Tua...''He's the greatest prospect ever''

Coach actually said he is not thinking about it,,,, what are you reading ?

 

"Wins and losses are a TEAM stat, not an individual stat." While there is some truth to that, do you think the Chiefs win those Super Bowls without Mahomes?

 

That could all be true, but that means they would play him on the 5th year option. If they didn't want to sign in at the market 4 months ago, they sure don't want to sign him at todays market.

 

Sorry if my joke went over your head. It was intended for the banned member you recently quoted. He's now a Packer fan. Fins up!

 

When he referred to "the knowns" are that Tua's reps and the front office are working on a contract it kind of implies the team is interested in an extension rather than the 5th year option playout and wait theory. That's what I'm reading.

 

They don’t win it without their CB’s, C,OT,OG, and kicker, either. Mahomes had a very average season last year. Bad example because you just can’t seem to grasp how stats work.

 

Maybe not complain but it still means risking 100s of millions. Its not a great outcome.

 

You don’t want to pay him franchise tag money, not with the market going into the stratosphere!

Look, it’s a foregone conclusion the Dolphins are going to have to pay Tua a contract with a $50 million a year average. That’s where the market has gone. Bite the bullet and quit haggling over dollars. Offset it with an enormous signing bonus. What the Dolphins need to do for “protection” is a release clause for those who doubt his long term benefit to the team.

But as I also said in a subsequent post, Tua needs to be realistic that the more HE gets, the less the team has to give him the weapons he needs to be successful. No quarterback, I don’t care who you are, if you don’t have a TEAM around you, you can only go so far.

 

To answer that question, look at Super Bowl LV.

The Chiefs came into the Super Bowl with a league beat 14-2 record and a 3 point favorite and the Chiefs failed to score a single touchdown. Why?

The Chiefs were without their leading running back as he sat out the 2020 season due to COVID, they were without their starting LT due to an Achilles Tendon tear in the AFC Championship game…not to mention their defense was merely average and unable to slow down the Buccaneers.

So yes, wins and losses are TEAM stats and not individual stats. If it was an individual stat, with Mahomes being as incredible as he is, Super Bowl LV should have been in the bag for the Chiefs.

 

I guess Purdy is on Mahomes’ level since the 49ers offense put up only 2 less points than KC’s offense.
Whoops, I mean PURDY and MAHOMES, only those two, put up those points. Lol

Using wins and losses to evaluate an NFL player is just so lazy and dumb.

 

Wrong way to look at it. There is essentially no individual stat in the NFL that comes from game play — the only individual stats are stats of a player's physical ability independent of game play. For example, passer rating requires WRs and other team members in addition to the QB. The only difference is how much influence the individual has over the team stat. For something like passer rating the QB is likely responsible for a huge portion, maybe 1/3 or up to half? For win% it's more like 10-20% if you go by correlations between passer rating and win%. Hard to know exactly.

In sabermetrics the relationship between individual ability and wins is best quantified by one of the most important stats ever developed: wins above replacement (WAR). WAR is an individual stat even though its unit of measurement is wins. It measures wins estimated to be due to that player (above a replacement player), which is exactly what you'd want to know in estimating the value of the player.

So yes, wins can be treated as individual stats because wins tell you something about the individual. Wins tell you less about QB ability than passer rating, but both are team stats that can be treated as individual stats. It's precisely why the best QBs tend to have winning records over longer careers while the worst QBs tend to have losing records. If wins told you nothing about the individual (i.e., if it were not an individual stat), then those correlations would be essentially zero.

 

Well, I definitely think better individual performances creates a higher chance of winning. Lol

A FG kicker who never misses, for example, will most likely have a team winning % higher than a kicker that makes 60% of his kicks because a lot of games come down to 3 or less points.

QB’s affect games more than kickers. Affecting the outcome of a game is definitely an individual stat, but actually winning a game is not.

Winning a game takes everyone on the field. If we take Brady as an example his teams still won more than anyone else when he played badly. Look how many times Brady had a PR below average and still won. To me that just shows he played on the better TEAMS. If Brady had been the Dolphins QB last season, and everything else was the same, they still don’t beat KC.

