Tua is not the Problem

"cbrad wrote:

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.

Let's say we're in a 3-man 100 yard dash. You, me, and Galant. We race and you come in 1st, Galant is 2nd and I'm in 3rd. Do we need any additional math here to say who was average?

You'll say yes. I'd say no, but we'll play this out. You ran the 100 in 10.00 seconds. Galant ran the 100 in 10.50. And I ran the 100 in 15.50 because I tripped and fell on my face at the starting line.

You'll say the median time was 12 seconds, even though 1st and 2nd place destroyed that time. I'd say 10.5 seconds is average because that's what 2nd place actually ran...was he really faster because I fell down? Let's say I didn't fall and finished with a 9.9 instead. Now Galant is below average; how does that make any sense?

Now, in this instance I can show you that the average median time for a top athlete running the 100 is 10.3 seconds, because we have tons of outside data to compare that to. Olympians are closer to the 9.5 mark. But for a quarterback, it's an isolated league- there's no outside comparison. Even CFL and arena league QBs don't compare because they play by different rules, etc.

I get that you're grading on overall comparisons, but I don't feel like it gives you a true definition of "average".

"KeyFin wrote:

Let's say we're in a 3-man 100 yard dash. You, me, and Galant. We race and you come in 1st, Galant is 2nd and I'm in 3rd. Do we need any additional math here to say who was average?

You'll say yes. I'd say no, but we'll play this out. You ran the 100 in 10.00 seconds. Galant ran the 100 in 10.50. And I ran the 100 in 15.50 because I tripped and fell on my face at the starting line.

You'll say the median time was 12 seconds, even though 1st and 2nd place destroyed that time. I'd say 10.5 seconds is average because that's what 2nd place actually ran...was he really faster because I fell down? Let's say I didn't fall and finished with a 9.9 instead. Now Galant is below average; how does that make any sense?

Now, in this instance I can show you that the average median time for a top athlete running the 100 is 10.3 seconds, because we have tons of outside data to compare that to. Olympians are closer to the 9.5 mark. But for a quarterback, it's an isolated league- there's no outside comparison. Even CFL and arena league QBs don't compare because they play by different rules, etc.

I get that you're grading on overall comparisons, but I don't feel like it gives you a true definition of "average".

Dude.. you literally have median and mean backwards. Both have mathematical definitions. The median in that case is 10.5 and the mean is 12. You just learned math wrong.

Also, there is no such thing as an "average median time" when looking at one population.

Anyway, this isn't a debate. You're just wrong. There are mathematical definitions here you just need to learn.

"Ohio Fanatic wrote:

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

I've got some ocean front property in Arizona that is an absolute steal. Interested?

"Ohio Fanatic wrote:

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

It seems you completely missed three point of my post.

"Ohio Fanatic wrote:

still wrong. those patriot defenses were elite early on

Wrong about what? By what metric?

Brady played at SB winning levels from the beginning.

Again, how much due to cheating? I don't have the answer to that.

"TheHighExhaulted wrote:

This is rubbish.

What a quality, fact filled post.

I'd argue that your post is rubbish.

"KeyFin wrote:

Short answer? Yes.

Bledsoe never won a Super Bowl. Tua has not demonstrated a Brady level of play. So what makes you think either of those two guys would have won? Who was Brady throwing to that year? Branch? And who else? Troy Brown?

"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.

No, Key, knowing Fielder's rating does Not tell you he's average. If everyone else fell below 75, let's say, then Jay would have been way above average. It tells you nothing without the context of where that fell in regards to other QBs.

"resnor wrote:

Bledsoe never won a Super Bowl. Tua has not demonstrated a Brady level of play. So what makes you think either of those two guys would have won? Who was Brady throwing to that year? Branch? And who else? Troy Brown?

In 2002 with Buffalo, Bledsoe's QB Rating was better than Brady's. He also went to the pro-bowl that year. So my short answer is that I think NE could have won with either QB- their defense was just that elite.

