Comparing Tannehill to Luck,

"roy_miami wrote:

I know in the modern era no good/great QB has a losing record over any 64 game stretch. No good/great QB has failed to make the playoffs in any of their first 4 seasons. So in that respect the deck is stacked severely against Tannehill. I don't know if the same can be said of individual passing stats, and as others have said the league is changing at such a pace that it would probably be impossible to research.

And on top of that, besides Manning doing it twice, I don't know of any incumbent QB having success with a new coach after the previous coach had been fired. It seems like the value of a fresh start for both QB and team can not be overstated.

The one thing Tannehill has going for him is the overall talent level at the position seems to be on the decline. Tannehill is a medium sized fish in the pond right now but as the giants like Brady, Brees, Roethlisberger, Rivers, Romo, and even the above average fish like Palmer, and Eli Manning start disappearing then maybe Tannehill becomes one of the bigger fish just by attrition.

No QB has ever succeeded with a **** oline, **** coaching, an abandoned running game and not being allowed to audible.

"Pauly wrote:

Indy's team record against the AFC South has me bugged. I will happily say that Luck's 111 passer rating in 2014 is a big part of them going 6-0 against the AFC south that year.

I'll leave out 2015 because that was just one game.

2012.
Luck passing: 109 of 199 for 1410 yards. 8 TDs. 5 Ints. 80.2 rating
54.8% completions. 7.1 ypa
29 rushes for 107 yards. 2 TDs

AFC South Defenses. Average 87.8 passer rating allowed.
AFC South QBs season average rating: 80.1

Indy's record. 4-2.

2013
Passing: 124 of 212 for 1422 yards. 8TDs, 3 Ints. 85.5 rating
58.5% completions. 6.7 ypa.
Rushing. 23 attempts for 135 yards. 1 TD

AFC South Defenses. 91.2 passer rating allowed.
AFC South QBs season average: 76.4
Indy's record. 6-0

I couldn't find team by team sacks allowed without going intothe game logs (Too much work for me) So I don't have data to say whether Luck was abnormally better at escaping sacks than a regular QB against those defenses or not.

Bit over 2 seasons Indy went 10-2 against the AFC South despite Luck performing worse than an average NFL QB would against those defenses.

Can someone explain why Luck is the reason why Indy went 10-2 in those games? What I have missed?

His "clutchy franchizey ityness".

"cbrad wrote:

I think it's important to point out precisely why that matters. Being a medium sized fish in the pond means you're still a medium sized fish regardless of whether there are big sized fish or not. Where you rank relative to others isn't important compared to how much you help the team win.

However.. if the big fish start disappearing, then that lowers the quality of the competition. So the reason what you said is important is because attrition should decrease the strength of the competition.

Mahomes.. D-Watson..Wentz..Mariota..Winston..Goff...more big fish comin.

"Pauly wrote:

Indy's team record against the AFC South has me bugged. I will happily say that Luck's 111 passer rating in 2014 is a big part of them going 6-0 against the AFC south that year.

I'll leave out 2015 because that was just one game.

2012.
Luck passing: 109 of 199 for 1410 yards. 8 TDs. 5 Ints. 80.2 rating
54.8% completions. 7.1 ypa
29 rushes for 107 yards. 2 TDs

AFC South Defenses. Average 87.8 passer rating allowed.
AFC South QBs season average rating: 80.1

Indy's record. 4-2.

2013
Passing: 124 of 212 for 1422 yards. 8TDs, 3 Ints. 85.5 rating
58.5% completions. 6.7 ypa.
Rushing. 23 attempts for 135 yards. 1 TD

AFC South Defenses. 91.2 passer rating allowed.
AFC South QBs season average: 76.4
Indy's record. 6-0

I couldn't find team by team sacks allowed without going intothe game logs (Too much work for me) So I don't have data to say whether Luck was abnormally better at escaping sacks than a regular QB against those defenses or not.

Bit over 2 seasons Indy went 10-2 against the AFC South despite Luck performing worse than an average NFL QB would against those defenses.

Can someone explain why Luck is the reason why Indy went 10-2 in those games? What I have missed?

Maybe the question is wrong. Not sure what everyone else said but my position on Luck is that he is one important reason why Indy went 11-5 three years in a row. That doesn't mean he had to be equally important in beating division teams vs. non-division teams.

As I showed earlier, there is evidence division winners play better against division teams than non-division teams. That means you might not need a difference-maker as much in those situations. Look at Indy's games vs. division teams in 2012 and 2013. You will see many are blowouts. 3 out of 6 in both 2012 and 2013 were decided by more than one TD. In 2014 it was 4 out of 6. Basically that means you don't always need Luck to be the difference-maker.

