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

Comparing Tannehill to Luck,

Discussion in 'Miami Dolphins Forum' started by Pauly, May 8, 2016.

  1. roy_miami

    roy_miami Well-Known Member

    1,385
    560
    113
    Oct 11, 2013
    These numbers are a little old as this chart is from an exercise I did last spring when I realized that point margins seem to be a good predictor of QB ability

    [TABLE="width: 500"]
    [TR]
    [TD] [TABLE]
    [TR]
    [TD="class: xl66"][/TD]
    [TD="class: xl66"][/TD]
    [TD="class: xl70, colspan: 2, align: center"]Tannehill[/TD]
    [TD="class: xl70, colspan: 2, align: center"]Wilson[/TD]
    [TD="class: xl71, width: 128, colspan: 2, align: center"]Brady[/TD]
    [TD="class: xl71, width: 128, colspan: 2, align: center"]Rodgers[/TD]
    [TD="class: xl71, width: 128, colspan: 2, align: center"]Manning[/TD]
    [TD="class: xl71, width: 128, colspan: 2, align: center"]Brees[/TD]
    [TD="class: xl71, width: 128, colspan: 2, align: center"]Bradford[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD="class: xl65, width: 105"]Split[/TD]
    [TD="class: xl65, width: 113"]Value[/TD]
    [TD="class: xl70"]Win %[/TD]
    [TD="class: xl65, width: 64"]Rate[/TD]
    [TD="class: xl70"]Win %[/TD]
    [TD="class: xl65, width: 64"]Rate[/TD]
    [TD="class: xl70"]Win %[/TD]
    [TD="class: xl65, width: 64"]Rate[/TD]
    [TD="class: xl70"]Win %[/TD]
    [TD="class: xl65, width: 64"]Rate[/TD]
    [TD="class: xl70"]Win %[/TD]
    [TD="class: xl65, width: 64"]Rate[/TD]
    [TD="class: xl70"]Win %[/TD]
    [TD="class: xl65, width: 64"]Rate[/TD]
    [TD="class: xl70"]Win %[/TD]
    [TD="class: xl65, width: 64"]Rate[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD="class: xl68, width: 105"]Final Margin[/TD]
    [TD="class: xl68, width: 113"]0-7 points[/TD]
    [TD="class: xl72"]47.8%[/TD]
    [TD="class: xl68, width: 64"]88.8[/TD]
    [TD="class: xl72"]54.2%[/TD]
    [TD="class: xl68, width: 64"]87.5[/TD]
    [TD="class: xl72"]69.9%[/TD]
    [TD="class: xl68, width: 64"]88[/TD]
    [TD="class: xl72"]51.1%[/TD]
    [TD="class: xl68, width: 64"]98.8[/TD]
    [TD="class: xl72"]64.5%[/TD]
    [TD="class: xl68, width: 64"]92[/TD]
    [TD="class: xl72"]52.2%[/TD]
    [TD="class: xl68, width: 64"]92.2[/TD]
    [TD="class: xl72"]42.1%[/TD]
    [TD="class: xl68, width: 64"]84.6[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD="class: xl68, width: 105"][/TD]
    [TD="class: xl68, width: 113"]8-14 points[/TD]
    [TD="class: xl72"]60.0%[/TD]
    [TD="class: xl68, width: 64"]81.8[/TD]
    [TD="class: xl72"]85.7%[/TD]
    [TD="class: xl68, width: 64"]106.7[/TD]
    [TD="class: xl72"]72.9%[/TD]
    [TD="class: xl68, width: 64"]87.2[/TD]
    [TD="class: xl72"]71.4%[/TD]
    [TD="class: xl68, width: 64"]101[/TD]
    [TD="class: xl72"]69.0%[/TD]
    [TD="class: xl68, width: 64"]95.6[/TD]
    [TD="class: xl72"]47.5%[/TD]
    [TD="class: xl68, width: 64"]82.3[/TD]
    [TD="class: xl72"]53.8%[/TD]
    [TD="class: xl68, width: 64"]80.6[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD="class: xl68, width: 105"][/TD]
    [TD="class: xl68, width: 113"]15+ points[/TD]
    [TD="class: xl72"]40.0%[/TD]
    [TD="class: xl68, width: 64"]77.9[/TD]
    [TD="class: xl72"]100.0%[/TD]
    [TD="class: xl68, width: 64"]114.4[/TD]
    [TD="class: xl72"]85.9%[/TD]
    [TD="class: xl68, width: 64"]111[/TD]
    [TD="class: xl72"]81.1%[/TD]
    [TD="class: xl68, width: 64"]120.8[/TD]
    [TD="class: xl72"]77.3%[/TD]
    [TD="class: xl68, width: 64"]106.3[/TD]
    [TD="class: xl72"]69.9%[/TD]
    [TD="class: xl68, width: 64"]107.7[/TD]
    [TD="class: xl72"]18.8%[/TD]
    [TD="class: xl68, width: 64"]71.4[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [/TABLE]
    [/TD]
    [TD][/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD][/TD]
    [TD][/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD][/TD]
    [TD][/TD]
    [/TR]
    [/TABLE]

