Tua is not the Problem

"resnor wrote:

Yeah absolutely have to adjust Brady's rating from early career to accurately compare him to QBs today.

Not when they changed the rules for him.

"hitman8 wrote:

Tom was the QB, and he lead them to a super bowl win in his second year. Do you think Bledsoe could have done just as well? You think Tua could have won a Superbowl with that team in his second year? I don't think so.

Has Tua not had a great defense the last couple of years also? Yes, but he has not shown he is the future and is our franchise QB. Brady on the other hand established he was the franchise QB as soon as he started his first games in his second year. There was not much waiting around waiting for him to show up as we have with Tua. Again, comparing numbers for different eras is senseless and irrelevant without adjusting.

Regarding their play styles, Brady is not especially known for a rocket arm, but he has a significantly stronger arm than Tua, and his decision making and Football IQ is also much better. He also has greater size and durability.

Comparing the two is pretty senseless IMO.

You’re the one beating the drum about great players whow greatness immediately.
Why did Tom Brady split playing time with Drew Henson in college?
Why did every team on the NFL pass on him multiple times in the draft?
Why did he not play as a rookie?
Why was he only given the starter role after Drew Bledsoe was injured?
Why was he seen mainly as a game manager who’s job was to not hurt the defense early in his career?

The guy a lot of people call the GOAT didn’t explode onto the scene the same way Mahomes or Marino did. He worked hard, improved his game and then after years and years of hard work and effort was recognized. Lots of players have followed that type of career trajectory.

"Pauly wrote:

You’re the one beating the drum about great players whow greatness immediately.
Why did Tom Brady split playing time with Drew Henson in college?
Why did every team on the NFL pass on him multiple times in the draft?
Why did he not play as a rookie?
Why was he only given the starter role after Drew Bledsoe was injured?
Why was he seen mainly as a game manager who’s job was to not hurt the defense early in his career?

The guy a lot of people call the GOAT didn’t explode onto the scene the same way Mahomes or Marino did. He worked hard, improved his game and then after years and years of hard work and effort was recognized. Lots of players have followed that type of career trajectory.

Umm...Brady started winning early on. Yes, I agree he's worked hard to improve his craft, but he came on the scene and the Patriots just started to dominate. If Tua can do that I'd be thrilled. But he hasn't.

"TheHighExhaulted wrote:

Not when they changed the rules for him.

You still have to adjust dude.

"Pauly wrote:

You’re the one beating the drum about great players whow greatness immediately.
Why did Tom Brady split playing time with Drew Henson in college?
Why did every team on the NFL pass on him multiple times in the draft?
Why did he not play as a rookie?
Why was he only given the starter role after Drew Bledsoe was injured?
Why was he seen mainly as a game manager who’s job was to not hurt the defense early in his career?

The guy a lot of people call the GOAT didn’t explode onto the scene the same way Mahomes or Marino did. He worked hard, improved his game and then after years and years of hard work and effort was recognized. Lots of players have followed that type of career trajectory.

That was my point as well; he wasn't putting up "elite" numbers until his 8th year, even though he had been to multiple Super Bowls at that time. Statistically though, he was average or below average in each of those first 7 seasons.

"resnor wrote:

Umm...Brady started winning early on. Yes, I agree he's worked hard to improve his craft, but he came on the scene and the Patriots just started to dominate. If Tua can do that I'd be thrilled. But he hasn't.

Come on man, he was a game manager his first couple of years. The Patriots had an elite defense back then and guys like Corey Dillon running for 1600 yards.

"KeyFin wrote:

That was my point as well; he wasn't putting up "elite" numbers until his 8th year, even though he had been to multiple Super Bowls at that time. Statistically though, he was average or below average in each of those first 7 seasons.

Adjusted for era Brady was very good from the outset. Statistically, he was a well above average QB early on who became elite later.

Brady z-scores:
2001: 0.8084
2002: 0.5665
2003: 0.6719
2004: 0.7495
2005: 1.1214
2006: 0.7350
2007: 2.9871
..

Tua z-scores:
2020: -0.5625
2021: -0.0562

Remember z-score = 0 is average that year, and z-score = 1 is approximately the average level at which a SB winning QB plays in the year they win the SB. And for reference z-score = 0.5 is about 69th percentile and z-score = 1 is 84th percentile.

