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

Possible Controversy Coming?

Discussion in 'Miami Dolphins Forum' started by Galant, Oct 6, 2019.

  1. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    1,624
    837
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    So again, the question becomes, do you think Dalton’s career passer rating would be the same as Brady’s if Dalton had played for the Patriots all of his career?
     
  2. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    13,268
    7,481
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Dude. It doesn't matter. Passer rating is affected by the players around the QB. I've answered this plenty of times. Good QBs tend to be on good teams, and as such enjoy the benefit of having better players around then. The QBs on poor teams don't generally have good players around them, and as such enjoy the benefits of sloppy routes and lack of focus. Now that QB might have a lower ability than a QB on a great team...but he would still be better on the good yeah than on the bad team. Think of it like this: if Tannehill had played behind a good oline, then we wouldn't even be having this conversation. Tannehill would be throwing for 4-5k a year with good td-int ratio. Instead, were looking at a potential 0 win season. Now, in that scenario Tannehill isn't actually any better, just his deficiencies aren't seen because other players eliminate his weakness. Passer rating wouldn't show that at all.
     
  3. Vertical Limit

    Vertical Limit Senior Member

    10,593
    3,699
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    Yea no.. Tannehill would not have those stats. And football overall is more than stats, you need to have IT to win championships in this league.

    if youre gonna build a team by moneyballing it, then all youre gonna end up with is a team like the Falcons, Bengals or the Lions.

    The Vikings have tried to moneyball, look what it has gotten them with Kirk Cousins. The vikings have Thielen, Rudolph Cook and Diggs, what team wouldnt want that combo? That team isnt a better team today with Tannehill, that team is a better team with Josh Allen though. Just having arm talent isnt enough, you need a real leader of men to win.
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2019
  4. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    7,386
    8,665
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Hmm.. I'll just restate my position on this because I think a lot of this debate is unnecessary.

    Every team stat (e.g., passer rating) becomes an individual stat IF you keep that individual constant in the stat (as is true with the QB in passer rating) while completely averaging out all other factors that contribute to the stat. That's just a mathematical property and can't really be argued. So the only question here should be to what degree "averaging out" occurs for passer rating.

    And I think I gave a decent answer to that before. The standard deviation in win probability over 5 years is about half that of what would be expected if you randomly chose team strength from game to game. In other words, to a decent approximation, passer rating is about half-way to a true individual stat when sample size is very large. It does NOT become an individual stat when sample size is large but it DOES measure to an increasing degree individual ability with larger sample size.

    Not sure how to attack that position. And going half-way is pretty good IMO. Good enough to use the stat as a decent measure of QB ability as long as you understand that about half the influence of the surrounding cast isn't removed even with large sample size. It's certainly better than subjective ratings or "stats" that attempt to account for everything but end up just being subjective (e.g., ESPN's QBR, DVOA).


    Anyway, I might not respond for awhile if someone disagrees. I've been trying to fly to Japan for the last 20+ hours, but because of a typhoon over there my first flight got canceled, forcing me to spend $110 to go to a different airport for a 2nd flight, the 2nd leg of which got canceled after I flew the first leg to a 3rd airport where I'm now stranded lol. It's going to take me 40+ hours to fly to Japan! Unbelievable.
     
    The Guy and Irishman like this.
  5. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    1,624
    837
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Thanks for the great post. Here's my question regarding the portion in yellow above: over that large a sample size, however, and given the inherent parity in the league, do we get relative equivalencies among teams with regard to the abilities of their surrounding casts. If so, then we're talking about an even stronger measure of quarterbacks' individual ability.

    Hope you made it to Japan safely and without much further trouble.
     
    Irishman likes this.
  6. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    13,268
    7,481
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    What are you talking about? Tannehill was throwing for around 4k with a garbage team. Or him behind a good oline, he'd look way better than he did. Wouldn't change his ability.
     