For Tua, I was comparing him from a talent perspective to Brady in 2002....not career Brady. This whole conversation came up on what Brady was like early on, so that's the only thing I was comparing. If Tua was today's age in 2002 though and on that NE team, I think they still would have had a shot at winning. Again though, my answer goes back to that defense more than anything.

But for Tua specifically, he does not make many mistakes and he delivers the ball on target. With a team around him and his job primarily being, "Don't mess up, just get the ball to the speedy guy quick", he can do that as well as anyone. I just don't think a lot of people can envision what that will look like in a balanced offense behind a competent line.

"cbrad wrote:

Dude.. you literally have median and mean backwards. Both have mathematical definitions. The median in that case is 10.5 and the mean is 12. You just learned math wrong.

LOL, I did the math right, didn't I? I mean, we got the same answers. I just suck at math definitions apparently.

"resnor wrote:

Wrong about what? By what metric?

Brady played at SB winning levels from the beginning.

Again, how much due to cheating? I don't have the answer to that.

It was well acknowledged by everyone (except you) that Brady wasn't an elite QB for first few SBs. I don't agree with many that he was just a game manager, but he was clearly a tier 2 QB that won superbowls because of the outstanding team and coaching. Same for Big Ben in his first SB.

Its funny how people don't see it but then argue against the idea of Tua being able to win games because the supporting cast is way better. Tua has won games - with a good defense, but a historically bad Oline, bad coaching. Why would he not be able to win a lot more games when you dramatically improve his supporting cast? Don't get me wrong, Tua IMO will never be elite, but he is a system QB that needs a good system, coaching and team to win a SB. It's really no different than Drew Brees. Greg Cosell, who has more knowledge than everyone on this board put together, was dead on before Tua was drafted. He stated Tua needed a good Oline and a coach with the right system and he can be a consistent winning QB. Tua has not had that at all to start his career.

"KeyFin wrote:

In 2002 with Buffalo, Bledsoe's QB Rating was better than Brady's. He also went to the pro-bowl that year. So my short answer is that I think NE could have won with either QB- their defense was just that elite.

For Tua, I was comparing him from a talent perspective to Brady in 2002....not career Brady. This whole conversation came up on what Brady was like early on, so that's the only thing I was comparing. If Tua was today's age in 2002 though and on that NE team, I think they still would have had a shot at winning. Again though, my answer goes back to that defense more than anything.

But for Tua specifically, he does not make many mistakes and he delivers the ball on target. With a team around him and his job primarily being, "Don't mess up, just get the ball to the speedy guy quick", he can do that as well as anyone. I just don't think a lot of people can envision what that will look like in a balanced offense behind a competent line.

C'mon, man. That Bills team was stacked, he had Thurman Thomas go for 1500 that year. And their defense was wicked. That's not even remotely the same situation that Brady had in NE.

"Ohio Fanatic wrote:

It was well acknowledged by everyone (except you) that Brady wasn't an elite QB for first few SBs. I don't agree with many that he was just a game manager, but he was clearly a tier 2 QB that won superbowls because of the outstanding team and coaching. Same for Big Ben in his first SB.

Its funny how people don't see it but then argue against the idea of Tua being able to win games because the supporting cast is way better. Tua has won games - with a good defense, but a historically bad Oline, bad coaching. Why would he not be able to win a lot more games when you dramatically improve his supporting cast? Don't get me wrong, Tua IMO will never be elite, but he is a system QB that needs a good system, coaching and team to win a SB. It's really no different than Drew Brees. Greg Cosell, who has more knowledge than everyone on this board put together, was dead on before Tua was drafted. He stated Tua needed a good Oline and a coach with the right system and he can be a consistent winning QB. Tua has not had that at all to start his career.

