1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

wow. our qb has arived

Discussion in 'Miami Dolphins Forum' started by caliphinfan, Nov 20, 2016.

  1. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Let's separate two things:

    1) I'm not redefining healthy OL. That's the definition YOU guys have been using all along, which is why it's worth looking at all such games as a single condition (like I said, nothing wrong statistically speaking with this).

    2) The firing of the two I've always maintained was a key factor in helping Gase get this team on track. So if I was just arguing what I think (as opposed to arguing against previous arguments others made like the "healthy OL" thing), then I would put the firing of those two front and center. Remember.. for me the difference isn't the OL but the coach and this narrative of the two getting fired helping right the ship fits perfectly into that.
     
  2. Two Tacos

    Two Tacos Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    11,121
    5,828
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    Okay, I wasn't clear enough. I am also getting to this next day, so the conversation may be over, apologies.

    Montana's teammates confessed cheating is not the same as Brady cheating, or his Coach cheating because of the following: First Montana never got got cheating. Brady did. Second, Montana's teammates never got caught cheating, Brady's coach did. Third, the things you mentioned Montana's teammates doing were minor compared to what Brady and Belichick got punished for doing. Losing draft picks and multiple game suspensions punishments vs hypothetical fines. I understand why you think they are similar enough for a valid comparison, I just disagree.

    To your second point. Plenty of average QBs played average in a Walsh West Coast offence. Young was not average. The point was average QBs played great in Brady's system. So, citing a HoF QB isn't the same. It's not a very fair argument as Brady's system is no where nearly as wide spread as Walsh's. And, Wies and McDaniels failures away from New England speak against this argument. So, on reflection, I don't find it a strong point. I just don't think Young is a proper comparison to the point. I understand why you do, again I just disagree.

    Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk
     
    resnor likes this.
  3. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Well, we've talked about the starting oline being healthy. That's the "unicorn line." It's not simply healthy, it's healthy starters. I'm not interested in healthy players of Thomas and Turner. When Tannehill had had his starting oline, his numbers were far better. This year, his numbers have been better, without his starters (Pouncey, Albert, Tunsil) after Thomas and Turner were kicked to the curb.
     
    Fin D likes this.
  4. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Yeah take your time responding. Easier for me to quickly look at these boards and respond since most of my job is just to think haha!

    Anyway, the form of cheating is different sure, but: 1) it doesn't matter if someone was caught or not if the question is how does cheating affect the result, and 2) neither you nor anyone can provide good evidence that the type of cheating Montana's teammates did was more or less severe in terms of how it affects outcomes than what Belichick did.

    And let's keep in mind Brady was suspended for the deflated balls issue during the AFC championship game with the Colts. No one back then, including the Colts, argued the Patriots would have lost had the cheating not occurred (because the problem wasn't there in the 2nd half).

    I understand you don't think Young is a good comparison because it's clear he was a very good QB while we don't know with Garropolo. But from a purely logical point of view (how well others did in the system) the example is a very good one.
     
    Finster likes this.
  5. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    The comparison isn't about how well they did in just the system. Cassel looked great in NE, but has been Bakr better than average out of it. That's what I mean. Jimmy G might be better than Cassel, but he might not. We might never know if he's another Cassel, though, unless he leaves NE and flops.

    So, it's not simply that multiple QBs do well in the system, it's that one of then has gone Eisenstein, and not been to successful.
     
    Fin D likes this.
  6. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Well.. that would make the Young example even more powerful. Before he went to SF he was a dud. The coach and system could very easily be argued to be the difference maker in why he became a HoF QB when you look at what he did in Tampa (and what people thought of him back then).

    Cassel is ambiguous. I mean he did have a 10-5 season in KC two years after he did the same in NE (with most key stats similar) so it shows he didn't have to be in NE to succeed. Now you're right he floundered afterwards in KC, but who's to say that wouldn't have happened in NE? One year is really a small sample size. I mean there are other QB's that stayed in the same system after having a fantastic year but then floundered (e.g. Nick Foles in 2013 vs. afterwards).
     
    Finster likes this.
  7. Rock Sexton

    Rock Sexton Anti-Homer

    2,553
    1,793
    113
    Mar 14, 2015
    The Cassel argument for "Ah ha! It's teh systemz!" holds no weight. He played one season as the starter for NE putting up a ground breaking 89.4 QBR.

