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

Is Adam Gase the biggest scam in football???

Discussion in 'AFC East Rivals' started by djphinfan, Apr 17, 2019.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    14,043
    7,967
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Sure. But most analysis out there isn't doing that. Of course, there are inherent assumptions, such as assuming that particular rule changes were totally responsible for increases. Particularly troublesome I think post 2007. I don't mind there being adjusting for big blocks of time, but I think that adjusting each year is not really accurate.
     
  2. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    14,043
    7,967
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Ding ding ding.

    I've always thought this, but we've always been arguing different things. Some of us accepted that Tannehill had deficiencies, but believed that his strengths were good enough that with a decent team, we could be successful. Others believed that his weaknesses would trump his strengths, or the strengths of the team, regardless.
     
    Unlucky 13 likes this.
  3. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    3,140
    995
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    But at what level?

    Consider the following hypothetical. Give Aaron Rodgers, Tom Brady, and Drew Brees the "advantageous positions" you mentioned, and their passer rating is 120 (again this is a hypothetical). Give Ryan Tannehill those advantageous positions, and his passer rating is 105.

    Now you're in a position where you not only have to give Tannehill an unlikely surrounding cast (given his salary cap hit), but you also have to root for some other teams not to have one, if you're going to win a Super Bowl. If you had one of the QBs mentioned above (again if the hypothetical is accurate), you wouldn't have to do the latter.

    What I think people assume on some tacit level is that the performance of players like Rodgers, Brady and Brees is explained by their being routine recipients of these "advantageous positions," rather than their simply being better players individually. If it's true that their performance would vault into the stratosphere if they were the recipients of these advantageous situations, then you have a real problem on your hands if Ryan Tannehill is your quarterback. You need the stars to align for your team and other teams to win a Super Bowl.

    Again, what do the best QBs in the league do when they are the recipients of such "good games," and how does that compare to what Tannehill did in those situations?

    That might give us an idea of what Tannehill would've done in the playoffs, had he ever reached them. And of course nobody is winning a Super Bowl without beating teams in the playoffs.
     
    Last edited: May 27, 2019
  4. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    3,140
    995
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    What we're talking about is the variation in the individual performance of players as a function of the quality of the competition. If great team X makes QBs play Y amount more poorly than usual on average, and Ryan Tannehill plays Y minus 10 against them, whereas Drew Brees plays Y plus 10 against them, then there's the variation I'm speaking of.
     
    Irishman likes this.
  5. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    14,043
    7,967
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Orrr...better QBs are on better teams...at least when talking about Super Bowls...and that's the point, right? Rivers, imo, is an elite QB, but he's not won a Super Bowl (has he even been??) and that to me is a function of being on overall average or bad teams. So if you have a QB in a good team, he'll be more successful than that same QB on a bad team.
     
    Irishman likes this.
  6. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    3,140
    995
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Again, though, pan back and look at the league as a whole, and determine what the best QBs in the league do when they play for the sort of "decent teams" you mentioned.

    The critical question is whether Tannehill's individual ability permits him to compete with the best QBs and teams in the league when both teams are "decent." This is what happens in the playoffs.

    If Tannehill can play well individually and beat the sub-.500 teams routinely when he has the necessary surroundings on this own team, that hardly helps matters if he can't beat the best teams in the league under those conditions.
     
    Pauly and Irishman like this.
  7. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    14,043
    7,967
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    The QB isn't beating anyone on his own. His performance may help accomplish that goal, or it might hinder that goal, but either way, he needs help to win the game.

    Frankly, most Qbs in the league can't "compete" with the few elite QBs, because well, THEY AREN'T ELITE. LOL.
     
    Irishman and Unlucky 13 like this.
  8. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    3,140
    995
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    But the question still remains: if Tannehill and Drew Brees are on similarly good teams, does Tannehill stand a chance against Brees? Or do we have to root for Brees to be on a bad team?

    Playoff football. Does Ryan Tannehill stand a chance there?
     
    Irishman likes this.
  9. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    3,140
    995
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    And that's a problem in the playoffs. Based on your statement above, Tanehill would need an unlikely good surrounding cast, while the elite QBs in the league would need a comparatively poor surrounding cast, for Tannehill to compete with them.
     
  10. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    14,043
    7,967
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Nonsense. Poor teams don't generally win the Super Bowl. Brady on the Dolphins last year would get destroyed in the playoffs.
     