Here's a stat that really stands out about Luck: in 2012 and 2013 he won 14 out of 16 games that were decided by one score or less (13 of them by 7 points or less and one by 8). 14-2 in one-score games?!? That is unbelievable because normally you see closer to 50% there for most starting QB's.

That's suggestive of Luck rising up to the challenge when he's needed most. Point is, the question shouldn't be why Luck was responsible for helping to beat other AFC South teams. Not sure if anyone is pressing that argument anyway. The question should be the original one of why his teams went 11-5 three years in a row, and there are some stats that help support the argument Luck was instrumental in that.

And one such stat (other than the 14-2 in one-score games) is game winning drives. Luck had 7 GWD's in 2012 and 4 in 2013. Even Brady had only one year in his career when he had 7 GWD's.

"dolphin25 wrote:

not really, he just regurgitated words and formations, that doesn't mean he understands what they are designed to do nor an understanding of the defense.

Do you have anything to support your wet toilet paper stance or are you just a troll?

"cbrad wrote:

Maybe the question is wrong. Not sure what everyone else said but my position on Luck is that he is one important reason why Indy went 11-5 three years in a row. That doesn't mean he had to be equally important in beating division teams vs. non-division teams.

As I showed earlier, there is evidence division winners play better against division teams than non-division teams. That means you might not need a difference-maker as much in those situations. Look at Indy's games vs. division teams in 2012 and 2013. You will see many are blowouts. 3 out of 6 in both 2012 and 2013 were decided by more than one TD. In 2014 it was 4 out of 6. Basically that means you don't always need Luck to be the difference-maker.

Here's a stat that really stands out about Luck: in 2012 and 2013 he won 14 out of 16 games that were decided by one score or less (13 of them by 7 points or less and one by 8). 14-2 in one-score games?!? That is unbelievable because normally you see closer to 50% there for most starting QB's.

That's suggestive of Luck rising up to the challenge when he's needed most. Point is, the question shouldn't be why Luck was responsible for helping to beat other AFC South teams. Not sure if anyone is pressing that argument anyway. The question should be the original one of why his teams went 11-5 three years in a row, and there are some stats that help support the argument Luck was instrumental in that.

And one such stat (other than the 14-2 in one-score games) is game winning drives. Luck had 7 GWD's in 2012 and 4 in 2013. Even Brady had only one year in his career when he had 7 GWD's.

Looking at records in 0-7 games.

For example Chad Pennington went 7-2 in 2008, but his overall career record is 22-23. Which suggests, to me, that his record in '08 was a statistical outlier.

In 2012/13 Luck went 14-2, but in 2014/15 Luck went 6-5. His record in 14/15 is consistent with an outlier coming back to the mean. If he has some special ability in close games then why did it disappear in 14/15?

The major reason why people have a high opinion of Luck is Indy's record (a) against the AFC South and (B) in 0-7 point games in 2012 and 2013. Every time I slice the data I have a lot of difficulty coming up with a convincing explanation that Luck was a major part in the better than expected W-L record when his statistical performance as a QB wasn't as good as an average NFL QB would have done.

"Pauly wrote:

Looking at records in 0-7 games.

For example Chad Pennington went 7-2 in 2008, but his overall career record is 22-23. Which suggests, to me, that his record in '08 was a statistical outlier.

In 2012/13 Luck went 14-2, but in 2014/15 Luck went 6-5. His record in 14/15 is consistent with an outlier coming back to the mean. If he has some special ability in close games then why did it disappear in 14/15?

The major reason why people have a high opinion of Luck is Indy's record (a) against the AFC South and (B) in 0-7 point games in 2012 and 2013. Every time I slice the data I have a lot of difficulty coming up with a convincing explanation that Luck was a major part in the better than expected W-L record when his statistical performance as a QB wasn't as good as an average NFL QB would have done.

"consistent with an outlier coming back to a mean", yes, but what is the mean? As far as we know the mean is his overall record in such games, which is 20-7. Who knows if that was luck or Luck (probably both) but that's the data we have. If that was real (it was Luck), then that is more than enough reason to argue Luck contributed to the 11-5 record in an important way.

So what happened in 2014 and 2015? Well first of all, he was 4-2 in 2014 and 2-3 in 2015. 2014 fits perfectly in with the idea Luck's abilities in close games is above average. In 2015, he was 1-3 AFTER the injury, which is a good reason why one shouldn't compare 2012-2013 vs. 2014-2015, but should instead compare pre-injury vs. post-injury. Pre-injury Luck is 19-4 in one-score games which is astounding and probably reflective of something real because that's over a 3 year span.