    .... but obviously some guys on this forum can predict entire careers from such a tiny sample size.
     
  8. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    I didn't think Foles system stayed the same his second year?

    Anyway, I'm simply saying, that another reason why, for me, Brady isn't the GOAT. Without the cheating? I'd be arguing he's possibly GOAT.
     
    Fin D likes this.
  9. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Hypothetical to illustrate...ask me today who the best hitter ever has been in baseball, I'd say Ted Williams. Show me proof tomorrow that he used a corked bat, I'd stop arguing he was the greatest hitter ever.
     
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2016
    Fin D, Pauly and Finrunner like this.
  10. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Yeah, Foles stayed in the same system (with Chip Kelly) in 2014 after his 2013 Pro-Bowl season. Guy broke his collarbone in week 8, ending his season. It was the year after that (2015) that he moved on to another team and system.

    Anyway, everyone can have their opinion on the effect of Belichick cheating on both Brady's and Belichick's legacy. Personally, I rank both top 5 all-time because I haven't seen clear-cut evidence of how the cheating we know of could have led to the massive level of success both have had. It's much easier for me to explain their success by assuming they're just real good at what they do. Like I said.. only an opinion, but that's what I think.
     
    Finster likes this.
  11. Finster

    Finster Finsterious Finologist

    3,087
    2,038
    113
    Jul 27, 2013
    Totally agree, I also think that it has been pretty well proven that deflated balls has had nothing to do with Brady's play, at least in a positive way.

    Scientifically speaking, the only case you can make is that it hurt his play, as he has actually played at a higher level since deflategate, including the game in which it was discovered, he was better in the 2nd half, as you mentioned in another comment.

    So I think we can throw that out the window, as far as having any advantage based on that.

    Stick um and silicone however, no doubt about those advantages.

    If you condemn one, you must condemn the other.
     
    cbrad likes this.
  12. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    The one exception statistically speaking is the abnormally low offensive fumble rate for NE compared to outdoor teams since 2007 (since the rule change). That would be a clear positive advantage for Brady's play. Of course, we don't know what led to the abnormally low fumble rate, but I'm more inclined to believe NE knew how to take advantage of the rule change better than other teams (whether that's technically cheating or not, it's shady for sure).

    The interesting thing about that though is that in 2015 they had an abnormally low fumble rate too, AFTER the NFL changed procedures, which on the face of it would argue against anything shady. But then this year NE is really bad near the bottom of the list in fumbles, so maybe there was something shady going on? Who knows.. but that's the one statistical piece of evidence I'd stand by (for now).
     
    Finster likes this.
  13. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    Made the playoffs without Moss or Welker, and a 93 rating and a good TD/INT ratio.

    Is Cassel good? No. Was he able to have some success without Belichick? Yes.
     
  14. Pauly

    Pauly Season Ticket Holder

    3,696
    3,743
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    Just to be clear Brady wasn't suspended for cheating, He was suspended for destroying evidence relevant to the investigation. Not the same thing, but in legal circles it is considered to be an act of a guilty mind.

    I agree that with what I read the deflated balls probably were the explanation for maintaining the ridiculously fumble rate for an extended period, but didn't help significantly in the passing game.
     
    resnor likes this.
  15. brandon27

    brandon27 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    45,652
    19,304
    113
    Dec 3, 2007
    Windsor, ON. CANADA
    Im not so sure the first part was true. Did the NFL every actually clarify what the suspension was actually for? I dont think I remember seeing it.

    As for the second part... how do NE's fumble rates compare this year, to last year? cbrad, I feel like this is for you to figure out, you're the numbers/stats guy :lol:
     
  16. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    This link doesn't distinguish between offensive fumbles and fumbles from say special teams, etc.. but total fumbles tend to for the most part track those by the offense so it's a decent source. And as you can see they were near the top in 2015 but near the bottom so far this year:
    https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/fumbles-per-game?date=2016-12-01

    And if you look through the years, with the exception of 2013 where because of a single game against Denver in freezing weather they had 6 fumbles that led to them having an overall bad fumble rate for that year, NE is at or near the top from 2007 onwards. And if you remove all dome teams they are almost always at the top.

