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

Great Older Article on Fitzpatrick

Discussion in 'Miami Dolphins Forum' started by KeyFin, Jun 6, 2019.

  1. KeyFin

    KeyFin Well-Known Member

    5,613
    7,361
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    Agua, Surfs Up 99 and resnor like this.
  2. Dorfdad

    Dorfdad Well-Known Member

    3,123
    1,604
    113
    Dec 9, 2007
    I do not want him to succeed if Rosen doesn’t beat him out by game 4 I’m going to be pissed. Fits isn’t going to win a championship here he’s to old and erratic. If we’re going to build this right than we need to go Rosen and if he sucks we draft one next year.

    Futz was always a stopgap not an answer and he will hurt us by winning 5-6 and than getting hurt or going into his typical nosedive.

    Maybe all the positive articles are to light a smoke stack under Rosen’s ***
     
  3. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    6,912
    7,654
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Yeah lol. That article was written after game 2 of last season. Fitz had a tremendous start last season with 8 TD's to 1 INT in his first two games with ratings of 156.2 and 144.4. But that was with only 61 passing attempts and you really need 150+ for any kind of reliability.

    The article asks "What's next for Ryan Fitzpatrick". Well.. what came next was 6 games over which he threw more INT's than TD's with a combined 80.62 rating when the league average was 92.9. Total passing attempts for those 6 games was 185. First two games obviously count, but Fitz is a backup QB and we're in trouble if he's our starter come next season. Guy does have some exciting games though.
     
    texanphinatic, Dorfdad and Pauly like this.
  4. KeyFin

    KeyFin Well-Known Member

    5,613
    7,361
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    Regardless of who's the coach, the QB or even the kicker, I want the Dolphins to win no matter what. If Fitzpatrick lights it up and Rosen never sees the field in 2019, I will be the absolute last person to complain. If Fitz stinks and Rosen does great, I'm happy with that too and could care less about a draft 10 1/2 months away.

    I'm not a fan of "let's build for 2021" and that nonsense- you build to win this Sunday regardless. I'll support and root for whoever gives us the best chance of making that happen.
     
    greyeagl53, Surfs Up 99, Agua and 3 others like this.
  5. KeyFin

    KeyFin Well-Known Member

    5,613
    7,361
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    LOL, I shared it more for the backstory on his career and comments from coaches/teammates than anything- I always enjoy knowing more about the player behind the helmet. And he sounds like a genuinely good dude- did you read the part about him stealing a teammate's jewelry and sweatsuit for the press conference? That's freaking hysterical and he says he does stuff like that to build chemistry with others in the locker room.
     
    Surfs Up 99 likes this.
  6. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    6,912
    7,654
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Yeah he's a cool dude no doubt. But you said the article talked about who Fitz is and "why he's been so successful in the NFL". It's that second part – the part that deals with QB ability – that I was referencing. Fitz is NOT a successful NFL QB unless mediocre is considered successful. So if you just want to talk about who he is as a person that's fine, but let's not somehow suggest he's a good NFL QB while doing so.
     
  7. Hooligan

    Hooligan Member

    40
    52
    18
    Dec 31, 2018
    There have been several notable QBs that have blossomed late in their careers and still gotten their teams to the Superbowl. Rich Gannon was considered over the hill. The one that Fitz reminds me of is Chris Chandler, 8 different teams over 17 years. Took Atlanta to the SB with a regular season record of 14-2. He looked unstoppable. If Rosen doesn't start a game this season and we make it to the playoffs behind Fitz, how can anybody complain? Rosen will be a better player for it next season.
     
    Surfs Up 99, resnor and Irishman like this.
  8. KeyFin

    KeyFin Well-Known Member

    5,613
    7,361
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    Well, he's been on 8 teams now (25% of the entire league) and managed to start for every single one of them. That's not successful in its own regard? To me its insane that he's 35 and still getting contracts somehow...that doesn't tell me the league looks at him as mediocre. Nobody has ever wanted to invest in him though other than his original team- everywhere else he was seen as a competent backup (until now).

