Nope.

I don't care if it comes from his own mouth. I do not, and will never, judge individual players on wins and losses. Ever.

 

I agree with Ryan if you win everything else will take care of themselves. He is putting the team wins ahead of his personal accomplishments with that statement.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

I see what you are saying. I guess it depends on where the player is in there career and what is more important there own personal stats or a Super Bowl victory.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Agree to a point...I mean, if you just go by wins, particularly championships, Trent Dilfer > Dan Marino?

 

However you decide to judge him, every player should judge themselves to a good/great degree on how their team performed. Guys who focus on individual metrics (whether you can measure them easily or not) often don't end up being great for the team.

And even for an outside observer, wins should factor into every (overall) measure of individual performance for one simple reason: we don't have measures of individual performance that fully capture all the effects of that player towards the ultimate goal = wins. That means you should hedge your judgment based solely on certain individual measures by weighting wins to some degree in overall player evaluation.

 

Stats are merely an individual rating. Therefore Tannehill is 100% correct when he states that he should be judged on wins.
Winning is absolutely the only thing that matters in the NFL. Each year you have one winner at the end of each season and 31 losers.

It it may be a team sport, but it has been shown over and over that great QB's can lead mediocre talent to winning seasons. It is now time for Tannehill to show he deserves to be one of the highest paid QB's in the NFL. The time for excuses is over with.

 

Hogwash.... You play for rings. That's everyone's goal in the NFL.

 

if he wants to be judged on wins then there are things he can do individually to make that happen, I wish he would acknowledge those things...like saying , ''if the play isn't there then I've got to pick up the first down on my own and make a play''..or..if the oline is allowing pressure than I need to take it upon myself to get out of trouble and make a play''

 

I see what you're saying, and I think he did improve on this aspect last year. I'd say that and ball placement (not even necessarily on deep balls) are the two things he needs to elevate to get to being a top 10 QB. I'm not sure he'll ever be a Russell Wilson, Cam Newton or Aaron Rodgers in that regard, but he can still improve on it.

 

Disagree.

Tannehill and every player has to say what he said, lest he get blasted for being selfish.

 

He also needs to get better in the 4-minute and 2-minute offense. Too much time wasted/indecision is what I observed last year.

 

Well, the two arguments I made (the two paragraphs) talk about how one should measure things, which is completely independent of whether what Tannehill said was genuine or not, so I'm not sure if you actually disagree with either of those two paragraphs.

As to the point about a player having to say stuff like that, what about this:
http://nesn.com/2014/11/report-peyton-manning-wants-to-break-major-passing-records-before-retiring/

Peyton Manning comes out and says a big reason he wants to continue playing is to break passing records. Not sure if he got blasted for being selfish. A lot of players say they want to improve some individual performance stat and don't get blasted for being selfish. It depends a lot on how the player is perceived and what he's done IMO.

Also, when I read what Tannehill said, it sounds to me like he means it. No way to know for sure, but it's not that unusual to see pros care so much about winning, even to the detriment of their own stats.

 

At the end of a career, fairly or not, you are judged on your teams performance. Now, if you never got to the big game, but made the playoffs consistently, you can be judged as great. If Tannehill ends his career at slightly under .500 and never made the playoffs, he will be judged as a stat compiler, that's all. He's had the chances already. He didn't play well. He knows what he needs to do. Lift the team on his back when they're not doing the greatest, and carry them.

 

I didn't artfully make my points as I was distracted by stuff going on at home. I'll try again.

Wins should have absolutely nothing to do with judging a player. It is a team sport and a QB cannot stop the other team, catch the ball, kick, block etc. You might be able to get away coming up with a stat that shows how much a given player contributed to the win or loss, but I suspect that's not entirely feasible, since its virtually impossible to assign blame to even an incompletion without knowing every little bit of info about the play, defense, time to throw, oline assignments, etc. I'm sure however, you'll claim to have that very stat and I'll point out that it can't be that accurate because of what I just said, and we'll go round and round.

The way this was brought up is that wins in the broad sense should count towards determining a player's greatness and there's simply no way to use wins in the broad sense to do that and be intellectually honest.

My other point, was that you can't go by what a player says, because they have to play culture politics. Manning, is that tail end of his HoF career and he has allowances earned by his years of play, that a player like Tannehill doesn't have.

 

That's crap really.