    And Luck's numbers would be

    0-7 -- 74% -- 83 passer rating
    8-14 -- 29% -- 78 passer rating
    15+ -- 62% -- 90 passer rating

    So his stats are an anomaly compared to good or bad QBs but like all good QBs he is a winner in the blowout category and performs the best (his best passer rating) in the blowout category.
     
    Pauly and cbrad like this.
  2. roy_miami

    roy_miami Well-Known Member

    1,385
    560
    113
    Oct 11, 2013
    Having a good win percentage and a high passer rating in the 15+ category is a sure sign of good QB play but I don't know what to make of the 0-7 point numbers. For example Rivers has typical elite numbers in the 15+ category but is a loser in the 0-7 category, and it seems obvious that Rivers has been dealing with bad coaches for his entire career so is the 0-7 win% a coaching indicator? And Luck did have Bruce Ariens on staff who is imo a top 3 coach in the league at the very least.

    Or are the 0-7 numbers an indication of the "clutch intangible?" As an example Rodgers may be the best ever in a lot of categories but his one wart is he's not known to be great at the end of games. Then again I think McCarthy is overrated as a coach and is only considered a top coach because of Rodgers.
     
    Pauly likes this.
  3. roy_miami

    roy_miami Well-Known Member

    1,385
    560
    113
    Oct 11, 2013
    And one last point on why I believe elite QBs tend to have such dominating numbers in the 15+ category. Its because when they are at their best they put up massive points and don't tighten up at the end of games. Whereas when they are having bad games they still have the ability to keep the game close or are able scratch their way back to give themselves a fighting chance at the end.

    It may be one of the most powerful indicators in all of sport.
     
    Pauly likes this.
  4. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh Club Member

    72,252
    43,682
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Are these numbers cumulative over a career or were they for a one given year?
     
  5. roy_miami

    roy_miami Well-Known Member

    1,385
    560
    113
    Oct 11, 2013
    They are career numbers but like I said were compiled last spring. Luck's is up to date though.
     
    Pauly likes this.
  6. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    14,488
    8,397
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    So...for like four years, I've seen the anti-Tannehill crowd bash on Tannehill for good numbers in garbage time...but now we're celebrating Luck for it? In a blowout, whether winning out losing, it's still garbage time when the game is out of reach.
     
    Unlucky 13 likes this.
  7. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    8,697
    10,251
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Yeah I agree but that kind of critique applies to all stats. Look at TD's or INT's. What if a QB is arguably responsible for getting the team to the 1 yard line, but then they run it in? That happened with some Luck games I looked at. QB doesn't get credit. Or what if an INT was not because the QB threw it wrong but the WR messed up. etc..

    So you're right, but in most cases things tend to average out over time. In this case what you say probably happens to most QB's that don't play with good defenses, which happens to include Indy. But yes, one way to adjust GWD stats without looking at games in detail would be to see how they correlate to defensive rankings and remove the effect of the defense from those stats.
     
    Pauly likes this.
  8. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh Club Member

    72,252
    43,682
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Ok, then its obvious what the difference is.....surrounding team.
     
  9. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    8,697
    10,251
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Regarding the 15+ category, I'm assuming you didn't care about the sign (whether the final margin was positive or negative)? Reason I ask is because if you separated according to sign, the stats might not look like a mystery. That is, suppose you looked only at cases where the QB's team won by 15+ points, and separately looked at cases where the QB's team lost by 15+ points. I'm betting you see a HUGE correlation in passer rating.