  7. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    13,268
    7,481
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    I'm not sure how a stat that depends on another human to do something ever averages out to be only a one person stat. That's something we will never agree on.
     
  8. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    1,624
    837
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Because the one person (the quarterback) is the only constant measured by the statistic. That's a very simple point.

    Tom Brady's career passer rating, for example, represents of all of the relevant plays in which he's been involved, along with a large number of other players over the course of his career.

    None of those other players is involved in every play that generated his career passer rating. However, Tom Brady is involved in every play that generated his career passer rating!

    So, when Tom Brady threw to Randy Moss, perhaps it helped elevate his passer rating. Perhaps when he threw to Jabbar Gaffney, it lowered his passer rating. Either way, Tom Brady is involved in both instances. Neither Randy Moss nor Jabbar Gaffney were involved in all of those instances. Brady didn't throw the ball to Randy Moss or Jabbar Gaffney on every play, and Randy Moss and Jabbar Gaffney can't both catch a pass on the same single play.

    Tom Brady is the one constant, among a large number of other players who've caught his passes. When you have a large enough sample size, for all intents and purposes, then, Tom Brady's career passer rating is measuring Tom Brady.

    A lot of different guys have caught the ball from Brady, and yes, they're certainly necessary, but Tom Brady threw the ball every time.
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2019
  9. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    1,685
    1,465
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    Probably not, but I do think he would be better than current Andy Dalton.

    Bill B has made much lesser QB look like potential starters for stretches.
     
    The Guy likes this.
  10. KeyFin

    KeyFin Well-Known Member

    6,340
    8,299
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    I'd call it "The Endless Argument" forum.
     
  11. Irishman

    Irishman Well-Known Member

    334
    355
    63
    Oct 16, 2017
    High Point, NC
    I'll enjoy the Skins game discussions, reading the level headed, well thought out and clearly supported explanations that all the but hurt lemmings are going to provide. With a little luck I may see one or two before the game even starts.
     
    KeyFin likes this.
  12. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    1,624
    837
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    The other issue with this, in addition to what I wrote above, is that passer rating is lowered when the quarterback makes a mistake that's no fault of the rest of the team.

    So while Tom Brady has thrown every pass that has contributed to his career passer rating, and you might believe he's been the beneficiary of his surroundings, it's nonetheless the case that he has been penalized in terms of his passer rating when he's made mistakes that were no fault of his surroundings, no matter how good his surroundings have been.

    So if you're looking at Tom Brady's career passer rating and determining whether it's a measure of his individual ability, consider not only that Brady's surrounding cast has participated in his passer rating, but also that whatever mistakes he's made that were no fault of his surrounding cast have been applied to his career passer rating.

    Passer rating isn't just a measure of the "good" that's happened. It's also a measure of the bad.
     
  13. KeyFin

    KeyFin Well-Known Member

    6,340
    8,299
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    Like the 3 or 4 perfectly thrown TD passes Rosen had dropped this season? His stats show 4 incompletions instead of 4 TD's and I'm pretty sure the fault was with the rest of the team...

    And I know what you'll say...four passes is no big deal since every QB has good throws dropped. But these were 4 precision TD bombs that would completely change his QBR after only a few games. And unfortunately, those stats are reality for a lot of fans...they don't have the cognitive processing power to see past them.
     
    resnor likes this.
  14. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    1,624
    837
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    No, what I will say is that, like I’ve said throughout this topic, passer rating, like almost all statistics, is not reliable for small sample sizes.

    So even if those passes had been caught, there still wouldn’t be much we could conclude about Josh Rosen’s passer rating this season.
     
  15. Puka-head

    Puka-head My2nd Fav team:___vs Jets Club Member

    6,522
    2,773
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    Slightly left of center
    Or the "Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics" forum.

    Or "Nerd Wars!"
     
    RevRick, KeyFin and Irishman like this.
  16. Puka-head

    Puka-head My2nd Fav team:___vs Jets Club Member

    6,522
    2,773
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    Slightly left of center
    You mean the one about the possible controversy if we obviously start intentionally losing games?
     