    But up until 2006 they were never that good. The rule change sure seems to have worked some magic for them eh?
     
    brandon27 likes this.
  17. Fin-O

    Fin-O Initiated Club Member

    11,375
    11,392
    113
    Sep 28, 2015
    Watching walk through has always led to becoming an accurate passer. Duh!


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  18. Finster

    Finster Finsterious Finologist

    3,087
    2,038
    113
    Jul 27, 2013
    I agree, I think you can make a stronger case that deflated balls are better for runners, grip wise, it's Wilson's stance that deflated balls perform poorly compared to regulation.

    They say the skin can micro slip on deflated balls due to the high torque of the throwing motion, it's a lot of pounds of pressure on each finger just at the moment the ball starts going forward, and just at the release as the power wanes, the skin can slip back, slightly altering the path.

    Brady is proving them right so far.

    They also claim this same micro slippage can effect kicks and catches, the higher the velocity the more likely the skin slips, but it snaps back very quickly in these situations, making it seem "slippery".

    That makes sense, but it also makes sense that a deflated ball would be easier to hold on to, so I can see where the team might have benefitted, but I think we're seeing a long enough pattern with Brady to rule out it being an advantage for him personally.
     
  19. Hiruma78

    Hiruma78 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    but if we think that BB and TB are top 5 in their respective category, wouldn't that mean the cheating would have had an even greater impact?

    What I am saying is that if one really considers them HOF good, then one should be even more worried and outraged about their cheating, no?

    for example, the advantage got from the videos recording... wouldn't Brady be able to take advantage better than your journeyman QB?
    the same for BB, if a think he is a run of the mill coach, I could think that cheating wouldn' make too big of a difference, but damn, we are talking about one of the best defensive minds/head coach all time ... and you are telling me that having un unfair advantage had no impact?


    What I mean (in my freaky sucky English, be patient) is that when you postulate that:

    1) BB & TB are top 5 at their position
    2) the cheating actually happened (the tape recording is a fact when others team didn't do it, right?)

    then it follows that even a little cheating could be having a big impact.
    even if you think it was a small/little advantage, you should be freaking worried, because they were almost the best with a level playing field... Imagine having an unfair advantage.

    ps- for me TB is not the best of all time, but it is not about cheating.
    The best 2 qbs of all time for me are still Marino/Montana (and likely Unitas but I didn't see)
    The main thing Brady has over these 2 is longevity IMO: the Brady of the first 3 titles wouldn't even be in the discussion, the one with video games numbers is a direct result of a league changed (about the risk of passing and the toll of being hit), when 4 thousands yards are almost normal
    Marino was simply the perfect qb, for me there is no point comparing a human and a demi-god; Montana has never lost a super bowl, has been 3 time SB MVP, has a play off rating out of the world in a league when you still could play defense and - oh my gosh!!! - even hit the QB, incredibly impactful even with the Chiefs after a devastating injury)


    This is not to say that he is a not historically good qb (likely the best of a wonderful bunch of QBs, like Manning, Roethlisberger, Favre, Brees and so on... only Rodgers, I believe has had an apex better than him), just that for me Marino and Montana were better

    just my two (useless) cents
     
    resnor likes this.
  20. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Ok tannehaters, you're being intentionally obtuse or you don't understand. So let's try this:

    Let's say you could rate each olineman on a scale from 1-10. That would mean the best line you could get is a 50 & the worst would be a 5. That would mean prior to this year, with Albert & Pouncey at 10, James at 6, and Turner and Thomas at 1, our line was a 28, which is pretty average. When Albert goes down, then James gets moved to the left where's actually a 4, and Fox comes in as a 1, now our line is a 17. Very below average.

    This year we have Albert, Pouncey & Tunsil at 10, James at 6 and Bushrod at 5, that's a 41. The difference is, Urbick and Steen aren't 1s, they're 5s and Tunsil is still a 10 at LT. So without Albert & Pouncey, we're still at an oline of 31. Slightly above average.

