https://brickwallblitz.wordpress.co...-is-the-nfls-most-underrated-quarterback/amp/ ...
Page 1 of 5
-
No, I didn't write that article.
But the author may have been reading posts from FinD and myself from the past few years.Rocky Raccoon, djphinfan, Bpk and 4 others like this. -
-
If Tannehill can get better on 3rd down, this team will be special.
Dolphin North and Bpk like this. -
This article supports the point that I've been trying get across to people, "Gase fixed the situation around Tannehill" rather than Tannehill made some monumental jump. Tannehill just continued his steady progression.
miami365, Tin Indian, Rocky Raccoon and 8 others like this. -
If Chad Henne had two great Guards he'd of been Joe Flacco.
Remember kids, when you fail in life the right thing to do is to blame others..it's how you stay average to below average in life.
Anyhow, Ryan however is not like that. He has continued to work his *** off and improve every season. No reason to believe he won't be a top 10 QB finally in 2017.
Go PhinsKeyFin, Tin Indian, danmarino and 1 other person like this. -
I think the author is completely wrong.
Wilson and Luck are not yet generational greats. Wilson could be as long as last year was a down year. Luck can be if he improves. But they're not there yet. By a few years at least.dolphin25, Tin Indian, Bpk and 3 others like this. -
I agree there was no monumental jump. He got a little better. The run game was more effective. Key moments from Tanny and the team, and the win total improved from 8-8 in 2014 to 10-6.
This year, we get the feeling Gase is going to open it back up a little, and get back to what he wants to run. Remember ludicrous speed from last summer? They want to run that. So it'll be interesting to see how the unit responds to that. Year 2 in the system, familiarity with everything is going to help. Tanny is smart, hard working, and has the all the necessary physical skills.Last edited: Jun 18, 2017 -
Not a bad article, some of things I agree with...however as often happens with these blogs they are centered around hyping up the column. I mean, he talked Ryan up like he is an outstanding QB then says he see's no reason he can't be a "borderline top 10 QB"?? Hell i give him more credit than that? i just simply use a much more straight forward approach as to why he will get there.
This narrative however that Ryan hasn't improved its just his surroundings is really doing a disservice to not only Gase (who ironically must not have improved Tebow or Cutler either) but to Ryan himself who has been a notorious hard worker and has finally starting to see some of it pay off with the advantages Gase presents.Tin Indian and jdang307 like this. -
Average adjusted regular season passer rating points per year (minimum 6 games started) above 2016 mean:
Aaron Rodgers = 21.4
Peyton Manning = 17.1
Tom Brady = 16.5
Dan Marino = 15.2
Russell Wilson = 13.8
Philip Rivers = 12.2
Ben Roethlisberger = 12.2
Of course as you point out Wilson has only had 5 years so we'll see, but point is Wilson is below those top 4 names which for me are the only true generational greats on that list.
What about Luck and Tannehill?
Andrew Luck = 0.1
Ryan Tannehill = 0.3
So Luck and Tannehill are not even in the conversation for generational greats and basically over their 5 year careers have been performing average. That should change over time to slightly above average because rookie years and that disastrous 2015 season for Luck will be weighted less. -
I didn't want to come off as anti-Tannehill so I didn't mention, but the author talks out of both sides of his mouth. I don't agree with the gifs he put up of Parker, at least one or two of them. But I do agree Parker needs to be more violent at the point of catch. He disses Landry as if Landry was Davone Bess part 2. And he says previous criticism of Tanny's pocket presense was unfounded, because Tanny improved there.
Well I agree that Tanny's pocket presence did improve in 2016. But that just means previous criticism of it did have some foundation. His YPA, his pocket awareness, all improved greatly in 2016. If he has the same level of improvement going into 2017, whether you call it incremental or whatever, he's gonna be top 10. His TD % was okay last year, at 4.9%. That's 25 TDs at 500 attempts, or 30 at 600 attempts. If he gets to 5.5-6% TD rate, we're talking weekly ESPN highlights likely. If he maintains that low INT rate he had over the last half of the year, and we don't have to face Baltimore every week, we should see a good jumpLast edited: Jun 18, 2017dolphin25 likes this. -
1. His improvement has been in spite of his surroundings and coaching (before Gase)
2. His improvement would not be enough to overcome no run game, poor defense, and bad coaching, as it relates to the team winning games.danmarino likes this. -
He had some improvements and had some regressions, some were related to his surroundings (coaching more than anything) and some because he was simply a very inconsistent QB who had his own struggles. It was a deadly combination of both of these things and anyone who argues any different I assume either has an agenda or unaware. It basically was his surroundings and himself 50-50? 60-40? 70-30? All debatable.
If he lived in the projects with his previous regime? He certainly is in Beverley Hills now with this one. He is now in one of the BEST situations to succeed in the NFL. So to me? I expect him to play at a high level and be a pro bowler.danmarino, Bpk, resnor and 1 other person like this. -
Yeah, I agree, FinO, but I think over the years, many of the arguments over Tannehill have been because people tend to hold the QB responsible for win %.