  17. Irishman

    Irishman Well-Known Member

    334
    355
    63
    Oct 16, 2017
    High Point, NC
    I believe the guy who coined the statement "there are lies, damn lies and statistics" was a politician.

    You know, like the folks in congress who at one time (100 years or so ago) had to decide if a tomato was a fruit or a vegetable. (Hint: every horticulturalist know its a fruit, but congress proclaimed it a vegetable). Then there was the moronic congress from the "Great State of Illinois" that decided a little over 100 years ago to copy-write the mathematical value for Pi, which is 3.14159 and on for ever. To make it simpler to use, they rounded it up to the number 4. As I understand it, that didn't work out to well.

    Considering the kind of morons we elect to make these kinds of decision, the posters we have here aren't nearly as bad.

    But don't push it! You could end up in congress!
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2019
    Hooligan and Puka-head like this.
  18. Vertical Limit

    Vertical Limit Senior Member

    10,593
    3,699
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    He wasnt even the second best quarterback of the division that season... Ryan Fitzpatrick had overall better numbers for the freaking Jets.. seriously 4k yards doesnt mean ****.. even Kyle Orton has accomplished that that feat.
     
  19. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    1,685
    1,465
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    I think Tannehill is a playoff QB with a stud offensive line before his injuries, but 5k seems kind of ridiculous.
     
  20. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    1,685
    1,465
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    Hes only played two games. The entire thing is a small sample size right now. It may not impact the outlook end of season if things even out but it certainly impacts what we have so far.
     
  21. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    13,268
    7,481
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Maybe. Just saying, if he'd played on a better overall team, he'd have looked better.
     
  22. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    13,268
    7,481
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    I'd have to look but wasn't Tannehill throwing for 4k already? You don't think with a better line and better receivers they he could have thrown for 5k?
     
  23. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    1,685
    1,465
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    Probably not but it's just my opinion, we were behind and/or close in most games and had to pass to catch up. I actually think he would have ended up passing less with a better line.

    I think his YPA would be impacted more than total yards.
     
    resnor likes this.
  24. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    1,624
    837
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    There is an NFL graveyard of quarterbacks, guys whose careers ended without much fanfare, about whom the same thing could be said.

    What there aren't a lot of in recent league history are quarterbacks whose individual ability was elevated by their surroundings to the tune of winning a Super Bowl.

    There are lots of "Tannehills" that have come and gone, guys who "could've done a lot better if they only had X around them." Almost none of them get enough "X" to win a Super Bowl however. The guys winning Super Bowls don't need any X's.

    Ryan Tannehill
    Matthew Stafford
    Jay Cutler
    Andy Dalton
    Sam Bradford
    Alex Smith

    A sampling of QBs who've played at about the same level, all of whom have probably needed an "X" to win a Super Bowl.

    Aaron Rodgers
    Russell Wilson
    Tom Brady
    Ben Roethlisberger
    Drew Brees
    Peyton Manning

    Another sampling of QBs who've won almost every Super Bowl in recent history, who didn't need any "X" to do so because they possessed far greater individual ability.

    About the only exceptions in the past 15 years of league play are Eli Manning and Joe Flacco. So you get a very slim shot at winning a Super Bowl from having a QB who needs an "X."
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2019
  25. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    13,268
    7,481
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Your QBs in the group who didn't need any X did everything themselves?

    You are literally getting more and more ridiculous.
     
  26. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    1,624
    837
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    The quarterbacks in that group didn’t need an “X” to be much better players individually than the quarterbacks in the other group.

    What’s ridiculous is that you’re taking common knowledge and making it seem esoteric.
     
  27. Puka-head

    Puka-head My2nd Fav team:___vs Jets Club Member

    6,522
    2,773
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    Slightly left of center
    d194fed3ef186f1e3367ec0d24260cbb-1.jpeg d194fed3ef186f1e3367ec0d24260cbb-1.jpeg Oh My Lord!!!!

