Encouraging read on Ryan T

"Fin-O wrote:

I'm not talking about 2-3 QB's that could've gotten us "1 more win" I do not aspire for a 9-7 team as opposed to 8-8.

Only responding to what you wrote.

Let's just agree then that maybe 1/3 of all starting QB's are overcoming their surroundings enough to measurably increase win%. That way the context is clear.

"cbrad wrote:

That's shortchanging the QB position by a mile.

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).

Looking at it only by player, you may be right, as there is only one QB. But, I prefer to think of it in terms of positions, and how they affect win%. Generically, offense maybe 45%, defense maybe 45%, special teams maybe 10%. Then, in offense, QB X%, receivers X%, oline X%, running backs X%, tight ends X%. You then almost have to weight the receiver group as much as the QB position, as the QB can't complete a pass if the receiver doesn't catch the ball. The percents listed are merely examples, not saying those are the actual percents.

So, I don't think it's as simple as saying the QB is the most influential player.

"resnor wrote:

Looking at it only by player, you may be right, as there is only one QB. But, I prefer to think of it in terms of positions, and how they affect win%. Generically, offense maybe 45%, defense maybe 45%, special teams maybe 10%. Then, in offense, QB X%, receivers X%, oline X%, running backs X%, tight ends X%. You then almost have to weight the receiver group as much as the QB position, as the QB can't compete a pass of the receiver doesn't catch the ball.

So, I don't think it's as simple as saying the QB is the most influential player.

Did this long time ago but the estimated amount of "variance explained" from correlations between stats like Y/A to win% suggests we're looking at the QB being responsible for maybe 15% of win%. I had to make the assumption maybe up to 50% (no more) of a stat like Y/A is due to the QB, but if you make that assumption you get 15%.

Personally I think 15% is in the right range, intuitively speaking.

"cbrad wrote:

Only responding to what you wrote.

Let's just agree then that maybe 1/3 of all starting QB's are overcoming their surroundings enough to measurably increase win%. That way the context is clear.

I would argue that less than 5 QB's could've gotten those teams to the playoffs and 2-3 perhaps multiple times.

How bout dat.

"cbrad wrote:

Did this long time ago but the estimated amount of "variance explained" from correlations between stats like Y/A to win% suggests we're looking at the QB being responsible for maybe 15% of win%. I had to make the assumption maybe up to 50% (no more) of a stat like Y/A is due to the QB, but if you make that assumption you get 15%.

Personally I think 15% is in the right range, intuitively speaking.

Y/A is still not completely a QB only stat, as the receiver has to catch the ball. So, yes, the QB has to make a good throw to a receiver, but that receiver has to catch the ball. Plus, if the receiver is great at breaking tackles, and can get YAC, then the QBs Y/A can be further inflated, without him doing anything special.

"resnor wrote:

Y/A is still not completely a QB only stat, as the receiver has to catch the ball. So, yes, the QB has to make a good throw to a receiver, but that receiver has to catch the ball. Plus, if the receiver is great at breaking tackles, and can get YAC, then the QBs Y/A can be further inflated, without him doing anything special.

I said I made the assumption maybe 50% of Y/A is due to the QB.

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).

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.

"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.

"resnor wrote:

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.

It's different for different QB's for sure. The QB's at the extremes (the best and the worst) should have the greatest influence on win%. So what I'm deducing isn't the correct number for all QB's, it's just the average portion of win% estimated to be due to a QB in the NFL.

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.

"Puka-head wrote:

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.

We can't directly measure QB play irrespective of surroundings, but generally decent measures like passer rating tell a different story. Check out post #15. When passer ratings are adjusted so that they can be directly compared, Wilson's average rating is 13.8 points above league average while Tannehill's is 0.3 above league average.

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.

"cbrad wrote:

It's different for different QB's for sure. The QB's at the extremes (the best and the worst) should have the greatest influence on win%. So what I'm deducing isn't the correct number for all QB's, it's just the average portion of win% estimated to be due to a QB in the NFL.

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.

I'd think the QBs at the extremes would have the least influence. The QB with garbage receivers won't have nearly as good numbers as the average, or will have to work extremely hard to be average, and the guy with all studs at receiver will be better than the average, without having to do as much.

"resnor wrote:

I'd think the QBs at the extremes would have the least influence. The QB with garbage receivers won't have nearly as good numbers as the average, or will have to work extremely hard to be average, and the guy with all studs at receiver will be better than the average, without having to do as much.

lol.. you have the right intuition when it comes to receivers but the wrong one with QB's.