    This is not a hard concept to grasp and if you still have problem with it, that problem is internal or intentional.
     
    miami365 and resnor like this.
  21. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    My problem with spygate is that video taping per se wasn't illegal. NE just taped from unauthorized locations and got in trouble because they kept at it after a memo telling everyone not to do it went out. Not only the memo but statements from coaches like Jimmy Johnson who said he learned how to do it from a KC scout decades ago, did it himself, and that many others did it suggest it was not a secret and that opposing sides took measures to not just give away their signals. All this plus the fact NE went 16-0 in the regular season after the scandal, went to multiple SB's and won one more suggests spygate didn't give them that much of an advantage, if any.

    So while I'm willing to entertain that there must be SOME slight advantage (otherwise why do it?) I fail to see how it's a decisive factor in why they've been so good. So as I see it, little cheating = little impact based on those facts.
     
  22. Rock Sexton

    Rock Sexton Anti-Homer

    2,553
    1,793
    113
    Mar 14, 2015
    Wait, the Pats missed the playoffs that year .... it was the Colts, Chargers, Ravens, Dolphins, Titans, and Steelers.
     
  23. Rock Sexton

    Rock Sexton Anti-Homer

    2,553
    1,793
    113
    Mar 14, 2015
    Opposing fans always need something to be paranoid about and to help them make excuses.

    The fact remains, this league is chalk full of "gamesmanship" that isn't in the rule books. It's been going on for a few decades now.
     
  24. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    I guess my first issue with this would be that it's hard to explain why the sack rates in 2014, 2015 and 2016 (so far) have been essentially the same (7.2%, 7.1% and 7.3%, respectively) given your ratings. The sack rate, while not a perfect barometer of OL pass protection ability, should have at least gone down a good deal if what you say is more or less accurate, but it hasn't.
     
  25. Hiruma78

    Hiruma78 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    Yes, but what I meant is (I'm sorry for my English, it's kind of hard for me to express myself in clear terms, so I will be very basic)

    - little cheating done by sucky qb/hc- little impact (say 3 on 100)
    - little cheating done by one of the best qb/hc all-time - likely more impact (say, 4 or 5?)

    I am not saying that it was decisive (or that it wasn't) in the wins or in his/their career, because I think it's pointless (there is no true way to know in any objective way)

    I am only saying that if one thinks Brady (and Belichick) are two of the best, one should logically be more scared and worried by the notion that they cheated.

    I don't think saying Brady/BB cheated means automatically that Brady/BB is not an all-time great. And I don't think that saying that Brady/BB is an all-time great means that cheating didn't have any kind of impact at all.
    On the contrary, I think the more you hype the greatness of Brady/BB, the more you should be worried about the possible advantage they gained.


    My point is only that the two notions (A- they are all time great and B- they gained an unfair advantage by cheating) aren't mutually exclusive.
    It's probably a very dumb point, I know, but often I see arguing that if you think that cheating had an impact you think Brady&BB are a scrubs.

    I don't thinkt they are scrubs, but I don't think that cheating was meaningless (in the end, because I respect BB's intelligence: you have to be a true moron to keep doing something useless even after warning, ending losing some picks and tarnishing his legacy in some way)
     
    cbrad likes this.
  26. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    The tape recording was done by other teams. Patriots got in trouble because the NFL sent a league wide memo to not do it anymore. Belichick went lawyer on Goodell and figured he had a loophole. Goodell don't do loopholes so he punished them hard.

    But they were not the only team to videotape. They just didn't stop when told to do so.
     
    Rock Sexton likes this.
  27. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    After taking into account ideal gas. The amount of deflation allegedly present in their balls during that game amounted to less than 1% of air or something.

    The NFL was asked under oath whether there was evidence of deflation during the Indy game. They said no. Asked if there was ever any evidence of any deflation ever. No.

    Deflate gate was about goodel's power under the CBA And they won. So that's that.
     
  28. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Then the end result of your implication is that there's no real difference in a line with Turner, Thomas, Fox then a line with Tunsil, Pouncey, Albert.

    Don't tell me that's not what you're implying because it is. You cannot have it both ways, either there's a difference between the talent level of olinemen or there's no real difference in those years.
     
  29. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    No, I'm not implying what you're saying. The only implication of those sack rate stats is that whatever aspect of OL pass protection ability is being measured by sack rate has on average remained the same from 2014-2016.