    Unlucky 13 likes this.
  11. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    14,043
    7,967
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Of course he stands a chance. Tannehill isn't playing against Brees, nor is Brees playing against Tannehill. Tannehill's offense would need to be better against the Saints defense than Brees' offense is against Tannehill's defense.
     
    Pauly, Irishman and Unlucky 13 like this.
  12. Surfs Up 99

    Surfs Up 99 Team Flores & Team Tua

    1,950
    1,784
    113
    May 5, 2016
    If you are watching a game live and charting it as you go along are there any stats that you rely on( for example, 3rd down completions) that would give you a strong indication that you should win or lose the game? I mean, it doesn’t happen often I guess, but didn’t we have a game last year where we were behind in just about every statistical category and yet we still managed to win the game. I don’t know if I would bother to chart a game and see how things are shaping up. I would be interested if that was shown along side the picture, but I am usually content with just watching the action and enjoying the uncertainty each game brings. It’s game winning plays like the one Drake had last year that keeps me glued to my seat until the end. :-)
     
    Last edited: May 27, 2019
    Irishman likes this.
  13. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    3,140
    995
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    The point is that the surrounding players would need to compensate for the difference in individual ability between Brees and Tannehill.

    Again, you would need to root for the Dolphins to have an unlikely good surrounding cast around Tannehill, and for the Saints to have a comparatively poor surrounding cast around Brees.

    If the two surrounding casts are equal, Brees’s greater individual ability is beating Tannehill and the Dolphins.

    All of that makes it very unlikely for Ryan Tannehill to win a Super Bowl.
     
    Last edited: May 27, 2019
    Irishman likes this.
  14. Sceeto

    Sceeto Well-Known Member

    12,584
    5,228
    113
    Oct 13, 2008
    New York
    There is one area where Tannehill is certainly elite and that is being the subject and inspiration for some really long arse fan board threads.
     
  15. Unlucky 13

    Unlucky 13 Team Rosen Staff Member Club Member

    30,062
    31,365
    113
    Apr 24, 2012
    Troy, Virginia
    As Resnor has said though, only a handful of teams at any point have a QB that's so good that it doesn't really matter if he has a terrific surrounding cast or not. Tannehill was never going to be that guy, but neither are most other QBs.

    You have the rare trancendent players, like Marino and Peyton Manning, who are going to be great no matter what.

    And then you have the elite guys like Rodgers, Brees, Favre, Moon, Luck, ect who are always going to be good, and are going to play at an elite level when they have a fair amount of help.

    Then you have the tier of guys who are always pretty good, but who are only going to be a part of an awesome team when they have good supporting players. I put Rivers, Eli Manning, Matt Ryan, Carson Palmer, Romo, ect into this batch.

    And then you have the tier where I place Tannehill, where he can he good as long as he has protection and a solid cast, and sometimes have elite games. Others on his level are Flacco, Stafford, Cousins, and historically guys like Jim Kelly, Donovan McNabb, Phil Simms, Trent Green, ect.

    So, then the question becomes, once the team is in the playoffs, is a team lead by a QB in tier 3 that much more likely to win than a team lead by a QB in tier 4, if the rest of the players on both sides are about equal? Is the difference that great?

    And not to steer the conversation in a totally different direction, but I believe that Rosen has tier 3 skills and a higher ceiling than Tannehill.
     
    Surfs Up 99, The Guy and resnor like this.
  16. Irishman

    Irishman Well-Known Member

    387
    414
    63
    Oct 16, 2017
    High Point, NC
    In reading this thread I see one glaring omission. How is a game plan accounted for in these statistics?

    I have seen many teams overcome being 20 points behind, then change (or adjust) their game plan and go on to win. The players remain the same and generally play with the same skill and intensity (are there stats that adequately address how a player changes in effectiveness due to getting tired?).

    Certainly the overall game plan needs to be factored in as part of what makes a team good or bad in any given game, but how can that be done?

    I am beginning to suspect that there is more inconsistency in game plans that effects a teams performance then there is in individual players performance capabilities.
     
    Surfs Up 99 and resnor like this.
  17. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    14,043
    7,967
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Bolded is the same for the overwhelming majority of QBs in the league.
     