    And if that's true, it takes away much of the mystery. If you win by 15+ points, then it just means the QB probably was facing a bad defense, more specifically a bad pass defense because YPA for passing correlates much more with winning than YPA for running (same with defense). Better QB's should be able to take better advantage of a bad pass defense than average QB's. And of course if you have a blowout loss, the opposite is true. Either the QB is bad and/or the pass defense was very good.

    So my guess is that the 15+ category isn't really a mystery and that you should separate not just by final margin, but the sign of the final margin.

    And yes I think the 0-7 numbers are one of many stats that quantify to some degree the idea of "clutch". Others are 4th quarter comebacks, GWD's, ratings while playing from behind in the last 2-4 minutes, and even 4th quarter ratings to some degree. None of these stats directly measure clutch, but if a QB has an abnormally high/low number relative to average, or he is above/below average on all/most of them, I think you can use that as evidence of the clutch intangible.
     
    resnor likes this.
  10. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh Club Member

    72,252
    43,682
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    No, but you could easily fix this. Just count not the win but putting your team ahead while you have meaningful time to win. So if if QB sits down with the lead and is done playing for the day, that counts. Problem solved.
     
  11. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    8,697
    10,251
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Yeah that fixes it for sure, but that requires looking at the game "in detail". I was thinking of what one could do if one just uses summary stats. In any case, valid point.
     
  12. Finster

    Finster Finsterious Finologist

    3,087
    2,038
    113
    Jul 27, 2013
    I think what he's pointing out, is that is very likely the case with Luck as well, as it was with Marino, and any team with a bad defense, iow, it's not just a QB17 stat.
     
  13. roy_miami

    roy_miami Well-Known Member

    1,385
    560
    113
    Oct 11, 2013
    The split just bunches all of the 15+ games together, you can look at how many were wins and losses but all of the other stats are totals for the split 15+
     
  14. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    14,488
    8,397
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Yeah, we know the split bunches them all together. That isn't smart though. One should expect the QB to have very good stats in games his team wins by 15+. QBs don't usually post stellar numbers in games that his team loses by 15+.
     
    Pauly and Unlucky 13 like this.
  15. roy_miami

    roy_miami Well-Known Member

    1,385
    560
    113
    Oct 11, 2013
    Not sure what your point is. Every QB with a low overall passer rating in the 15+ category would be considered not great QBs. Your Jay Cutlers, Matt Staffords and worse. Its not a coincidence.
     
    cbrad likes this.
  16. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    14,488
    8,397
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    How many of them have low ratings when their team is blowing out the other team? If your team is getting blown out, you should expect a low QB rating. Like, it's not a fair comparison, if your comparing QB A, who has had 8 15+ games, where 7 of them his team was ahead 15+, and QB B has had 16 15+ games, and 8 of them his team has been behind by 15+. One of those QBs will most likely have a much worse rating. The guy playing from behind has a much more difficult time, as they have to force passes deep to try to catch up before time runs out, while the guy up by 15+ can throw to whoever is open, regardless of yardage.

    This really isn't a hard concept. I think your trying to do more with the stat than you should be. You're trying to make it something it isn't.
     
    cuchulainn and cbrad like this.
  17. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    8,697
    10,251
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Yeah, the 15+ ratings depend on opponent, team and QB, so you should see correlations with each of those three.

    A simple example: Rivers is generally considered one of the better QB's and he has a career 109.4 rating for 15+ games: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/R/RivePh00/splits/

    However, last year when he played on a crappy team that went 4-12 (Rivers averaged 9.8 wins per season before that with the worst being 7 wins), his 15+ rating was 84.4: http://www.nfl.com/player/philiprivers/2506121/situationalstats

    Oh, and just to show it does depend on +15 or -15, in 2015 Rivers had a 102.9 rating in his only +15 game (against the sorry Dolphins!) but 65.7 and 81.2 ratings in his two -15 games.