    Of course there's variation across games. When you had Pouncey, Albert, Tunsil and James, we had a really low sack rate while it was much higher without them. The difference between having Pouncey, Albert and James in 2014-2015 vs. not having all of them wasn't as great, but there's a detectable difference. But on average it hasn't changed much is what those stats say.


    The other thing the stats possibly suggest is that you really can't just add ratings for individual players on the OL to get an accurate overall score. That is, adding individual scores is probably the wrong mathematical operation. Not sure what would work best for OL in football, but usually a logarithmic function works better (adds in decreasing rate of marginal return). I suspect in this case even that won't capture it well because adding one great linesman among 4 bad ones probably does little. It's probably more like a cumulative normal (adding 1 good player after you already have 2-3 good ones is better than adding 1 good one when you have no good players or 4 good players). Who knows.. would be interesting to test.
     
  30. Pauly

    Pauly Season Ticket Holder

    3,696
    3,743
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    If we take out the Tennessee and Cincinnati games which featured Thomas and Turner to some extent what is the sack%?
     
  31. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    I forget exactly what happened but Thomas only played against Tennessee according to PFR. If you only take Tennessee out, the sack rate goes down to 6.6%. If you take both Tennessee and Cinci out it goes down to 5.4%, which is of course clearly a lot better.
     
  32. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    You are trying to find a way to cut out a chunk of overpass that has a tractor trailer stuck under it, when all you have to do is let some air out of the tires. The system works fine, especially when you actually apply it to the personnel in a given game or even given play.
     
  33. Rock Sexton

    Rock Sexton Anti-Homer

    2,553
    1,793
    113
    Mar 14, 2015
    I'd venture a guess that 75% of the people out there lobbing the "cheaters" label at them don't even know that.
     
  34. number21

    number21 Active Member

    540
    231
    43
    Sep 1, 2015
    North Miami


    :)
     
  35. Pauly

    Pauly Season Ticket Holder

    3,696
    3,743
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    The NFL average for 2016 so far is 5.8% sack rate.

    So basically without Thomas and/or Turner he's average. We want him to do better of course
     
    resnor likes this.
  36. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    What's the sack % when we feature our actual starting line vs our line that had replacements for inured starters?
     
  37. Pauly

    Pauly Season Ticket Holder

    3,696
    3,743
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    I'd rather not go down that rabbit hole because then we have to do similar things for all QBs to get proper numbers.

    But definitely since game 5 we've seen a big turnaround in OL play and the sack% has gone down since then.
     
    resnor likes this.
  38. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Here's something counter-intuitive about sacks (data taken from pro-football-reference).

    Tannehill has played a total of 75 games. The average number of sacks given up in those 75 games is 2.8 per game.

    Dallas Thomas has played a total of 37 games, and in those 37 games the average number of sacks given up is 2.78 per game, so no difference.

    Billy Turner has played a total of 20 games, and in those 20 games the average number of sacks given up is 3.15 per game, so more sacks are given up when Turner plays.

    What about both together or one without the other? Well, they have both played 14 games together and the average given up is 3.14, so both together is the same as just Billy Turner alone (3.16). Thomas without Turner comprises 23 games and the average is 2.57.

    So statistically speaking Billy Turner had a worse effect on overall OL play than Thomas. This doesn't mean Thomas was a decent player (guy was terrible).. it just means his individual play wasn't affecting overall OL play in a negative way as much as Turner's play did.
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2016
    Pauly likes this.
  39. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    What do you define as our "actual starting line"? And which year? If you mean this year and "actual starting line" is just those 4 games where we had all 4 key starters, well we averaged 0.75 sacks per game in those 4 games but averaged 3.29 sacks per game otherwise.

    It's kind of cherry picking data, but that's the data.
     
  40. Hiruma78

    Hiruma78 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    yes, they did when others stopped, hence the unfair advantage and the punishment.
    (but again, maye BB did it for fun, just to be more lawyer than a lawyer)

    the point is still the same for me:

    the cheating happened (as you said, they kept doing something after others stopped - why? if there was no gain? - and they were punished for that)
    they are HOF great.
    etc.
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2016

Share This Page