    I'm not drinking the Kool-Aid here but at the same time, who's to say he can't get streaky for about 10 or 12 games? And then get streaky for four more in the playoffs? While I'm not counting on it, you have to admit that the possibility is exciting. Just look at the Giants and Eli- nobody would call him elite either, but does it really matter in the grand scheme of things? Fitz can possibly give us an Eli-like season and we haven't had that hope for awhile now.
     
    Agua, Surfs Up 99, Hooligan and 2 others like this.
  9. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    6,912
    7,654
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Anyone that plays for even a few years in the NFL can say they've achieved success from a personal standpoint and Fitz has done quite a bit more than that so I agree he's had success from a personal perspective. But playing on 8 teams because you can't manage to lead ANY team to a winning record (every team Fitz has started for he's had a losing record as a starter except for Houston where he ended up 6-6) is more a sign of failure not success.

    As far as the probability we'll make the playoffs or not, however low that is of course I'll hope we catch lightning in a bottle and make a highly improbable run. Stuff happens in sports. Leicester City had 5000:1 odds to win the Premier League in 2015-2016 but won it.. I still remember Rulon Gardener winning the gold medal in the 2000 Olympics defeating one of the most dominant champions ever in any sport: Aleksandr Karelin. Hell, just days ago Ruiz beat Joshua which was totally unexpected (nowhere near as unlikely odds-wise as the first two examples, but still..). So stuff happens and I hope it happens to us too.

    But.. back to realism.. here are the odds of winning 10 or more games IF you assume we are an X-win team on average:
    X=4: 0.16%
    X=5: 0.98%
    X=6: 3.74%
    X=7: 10.43%
    X=8: 22.72%
    X=9: 40.50%
    X=10: 60.93%

    and that's just to get into the playoffs. I guess if we see evidence we're more of a 7 or 8 win team rather than 6 or below I'll start to consider it more seriously. Personally.. I care more about seeing evidence we have a good coach this season than actual wins. But yeah, I also hope we'll be one of those highly unexpected success stories in sports.
     
  10. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    13,149
    7,183
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    He's successful in that he's stayed relevant in the league for a number of years. Success isn't only measured by wins and losses or incredible stats.
     
    Surfs Up 99 and KeyFin like this.
  11. KeyFin

    KeyFin Well-Known Member

    5,613
    7,361
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    Fitz in practice yesterday with the no-looker-

     
    Surfs Up 99 likes this.
  12. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    772
    743
    93
    Sep 12, 2015
    Its a possibility that probably wont happen though. You dont go from being average every year, he has one season Id consider above average in what now 13 years, to being amazing.

    If he was 27....yeah maybe Id think he could develop into that guy. Hes never shown the ability to put together a consistently hot season. I see no reason he will now at his age.

    Im 99% sure he probably looked just as good in other camps too. Its just kind of who he is to me personally and Im fairly generous towards players ability to succeed usually.
     
    KeyFin likes this.
  13. The Guy

    The Guy Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    473
    434
    63
    Oct 1, 2018
    In that sense he's like a Jay Cutler where you get from him a bimodal distribution of games. It's feast or famine. He'll singlehandely win you games, and he'll also singlehandedly lose them.

    If you're stuck with a QB who plays roughly average like Fitzpatrick, what you'd rather have is an Alex Smith, game manager type, who plays at that level much more consistently and thereby allows the rest of the team to win a greater percentage of games.
     
  14. The Guy

    The Guy Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    473
    434
    63
    Oct 1, 2018
    What that's really a measure of is how poorly a team stands to play in the present-day NFL with a quarterback who's significantly below average. That allows the average QBs like Fitzpatrick to have lengthy careers, usually for multiple teams.
     
  15. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    13,149
    7,183
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    No, dude. It's because there simply aren't that many elite QBs. I don't know why people seem to think that there is there all these elite QBs out there to be had.