    So that shows the effect of the team (and to a lesser degree the opponent) pretty clearly. Of course, the better the QB, the less likely you will be down by 15+ points, so it's true it's no coincidence that good QB's tend to have good 15+ ratings even when not separating by + or - 15.
     
    resnor likes this.
  18. roy_miami

    roy_miami Well-Known Member

    1,385
    560
    113
    Oct 11, 2013
    If you want to do something else with the stats you can fill your boots, but the fact of the matter is most, if not all good QBs have a good career passer rating in combined 15+ games. Its very simple, and effective.
     
  19. Pauly

    Pauly Season Ticket Holder

    3,378
    3,376
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    To me this sort of sounds like a prosecutor's fallacy. [For those who don"t know about this, a simple version: Some one is a arrested for a crime. DNA from the crime scene says there is a in an million chance that a random person would have that DNA. The accused has that DNA, therefore there's a one in a million chance that the police arrested the wrong person. However since there are 300 million people in the USA randomly selecting one of that group only gives you a 1 in 300 chance of the police arresting the right man]

    Whilst the odds of Andrew Luck in particular randomly getting a massively positive W-L record in 0-7 point games is extremely low, there have been enough QBs playing the game over the last 80 something years that makes it almost inevitable that at least one QB would generate such a record simply by blind chance.

    A QB's wins in their record in 0-7 games is going to end up very similar to their GWD stats. So GWD and record in 0-7 games aren't measuring two separate things they're measuring very similar things.

    I still want to see more evidence, maybe it requires examining individual game logs, that Luck has been the cause of Indy's record.
     
  20. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    14,488
    8,397
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    I don't want to do anything with it. YOU brought this stat up, as if it meant something. Grouping wins and losses by 15+ together tells us nothing. Show me a QB who has a consistently good rating in games where his team is getting blown out, I think you probably have a decent QB.

    All this being said, if a team is routinely getting beat by 15+, then that is a poor team, and one should further expect the QBs rating to be lower. He has dog waste around him.

    Again, the stat really doesn't really show anything. I'd anything, it's more of a coincidence, at least as you're presenting. Not to mention, it starts to steer back to wins/losses being on the QB (at least as you're using it), not the team, which I highly disagree with.
     
  21. Pauly

    Pauly Season Ticket Holder

    3,378
    3,376
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    Going by their records.
    Combined 98-126
    5 against teams with winning records
    9 against teams with losing records.
    0 against 8-8 teams.

    Basically in line with what I predicted about it easier to get GWDs against teams with Bad D, BAd QB or both.
     
    cbrad and resnor like this.
  22. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    14,488
    8,397
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Also, did you compile stats on every QB, or just a few? How many years did you go back? You compiled these stats yourself, correct?
     
  23. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    8,697
    10,251
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Well, let's calculate the probability of one of these 181 QB's having made a 19-4 run (or better), going with the pre-injury stat. These QB's all satisfy certain minimum conditions so it's a good list:
    http://www.pro-football-reference.com/leaders/pass_rating_career.htm

    Back to the binomial theorem. Assuming the league average probability for close games is 0.5, then the probability of any single QB making a 19-4 run or better is 0.13%, and the probability of at least one of 181 QB's making a 19-4 run or better is 20.98%. So it's pretty unlikely for any QB over the entire history of the NFL to have done that (4:1 odds against).

    Actually, the real odds are arguably worse than those I just calculated because the calculation assumes you just randomly choose 23 close games and that 19 of them are wins. The math doesn't include any assumption about whether those games were consecutive games. Of course we all know that if you can do something consistently for 3 years in a row it's a lot harder than if you don't.

    Anyway, 21% probability at least one QB did what Luck did in NFL history.. I think that's decent statistical evidence what he did isn't a fluke.
     
  24. Pauly

    Pauly Season Ticket Holder

    3,378
    3,376
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    pro football reference and excel have been my friends this off season.

    It isn't a systematic attempt to analyse the NFL, just digging up some interesting rabbit holes.
     
  25. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    8,697
    10,251
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Yeah, but let's be fair. For teams that are slightly worse than your team, I think you are right that it's easier to get GWD's. But for teams that are MUCH worse than yours, you are less likely to get GWD's, and the fact Luck had so few against AFC South teams (your original argument) supports that claim.

    To insert some stats into the argument (for the moment just from the AFC South), from 2012-2014 Indy had 8 blowouts and 2 close (one-score) game against teams in the AFC South that won at most 4 games. But against teams in the AFC South that won at least 6 games, that stat was 2 blowouts and 6 close games. Point is, GWD's are much less likely against bottom-feeder teams.
     