  18. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    14,043
    7,967
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    For the record, while Tannehill's name is being typed, I'm merely using him as an example of the the concept. I'm not here to argue about Tannehill. He's gone. However, if we were to continue to address the QB and oline situation as we have for the last 10 years, then we'll continue to have the same results. I am sick of the results.
     
    Irishman, Surfs Up 99 and Unlucky 13 like this.
  19. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    7,916
    9,378
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    A lot of analysis out there is flawed because it doesn't do that. And adjusting each year separately is accurate for what it is measuring. You just have to know what it's measuring: how much above or below league average that QB was. So it's telling you relative ability, and if that's what you're interested in it's "accurate". What it doesn't account for is that overall talent may have increased from one era to the next.

    Yes, "win probability" which tells you the historic probability of winning the game given the particular situation the team is in (e.g., down, distance, time remaining and score). The problem with win probability is that it assumes the game today is the same as it was decades ago, going back to the problem of adjusting by era. But there's nothing stopping you from looking at win probability using only more recent data to rectify that issue, and in practice it doesn't seem to matter too much. The main problem with win probability in practice is that you have huge amounts of data for some situations like 1st and 10 but very little for 2nd and 14 etc.. meaning that the reliability isn't constant.

    It's not. Coaching in general can't be included unless there was sufficient coaching turnover so that you could see how different coaches performed in different situations. But coaches either stay on for too long or don't change teams enough to do that. It's not in principle difficult to adjust for coaching but in practice it's difficult because of lack of variance. Keep in mind though that this goes back to your question of the consequence of not knowing all the interactions. That doesn't "add" any error to the final result, it just means you don't know how to separate the sources of individual error from the combined (observed) error.
     
    Pauly, Irishman and Surfs Up 99 like this.
  20. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    3,140
    995
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Since the rules changed in 2004 and the passing game has been featured a great deal more, there have been 15 Super Bowl winners.

    Hall of Fame quarterbacks (Brady, Brees, Roethlisberger, both Mannings, and Rodgers) have won 12 of the 15, or 75%.

    Let's look at the other three.

    Nick Foles won one of them, with a defense that surrendered a passer rating of 79.5 during the regular season.

    Joe Flacco won one of them, with a defense that surrendered a passer rating of 80.6.

    Russell Wilson won one of them, with a defense that surrendered a passer rating of 63.4.

    Two of the above three teams had quarterbacks on rookie contracts, thus allowing them greater cap room to compile surrounding talent.

    So the non-HoF QBs were aided by very good pass defenses, which helped them not be outdueled by whatever better QBs they might have faced in the playoffs, and the fact that the QBs involved were on their rookie contracts allowed such pass defenses to be assembled under the salary cap.

    One could argue that Eli Manning isn't an HoF QB, or doesn't belong in the category of his brother, Brees, Brady, Roethlisberger, and Rodgers.

    If so, then realize that in one of the years he won the Super Bowl (2011), he played comparatively well against better competition, meaning he was well-suited to make a playoff run.

    That leaves one Super Bowl of the 15 since the rules were changed, Eli Manning's Super Bowl in 2007, where he'd played relatively poorly during the regular season, including against better competition, and the team surrendered an opposing passer rating of 83.4, which isn't exceptional.

    So based on the above, Tannehill, who isn't on his rookie contract, would need either a very good pass defense a la Flacco and the 2012 Ravens, or he would need to experience a "fluke" Super Bowl win a la Eli Manning in 2007. His salary cap hit makes compiling such a pass defense even more unlikely than it already is for any team.

    Either way, that leaves at most two Super Bowls of the 15 relevant ones (13%) that fit the "Tannehill" mold, meaning that there's an 87% probability Tannehill (and other QBs like him) wouldn't win a Super Bowl.
     
    Last edited: May 27, 2019
  21. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    7,916
    9,378
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    It's more informative to look at how a QB plays in the year he won the SB. Flacco, Eli, Foles and Wilson played really well (and Wilson is very likely a HoF btw) while Peyton's 2nd SB win was due to the defense, not him. Over NFL history this is the relationship you get between QB performance (in standard deviation units above/below the mean using passer rating) and SB win%:
    [​IMG]

    The best Tannehill has played in any given year is just above that 0. So you have a maybe 1-2% chance of winning a SB with Tannehill on an average team. I don't have the adjustment for different caliber pass defenses though (maybe I'll do that someday).