    Nonetheless, that's a completely different argument. Bottom line is, the guy has had a long career in the NFL, largely as a starting QB. He is successful. He's not AS successful as other better QBs, but he has been successful.
     
    Fin-O, Surfs Up 99 and The Guy like this.
  16. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    6,912
    7,654
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Yeah, regardless of perception, I've never seen a bimodal distribution of stats like passer rating for any QB that's played a long time. To get a bimodal distribution the QB would either have to have 2 vastly separate phases of his career or play in 2 vastly different environments. Otherwise, every player will mostly play around his average.

    Here are the distributions of 2018-adjusted passer ratings for Cutler and Fitzpatrick. As you can see they're unimodal even though the distributions have different levels of platykurtosis/leptokurtosis (meaning how "flat" or "pointy" the peaks are):
    [​IMG]
     
    The Guy likes this.
  17. Rock Sexton

    Rock Sexton Anti-Homer

    2,715
    1,915
    113
    Mar 14, 2015
    You never saw the video of that last year? It was one of the funniest press conferences I've ever watched and his "We just have to stay humble" line had be dying. Dude is hard not to like.

     
    jdallen1222, Surfs Up 99 and KeyFin like this.
  18. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    6,912
    7,654
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Not to pick on you or anything, but those are hilarious sentences.

    One at a time: to say it's a "possibility that probably won't happen" is a form of redundancy as funny as saying 90% of the time it will definitely occur lol (which is the same as saying 90% of the time it will occur). To be clear, "probably" means there IS a possibility it can occur but that you are quantifying the frequency of occurrence. So no need to say there's a possibility of a probability.

    The second sentence is like saying there's a probability of a probability lol. In that case you multiply the probabilities to get the overall probability. So if there's a 90% probability it will occur 80% of the time you multiply 0.9*0.8 = 0.72 = 72% it will occur.

    Anyway.. like I said no big deal but that was hilarious stuff.
     
  19. Hooligan

    Hooligan Member

    40
    52
    18
    Dec 31, 2018
    Four 400+ yard games in seven starts show what he's capable of. That's elite territory. A good OC calling plays and receivers stepping up could keep that kind of a streak going. Not saying it will but it could. I'm a glass 3/4 full kind of guy.
     
    Agua and KeyFin like this.
  20. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    772
    743
    93
    Sep 12, 2015
    @cbrad (Sorry meant to quote)

    The sentence makes perfect sense if you are using the words like a regular human would.

    A possibility implies something that could happen versus something that could not. Following?

    The unlikely part modifies the original possibility. Saying that while it is possible, yes, the actual liklihood is extremely small and not something you should be ganging your hat on.

    Im unsure what youre failing to grasp about English or why its funny. Not to pick on you...but you just made the statisticians equivalent of a fart joke.
     
  21. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    6,912
    7,654
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    No, even in English vernacular what I said is true. Saying "it's a possibility it probably won't happen" is the same thing as saying "it probably won't happen". In fact your whole post was arguing precisely that it "probably won't happen".
     
  22. The Guy

    The Guy Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    473
    434
    63
    Oct 1, 2018
    If you would, do that for Alex Smith, just for a comparison.
     
  23. The Guy

    The Guy Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    473
    434
    63
    Oct 1, 2018
    The problem is that he plays a high risk, high reward style. If he were to shave off about a yard and a half from his average yards per attempt, and if that would result in decreasing his interception rate about 50%, he would then be among the best quarterbacks in the league.
     
    resnor likes this.
  24. The Guy

    The Guy Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    473
    434
    63
    Oct 1, 2018
    Well that is true too. There is certainly a dearth of elite quarterbacks.
     
    resnor likes this.
  25. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    6,912
    7,654
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    [​IMG]
     
    Surfs Up 99 and The Guy like this.
  26. The Guy

    The Guy Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    473
    434
    63
    Oct 1, 2018
    Great, thank you. I think what I should've said was that Cutler and Fitzpatrick give you flatter distributions with the about the same average as Smith's, meaning that they're giving you a greater rate of both "winning" games and "losing" games, whereas Smith is giving you a more consistently average game. All three play at about the same level on average, but Cutler and Fitzpatrick are your gunslingers, whereas Smith is your game manager.
     