First of all, you cannot make that argument and the argument that the coach, gm or anyone else is responsible for wins and losses. It simply makes no logical sense as they literally contradict.

Secondly, you're creating an out for Marino, so that your ever fluid benchmarks can be used here but not when discussing Marino. I know, I know, you didn't specifically mention Marino, but we both know why you invented that safe zone of "Now, if you never got to the big game, but made the playoffs consistently, you can be judged as great." Its crap, if wins matter in rating a QB than the ultimate wins matter more and cannot be taken out of the equation because you lack the fortitude to make check marks against a player you respect, like Marino.

 

If you read the 2nd paragraph of post #6 again, you'll see I'm claiming that precisely because: 1) the ultimate goal is to win, and 2) you cannot yet measure individual performance with stats perfectly, that you should incorporate wins in some way (doesn't mean they're weighted a lot) into every overall measure of individual ability.

If you don't disagree with assumptions 1 or 2, then the conclusion follows because otherwise you're leaving out information that is relevant to the analysis.

"should count towards" is the problem phrase in this statement. Yes, it should count towards it for the reason I mentioned, but that doesn't mean it should be the sole or even primary determinant of overall measure of individual ability.

Agree with this, but I need some evidence that Tannehill didn't mean what he said. It's still within the range of what's believable even given politics. For example, he didn't have to even answer that way. He could have just pointed out all the things he needs to improve on (that just would've happened to improve his stats).

 

No.

Look, you're not giving a reason for counting them other than "a team's goal is to win". You clearly explain why you CAN'T include them, but then basically disregard that. It simply makes no sense.

I don't need evidence. I just discount it. If evidence comes up later that counters or confirms it then fine, but until then its not useful data.

 

He's a QB in a league where the league has dictated that QBs have a profound impact on winning. If you are a good QB, the wins will eventually follow. There will be some years where you aren't winning, but there aren't many great QBs that are below .500.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

 

Can you explain what you're referring to in the bolded part? I don't recall ever explaining why one cannot include something (in fact the argument was just the opposite).


Either way, to try an explain the logic better, let's assume the goal is to win (this is an assumption so I'm not justifying it further). The value of every player should thus be determined by how much that player helps you win. If you could measure exactly the contribution of every player to winning, then that measure (an individual measure) is sufficient and you do not need to take into account wins/losses.

If however you cannot exactly measure the contribution of a player to winning, then that means you are not including some information that is relevant to determining that player's contribution to winning. What this means is there is some type of influence of the player on the final outcome you are not including in your analysis. That influence is in some way contained in the win/loss record. Of course, the effect may be very weak. The weaker the effect, the less you weight the win/loss record.

I can accept that. I personally won't discount it and take the opposite view: if evidence comes up later that counters it I'll change my opinion.

 

Awful defenses consistently win in the modern NFL. Yes, it makes it harder, but really is not prohibitive.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

 

I'm saying that this:

...is not an argument that supports your stance, it supports mine. So while you think you're defending your stance you're actually illustrating why you cannot count team wins.

Until you can figure out exactly how to weight wins, you cannot use them. Basically what you're saying is that since a given object is tool but you have no idea how to use that tool, you should try to use that mystery tool when fixing a car. It makes no sense.

I agree with the broad concept of changing an opinion based on future info, but you have it backwards on this particular issue.

What we know:
- Players for the most part try to say the correct thing from a public perception standpoint.

What we don't know:
- What Tannehill really thinks.
- How wins actually reflect on a QB's level of greatness.

So, you're overwriting what we know, based on info we don't know. The logical decision, is to assume Tannehill is just playing politics, while understanding we could get info that genuinely means it and then we change our opinion.

 

I don't need to know exactly how to weight wins. I just know (based on the argument that I gave) that if you assume: 1) the goal is to win, and 2) you cannot exactly measure the contribution of a given player to winning, then the weight is NOT zero. It could be small or large, but you HAVE to have a non-zero weight on win/losses to more accurately measure overall individual performance.

No, the logical decision is to NOT discount data in the first place. It can be left up to interpretation based on further evidence, but no data should be completely discounted (unless it's 100% deducible from other data, which is not the case here.. you can't predict exactly what Tannehill will say). We also don't know what the probability is of Tannehill making a statement like he made based on politics, so how much to "discount" it is not clear.. that's subjective. Both our approaches are fine.

 

Fine.