    In any case, you can see that even with historic levels of performance by a QB (e.g., Marino's '84 or Montana in '89) the probability of winning a SB is still about 33% showing how important the rest of the team is. Actually this analysis puts a cap on the percent influence a QB can have on a team's overall performance at about 1/3, and that's with historic levels of performance.
     
  22. KeyFin

    KeyFin Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    6,921
    9,064
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    Damn...that was....damn. LOL! Just don't make Rosen the starter and don't pay Fitzpatrick, and we should win a super bowl this season.
     
    Dol-Fan Dupree likes this.
  23. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    3,140
    995
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Very good, and now factor in that whatever adjustment that might be made for different caliber pass defenses would need to incorporate the probability of compiling the necessary pass defense, given the salary cap hits of Tannehill and QBs like him.

    It's obviously a whole lot easier to compile a stellar pass defense when a QB is on a rookie contract and has a smaller cap hit. This is how Seattle was able to have a blowout Super Bowl win -- Russell Wilson was on his rookie contract and playing very well, and they had one of the best pass defenses of all time.
     
    Irishman and Surfs Up 99 like this.
  24. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    14,043
    7,967
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Look dude. At one point, Tannehill WAS on a rookie contract. When myself and others said what you just said in this post over the years, we were ridiculed and called homers. But the fact is, that while Tannehill was under his rookie contract, the assembled teams were garbage. The defense had like one good year.

    So, like I've said all along, the Dolphins COULD HAVE BEEN successful with Tannehill, had they assembled teams like this rookie contract QBs your spoke of.
     
  25. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    3,140
    995
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    And you’re right, there was a window of better opportunity at that time. But like I said earlier in the thread, you don’t pay average quarterbacks average quarterback salaries. At that point you end up stuck.
     
  26. KeyFin

    KeyFin Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    6,921
    9,064
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    Well, the one year we made the playoffs under RT's career, he was placed on injured reserve for the season. That made his chances of winning a Super Bowl zero...just saying.

    Honestly, I'm not sure why we're still having this conversation after 7 years. Tannehill had some AMAZING games where he looked like one of the best in the league. He also had some awful games where he didn't look like an NFL starter. Overall, he was a pretty good QB that just couldn't handle pressure...which is apparent in his league-leading years of sacks, strip sacks, etc. There's really no point arguing it further though since we finally traded him. It's time to focus on Rosen.
     
    Irishman likes this.
  27. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    14,043
    7,967
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    No. Average QBs get paid like really good QBs because there are so few really good - elite QBs.

    What do you think average QBs should be paid? ‍♂️‍♂️
     
    Irishman likes this.
  28. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    3,140
    995
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    I don’t think they should be paid at all. I think teams should let them go and draft new ones.
     
    djphinfan and resnor like this.
  29. Surfs Up 99

    Surfs Up 99 Team Flores & Team Tua

    1,950
    1,784
    113
    May 5, 2016
    This is why I really hope Rosen turns out to be our guy!
     
    The Guy likes this.
  30. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    14,043
    7,967
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Ok. But then you'd have a bunch of terrible QBs in the league. Like the vast majority of drafted QBs are no better than average.
     
    The Guy likes this.
  31. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    3,140
    995
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Exactly, and that would be similar to the “tanking” you see some teams do in other sports when they are trying to improve. You would either have the QB necessary to win a Super Bowl, or you would be playing poorly enough to be able to draft highly enough to get one.
     
  32. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    2,408
    2,012
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    You can do that for any position though, not just the QB.

    Considering Tannehill has played in at least some games where we beat some good Quarterbacks....sure he can win.

    Is he a franchise QB who will carry the team? No, not close. Are we down to the leve of suggesting he cant win a game now though?
     
    resnor likes this.
  33. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    14,043
    7,967
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    I think that would kill the NFL. You'd have like 4 teams a season that would not be replacing their QB. As a fan that would be terrible. Especially because you need an entire team, not simply a QB. Imagine if you had 20+ teams tanking EVERY SEASON instead of a team every few seasons tanking. Not to mention you'd have to get rid of the rookie contracts, and putting every rookie on year to year deal. Good luck with all that.
     
    Unlucky 13, The Guy and Irishman like this.
  34. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    3,140
    995
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    No other position on the field is anywhere near as impactful as quarterback.

    And no, I’m nowhere near suggesting that he can’t win a game. If you read through my posts, you’ll see the overwhelming emphasis is on whether he can make a playoff run and win a Super Bowl, when the competition gets a lot stiffer.
     