In any case, note that the 14-2 alone in 2012-2013 could explain the 11-5 record over an 8-8 record because you have 3 extra wins per season due to that.

"cbrad wrote:

And one such stat (other than the 14-2 in one-score games) is game winning drives. Luck had 7 GWD's in 2012 and 4 in 2013. Even Brady had only one year in his career when he had 7 GWD's.

If you are facing a disproportionate number of games against teams with bad defenses, bad QBs, or both bad QB and bad defense (i.e. the AFC South) shouldn't a QB register a disproportionate number of GWDs?

It will be easier for your QB to score in any given drive and it will be harder for the opposing team to score back and regain the lead against you.

"Pauly wrote:

If you are facing a disproportionate number of games against teams with bad defenses, bad QBs, or both bad QB and bad defense (i.e. the AFC South) shouldn't a QB register a disproportionate number of GWDs?

It will be easier for your QB to score in any given drive and it will be harder for the opposing team to score back and regain the lead against you.

I'd think it's the opposite. Imagine the NE Patriots playing a season against only weak college teams. How many game winning drives do you think they would have?

None!

GWD's have to occur in the 4th quarter or OT by definition.

So the fact Luck had so many GWD's is even MORE impressive given that the AFC South was so weak. He got most against non-division teams: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/play-index/comeback.cgi?player=LuckAn00

"cbrad wrote:

I'd think it's the opposite. Imagine the NE Patriots playing a season against only weak college teams. How many game winning drives do you think they would have?

None!

GWD's have to occur in the 4th quarter or OT by definition.

So the fact Luck had so many GWD's is even MORE impressive given that the AFC South was so weak. He got most against non-division teams: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/play-index/comeback.cgi?player=LuckAn00

Right, but GWD have to happen at the right time in the 4th to count.

A QB can move the ball down the field and score to put his team on top, only to have the defense to lose it again in the next drive. Now there's not enough time for the offense to score again. Game over.

Those should count and they don't. Its happened to Thill a few times and he clearly gets knocked for it.

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

Tannehill
Wilson
Brady
Rodgers
Manning
Brees
Bradford


Split
Value
Win %
Rate
Win %
Rate
Win %
Rate
Win %
Rate
Win %
Rate
Win %
Rate
Win %
Rate


Final Margin
0-7 points
47.8%
88.8
54.2%
87.5
69.9%
88
51.1%
98.8
64.5%
92
52.2%
92.2
42.1%
84.6



8-14 points
60.0%
81.8
85.7%
106.7
72.9%
87.2
71.4%
101
69.0%
95.6
47.5%
82.3
53.8%
80.6



15+ points
40.0%
77.9
100.0%
114.4
85.9%
111
81.1%
120.8
77.3%
106.3
69.9%
107.7
18.8%
71.4

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.

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.

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.

"roy_miami wrote:

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

Tannehill
Wilson
Brady
Rodgers
Manning
Brees
Bradford


Split
Value
Win %
Rate
Win %
Rate
Win %
Rate
Win %
Rate
Win %
Rate
Win %
Rate
Win %
Rate


Final Margin
0-7 points
47.8%
88.8
54.2%
87.5
69.9%
88
51.1%
98.8
64.5%
92
52.2%
92.2
42.1%
84.6



8-14 points
60.0%
81.8
85.7%
106.7
72.9%
87.2
71.4%
101
69.0%
95.6
47.5%
82.3
53.8%
80.6



15+ points
40.0%
77.9
100.0%
114.4
85.9%
111
81.1%
120.8
77.3%
106.3
69.9%
107.7
18.8%
71.4

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.

Are these numbers cumulative over a career or were they for a one given year?

"Fin D wrote:

Are these numbers cumulative over a career or were they for a one given year?

They are career numbers but like I said were compiled last spring. Luck's is up to date though.

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.

"Fin D wrote:

Right, but GWD have to happen at the right time in the 4th to count.

A QB can move the ball down the field and score to put his team on top, only to have the defense to lose it again in the next drive. Now there's not enough time for the offense to score again. Game over.

Those should count and they don't. Its happened to Thill a few times and he clearly gets knocked for it.

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.

"roy_miami wrote:

They are career numbers but like I said were compiled last spring. Luck's is up to date though.

Ok, then its obvious what the difference is.....surrounding team.

"roy_miami wrote:

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.

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.

"cbrad wrote:

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.

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.

"Fin D wrote:

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.

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.

"Fin D wrote:

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.

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.

"cbrad wrote:

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.

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+

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+.

"resnor wrote:

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+.

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.