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%.

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.

"resnor wrote:

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.

I know that. I even said 50% of it is not due to the QB. Everything I said still remains true. Remember this is statistics where you're looking at means and distributions.

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.

We could get a number that more closely (than not) represents a QB's skills if we removed all YAC and TDs scored during YAC from the equation. YAC is significantly more about the WR than the QB.

We'd still have problems factoring the oline, playcalling, coaching etc.

"Fin D wrote:

We could get a number that more closely (than not) represents a QB's skills if we removed all YAC and TDs scored during YAC from the equation. YAC is significantly more about the WR than the QB.

We'd still have problems factoring the oline, playcalling, coaching etc.

Good comment. TD's don't factor anyway into this equation so that won't change anything. It would if I was using passer rating but that has so many more components I'd rather use Y/A.

"cbrad wrote:

Good comment. TD's don't factor anyway into this equation so that won't change anything. It would if I was using passer rating but that has so many more components I'd rather use Y/A.

I wasn;t talking specifically about the Y/A equation, as I know what yards per attempt means. I'm talking in general.

"Puka-head wrote:

"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 believe Kaepernick was the draft before.

"Puka-head wrote:

"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.

Kap was the year before in the 2nd round, he had his breakout season in 2012 though.

Chrisko beat me to it never mind.

"Fin D wrote:

List of some of the major arguments against Thill over the years:

- He's got a problem with the deep ball.
- He's the problem with the W/L record.
- He can't handle the rush.
- He has terrible pocket awareness.
- His YPA is terrible and is his fault.
- 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.

Just my opinion:
SOLVED/DISPROVEN - He's got a problem with the deep ball.
He was part of the problem, but not the main part of it - He's the problem with the W/L record.
ALWAYS THOUGHT HE WAS DECENT AT THIS - He can't handle the rush.
IMPROVED NOTICEABLY - He has terrible pocket awareness.
BETTER RECEIVERS, LONGER PROTECTION FROM OL TO ALLOW DEEPER ROUTES, BETTER COACHING TO GET MORE FROM PLAYERS AROUND HIM - His YPA is terrible and is his fault.
TANNY HAS IMPROVED HERE, BUT MOSTLY SEE ABOVE REASON - His receivers not getting YAC (until Landry) were because he doesn't "throw them open".
I STILL THINK HE HAD TROUBLE TRUSTING WHAT HE WAS SEEING QUICKLY ENOUGH AND IT WAS CAUSING HESITATION THE FIRST FEW YEARS, THAT'S MORE ABOUT HESITATION WHEN THROWING THAN AUDIBLING THOUGH - He's too stupid to audible.
HM NO. - He's too stupid to do anything other than Go or Go Go.
I AGREE THAT HE HAS LACKED AN IDEAL LEADER'S PERSONALITY. TERRIBLE? NO WAY. AVERAGE UP TIL NOW, BUT I AM CONVINCED THAT HAVING GONE THROUGH EMOTIONAL HELL LAST YEAR WHEN HE WAS OUT INJURED, HE WILL COME BACK MORE EMOTIONALLY CONNECTED AND INTENSE IN THE WAYS LEADERS SOMETIMES NEED TO BE - He's a terrible leader.

The fucking season cannot come soon enough.

"Conuficus wrote:

The ****ing season cannot come soon enough.

Shall I translate? :chuckle:

"Fin D wrote:

We could get a number that more closely (than not) represents a QB's skills if we removed all YAC and TDs scored during YAC from the equation. YAC is significantly more about the WR than the QB.

We'd still have problems factoring the oline, playcalling, coaching etc.

The issue with this that offense design factors into YAC.
Short passes have more YAC than deep routes.
Go/slant routes have more yac than comebacks/curls.

If you have an offense built on a lot of slant routes your air yards will be less but yac will be higher than in a traditional offense.

"Pauly wrote:

The issue with this that offense design factors into YAC.
Short passes have more YAC than deep routes.
Go/slant routes have more yac than comebacks/curls.

If you have an offense built on a lot of slant routes your air yards will be less but yac will be higher than in a traditional offense.

I don't see the problem. YAC is mostly on the receiver. Removing those numbers would better show what the QB is responsible for.

"Pauly wrote:

The issue with this that offense design factors into YAC.
Short passes have more YAC than deep routes.
Go/slant routes have more yac than comebacks/curls.

If you have an offense built on a lot of slant routes your air yards will be less but yac will be higher than in a traditional offense.

Yup. It's less on the wr and more on the route they're running.