I weight wins and the things we don't know about Tannehill to be .0001%. The stuff we do know is weighted 99.9999%. So the things at .0001% are not really all that significant. You can't tell me I'm wrong, since its either info you don't know how to weight or info you don't actually have.

 

That's perfectly fine.. I only care about the principle here because in practice no one knows what the proper weights are.

To determine what weights are more likely to be correct, you'd have to measure performance of different people assigning different weights (unless much better football stats are developed). It would actually be cool to do something like that but I don't think we'd get enough participation.

 

thats the thing RO, I haven't seen any improvement since he came into the league and the numbers back it up...only had 8 runs that went past the LOS that weren't scripted, and averaged less than one roll out per game..We know he can run when his name is called in the read option but thats different than using the entire skill set to make an individual play to help your team convert, I truly think this is the missing ingredient to his and our teams success going forward.

 

really interesting question I heard by a reporter, and that was to philbin, question was, '' why don't you think the solid numbers ryan posted didn't translate to wins'', and philbin answered with, ''the team wasn't complimenting one another down the stretch''.. while I agree with that for me thats a surface level answer, doesn't really get to the root..I think while yes he did post solid numbers he's got to implement this element that I'm talking about, I think that alone would make our chances of winning better, converting crucial downs in the game, 1 or 2 can be the difference in winning and losing.

 

Since I apply the George Costanza rule to your posts, this means it's the greatest idea ever.

As for Marino he got some pretty craptastic defenses into the playoffs. He played worse in the playoffs than Joe Montana did. I count that against him. Very heavily against him. Go read my posts on Marino.

No single position is more responsible for wins and losses today than QB. The single greatest predictor of wins is what, YPA and/or QB rating differential? Nobody says it's a 1:1 proposition. But it's significantly weighted.

Some are trying to argue, in this very thread, since you can't pinpoint with rocket science specificity, it shouldn't be considered all. Nonsense.

 

Yeah...that's a good idea. When logic is shown to prove your rhetoric to be ridiculous, its better to reference "Seinfeld", than admit you're wrong.

 

Colts teams all those years. A few Aaron Rodgers teams the past few.

 

Honestly, I think yall are making this way to difficult. WE ALL KNOW ALOT MORE THEN the common person who watches football on Sundays. We all have the ability to judge a player on both wins, and his stats. It does not have to be either or. We can all watch the game and see why a certain result takes place. At the end of the day, wins are what matters. But we will all know if any particular player did enough to get a team to a win.

 

What? Tannehill is gonna be the only QB in the league to play a defensive position? No? Then don't invite this crap storm about judging you on wins Tanney, just don't.

 

I call BS on the idea that QBs can't be judged on wins. First of all it can't be a coincidence that every single elite QB in the modern era all have winning records. Second of all Tannehill doesn't need to block punts to increase his win total. In the Green Bay game both he and Rodgers had the ball in their hands with one possession left to win the game. Same goes for the Detroit game. Same goes for the Denver game. No need to play CB for a series. No need to be a gunner on special teams. Just make a few more plays at your own position of QB and that 8-8 record becomes 11-5. Can the QB decide every game? Of course not but there is a huge difference between 11-5 and 8-8.

 

I think there's been improvement in both him stepping up in the pocket/knowing when to run and with his ball placement. I think, however, with the weapons around him know, that if he can take another "step" and improve his ball placement even more, it will be more beneficial than him running from the pocket. You have players like Stills, Landry, Parker, Cameron and even the backs like Williams and Ajayi who can do a lot more with the ball in their hands than say Hartline, Wallace or Gibson. Losing Clay hurts, but it sounds like his knee was an ongoing thing last year. But I believe that Tannehill being able to hit the upfield or lead shoulder more consistently will be a boon; more so than him running it.

That said, I do think that moving him outside the pocket is one thing that Bill Lazor can improve in terms of his play-calling. I agree with you there.

 

i don't know where you see the improvement in knowing when to run when he does it less than tom brady and aaron rogers...like I said about 8 times the whole year, thats not good enough.not with this skill set, not if its about winning and how he wants to be known, the objective is to do everything possible from an individual standpoint to help your team win, I too think he will improve his numbers just by playing the same because of the upgrade in talent around him, but the name of the game is winning the Super Bowl..hes got to do better than 8 times during a whole season.

 

Just curious, where are you getting the 8 times number from?

 

With a big contract indeed comes very big responsibility with wins and all of that.