lol. You are literally making up what you think they think the percentages are. Their arguments do not support anything like what you're thinking. They think its waaaaaaaaaaaaay higher than 25% by the way they argue. That's my point. Their argument is evidence of that, there is no evidence they think its less. That's my point. Well, that and its curious you're not going after them, just us.
Jesus man. You flat out said the team has 10 less wins without Luck. He did give you numerous chances.
Just to post it again, so that people see what started this: Please show me how anyone is misrepresenting that statement.
Read what I wrote again.. I never said what I think the percentage is in their mind. I actually don't know to be honest. All I said is I'll argue against them if you can get them to make explicit the percentage as being well more than 50% of total offense.
Ok. What percent of a game outcome is the offense responsible for? What percent is the defense responsible for? Say it was 50/50. If the QB were responsible for 10% of the offense, that would be what tiny percent of the whole? Too late for me to do this math. In the scheme of things, he would have a tiny responsibility, making it pointless to bring up win/loss to decide who was better.
QB would be 20% of offense if offense is 50% of total and QB is 10% of total. Point is, let's say someone uses passer rating in an argument, or TD/INT ratio in an argument. All of these are TEAM stats. So using the same logic behind the calculation for percent of final outcome the QB is responsible for (with Y/A), you'll find that the variance explained of final outcome is arguably LOWER (either the correlation is lower or if it's higher - like with passer rating - you can easily point out that part of the score is in the stat itself.. of course the score correlates with a subset of the score!) than the 10-20% range using Y/A. What I'm saying is that all the other metrics will likely be weighted at most as much as win/loss record. Compared to other stats, win/loss actually is pretty important statistically speaking.
How about "just like how Pennington isn't so elite"? Of course you wouldn't think about that. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I don't see how you can say that. QB is far more responsible in td/int ratio or completion percentage than he is in win percentage.
I also literally never said Manning and Luck were solely responsible for the drastic rise in wins and offensive production. Where's that claim? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No. You said QB was 10% of total offense. I'm asking, what percent do you break down offense, defense, and I should have included special teams, and coaching. Do you break them up evenly? Say you did, so each part was worth 25%. So 10% of 25% is very small compared to the whole, the whole being all 4 parts together.
I said Manning and Luck are two examples. Two examples of what? What was the team's record without Luck? 2-14. With him and Hilton and whoever, 11-5 the following season. That's not 10. I never explicitly said "Luck was solely responsible for 10 wins." No matter how selective you are in your highlighting and quoting. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Also, what's with attributing percentages to specific players? It's pointless. Luck and Manning were the biggest factors on the field for elevating the play of other players. How do I know? They handle the ball every play. They lead players to get YAC. They drop balls in their bread baskets. They make players better than they really are. Want a percentage? 34.987292. Happy? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Two examples of what? Your math doesn't even add up. You just like the number 10. Luck largely led them to 11-5 after 2-14. They were responsible. You want a percentage? 34.9282737289273. There. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I don't know off the top of my head about TD/INT ratio, but I know that TD/attempt correlates with wins about as well as Y/A. Interceptions/attempt has a lower correlation than for Y/A with wins. The problem you'll run into is that TD involves the WR as much as Y/A does so you're not going to get higher variance explained using TD/attempt or INT/attempt. So on its own win/loss record won't matter that much, but in comparison to other stats it's pretty relevant.
Okay .... Too easy. http://miamiherald.typepad.com/dolp...the-game-for-passing-yards-or-touchdowns.html So ... Are going to go there? Ball is in your court. I have a feeling I know your answer.
I've already talked ad nauseum about that quote when he made it. Please note, Tannehill never said HE was responsible for the wins, just that he wants to be part of getting those wins, since, you know, that's why you play the game.
He wasn't criticized quit being ridiculous. His insane numbers were put in perspective he was not criticized.
No I said QB was 10-20% of total outcome. You'd double that for offense if offense is 50% of total (that 50% I just made up for argument's sake). I don't know what percent each unit is responsible for. Offense, defense and special teams you could probably come up with good estimates for by using points scored/scored against, or maybe more fancy with win probabilities. Coaching is tough and I have no idea how you would do that except to look historically at cases where a HC changed teams. Small sample size will kill that analysis anyway.
Uh, no. Not unless Phil Simms qualified his statement like Tannehill did. Tannehill even said he didn't care if he had gaudy numbers, as long as the team was winning.
Simms, "I'm going to judge Tanny on his wins." Idiot. Tannehil "Numbers don't matter, judge me on my wins. That's why we play the game." Oh that's different. Simms said Tannehill is a good QB but long term, he's going to judge him on his wins. Exactly what Tanny said.
No, you're pulling one tiny piece of what Tannehill said. When you read what came after, it totally changes it.
The Houston guys just missed tackles. There were guys around them. Luck leads receivers better. Drops balls into their baskets better. Scrambles for big passes better. Just does everything better. How many times has Tannehill led guys into a throw that hurt them? Keller's season ended before it started getting led into a nasty hit and Sims stretched out for such a poorly thrown ball he was concussed trying to get it. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
When Aaron Rodgers went out in 2013, his replacements won a at 4 game pace (2-5-1). With Rodgers as a starter, they were on a 11.5 win pace. Their defense ranked 24th in points allowed, 28th in yards per play allowed, 25th in total defense. So that's about what you can argue, with substantial evidence, how many wins a QB is responsible for.
the perspective is he set an nfl record. the only people who had to put things in "perspective" were those who were bashing him and needed to make sense of a reality that didnt jibe with their fantasy world
Nobody criticized Tannehill for his receivers getting so much YAC. He just got lucky the Texans that were all around the WRs didn't make the tackles they clearly could've and should've. He just doesn't get credit for that. You get credit when you place the ball in such a way that the WR gets YAC BECAUSE OF IT. Not lucking out on several missed tackles you had nothing to do with. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
so hasselbeck is a better qb than luck and its hasselbeck who elevates his team and luck who drags them down. using your logic here
Res, who gets more credit for the YAC Tannehill's statline benefited from? Tannehill or our WRs or was it a gift from the Texans defense? Did Tannehill lead them into a position to make a play or did our WRs juke everybody or did the Texans simply miss tackles they should've had? I personally don't see how Tannehill only accrued 282 passing yards but amassed 4 passing TDs. I wonder why he was so efficient without hitting deep balls. Has to be mostly YAC. You tell me who the YAC should be attributed to. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Making up stats off the top of your head to favor whatever point you are trying to make and not using actual stats is "weak." If you want to be taken seriously actually do the research and report what is true, not biased exaggerations. Do you really expect me to trust your eyes and interpretations when you make crap up and try to pass it off as fact? Be better than that. Namaste