"Galant wrote:

You guys aren't paying attention to the responses people are giving here. You're posting like you just dropped a 'gotcha' without realising it's nothing of the sort. Posters who are trying to be careful with their words and scenarios are taking your words and scenarios seriously and giving it thought. As such, they're stating that there's no way that fans of any team with any QB could come into this winter in Buffalo scenario and be confident of victory based purely on their QB. Note this carefully - every fan would have to look at their whole team to determine their confidence levels. As such, anyone who stated that would just be being honest, it would not be a criticism of their QB. The same is true for Miami and Tua. Confidence of a Miami victory in that scenario requires that conversation about the whole team and not just Tua. It's a false test.

Perhaps that fact that you seem to think this is a valid scenario for evaluating a QB says more about your expectations for a franchise QB than it does anything else. If a franchise QB is one who can go into any scenario, the toughest the NFL has to offer, and by his individual influence swing the result to victory, then we're not going to see any, outside of Hollywood movies and Madden.

your moderator skills are like that of an EXTRA patient father. keep up the good work.

"resnor wrote:

But how many titles did the Patriots win? I don't know why you like to focus on the losses. How many AFC Championship games did they play in? How many straight division titles? I mean it's a silly argument. Clearly the teams with elite QBs have sustained success, while the teams with Eli Manning aren't, but are more flash in the pan types.

Yes you must have a complete team. But if you don't have an elite QB, you are going to struggle to have sustained success.

Drew Brees won 1 SB. Manning won 2, but 2nd one he was a shell former self.
TB won all those SBs because of the combination of elite QB + great team + great coaching around him. it's the rarest of combinations

"resnor wrote:

Umm...Brady started winning early on. Yes, I agree he's worked hard to improve his craft, but he came on the scene and the Patriots just started to dominate. If Tua can do that I'd be thrilled. But he hasn't.

still wrong. those patriot defenses were elite early on

"cbrad wrote:

Adjusted for era Brady was very good from the outset. Statistically, he was a well above average QB early on who became elite later.

Brady z-scores:
2001: 0.8084
2002: 0.5665
2003: 0.6719
2004: 0.7495
2005: 1.1214
2006: 0.7350
2007: 2.9871
..

Tua z-scores:
2020: -0.5625
2021: -0.0562

Remember z-score = 0 is average that year, and z-score = 1 is approximately the average level at which a SB winning QB plays in the year they win the SB. And for reference z-score = 0.5 is about 69th percentile and z-score = 1 is 84th percentile.

Lol I was reading the numbers and thinking Tua isn't so bad... then I noticed the - sign.

"cbrad wrote:

Adjusted for era Brady was very good from the outset. Statistically, he was a well above average QB early on who became elite later.

Brady z-scores:
2001: 0.8084
2002: 0.5665
2003: 0.6719
2004: 0.7495
2005: 1.1214
2006: 0.7350
2007: 2.9871
..

Tua z-scores:
2020: -0.5625
2021: -0.0562

Remember z-score = 0 is average that year, and z-score = 1 is approximately the average level at which a SB winning QB plays in the year they win the SB. And for reference z-score = 0.5 is about 69th percentile and z-score = 1 is 84th percentile.

This is rubbish.

"TheHighExhaulted wrote:

This is rubbish.

Yes I agree your statement is rubbish. That's what the "this" in your sentence refers to right?

All I'm doing is showing the actual statistics of Brady and Tua relative to their competition each year. It's standard statistical analysis, like about as standard as it gets. That you can't accept that because you want Tua to be this great QB isn't my problem. So far Tua hasn't done much. I hope he shows otherwise with the much better surrounding cast this year, but he hasn't so far.

"cbrad wrote:

Yes I agree your statement is rubbish. That's what the "this" in your sentence refers to right?

All I'm doing is showing the actual statistics of Brady and Tua relative to their competition each year. It's standard statistical analysis, like about as standard as it gets. That you can't accept that because you want Tua to be this great QB isn't my problem. So far Tua hasn't done much. I hope he shows otherwise with the much better surrounding cast this year, but he hasn't so far.

According to "z scores", Matt Hasselbeck is a Hall of Fame quarterback.

Again, rubbish.

"cbrad wrote:

Adjusted for era Brady was very good from the outset. Statistically, he was a well above average QB early on who became elite later.