  26. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    14,488
    8,397
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    I guess what I'm getting at, is that without looking at a number of years, for all QBs in 15+ blowouts, he has no way of knowing if his data is accurate at all.

    It's actually much more suspect since he didn't do multiple years for all QBs. He might find bad QBs who put up good ratings in blowouts.
     
  27. roy_miami

    roy_miami Well-Known Member

    1,385
    560
    113
    Oct 11, 2013
    It shows you nothing because you refuse to open your eyes and see anything that might show Tannehill in a negative light. If something is shown to be true a high percentage of the time most normal people would see the usefulness. Not Tannehill fans though. Its called correlation.

    These are the stats for the 15+ split for all active QBs with at least 48 starts, nothing seems too out of place. Dalton might be high, Eli might be low but other than that its a believable ranking (besides Tannehill not being ranked top 5 LDO)

    [TABLE="width: 500"]
    [TR]
    [TD] [TABLE]
    [TR]
    [TD="class: xl66"]rank[/TD]
    [TD="class: xl66"]name[/TD]
    [TD="class: xl66, width: 64"]wins[/TD]
    [TD="class: xl66, width: 64"]losses[/TD]
    [TD="class: xl66, width: 64"]win %[/TD]
    [TD="class: xl66, width: 64"]rating[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD="align: right"]1[/TD]
    [TD]Russell Wilson[/TD]
    [TD="align: right"]24[/TD]
    [TD="align: right"]0[/TD]
    [TD="class: xl65, align: right"]100.0%[/TD]
    [TD="align: right"]119[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD="align: right"]2[/TD]
    [TD]Tom Brady[/TD]
    [TD="align: right"]73[/TD]
    [TD="align: right"]11[/TD]
    [TD="class: xl65, align: right"]86.9%[/TD]
    [TD="align: right"]112[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD="align: right"]3[/TD]
    [TD]Philip Rivers[/TD]
    [TD="align: right"]37[/TD]
    [TD="align: right"]10[/TD]
    [TD="class: xl65, align: right"]78.7%[/TD]
    [TD="align: right"]109[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD="align: right"]4[/TD]
    [TD]Aaron Rodgers[/TD]
    [TD="align: right"]32[/TD]
    [TD="align: right"]9[/TD]
    [TD="class: xl65, align: right"]78.0%[/TD]
    [TD="align: right"]117[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD="align: right"]5[/TD]
    [TD]Ben Roethlisberger[/TD]
    [TD="align: right"]41[/TD]
    [TD="align: right"]12[/TD]
    [TD="class: xl65, align: right"]77.4%[/TD]
    [TD="align: right"]105[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD="align: right"]6[/TD]
    [TD]Andy Dalton[/TD]
    [TD="align: right"]18[/TD]
    [TD="align: right"]6[/TD]
    [TD="class: xl65, align: right"]75.0%[/TD]
    [TD="align: right"]96[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD="align: right"]7[/TD]
    [TD]Joe Flacco[/TD]
    [TD="align: right"]27[/TD]
    [TD="align: right"]9[/TD]
    [TD="class: xl65, align: right"]75.0%[/TD]
    [TD="align: right"]94[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD="align: right"]8[/TD]
    [TD]Drew Brees[/TD]
    [TD="align: right"]51[/TD]
    [TD="align: right"]25[/TD]
    [TD="class: xl65, align: right"]67.1%[/TD]
    [TD="align: right"]106[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD="align: right"]9[/TD]
    [TD]Tony Romo[/TD]
    [TD="align: right"]30[/TD]
    [TD="align: right"]17[/TD]
    [TD="class: xl65, align: right"]63.8%[/TD]
    [TD="align: right"]99[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD="align: right"]10[/TD]
    [TD]Matt Ryan[/TD]
    [TD="align: right"]19[/TD]
    [TD="align: right"]11[/TD]
    [TD="class: xl65, align: right"]63.3%[/TD]
    [TD="align: right"]96[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD="align: right"]11[/TD]
    [TD]Andrew Luck[/TD]
    [TD="align: right"]13[/TD]
    [TD="align: right"]8[/TD]
    [TD="class: xl65, align: right"]61.9%[/TD]
    [TD="align: right"]90[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD="align: right"]12[/TD]
    [TD]Cam Newton[/TD]
    [TD="align: right"]18[/TD]
    [TD="align: right"]12[/TD]