I'm not saying Brady was elite his first couple seasons. But, as cbrad has shown, Brady played at levels equal to the Super Bowl winning QBs. So HIS PLAY was what you needed to win the Super Bowl. That CANNOT be said of Tua. I really don't want to talk about Brady and the fucking Patriots. They're cheating lying bastards, which is why we'll never actually know how good Brady and the Patriots were.

I mean, I've resisted calling Brady the GOAT because of that, but I mean, you can't argue with the production with or without superstars on multiple teams, for like a quarter of a century. And I fell like his okay has improved and he's gotten stronger as he's gotten older. I can't deny the dude is an elite QB.

Also, regarding Tua, I think you and are in agreement on him, from what you just said. I've said repeatedly that I believe Tua will have a decent career. The problem is where we picked him, we could have had a better QB. I think Tua is Ted Ginn 2.0.

"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.

To be fair, once we start adjusting for era, I start to see the stats as more of a novelty than anything else.

It’s in the same realm as trying to predict successful nfl QBs using college stats.

I'll say this, the beauty of those Patriots offenses was that it was almost plug and play. They basically only went after players that fit their system, so it was like a well oiled machine. If McDaniels can put together an offense like that, then yes, Tua could be Brady. But I just don't think it's as feasible to do that as people hope.

Well regarding Tua.. first of all I'm glad we have an offensive minded coach and got Tyreek Hill. Tua's in his 3rd year and statistically it's years 3-4 where QB performances tend to start plateauing (4 vowels consecutively in that word!) so this is it. Either Tua's z-scores are in that 0.7+ range (depending on league average rating that's high 90's or low 100's) or I think you look for a new QB.

Dolphins did something smart: we kept our 1st round draft picks in 2023 which looks like a decent year to draft a QB, so that should be the plan. Tua is either well above average in 2022 or you go QB hunting again. You also don't have to get rid of Tua in 2023 while bringing on another QB since he'll still be on a rookie contract, unless of course he can be traded for a high pick (reasonable actually).

"plc001 wrote:

To be fair, once we start adjusting for era, I start to see the stats as more of a novelty than anything else.

It’s in the same realm as trying to predict successful nfl QBs using college stats.

There is a long term stable correlation between a team’s NFL passer rating within a season and win% (around 0.65 iirc). Cbrad has run the stats back to the 1970s and I’ve run them independently for the last 20 years.

What has happened is that as rules have changed and teams have changed their strategies and schemes overall passer rating in the league has been improving. Teams are becoming better at passing efficiently. You could just use rankings, but the problem with that is that the steps between each rank are unequal, so by using z-scores you are measuring how much better or worse than average a team is.

If you are skeptical I highly recommend running the math for yourself.

"resnor wrote:

C'mon, man. That Bills team was stacked, he had Thurman Thomas go for 1500 that year. And their defense was wicked. That's not even remotely the same situation that Brady had in NE.

That's incredible considering Thurman Thomas retired in 2000.

"Pauly wrote:

There is a long term stable correlation between a team’s NFL passer rating within a season and win% (around 0.65 iirc). Cbrad has run the stats back to the 1970s and I’ve run them independently for the last 20 years.

What has happened is that as rules have changed and teams have changed their strategies and schemes overall passer rating in the league has been improving. Teams are becoming better at passing efficiently. You could just use rankings, but the problem with that is that the steps between each rank are unequal, so by using z-scores you are measuring how much better or worse than average a team is.

If you are skeptical I highly recommend running the math for yourself.

CBrad is smarter than I, and he’s good with his numbers. This isn’t and shouldnt be construed as a slight to him. But it seems to me the logic that could tell me how good a QB from history would perform in todays game could be used to accurately predict college QB success in the NFL.

The NFL has been throwing millions at that problem. I think some of the same problems would exist in predicting how good Marino would be in todays game. There are too many variables to quantify. Too many assumptions. The type of things that make hasselback (as another poster stated) look like a pro bowler in the data.

"plc001 wrote:

CBrad is smarter than I, and he’s good with his numbers. This isn’t and shouldnt be construed as a slight to him. But it seems to me the logic that could tell me how good a QB from history would perform in todays game could be used to accurately predict college QB success in the NFL.