    How the hell did a thread about whether or not there would be a controversy if the Dolphins were found to be intentionally throwing games turn in to the billionth flipping thread about the current Tennessee Titans flipping back up QB and whether or not he would have sucked any more or less than x,y, and z if variable who gives a flip had or had not flipping happened when he used to be yours!!!

    Let it flipping go !!!
     
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2019
  28. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    7,386
    8,665
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    The dependency on others never goes away when you "average out". Instead, "averaging out" puts the individuals you want to compare (e.g., two different QB's) in "statistically similar situations". Any difference in performance must then be due to the QB's. Of course that's if you completely average out. Passer rating over large sample size goes about halfway to truly averaging out (which would literally mean randomly choosing the supporting cast each game).

    No way to know whether you get more of an equivalency with surrounding cast of QB's than with the team as a whole. But unless otherwise shown I'd assume that variation in individual ability at each position is distributed similarly, so I'd assume that the "half-way to averaging out" argument applies to a QB's surrounding cast.

    Worse than expected. 5 airports in 2 days, now I have to pay for 4 nights stay at a hotel before the next available flight on Wednesday, which will arrive in Japan on Thursday. That means it will take me a WEEK to get to Japan LOLOL. At least I'll have stories to tell.
     
    The Guy likes this.
  29. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    1,685
    1,465
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    I absolutely disagree the QB you listed dont need a surrounding cast to win a Super Bowl.

    Brady and Mannibg would be closest, but not a single other QB on that list can get to that level on their own.

    Rodgers is actually a great example of an amazing g QB who still needs a supporting cast to win at his highest level.

    Russel Wilson needed one of the greatest defenses of all time and is probably one of the most overrated QB of our era. He can put up #'s on his own but not win.

    Big Ben? He certainly gave you a shot if healthy, his best seasons (win wise) were still when he had a great cast of players. Hes maybe the closest beyond Brady/Manning.

    Brees...sorry but no. Hes a great passer and can carry an offense, but again his one SB win was with a great supporting cast if players.

    These players havent been the only reason their team made a SB. They have been great additions and leaders on their team, but aside from Brady/Manning I dont think any of them are capable just on their own.

    In other words, insert those guys here and we are probably a 10-11 win team, but they arent winning a SB without some support.
     
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2019
    resnor likes this.
  30. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    1,624
    837
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    It sounds like I wasn't clear enough about what I meant in that post.

    What inspired the post was the comment that Ryan Tannehill would've played better with a better offensive line.

    In other words, Tannehill was a QB who needed "X" to play better individually.

    The QBs listed in the better group above don't need an "X" to play better individually. They play individually at at level that's consistent with Super Bowl contention regardless of what's going on around them.

    Can they win a Super Bowl all by themselves? Of course not, but by the same token they don't need some critical piece of environment simply to get to a level individually -- within themselves -- that's consistent with Super Bowl contention.

    They are already at that level individually.

    Here's an analogy (totally non-scientific and hypothetical in nature): a kid with a 100 IQ needs a great teacher to score very highly on the SAT. A kid with a 150 IQ can score very highly on the SAT without a great teacher. The QBs in the "Tannehill" group above have 100 IQs. The QBs in the other group have 150 IQs.
     
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2019
  31. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    1,685
    1,465
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    In that context I agree.

    Its always better to have Brees than Tannehill and if you have the opportunity you grab him...but at the same time there really arent a large number of players that fit that mold at any given time.

    We've been lucky in recent years seeing an era where a lot of QB talented above what is normal seem to have appeared within a small window of time.

    Brees, Brady, Big Ben, Rivers, Eli, Peyton, Rodgers and maybe a few more, and to varying degrees, are all players that have a much higher than average ability to play their position but are long in the tooth or recently retired.

    I dont think it's a given that there will always be so many of these QBs available as we see now that can truly impact a game on their own.