    [TD="class: xl65, align: right"]60.0%[/TD]
    [TD="align: right"]93[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD="align: right"]13[/TD]
    [TD]Alex Smith[/TD]
    [TD="align: right"]26[/TD]
    [TD="align: right"]20[/TD]
    [TD="class: xl65, align: right"]56.5%[/TD]
    [TD="align: right"]86[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD="align: right"]14[/TD]
    [TD]Michael Vick[/TD]
    [TD="align: right"]25[/TD]
    [TD="align: right"]20[/TD]
    [TD="class: xl65, align: right"]55.6%[/TD]
    [TD="align: right"]77[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD="align: right"]15[/TD]
    [TD]Matt Hasselbeck[/TD]
    [TD="align: right"]44[/TD]
    [TD="align: right"]42[/TD]
    [TD="class: xl65, align: right"]51.2%[/TD]
    [TD="align: right"]80[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD="align: right"]16[/TD]
    [TD]Carson Palmer[/TD]
    [TD="align: right"]21[/TD]
    [TD="align: right"]21[/TD]
    [TD="class: xl65, align: right"]50.0%[/TD]
    [TD="align: right"]84[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD="align: right"]17[/TD]
    [TD]Mark Sanchez[/TD]
    [TD="align: right"]16[/TD]
    [TD="align: right"]16[/TD]
    [TD="class: xl65, align: right"]50.0%[/TD]
    [TD="align: right"]75[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD="align: right"]18[/TD]
    [TD]Matthew Stafford[/TD]
    [TD="align: right"]10[/TD]
    [TD="align: right"]10[/TD]
    [TD="class: xl65, align: right"]50.0%[/TD]
    [TD="align: right"]84[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD="align: right"]19[/TD]
    [TD]Matt Cassel[/TD]
    [TD="align: right"]24[/TD]
    [TD="align: right"]25[/TD]
    [TD="class: xl65, align: right"]49.0%[/TD]
    [TD="align: right"]77[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD="align: right"]20[/TD]
    [TD]Eli Manning[/TD]
    [TD="align: right"]32[/TD]
    [TD="align: right"]35[/TD]
    [TD="class: xl65, align: right"]47.8%[/TD]
    [TD="align: right"]77[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD="align: right"]21[/TD]
    [TD]Jay Cutler[/TD]
    [TD="align: right"]21[/TD]
    [TD="align: right"]24[/TD]
    [TD="class: xl65, align: right"]46.7%[/TD]
    [TD="align: right"]84[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD="align: right"]22[/TD]
    [TD]Matt Schaub[/TD]
    [TD="align: right"]21[/TD]
    [TD="align: right"]25[/TD]
    [TD="class: xl65, align: right"]45.7%[/TD]
    [TD="align: right"]81[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD="align: right"]23[/TD]
    [TD]Ryan Fitzpatrick[/TD]
    [TD="align: right"]16[/TD]
    [TD="align: right"]22[/TD]
    [TD="class: xl65, align: right"]42.1%[/TD]
    [TD="align: right"]78[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD="align: right"]24[/TD]
    [TD]Ryan Tannehill[/TD]
    [TD="align: right"]8[/TD]
    [TD="align: right"]14[/TD]
    [TD="class: xl65, align: right"]36.4%[/TD]
    [TD="align: right"]82[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD="align: right"]25[/TD]
    [TD]Sam Bradford[/TD]
    [TD="align: right"]5[/TD]
    [TD="align: right"]14[/TD]
    [TD="class: xl65, align: right"]26.3%[/TD]
    [TD="align: right"]73[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD="align: right"]26[/TD]
    [TD]Josh McCown[/TD]
    [TD="align: right"]7[/TD]
    [TD="align: right"]24[/TD]
    [TD="class: xl65, align: right"]22.6%[/TD]
    [TD="align: right"]79[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD="align: right"]27[/TD]
    [TD]Chad Henne[/TD]
    [TD="align: right"]3[/TD]
    [TD="align: right"]20[/TD]
    [TD="class: xl65, align: right"]13.0%[/TD]
    [TD="align: right"]71[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [/TABLE]
    [/TD]
    [TD][/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD][/TD]
    [TD][/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD][/TD]
    [TD][/TD]
    [/TR]
    [/TABLE]
     
    Fin-O likes this.
  28. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    14,488
    8,397
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Dude, just stop with that garbage. Stop trying to start crap.