Bpk likes this. -
- He's the problem with the W/L record.
- He's got a problem with the deep ball.
- He can't handle the rush.
- He has terrible pocket awareness.
- His YPA is terrible and is his fault (because he's got deep ball problems, can't handle the rush and has terrible pocket awareness).
- His receivers not getting YAC (until Landry) were because he doesn't "throw them open".
- He's too stupid to audible.
- He's too stupid to do anything other than Go or Go Go.
- He's a terrible leader.
Plus, I love how people say Thill hasn;t been good enough to win more games then the team should while completely ignoring the possibility with a different QB we could have been 6-10, 6-10, 4-12.Last edited: Jun 18, 2017resnor likes this. -
The QB position is the single most influential position (among players) in all of football. All kinds of measures that to one or another degree measure QB ability, from passer rating to Y/A to TD/INT ratio etc.. have high correlations to win%.
What that suggests is that above average QB's in general will improve win% and below average ones will decrease it. In other words a LOT of QB's have to be overcoming their surroundings to some degree and be leading their team to more wins than the team would otherwise have.
Maybe that's only 1 extra win in a season, but we're probably talking more like 10 QB's here than 2-3 that improve win% above what the team would otherwise have. And it's not that hard to list them either (I'm sure you can do it). -
So, I don't think it's as simple as saying the QB is the most influential player. -
Personally I think 15% is in the right range, intuitively speaking. -
-
Are you saying that's absurdly high? I think it's fair. And if you make that assumption the calculation is to take the square of the correlation between Y/A and win% (generally the correlation for half the variance explained is over 0.4 so the square is 0.16) and that means you get 16% of the total variance is due to the QB.
As I said, 16% seems not only to be intuitively correct but the assumption half of Y/A is due to the QB seems fair. Where are you disagreeing?
EDIT: Just re-did the full calculation for 2016 using these stats:
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2016/#all_team_stats
The correlation for 2016 between YPA and win% is 0.5224. Half the variance explained turns out to be (0.5224^2)/2 = 13.6%. So for 2016 it was 13.6% due to the QB given the assumption that half of YPA is due to the QB. And if I remember correctly, 2016 was a bit below average (2015 was way below average but the several years before that are much higher).Last edited: Jun 18, 2017 -
Because I dont think you can generally assign that. Hartline, for instance, wasn't getting YAC on his own. A guy like Gronkowski is. Its an area where I think stats fail, cause who's going to go through and figure this out for each receiver for each QB for each and every pass thrown.
So, for some QB/Receiver duos, it may very well be 50/50. For some it may be 80/20. For some it may 20/80. -
Puka-head My2nd Fav team:___vs Jets Club Member
"The quarterback draft class of 2012 was one of the best in NFL history. In the same breath as 1983 and 2004, the names include Andrew Luck, Russell Wilson, Kirk Cousins, Ryan Tannehill, Nick Foles, and Robert Griffin III."
Wasn't Kaepernick this years class also?
I said it the day after the draft and I'll say it again today. At the end of their careers Tannehill will have been the best QB of this group. I was originally just talking about the first round but Wilson rose up so I'll throw him in there too. If our team can get him to the playoffs for a few years he'll win a Super Bowl or two and then the comparison won't even be close. As is sits right now you have to give Wilson the edge but I really don't believe that Wilson is a better Quarterback than Thill. Not in any measurable way IRT individual QB play.
Wilson became rather pedestrian last year when he lost all his OL. As soon as the D started struggling that team started coming apart at the seams and he couldn't hold them together. -
In any case, this method is far better than just pulling a number out of nowhere. At least you know what the assumptions are and what effect they have on the result. -
Wilson's way ahead. But you don't need to compare Tannehill to Wilson to defend Tannehill. Look at Luck in that post. He's 0.1 above average. Another piece of evidence Luck is underperforming. -
-
So yes the QB with the best or the worst receivers will have greater influence on win% (for the worst receivers it means bad receivers implies bad Y/A, and for the best receivers it means great receivers implied great Y/A).
Same with QB's. Say you have the worst QB alive that can't even make a throw. The influence on win% will be HUGE because he'll probably lose every game. Or suppose you had a fantasy QB no human could ever match. Influence on win% will again be HUGE because he'll likely win every game.
So.. whether it's surrounding cast or the QB, those that are the worst or best will have the highest influence on win%.Last edited: Jun 18, 2017 -
We were talking about receivers, and how they affect. Obviously, a great QB with great receivers will be able to greatly influence win%. An average QB with great receivers will look better than he is (and people will think he's influencing win%), etc.
Just saying, the receiving corp can severely impact how much a influence QB can exert. -
There isn't a single person alive that has a clue how to accurately estimate the portion of win% due to the QB by looking at every individual facet of the team and game. All the information in the world isn't helping you there because no one knows how to analyze the data, except subjectively.
With this approach you reduce the assumption down to one: 50% of Y/A is due to the QB. Simple, fair enough I'd argue and the result gives you an estimate of approximately how much the QB influences the game, understanding that there's a distribution around that. -
Page 1 of 5