The Talent Surrounding Ryan Tannehill: Part II

enough to make a difference

 

So one is left to believe that you don't fully understand the impact.

 

Whats the matter dont you have a sense of humor. He made the same point many of us have been making and he did it in a damn funny manner.

 

Not the point. The point is Shou is saying other players don't affect the the QB rating.

 

The hell it does. You said you wanted objective analysis to prove that WR's can effect a QB's rating. Its been given to you now.

 

Drops, yards after catch, yards after contact, athleticism, size. These are all WR driven, and as long as there are WRs with different levels of talent, they will each impact their QB accordingly.
I mean clear example is Calvin Johnson. How much is he contributing to Matt Stafford's QBR that Brian Hartline could not simply because he has nowhere near the talent of Calvin Johnson.


Shouright basically came up with one of his theories, proclaimed it to be the truth, and asking everyone else to prove it wrong.

The beautiful thing is he knows we cannot because to prove him wrong with statistics, we pretty much have to make the intangible, tangible. To prove him wrong we have to make talent a tangible thing.

 

Are you saying there is no tangible effect? Really?

 

You cannot make talent tangible. You can only make tangible the result of the talent. Meaning, a player is extremely talented, thus his talent is reflected on what he does, but the talent itself, the amount of talent he has, is not tangible.

Shouright basically wants us to make that talent tangible in order to prove to him how much better one WR is with respect to another.

 

That's not a rebuttal.

I've illustrated how a WR can affect a QB's rating. I used bigger numbers to make the point obvious.

But fine. 2 less INTs that were caused by a receiver and 2 more TDs that were dropped by a receiver would turn Tanny's rating from 76.9 to 80.2.

 

So, in theory Tom Brady will make any wide receiver better but no wide receiver or TE can make his stats better?

 

Wait, that's not a significant difference? Really? I see. When proven wrong, Shou just changes definitions of words till he's still right.

What was that you said earlier...oh yeah...

OK.

 

did you actually read my post. Go back and look at Washington's '92 team. That year, the receivers hit their unavoidable brick wall. 1991 was the last year they displayed their talent before age snuck up on them.

Cunningham was 36 in 1999. Age catches up with everyone, just as it did with the Posse in Washington.
How did Jeff George do coming in for the over-the-hill Cunningham in 1999 with that awesome receiving group? He posted a 94.2 QBR with 23 TDs & 12 INTs in 10 starts, significantly higher than his NFL average.
Then Culpepper came in and posted a 98.0 QBR with 33 TDs to 16 INTs.
The following year Todd freakin' Bouman posted a 98.3 QBR with 8 TDs in just 3 starts.
Then came Gus Frerotte's 118 QBR with 7 freakin' TDs in only 2 starts in 2003.
In 2004, Culpepper got back to tearing it up again with a 111 QBR and 39 TDs to 11 INTs.

After Moss & Co left, the following 4 years saw Viking QBRs of 82, 72, 74, and 81.
Then the subsequent year with the healthy trio of Sidney Rice, Harvin, and Berrian, the QBR shot up to 107 despite Brett Favre posting a miserable 81 QBR in NY the year prior.

 

Yup, didn't you hear? Every team is now not caring who they have at WR.

 

hahahahahahahahahahahaha

By your own standards its dramatically significant.

 

Oh lets.

You start.

 

please. I intentionally answered your question with the same type of vagueness you frequently answer similar style questions with. For instance, remember when you were asked what your goal was regarding offensive scoring production (points per game), and your answer was "whatever the opponent scores + 1"?

 

Obviously we don't know with absolute certainty that he would have better number, but it stands to reason that if he had a Calvin Johnson type receiver he would have at least a few more touchdowns to receivers.

 

Who said it's "my word"? It's the shared word of anyone with half a brain watching games, including ex-player/ex-coach commentators and analysts. What do you do, put every other game on mute or simply not watch them altogether? It's a freakin' fact---- QBR goes up as the number of plays the receivers make goes up. Perhaps now your argument will be that Bess & Hartline are equal to Julio & Roddy with the ball in their hands or when the pass is in the air.

 

It's NOT theory. It's a FACT that what the receiver does once the ball leaves the quarterback's hand has a direct influence on QBR. DIRECT INFLUENCE.

 

How is this conclusion reached?

 

Of course it does, every time a rb takes a 5 yards screen into a 40 yard td, it's still counts as a td.

 

This thread is the definition of insanity: Arguing the same thing over and over with Shouright, expecting different results.

 

I see.

Then I'll go.

You decided that QB rating correlates with offensive point production and that proves that somehow, the Pats, The Falcons and the Dolphin all have the same level of skill players.

Now you've done this despite factoring in that QB rating is not an indicator of just the QB, since it takes more than the QB to account for the majority of stats used to determine the rating since two people are needed for a completion. Its also been shown to you that a minor increase in production can raise a QB's rating to the 80s from the 70s. Cutler, for example, is at 80.2 right now on a team at 9-6. You want to pretend that isn't significant from where we are now, but you're wrong. When that was pointed out to you, you lashed out, wah-wah.

Aside from a lot of you ignoring and avoiding points made to you, that about sums up where we're at.

So I wonder if the Pats are willing to trade us Gronk for Fasano straight up since there's no difference?

 

That's what happens when receiving targets 2 through 5 are on IR and a team must resort to practice squad players and last minute free agents, in turn allowing a defense to focus on minimizing Calvin in the redzone. Do I need to re-post the picture of CJ being doubled at the goal line?

 

5 Tds is not the norm for CJ though.

 

.... and when a receiver take a quick hitch and turns it into a 50 yard TD, it has a completely different affect on QBR than if the receiver had been tackled for a 5 yard gain.

 

We don't live in a world where everything is effing new and undiscovered.

**** it, how do we even know 1+1=2 Stringer? Have you accounted for the fact we may be on a plane that intersects different dimensions? Or can we agree that when a TE catches a ball in the flat and then breaks a couple of tackles and takes it to the house, the QB's involvement stopped when he threw the pass?