    There will always be a few of course, but my point is that you're much more likely to end up with a Tannehill or Dalton than a Brady/Manning.

    In other words...if the plan is to get the next Manning/Brady/Rodgers that may not even be possible.

    I guess I'm mainly saying that once you find someone to drive the car and they prove they are at least a "playoff" driver, it may just be best to see what improvements you can make to the car.

    FWIW Tannehill isnt even the best example because I was ready to move on from him. He just looked like a different player after his injuries to me on the field, one that wouldnt get it done regardless.
     
    resnor and The Guy like this.
  32. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    1,624
    837
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Believe it or not a QB has to be among the top six quarterbacks in the league in passer rating in any one season to provide a team with playoff-level quarterback play (10 or more expected wins as a team).

    Naturally that can happen with quarterbacks who don't typically play at that level, like when Andy Dalton's passer rating in 2015 (106) spiked a huge 17 points higher than his career rating (89), for example. The Bengals finished 12-4 that year, but Dalton's career win percentage outside that season is 52%, which is consistent with his average career passer rating and inconsistent with Super Bowl contention. Notice he hasn't been to a Super Bowl.

    Obviously you stand a much better chance of having a quarterback function at that top-six level in any one season if that's where he typically functions. You don't want to need the stars to align to get your QB to have a single season here or there in his career that's consistent with Super Bowl contention, and that's what has to happen when you have a QB who typically plays at but an average level.
     
  33. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    13,268
    7,481
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    But passer rating is not only about the QB...especially if you're going off one season.
     
    The Guy likes this.
  34. Irishman

    Irishman Well-Known Member

    334
    355
    63
    Oct 16, 2017
    High Point, NC
    There is a historical precedent for this nonsense.

    "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"

    People have been arguing about this kind of nonsense forever!
     
    KeyFin and Puka-head like this.
  35. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    1,624
    837
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    No it isn't, and again you can get a QB who typically has an average passer rating to have a much higher rating in any one season (a la Andy Dalton in 2015).

    But there are two inherent difficulties with that: 1) it isn't anywhere near as likely to happen as is a better quarterback's simply playing at his typically higher level in any one season, and 2) it takes an unusually good environmental influence to cause it, and those kinds of environmental influences are unlikely to happen as well.

    This is of course why teams are clamoring for exceptionally good quarterbacks and not just average quarterbacks with great surrounding casts. Note the Cardinals and how they jettisoned Rosen for Murray, when that could've easily been a surrounding cast player (a left tackle for example) instead of Murray at number one overall.
     
  36. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    13,268
    7,481
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    You're essentially arguing that it doesn't matter who an elite QB is throwing to, he's going to exhibit elite results. But it actually does matter who the qQB is throwing to.
     
  37. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    1,624
    837
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    What I'm saying is that if you gave the elite quarterback the same surroundings as an average quarterback, the elite quarterback would perform better than the average quarterback within those same surroundings.

    Do you disagree with that?

    If you disagree with that, then you've reverted to the position that there are no differences in individual ability among QBs, and then we can stop the discussion given the absurdity of that position.
     
  38. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    1,685
    1,465
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    What about if you knock it down to 9 wins? That is more what I'm talking about needing, baseline.
     
  39. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    1,624
    837
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    I'm not sure that's a great cutoff to use.

    Since 2004 there have been 50 teams finish the regular season with a 9-7 record. 31 of those teams (62%) didn't make the playoffs.

    During the same time period, 49 teams finished the regular season with a 10-6 record. 41 of those teams (89%) made the playoffs.

    So if you're looking for quarterback play that gets you at least to "playoff-level," 10 regular season wins should be your target.
     
  40. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    1,685
    1,465
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    I think if a QB is capable of winning 9 games with a mediocre cast hes probably good enough to make the playoffs more years than not IF he has a strong supporting cast.

    I'm talking bare minimum in a QB here. It's not ideal or anything, it's the floor I want from a guy Im drafting.
     

Share This Page