Brady z-scores:
2001: 0.8084
2002: 0.5665
2003: 0.6719
2004: 0.7495
2005: 1.1214
2006: 0.7350
2007: 2.9871
..

Tua z-scores:
2020: -0.5625
2021: -0.0562

Remember z-score = 0 is average that year, and z-score = 1 is approximately the average level at which a SB winning QB plays in the year they win the SB. And for reference z-score = 0.5 is about 69th percentile and z-score = 1 is 84th percentile.

In 2002, Brady was tied for 9th in QB rating with 85.7. Pennington was 1st with 104.2. However, the difference between 9th and 18th was 1.4 points total. 16th (which should be the league average) was 85.2....which is .5 behind Brady. So yes, he was technically "above average" by the slimmest of margins, but that's only because the majority of the league had an 84 or an 85 in passer rating.

"hitman8 wrote:

Tom was the QB, and he lead them to a super bowl win in his second year. Do you think Bledsoe could have done just as well? You think Tua could have won a Superbowl with that team in his second year? I don't think so.

Short answer? Yes.

"TheHighExhaulted wrote:

According to "z scores", Matt Hasselbeck is a Hall of Fame quarterback.

Again, rubbish.

Yes I agree, once again what you say is total rubbish. Matt Hasselbeck's career z-score is 0.0168. In other words he's about as prototypical an average QB as it gets from a production standpoint. You don't have a clue what you're talking about.

z-scores are really good at showing who was above average vs. below average relative to their competition over time.

"KeyFin wrote:

In 2002, Brady was tied for 9th in QB rating with 85.7. Pennington was 1st with 104.2. However, the difference between 9th and 18th was 1.4 points total. 16th (which should be the league average) was 85.2....which is .5 behind Brady. So yes, he was technically "above average" by the slimmest of margins, but that's only because the majority of the league had an 84 or an 85 in passer rating.

That's not how you calculate relative performance. Rankings obscure actual differences in ability because the difference between ranks N and N+1 isn't the same for different N. The way you do the calculation is to first get the distribution of team passer ratings (to equate sample size, which you don't have for individual QBs) for that year:
https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2002/index.htm

Calculate the mean. Listed mean for 2002 is 80.4 which is a tiny bit different than calculated mean of 80.22 because they're combining all teams to calculate mean (which is OK as long as that approach is kept constant throughout the calculation).

Calculate the standard deviation, which is 9.3559.

Now find out how many standard deviations away from the mean Brady was in 2002. Brady's rating in 2002 was 85.7, so

z-score = (85.7-80.4)/9.3559 = 0.5665 which is exactly what I listed. Brady was solidly above average at 71st percentile in 2002.

"cbrad wrote:

That's not how you calculate relative performance. Rankings obscure actual differences in ability because the difference between ranks N and N+1 isn't the same for different N. The way you do the calculation is to first get the distribution of team passer ratings (to equate sample size, which you don't have for individual QBs) for that year:
https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2002/index.htm

Calculate the mean. Listed mean for 2002 is 80.4 which is a tiny bit different than calculated mean of 80.22 because they're combining all teams to calculate mean (which is OK as long as that approach is kept constant throughout the calculation).

Calculate the standard deviation, which is 9.3559.

Now find out how many standard deviations away from the mean Brady was in 2002. Brady's rating in 2002 was 85.7, so

z-score = (85.7-80.4)/9.3559 = 0.5665 which is exactly what I listed. Brady was solidly above average at 71st percentile in 2002.

Where does the calculated mean 80.22 come from? Because Aaron Brooks had an 80.1 rating at #19 overall. Vick was #18 w/ 81.6. I get you have a formula, but the formula feels broken if #18 is slightly above average and #9 is borderline elite....even when 9 thru 15 pretty much had the same score. Wouldn't that mean 15 of the top 32 QB's were elite? Common sense tells us otherwise.

Pennington and Gannon were elite that season with a 104.2 and a 97.3 QB rating. I'm not sure how you can say Brady was 20 points lower than Pennington yet still somehow close to the same category. Your math is lying to you!

"KeyFin wrote:

Where does the calculated mean 80.22 come from?

Like literally calculate the mean of the team passer ratings (so all QBs) in 2002. I gave you the link.

Actually it's 80.2531.. was multitasking.