    I mean, look at your list. Sanchez is higher than Tannehill. It's meaningless. Why 48 starts? This isn't a list where you should be excluding stuff. Look at your top 10. Almost all, if not actually all, are QBs on good TEAMS. Further, how many of the "good"ones were in more blowout losses than blowout wins?

    You're so caught up on proving Tannehill isn't good, that you are blind to what I'm saying. I don't care if Tannehill is or isn't the answer. What I've always argued against, and I've said it many times, are the criticisms of Tannehill for stuff that isn't is fault, or the double standard people on here use when discussing Tannehill as compared to other QBs. Your list is meaningless unless you actually show blowout wins as compared to blowout losses.

    Like I said, an hypothetical QB who is on a bad team and only has blowout losses is almost always going to look worse than a QB who is in a good team always in blowout wins. I wouldn't be in the least surprised if average QBs on a good/great team would look better than good/great QBs on bad teams, based on how your stats are compiled.
     
    Fin D likes this.
  29. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    14,488
    8,397
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    For instance, what is Tannehill rated in blowout wins? What is he rated in blowout losses? How many blowout wins has he been in? Losses? Is it easier for your number one, Wilson, to have blowout wins, as compared to Tannehill, when his defense has been holding teams to an average of 16 points for almost his entire career?

    I'm not disputing your list because I think Tannehill is awesome. I'm disputing it because I think your methodology and premise are faulty.
     
    Fin D likes this.
  30. roy_miami

    roy_miami Well-Known Member

    1,385
    560
    113
    Oct 11, 2013
    You only think its faulty because Sanchez is higher than Tannehill and Wilson is at the top. Why don't you show some actual evidence as to why its faulty besides your biased opinion. Besides, if you filter for rating Tannehill would be a tier higher and above Sanchez.
     
  31. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    14,488
    8,397
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    No, dude. I used Sanchez as an example. I also used Wilson as an example. Your little chart doesn't factor in the team aspect of the game. Again, it's QB responsible for wins and losses, which is total bull****.

    You don't like Tannehill, never have. You've created a chart, which you believe to be indefensible for those who don't have an issue with Tannehill, but the problem is, your methodology is flawed.

    You absolutely need to differentiate between wins and losses. It's very telling that instead of addressing the issues I bring up, you resort to essentially calling me a Tannehill lover, and accuse me of being blind.


    LMAO
     
    Fin D likes this.
  32. roy_miami

    roy_miami Well-Known Member

    1,385
    560
    113
    Oct 11, 2013
    I don't understand your issues. Whenever a stat makes Tannehill look less than great its "a team stat," or "its somebody else's fault," or "I don't like those results, try a different method."

    I accomplished my goal and using only one obscure stat I think I created what many would consider to be a pretty accurate QB ranking. I have no idea why you think splitting wins and losses would help me accomplish what I want to accomplish but if you think it would create a more accurate ranking then do it yourself and we can compare.
     
  33. roy_miami

    roy_miami Well-Known Member

    1,385
    560
    113
    Oct 11, 2013
    Using nothing but a silly stat sorted for passer rating it spits out this for tiers:

    100+
    [TABLE]
    [TR]
    [TD="width: 175"]Russell Wilson[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]Aaron Rodgers[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]Tom Brady[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]Philip Rivers[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]Drew Brees[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]Ben Roethlisberger

    90-100
    [TABLE]
    [TR]
    [TD="width: 175"]Tony Romo[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]Andy Dalton[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]Matt Ryan[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]Joe Flacco[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]Cam Newton[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]Andrew Luck[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [/TABLE]
    [/TD]
    [/TR]
    [/TABLE]

    80-90
    [TABLE]
    [TR]
    [TD="width: 175"]Alex Smith[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]Carson Palmer[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]Matthew Stafford[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]Jay Cutler[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]Ryan Tannehill[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]Matt Schaub[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]Matt Hasselbeck[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [/TABLE]

    70-80
    [TABLE]
    [TR]
    [TD="width: 175"]Josh McCown[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]Ryan Fitzpatrick[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]Michael Vick[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]Matt Cassel[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]Eli Manning[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]Mark Sanchez[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]Sam Bradford[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]Chad Henne[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [/TABLE]

    Tannehill fan: worthless stat...
     