    Surfs Up 99 and cbrad like this.
  27. KeyFin

    KeyFin Well-Known Member

    5,613
    7,361
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    I remember seeing people talking about it, but I didn't watch it and had no idea that he actually stole the clothes, the jewelry, etc. That's freaking hysterical!
     
    Surfs Up 99 likes this.
  28. KeyFin

    KeyFin Well-Known Member

    5,613
    7,361
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    Matt Moore played largely the same way- I can't tell you how many times he threw a deep TD pass the next offensive play after throwing an INT. Where we disagree is that you think that's a bad trait to have, I'm assuming because the more picks a QB throws, the more likely they are to lose the game. Yet we just watched 7 years of Tannehill only taking deep shots when they were scripted and guess what- we were one of the lowest scoring teams in the league, one of the lowest yards per game, etc.

    I'm not worried about decreasing his INT rate- I'm worried about giving him more chances to sling it deep.
     
    Surfs Up 99 likes this.
  29. The Guy

    The Guy Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    473
    434
    63
    Oct 1, 2018
    It's a bad trait to have because, yes, turnovers are so strongly correlated with winning in the NFL.

    Take Tannehill in 2016 for example. Through the first five games he averaged roughly 8.3 yards per attempt, which is fairly high (especially for him), with an average passer rating of about 81. The team was 1-4, largely because his interception rate was about 5% per game.

    Take the next eight games that season. The team was 7-1, and his average passer rating was 102.6. Has average yards per attempt decreased to about 7.7, which is about average in the league, but so did his interception rate -- down from about 5% per game to about 1.9%.

    So he played more conservatively, and the team did much better. When your quarterback's passer rating is nearly 103 as opposed to 81, your team has a tremendously higher chance of winning, and that was accomplished by reining him in, not by making him more aggressive.
     
  30. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    6,912
    7,654
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    There's a tradeoff here though. For example, INT% has a -0.414 correlation with win% across NFL history but TD% has a 0.571 correlation with win% so increasing TD% is more important than decreasing INT%. And if both increase similarly for a given QB for higher risk plays, then that QB should have more higher risk plays. That's only looking at 2 stats of course.. just pointing out there's a tradeoff. Ultimately, one should compare summary stats like passer rating in "higher risk" vs. "lower risk" situations to see which approach is better for a given QB (those stats aren't readily available but you'd hope each NFL team keeps track of that!.. not sure they do).
     
    Surfs Up 99, KeyFin and The Guy like this.
  31. KeyFin

    KeyFin Well-Known Member

    5,613
    7,361
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    To me, there's a difference between a strong deep passer taking 5-6 shots a game and a rookie running for his life and chucking the bomb on a prayer. Fitzpatrick takes calculated risks- which don't always pay off. But if you're down 6 in the 4th quarter and you don't take those shots, then eventually the odds of you winning trickle down to basically zero (even with time left on the clock).

    I'm not saying a QB shouldn't be careful with the football, but at the same time you don't want to take away what he does best either because you're stuck on being ultra conservative (AKA RT and Gase...or Chad Henne throwing all those touch passes when he had a MASSIVE arm). Tannehill's deep passing percentage told me we should have gone deep a lot more last season- especially on 3rd down when a long INT is basically the same as a punt. 3rd and 14, you get picked off on a 50 yard pass...to me that does absolutely nothing to tip the scales of the game one way or the other since that's where the ball would have ended up anyway. But if your guy does catch it, then you have a shot at winning the game.