"KeyFin wrote:

Pennington and Gannon were elite that season with a 104.2 and a 97.3 QB rating. I'm not sure how you can say Brady was 20 points lower than Pennington yet still somehow close to the same category. Your math is lying to you!

No you're lying to yourself. I never said Brady was elite in 2002. I said he was solidly above average that year, which he was: 5.3 passer rating points above average when the standard deviation is 9.4.

"cbrad wrote:

No you're lying to yourself. I never said Brady was elite in 2002. I said he was solidly above average that year, which he was: 5.3 passer rating points above average when the standard deviation is 9.4.

How am I lying to myself? There's 32 starting QBs. #16 was Jay Fiedler with an 85.2 rating. That tells me 85.2 is average....because he's right in the middle. Half did better than that, half did worse. Brady was .5 better than that Fiedler, not 5.3 points better.

Again, you don't need an algorithm to determine average and QB's shouldn't get "bonus points" because Harrington had a 59.9 rating at #32. Fiedler was average- no additional math is necessary.

"KeyFin wrote:

How am I lying to myself? There's 32 starting QBs. #16 was Jay Fiedler with an 85.2 rating. That tells me 85.2 is average....because he's right in the middle. Half did better than that, half did worse. Brady was .5 better than that Fiedler, not 5.3 points better.

Again, you don't need an algorithm to determine average and QB's shouldn't get "bonus points" because Harrington had a 59.9 rating at #32. Fiedler was average- no additional math is necessary.

Dude.. you can't redefine "average passer rating" to be the passer rating of the #16th ranked QB. There is literally a mathematical definition of "average". And that requires you to take all passer ratings and take the average using the formula. Average is what I said it was: 80.2531 if you calculate literally or 80.4 if you combine across teams.

And the comment about lying to yourself referred to you suggesting I was saying Brady was elite in 2002 when I explicitly said otherwise.

"cbrad wrote:

Dude.. you can't redefine "average passer rating" to be the passer rating of the #16th ranked QB. There is literally a mathematical definition of "average". And that requires you to take all passer ratings and take the average using the formula. Average is what I said it was: 80.2531 if you calculate literally or 80.4 if you combine across teams.

And the comment about lying to yourself referred to you suggesting I was saying Brady was elite in 2002 when I explicitly said otherwise.

There's 32 starting quarterbacks- how can 18 of them be "above average"? Think about that for a moment. If they aren't rated against each other, then what do the ratings even mean? I am not redefining anything- it's common sense that average means you're right in the middle of expectations among your peers.

Now, I see where you got the 80.2531 from- that's a league average divided out player by player. There were 11 QB's with a sub-80 rating and 4 of them with a sub-70 rating (plus Harrington at a 59). That's where the formula gives Tom "bonus points"...because the bottom few were simply that bad. On the other hand, there were only 2 really, really good QB's that year. But is that fair? Should we really pretend that #18 is slightly above average because Joey sucked? I think it's ridiculous.

I love ya man, hope you're doing well, but I have to get back to work. =)

"KeyFin wrote:

There's 32 starting quarterbacks- how can 18 of them be "above average"? Think about that for a moment. If they aren't rated against each other, then what do the ratings even mean? I am not redefining anything- it's common sense that average means you're right in the middle of expectations among your peers.

Now, I see where you got the 80.2531 from- that's a league average divided out. There were 11 QB's with a sub-80 rating and 4 of them with a sub-70 rating (plus Harrington at a 59). That's where the formula gives Tom "bonus points"...because Harrington was simply that bad. But is that fair? Should we really pretend that #18 is slightly above average? I think it's ridiculous.

I love ya man, hope you're doing well, but I have to get back to work. =)

There were 107 QBs or players in 2002 that threw at least 1 pass and 45 QBs that threw at least 100 passes that year. You're going to just ignore everyone except 32 "starting" QBs. Some years you have more than 32 starting QBs. That's an artificial filter.

And yes you're redefining the mathematical term "average". There is literally a formula for that. Use it. That's what everyone does, from pro-football-reference, ESPN, Amazon, name it. They don't use your suggestion of "average" = 16 because that makes no sense. You're first of all throwing away tons of data that do go into the average, then not caring about differences in passing attempts, and most importantly not even using the formula.

Sorry you're wrong, not just about what the mathematical definition of average is, but about Brady being average to below average earlier in his career. Brady was well above average in his early years and elite later on.