  34. Fin-O

    Fin-O Initiated Club Member

    10,971
    10,694
    113
    Sep 28, 2015

    I hope at this point you basically knew this before you posted your stats.....not like these guys are going to give any credence to any post that doesn't "make it okay" that Ryan has been a subpar QB thus far.
     
  35. Pauly

    Pauly Season Ticket Holder

    3,378
    3,376
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    Roy what you've done is pretty helpful, although it to me kind of highlights why the rating in 14+ games is kind of meaningless stat. There is a strong correlation between rating and the win%.
    Also as discussed in other threads there is a positive correlation between QB rating and your game position i.e. you can play safe football with a lead and you have to play risky football when behind.

    Tannehill's rating is in line with what you'd expect. Although I'd like to plot the trend line. My eyeball of the figures is that Tannehill's passer rating is about 5 -7 points higher than the hypothetical average NFL QB would have with a 36 win% in blowouts.
     
    resnor likes this.
  36. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh Club Member

    72,252
    43,682
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    I didn't say nor imply it was a Thill stat. I said the 4th quarter comebacks numbers aren't really indicative of what they are being used for, because a defense can lose a game. I then gave an option that would more accurately show what people are looking for and the person I was talking too, agreed.
     
    eltos_lightfoot and resnor like this.
  37. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    14,488
    8,397
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    It's.
    Not.
    About.
    Tannehill.

    For you, it may be. I don't know, I'm not inside your head. FOR ME, your chart is fundamentally flawed. I've given you my reasons already, but you continue to act like my only reason is that Tannehill is to low on the chart.

    1. Does not differentiate between wins and losses.
    2. Does not take into account team (the top 10 of your list are all on good/great teams).
    3. Did not look at all QBs, and didn't go for multiple years.

    Those are my issues with it. It has zero to do with where you rank Tannehill. I'm not going to rank anyone. You posted your made up chart, then got upset when I pointed out flaws. Frankly, of course it does what you wanted. You had a goal, then you restricted the data in certain ways to get what you wanted. Not very scientific.
     
    eltos_lightfoot and Fin D like this.
  38. roy_miami

    roy_miami Well-Known Member

    1,385
    560
    113
    Oct 11, 2013
    I understand all that but the bottom line is the stat produces an accurate representation of how your average non-biased guru would rank the QBs in the league today, especially if you exclude Wilson and Tannehill from the ranking.

    I've seen many an "expert" say that according to their expert eyes Wilson is nothing special, as late as the first half of last season even. The stat disagreed. The stat was right. So whats more useless, the stat or the eyes?

    Last offseason many had Luck in their top 5 while Wilson was generally in the 10 to 15 range. That made no sense to me and felt it should have been reversed. The stat agreed with me. The stat (and I) was right. I think the stat has Luck exactly where he should be, next to Matt Ryan, Cam Newton. I think the stat has Tannehill is in the right grouping with Cutler and Stafford.

    The stat hates Eli. Incidentally I think Eli is Tannehill's ceiling, which is a player you can win a championship with (as long as he's as good as Eli in the postseason) but overall it will be a frustrating, up and down tenure.
     
  39. roy_miami

    roy_miami Well-Known Member

    1,385
    560
    113
    Oct 11, 2013
    Of course all of the top QBs also coincidentally have the top teams. I forgot that in your world all QBs are equal and their play never deviates from week to week.
     
  40. Fin-O

    Fin-O Initiated Club Member

    10,971
    10,694
    113
    Sep 28, 2015
    I've said this before and it still speaks volumes.

    Ryan has very little to do with the teams W's and L's. This can be sustainable with a better supporting cast. He does not elevate his team nor does he let them down. He is just a plain ole avg guy to the definition at this point.

    Adam Gase is the most important man in Ryan's life right now, if he can elevate him then he will be our QB for a long time. If he is just average ole Ryan again this year?? Time to move on.
     

Share This Page