    Again, I'm not saying Fitz should chuck every pass 70 yards to Parker and Stills....but we should take more chances since that plays to his strengths. If you look at the ridiculous number of 3 and outs we've had the past few years while running on 3rd down, I can't fathom how 3-5 more deep shots a game would work against our chances of winning.

    Of course, I'm talking situational here and not just in general- but I want a QB that will take those risks and live with it when things don't go his way.
     
  32. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    6,912
    7,654
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Tannehill's deep passing percentages were really bad last year, near the bottom of the league actually:
    https://www.thephinsider.com/2019/3...-ryan-tannehill-on-deep-ball-accuracy-in-2018

    [​IMG]

    As far as 3rd and long you can look at splits, both for a QB and for the league:
    https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/T/TannRy00/splits/2018/
    https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2018/splits.htm#all_yds_split_splits

    to estimate how good a QB has been in different situations. Now, on 3rd and 10+ you see the number of passing attempts is really low (for Tannehill in 2018 it was only 26 attempts), so you have to take a weighted average across many years. For those interested in the calculations, take the difference between a QB's passer rating in that year (for let's say 3rd and 10+) and league average passer rating for that same condition, then multiply it by the number of passing attempts. Do that for all years and sum those numbers. Now, divide that sum by the total number of attempts. That gives you the "weighted average".

    With Tannehill, that weighted average difference between his passer rating on 3rd and 10+ and league average is a whopping -23.89 passer rating points per year!!! Just peruse through those links for different years and you see this crap: Tannehill's 3rd and 10+ ratings average around 50 while league average is mid 70's. Seriously.. you do NOT trust a QB on 3rd and 10+ when he averages 23.89 passer rating points BELOW league average.

    So I totally disagree on Tannehill.

    The comparable statistic for Fitzpatrick is a weighted average of +1.09 passer rating points on 3rd and 10+ so I don't see anything wrong with him playing the way he does on those downs, though if you look year by year you see massive variation. So yes "situational" is correct, but Tannehill was a massive liability on 3rd and 10+ and not the type of QB you can trust in those situations with even more risk.
     
  33. The Guy

    The Guy Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    473
    434
    63
    Oct 1, 2018
    I suspect the issue with Tannehill was that situations in which the opposing team knew he had to pass (3rd and 10+ for example) weren't what the doctor ordered when combined with his poor awareness and evasion of the pass rush.
     
    djphinfan and resnor like this.
  34. KeyFin

    KeyFin Well-Known Member

    5,613
    7,361
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    Two things. #1, Tannehill couldn't handle pressure and teams almost always blitzed us on 3rd and long to force mistakes. #2, because of that, Gase liked to run on 3rd and long instead of giving RT any responsibility.

    I completely understand why Gase didn't ask him to go deep more often...but at the same time there was really nothing to lose. I mean, we saw the exact opposite when Moore was on the field....we were way more aggressive in those same instances (which backs up the idea that RT wasn't trusted). Tannehill and Fitzpatrick are two very different QB's though and I think they'll "turn him loose" a lot this season.
     
    resnor likes this.
  35. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    13,149
    7,183
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    I am willing to bet that there were more things at play than simply reigning him in. If you're behind a lot, then you're throwing deep more often, into defenses that are waiting for the deep ball. My issue with the deep ball was more that we often didn't use it early enough to be effective.
     
  36. Pauly

    Pauly Season Ticket Holder

    3,020
    2,844
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    There is another issue with interceptions.

    Roughly half of all NFL interceptions occur when the passing team has less than a 20% chance of winning the game. Which means the cause and effect arrow isn’t always Interceptions -> Losing. About half the time Losing -> Interceptions. Xavien Howard last year got a lot of his interceptions when the opposing team was in desperation mode, which probably one of the reasons he wasn’t heralded much by the national press because many of his INTs weren’t “game changing”.
    Also teams with 80%+ chance of winning throw INTs at a much lower rate than normal. Which again turns the normal narrative of Avoiding Turnovers -> Winning, because it can be shown that Winning -> Avoiding turnovers.

