ability.

Is that the correct answer? Who knows.. but it's certainly a starting point.

 

Those seasons on their own tell you nothing about the relationship between QB play and win %. First of all, every one of the stats you cited was a "team" stat (involved more than just the QB) so by your own logic you shouldn't use it. Second of all, those are two cherry picked examples. You have to look at the distribution.

 

Again, if you can't tell us how much it matters, you cannot tell us it matters in this discussion. It could very well matter .000000000000000000001%. Which statistically means it doesn't matter. Until you can quantify it, stop fighting this crusade. It is pointless and adds nothing.

I can say that the breed of dog a coach has correlates to his propensity to go for it on 4th down, and following your logic, we cannot discount it and not only that, have to argue that it matters until we prove it doesn't or define how much it does matter.

 

Yes, I did cherry pick those two seasons. It's irrelevant anyway. Back to back seasons. One was great, one was bad. The constant was great QB play.

Miami goes 11-5 in 2014 if the defense doesn't give up leads late in the 4th quarter. Miami's may even win a couple of more games in December if the Dolphins aren't gashed for over 30 ppg. Tannehill played well enough to win those games. Yet, by your logic, those losses should be charged to him and are representative of what kind of QB he is. It's a bull**** argument.


I'll reiterate for the final time. Individuals do not win games by themselves. Therefore, W/L can't be representative of individual talent. /endthread.

 

You can assign any number you want to it. But then you have to be consistent. That percent you assign to it is also equal to the percent of the final outcome you think the QB is responsible for. Are you going to argue that the QB is only responsible for .000000000000000000001% of the final outcome?

 

http://www.nfl.com/videos/miami-dolphins/0ap3000000433478/Week-12-Ryan-Tannehill-highlights

I think the Denver game is really a microcosm of Tannehill as a whole and it illustrates it pretty well. His box scores is 26/36 (72%) for 228 yards, 3 TDs, 1 INT, and he took 1 sack. He also has 4 carries for 15 yards and 1 TD.

:08 - Samson Satele sucks balls adjusting to the stunt and Tannehill's forced to stare down the barrel and delivers a strike to Dion Sims for a first down. This is something that Ryan does pretty well, IMO.

:28 - I think this play is designed, just based on how Dallas Thomas pulls at the snap. It seems odd, to me, that Von Miller rushes inside so hard right there. Tannehill doesn't even carry out the fake, he just high-tails it around the corner for a TD.

:58 - Bill Lazor needs to more call plays like this. Tannehill's good on the move and fires a nice ball. However, if he throws it a beat earlier or throws it a bit harder to get it to Hartline faster, Hartline's got a chance to turn up and get RAC. This is where I think ball placement comes into play for him as a negative.

1:07 - Of course, Tannehill then follows it up with PERFECT placement on a TD pass to Wallace. IMO, if he can do this more consistently, it'll take his game up another notch.

1:34 - TD pass to Landry, but you can see the ball is high and slightly behind. If Denver's Rahim Moore isn't caught staring into the backfield he's going to lower the boom on Landry. If Tannehill puts that in front and lower, it gives Juice a better chance to not only catch it, but he can use his body to box out the defender behind him and get down more quickly to avoid a big shot. All in all, the play works and it shows you that he can put some zip on it when he needs to (better example is the TD to Hartline against Baltimore; that was a laser).

1:59 - Dallas Thomas gets his @$$ handed to him in pass-pro by Von Miller. Tannehill sees this and is able to step up and get out of Miller's grasp and still finds Hartline open in the middle of the field. This is one example, and there are others, where he was able to step up and make a play. The TD to Rishard Matthews against San Diego also comes to mind. Even while he's not picking up a chunk with his feet, he was, IMO, better at doing this in 2014 than he was his first two years.

2:06 - Ballsy decision by RT, but he puts enough smoke on this one to get it past Von Miller to Landry for a score. While this throw worked, I think sometimes this is where Tannehill will still get burned. For example, in your thread with the INT breakdown, the very first one when he tries to backdoor it to Wallace; bad decision. I think he's certainly got the arm talent to make throws like that one, and this TD to Landry; he's just got to do a better job of realizing when and when not to do so.

I think if Miami are able to give him better protection, he's going to improve solely just because of that and the new arsenal of skill players around him. But, IMO, if he's able to continue to recognize when to step up in the pocket, and even when to takeoff more as you suggest, that'll help. I still think if he's able to tighten up his ball placement more, that's going to make the most difference, especially with the players Miami has and what they can do after the catch. The runs are a catch-22 to me. He's taken a LOT of hits in his 3 years and has been sacked the most out of any QB since 2012. While he's a tough SOB, I don't want to see him get dinged the way RGIII does. Despite being a good athlete, he's kind of got a lumbering running style, it takes him a few strides to gear up - he's not as fluid as Wilson, Kaepernick or even Rodgers IMO - and I think that is susceptible to him taking some big shots the more he runs it. Just my two cents.