The NFL has been throwing millions at that problem. I think some of the same problems would exist in predicting how good Marino would be in todays game. There are too many variables to quantify. Too many assumptions. The type of things that make hasselback (as another poster stated) look like a pro bowler in the data.

Two corrections:
1) z-scores don't tell you how well a QB in the past would have performed today, or vice versa. They tell you how well they performed relative to their own competition, but in a unit of measurement (i.e., z-scores) that allows you to compare across eras. So you're comparing how impressive QBs were relative to their own competition in a standardized unit of measurement. That's why this is nothing similar to predicting NFL success from college. It's purely a post-hoc analysis.

2) As I stated, the career z-score for Hasselbeck is 0.0168, so basically average. There's nothing special in his production.

"resnor wrote:

C'mon, man. That Bills team was stacked, he had Thurman Thomas go for 1500 that year. And their defense was wicked. That's not even remotely the same situation that Brady had in NE.

Even in you confused Thurman Thomas for Travis Henry, he ran for 1438 yards. Where do you get 1500 yards from?

Bledsoe wasn't exactly throwing to Hall of Famers either, Eric Moulds and Peerless Price weren't great players.

How were they that stacked and went 8-8?

"cbrad wrote:

Two corrections:
1) z-scores don't tell you how well a QB in the past would have performed today, or vice versa. They tell you how well they performed relative to their own competition, but in a unit of measurement (i.e., z-scores) that allows you to compare across eras. So you're comparing how impressive QBs were relative to their own competition in a standardized unit of measurement. That's why this is nothing similar to predicting NFL success from college. It's purely a post-hoc analysis.

2) As I stated, the career z-score for Hasselbeck is 0.0168, so basically average. There's nothing special in his production.

Hasselbeck's "z score" was amongst the highest in the decade of the 2000's.

"TheHighExhaulted wrote:

Hasselbeck's "z score" was amongst the highest in the decade of the 2000's.

Do you just make up stuff? I doubt you even bothered to do the calculations.

Here are his z-scores from 2001-2009 (he had only 19 attempts in 2000 so we can ignore that):

2001: -0.7680
2002: 0.7909
2003: 0.9283
2004: 0.0229
2005: 1.6637
2006: -0.4312
2007: 0.7597
2008: -2.5063
2009: -0.5301

His 2000's overall z-score weighted by passing attempts is 0.2111 so barely above average. Again, there is nothing special about Hasselbeck even when you try to cherry pick a decade, which one shouldn't do when talking about careers.

"cbrad wrote:

Do you just make up stuff? I doubt you even bothered to do the calculations.

Here are his z-scores from 2001-2009 (he had only 19 attempts in 2000 so we can ignore that):

2001: -0.7680
2002: 0.7909
2003: 0.9283
2004: 0.0229
2005: 1.6637
2006: -0.4312
2007: 0.7597
2008: -2.5063
2009: -0.5301

His 2000's overall z-score weighted by passing attempts is 0.2111 so barely above average. Again, there is nothing special about Hasselbeck even when you try to cherry pick a decade, which one shouldn't do when talking about careers.

You don't get to choose what's relevant to fit your calculations. I would argue that a decade of someone's prime is more than enough data to judge him.

Was Hasselbeck not amongst the top of the list in "z score" for the decade? I see top 10 according to my calculator.

"TheHighExhaulted wrote:

You don't get to choose what's relevant to fit your calculations. I would argue that a decade of someone's prime is more than enough data to judge him.

Was Hasselbeck not amongst the top of the list in "z score" for the decade? I see top 10 according to my calculator.

"Choosing what's relevant".. yeah you're still cherry picking. And the entire purpose of z-scores is to get AWAY from rankings!!! You don't rank order z-scores. You look at the actual z-score lol.

Hasselbeck was average overall and only slightly above average in your cherry picked decade.