    Anecdotally this makes sense because teams in a winning position can avoid risks and teams in a losing position have to take more risks. It also is reflected by cbrad showing scoring TDs is more predictive of winning than throwing INTs is of losing
     
    resnor, KeyFin, cbrad and 2 others like this.
  37. The Guy

    The Guy Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    473
    434
    63
    Oct 1, 2018
    I understand the concept, but for Tannehill in 2016 it was precisely the opposite. During the first five games, when his overall interception rate was 4.5%, his overall TD rate was 3.8%. By contrast, during the next eight games, when his overall interception rate dropped to 2.1%, his overall TD rate jumped to 5.6%.

    So by playing more conservatively (again his yards per attempt dropped from 8.2 to 7.4, which is significant), he was able to play much better in the areas of both turnovers and TDs.

    I suspect that had something to do with the deep passing figures for Tannehill you posted earlier. There is no reason why someone so poor at deep passing (as well as evading the pass rush) should be playing a high risk, high reward game. Obviously that kind of QB is going to improve when he is reined in.

    Let's take a look at Fitzpatrick in this way. In his last five years of games, in games in which he had at least 10 pass attempts, his average yards per pass attempt is 7.38. In the games during that period in which his YPA was below 7.38, his TD rate was 3.7%, and his INT rate was 3.9%. His teams were 10-18 in those games. In the games during that period in which his YPA was above 7.38, his TD rate was 6.5%, and his INT rate was 2.5%. His teams were 14-11 in those games.

    So in direct contrast to Tannehill, it behooves a team to have Fitzpatrick play more aggressively, which supports cbrad's concept of a trade off, as well as what KeyFin said about Fitzpatrick, above.
     
    Last edited: Jun 9, 2019
    cbrad likes this.
  38. The Guy

    The Guy Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    473
    434
    63
    Oct 1, 2018
    That's good stuff. I suspect you'd find something similar with sacks, which is another reason why sacks can be partially attributed to quarterbacks. If you can't get your team down the field to score, obviously you're more likely to end up in a position in which your probability of winning the game is relatively low, which then lets the opposing pass rush tee off on your offensive line, knowing you have to pass in an attempt to increase your win probability. With a quarterback who can score more, you're less likely to be in that situation.
     
  39. Surfs Up 99

    Surfs Up 99 Team Rosen

    1,447
    1,382
    113
    May 5, 2016
    Awesome thread and discussion everyone!

    I agree with Key in that we should let the best QB play.

    [Rose-colored glasses on] As for Fitzpatrick, I think it's possible that even at this stage of his career he can still tweak his play style for the better. I love his aggressiveness. However, if he can throttle it back some in certain situations I think he will be better for it. I am hoping this coaching staff can reign him in. He has enough talent to get it done, but he needs to play within the system and let others help too. It's when he tries to do too much that he gets himself in trouble, IMO.
     
    Last edited: Jun 9, 2019
    djphinfan and The Guy like this.
  40. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    6,912
    7,654
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Intuitively I agree, but let me just throw a wrench (actually 2 wrenches) into that argument.

    The correlation between Y/A and win% for Tannehill is 0.3545 while it's 0.3129 for Fitzpatrick. In other words, it's to be expected that as Y/A increases win% increases so whatever happened with Tannehill in those first 5 games is an anomaly relative to his career. And unless the following 8 games were the only time he was told to "play more conservatively", then something is off with the logic.

    The other problem is that it's not a priori clear that "playing more aggressively" leads to higher Y/A. We don't have stats for how "risky" plays are so it's not clear that Fitz was playing more aggressively during his wins. Besides, if that were the case he should have adapted to always play more aggressively in which case you'd still see the correlation between Y/A with win% but with a higher average Y/A.

    So like I said, intuitively I agree Tannehill is better playing more conservatively, but I'm not sure Y/A can be used to make this argument.
     
    The Guy likes this.

Share This Page