 

I still think you're viewing this debate in binary terms: either all the credit goes to the QB or none. No one is arguing that. W/L record MUST be representative of individual talent to SOME degree because that individual influenced the outcome of the game to SOME degree.

 

What is Drew Brees' career record as a starter? Oh, he's +33 in the W column. Small sample sizes can be manipulated for convenience, merely anecdotal. Look, he had an 11-win season in his third year.

There is a ton of room between "won a Super Bowl" and "sucks". Again, consistency of being a contender is important.

The question from roy that has yet to be answered: Is there a really good-great QB in the modern era whose career win total is around .500?

 

What?

That's the actual question at hand....how much does the QB contribute to a win. We don't know. It could be 90%, it could be .00000000000000001%.

 

If the QB influences the outcome more than any other player and there are less than 50 players on the field, how can the % be less than 100/50 = 2%??

Also, how can you claim in your previous post I can't quantify the degree when I did literally that. A quantified starting point is 18.5%.

 

Because it could be that more than players influence a win or loss. There's everything from the coach, to the fans, to the weather, to the other team, etc.

Yes, the 18.5% that you admitted we cannot know if its accurate. I seriously don't understand what you're doing here. I say we can't include X in the discussion because you we don't know what X equals., and you're telling me X could equal 18.5 but who knows. Its a little cuckoo.

 

Fine.. like I said before, just be consistent. You choose whatever percent you feel is right and claim from now on that that is the % of the final outcome that is due to the QB. So, are you going to claim it's 0.000001%??

And the 18.5% "variance explained" is exactly as valid as the concept of correlation, assuming a very ubiquitous type of linear regression (line fitting) model. So dismiss or accept that to the same degree you dismiss or accept "correlation". And ALL stats have uncertainties associated with them. Admitting there are uncertainties in stats in no way detracts from their use.

 

and when Peyton manning left the colts what was their record?...if I take rogers off the packers whats their record?...I don't know where I am on this debate but I do believe great qbs equals wins..but I don't think your disagreeing with that either.

 

huh...We know elite qbs affect more towards to 90 percent.

check this out, something like 95 percent of all the packers are draft picks, not sure I'm buying wolf is that good.

 

Sigh.

Please pay attention cause this is trying.

I don't know if its .0000000001%. I don't know if its 87.45%. You don't either. I am not declaring its one thing or another. I'm merely making the point that since it could be literally any percentage, we cannot count it, in this human conversation about QBs. I am being consistent.

 

No Deej, we don't know that. You know that.....but it can't be denied that you certainly have your own qualifications for things.

 

If you don't know, and that's your ONLY position (which it hasn't been), then you can't argue against anyone saying we should count wins to a great degree in measuring individual QB ability. A consistent response would then be simply "We don't know". But that wasn't the argument you were making.

And in the real world, it's absolutely absurd to claim the QB influences only 0.0000001% of the outcome of the game. So why consider it? If it's true that the QB is still the most influential player, than adding all contributions of all players up still gives you less than 0.00001% of the final outcome!! That means the coach, fans, weather, etc.. determine essentially the entire outcome??

Be realistic. If there are several dozen players in the game, and the QB is the most influential, then at a MINIMUM (even if you include coaches, etc..) you should assign a low single digit % to their influence. But in American football, the QB has outsized influence. You'd expect the value to go into the double digits.

And guess what the statistical analysis suggests? Yup, 18.5%. It's not unreasonable. This is a far stronger position to take than just "We don't know" which btw was NOT your position for much of this debate.

 

LOL.. Check out all your initial posts. You started out with this great quote in post #16:

"Wins should have absolutely nothing to do with judging a player."

I actually convinced you that can't be true.

And I already quantified the degree so stop claiming I didn't for the nth time!

btw.. for the future, don't argue against someone saying wins should matter except to say "We don't know". If someone says wins matter a lot, that should be as acceptable to you as someone saying wins don't matter a lot. We'll see if you're consistent. LOL

 

lol, seriously man?

i quoted what I said right after that for you. If you're going to pick out certain parts of my posts and avoid all context, especially in the face of overwhelming evidence (provided in my previous post) then you are flat out being as intellectually dishonest as I've seen on here.