  35. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    3,140
    995
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Then what would be killing the NFL in that scenario is the root cause of that issue, which is the 2004 change in the rules and the corresponding overwhelming emphasis on the passing game and the quarterback position. The NFL would have in essence unwittingly killed itself.
     
    Last edited: May 27, 2019
  36. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    14,043
    7,967
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    I disagree. The reason teams aren't doing what you suggest is because they understand it takes more than a QB to win. The rule changes made it easier to QB, thus the inflated passer rating numbers as compared to other decades. So it couldn't be the 2004 rule change that would be causing the issue.
     
  37. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    7,916
    9,378
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Except in 1978 where the NFL instituted the 5 yard illegal contact rule and where it allowed offensive linemen to extend their arms on passing plays, there's no single rule change where you can see a dramatic effect on the passing game. Instead, what you see is a steady rise in league average passer rating most likely due to a steady stream of rule changes that incrementally helped the passing game.

    First the data:
    [​IMG]

    Even allowing for time to adapt and make best use of a recent rule change, you don't see abrupt jumps after which there's a relative plateau, though we'll see what that 2018 increase ends up being (is it just random variation or the start of something new?).

    But just to give you an idea of the steady stream of rule changes that helped the passing game (and this list isn't comprehensive by any means), in 1982 they made it illegal to use the crown of the helmet against a passer or receiver in the act of catching a pass, in 1989 they made it illegal for a defender with unrestricted line to the QB to hit the QB below the knee, in 1993 they changed the intentional grounding rule so that throwing the ball away past the goal line is not intentional grounding as long as you are outside the pocket, in 1995 they prohibited defensive players from "unnecessarily and violently" throwing down a QB after a pass, in 2002 they made helmet-to-helmet after change of possession, in 2006 low hits on QB's were made illegal if the rushing defender had a chance to avoid it, in 2007 a block below the waist against an eligible receiver while the QB is in the pocket became a 15-yard penalty instead of a 5-yard penalty AND they instituted the "Brady rule" where a defender can't roll and lunge to hit the QB in the knee area or below even if he's being contacted by another player, in 2011 they included on the list of "defenseless players" receivers who hadn't yet had a chance to protect themselves after a catch, etc...

    And of course in 2018 they made it a foul for defenders to lower their helmet to initiate contact against an opponent, and in 2019 they made pass interference reviewable (will be interesting to see the effect of this one!). Oh! And of course the 2004 illegal contact "point of emphasis" you mentioned must be included too. I'm sure there are many more.

    Point is.. except for 1978 the NFL is just enacting a slow but steady stream of rules that make it easier to have inflated passing stats. Personally, I'd like to see less of this but I'm not in charge lol.
     
    Pauly, Surfs Up 99 and The Guy like this.
  38. texanphinatic

    texanphinatic Senior Member

    10,433
    3,748
    113
    Nov 26, 2007
    Detroit Metro Area MI
    It's not about winning one game, its winning 3-4 in a row against either a very stingy defense (see Eagles and Pat's lately) and/or needing to outscore Pat Mahomes or Drew Brees.

    Can Tannehill do that 3-4 times in a row? Doubtful.
     
    The Guy likes this.
  39. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    3,140
    995
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Teams are beginning to do a variant of what I suggested. Last year the Arizona Cardinals drafted a quarterback in the high first round. They let him play for only part of a season before drafting another one first overall this year.

    They could’ve kept last year’s first-round quarterback and tried to build around him with this year’s first overall pick, perhaps eventually paying him an average salary for an average performance and continuing to try to build around him with additional players (i.e., Tannehill), but instead they traded him away and drafted another one they thought would be better.

    The point is that they used high first round picks on quarterbacks in two consecutive years because they thought the second of them would get them a player with a much higher ceiling. Teams have realized they cannot make do with average quarterbacks anymore.
     
  40. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    14,043
    7,967
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Easy there. Perhaps you should see a few more teams consistently doing that before you say that it's occurring in the NFL. The reason the Cardinals took a QB this year was because Rosen was less than spectacular last year and there were incredible choices this year. I'd label it a freak occurrence before patting myself on the back for identifying a trend before it's a trend.

    Like if Murray hadn't been in the draft this year, I bet that Arizona wouldn't have moved on so quickly from Rosen.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page