And they don't matter in this conversation because you can't quantify them. Again following your "logic" how many people named Fred in the stands effects the outcome of a game and it doesn't matter how much it effects the outcome, it just does so it should be factored in.

 

Clark said it perfectly. Had the defense just held the lead in a handful of games when it was handed to them by Tannehill and the offense, the Fins are 11-5 or better. We get into the playoffs and who knows what happens. Its fact. I don't see how anyone can dispute it.

So that being said, how can anyone in their right mind hold the fact that the team missed the playoffs on Tannehill??? Was he one of the very top, most elite QBs in the league in 2014? No, but he played well and did his job, and did enough time after time to put the team into position to win. He did not choke the game away, and he did not make stupid turnovers at the worst time. He did enough. If the other side of the ball did enough, the team wins those games. And he did it despite the fact that the OL played like crap half the time.

Honestly, its a textbook example of how you shouldn't hold the team's end record over a quarterback's head, and people are still doing it.

 

so If I take all the elite qbs off their teams what happens..win totals go down no?..that means they affect win total yes?

 

Judge him on wins? I like his attitude going into the season, but still my #13 QB in the NFL. Hopefully he will be in that 7-10 range going into 2017.

 

Sure, but I think if you take any elite player off a team the win totals go down.

 

Drew Brees has an overall record of 117-84, which is the equivalent of 9.5 wins per season.

If you look at the records all of the unquestionable elite QBs of the league today (Rodgers, Manning, Brady, Roethlisberger, Brees and Rivers) they have a combined record of 720-349, which is the equivalent of an 11-5 record on average. None of them have a losing record with Brees being the worst averaging a record of 9.5-7.5. So if the 6 elite QBs average an 11-5 record then the rest of the QBs average a record 7.5-9.5. You can come to two possible conclusions:

a) elite QBs coincidentally also have tend to have elite teams around them.
b) elite QBs are worth an extra 3.5 wins over an average QB with everything else being relatively equal.

Show me one example of an elite QB having a losing record over a significant sample size and we can talk.

 

I'd like to judge ryan on wins but it's tough when you know the coach will probably cost him (and the team) 2-3 just like last year. Ryans made a lot of strides and this offense really suits him. He looked like he finally arrived in the second half until those last game or two when the air went out of the entire team.

Personally, I have Ryan as the # 11 QB in the league right now behind (in no order) Luck, Brady, Peyton, Brees, Rodgers, Ben, Eli, Cam, Romo, Wilson. IF you want to say Flacco's better I wouldn't argue because he gets it done in big games but I don't feel he's as consistent week to week. Eli finished up really strong last year and had one of his best statistical years....he's one of the most underappreciated QBS of this era because he's never been a "stat accumulator" like some others. Never been a big Matt Ryan or Matt Stafford fan. Rivers is probably next up on that list.

 

not at the same rate bro. come on Fin..think about what I said with ron folf, they have no free agents on that team all draft picks and why is that machine favored to win Super Bowl..aaron rogers talent helps that team on so many levels.

 

As I've been saying, there's a whole a lot of factors that go into a win. Until you can prove exactly what percentage the QB is responsible for then you can't count it because you have no clue how much to weight the win. I mean if you consider just players, there's 90 (92 now) players that can affect a given game, that's not including coaches, equipment personnel, medical staff, officials, etc. You're honestly going to tell me that the outcome of a given game wouldn't change if 88 of those players were different? Yes, QBs are important, but my god, last year should prove to everyone that games can be won and lost by a LT injury, or a safety injury, or a bad tackle by a CB, or dropped ball by a receiver, or by a timeout (which I don't think was the problem).

 

Romo is better than Rivers. But the point remains the same.

 

It tells you, you're just picking two seasons out of a dozen, and then cherry picking two stats out many.

Drew Brees threw for less yards, less TDs, .5 ypa less, interception % went up from 2.1% up to 2.8%, qb rating dropped 14 points.

Tells me Drew Brees lesser season cost them quite a few wins.

 

No it can't. Take Peyton Manning out and plug in Jim Sorgi. Take Aaron Rodgers out and plug in anyone. ETc. etc.

We know for a fact the amount a QB contributes to a win is significant. Because we've seen QBs go down and what happens to the team's play after. We see the packers go 5-2 in 2013 until Rodgers is injured and they don't win a game until week 14, and barely win by 1 pt against Atl and Dallas. 5-2 to 1-5-1. By losing the QB.

If you lose a Johnny Manziel, the influence % is lower. But he wasn't winning many games anyway. If you lose a Rodgers, it's more.

Is Tanny closer to Manziel's influence, or Rodgers? We WANT him Tanny to have a large influence. That means he's elite. If he doesn't, then he's not.