A good QB will affect the outcome of a game more than a good OT. I think that’s something we can all agree upon, but I’ll never give a win or loss to just one player unless that player is the only one who played the game.

 

Oh.. and Tua is 32-19 as a starter, but go ahead and move the goalposts, again, as to why he’s no good. Lol (not directed at you @cbrad )

 

Is anyone ascribing wins and losses in the NFL to a single player? If not, there's no need to go there. Regarding Brady, you saw what happened when he left. The great Belichick became an average coach. Belichick without Brady is average, but with Brady he coached the greatest dynasty in NFL history. Similarly, look at what happened when Peyton Manning switched teams. Colts went from 10-6 to 2-14 and the Broncos went from 8-8 to 13-3. The only important change was the QB.

Absolutely you can use win% as an individual stat. It's just a weaker individual stat than passer rating (for example).

And yes, bringing up Tua's win% is fair game. Compare that for example to Herbert. Tua's win% tells you something, and it's not all the surrounding cast. Last year people were hyping up the surrounding cast for Herbert, saying 2023 is the year he has everything on offense etc. We saw nothing special.

 

Lots of people are. People literally say Tua sucks because “he” hasn’t won a playoff game.

 

I think if you directly asked any of those posters whether they think a QB wins a game on their own they'd say no. You know they have an agenda, but that doesn't invalidate the criticism that Tua still hasn't won a playoff game. It's arguably the one criticism remaining. The primary rebuttal to that is that it's an absurdly small sample size, not that we shouldn't treat wins as a (weak but important) individual stat.

 

The Pats went to the playoffs with Mac Jones after Brady left. The Bucs defense went from near worst to top 10 in the league when Brady came in. The TEAM, as a whole, got better and yes Brady was a part of that. However, even Brady has never won anything with a below average defense.

 

After Brady left the Pats had 3 losing seasons and 1 winning season, an overall losing record, and failed to win a single playoff game. With Brady, NE had an absurdly high 77.4% win%, made the playoffs 17 out of 18 years he played enough games to qualify as a starter and won 6 SBs. There's no comparison of NE with Brady vs. without.

And yes, Brady did put up great numbers even with a below average defense. In 2005 NE had the 17th ranked defense by points allowed. Despite that, Brady put up a 92.3 rating, which was 12.1 points above average, NE had a 10-6 record and they won a playoff game. That's the effect of the QB.

 

The other time he had a below average defense they failed to make the playoffs and Brady had a PR in the mid-80’s.

Look, Brady is one of the GOAT’s. Of course a team is going to be better with him. However, and even though the sample is small, he’s not doing much with below average teams. Would a bad team win more games with him at QB? Most likely, but nothing considerable. If Brady had been drafted by the Dolphins in 1999, started in 2000, and everything else had been the same, so you think he gets 7 rings? There were a few years in there that the Dolphins had some great defenses, so maybe he would have been enough to get one, but I seriously doubt it. Brady made BB, but I think BB also made Brady. I also think Charlie Weis and Ernie Adam’s were a huge factor in their early successes. Not to mention they’re cheating. Without those two I doubt Belichick or Brady have those early successes and then who knows what happens. It’s my belief that if Brady has been drafted by nearly any other team he ends up as career back-up.

 

You need to adjust for passer rating inflation because "mid-80's" is not bad in 2002, the year you're talking about. In 2002 the league average passer rating was 80.4 and Brady had 85.7. So in both years where Brady played with a below average defense he had solidly above average ratings. The team also had a winning record in both years despite a below average defense. Again the effect of the QB.

His z-scores were 0.5665 and 1.1214 in 2002 and 2005 where he played with below average defense, so on average 0.8439. That roughly corresponds to about a 10% increase in win%, so almost 2 extra wins with slightly below average defenses. Now consider what 2 extra wins in those Wannstedt years means, where our primary weakness was at QB!! I definitely think we win 1-2 SBs back then. And 2 extra wins in almost all other years takes us from an average-ish team to a playoff team. Maybe we lose in the playoffs most of those years, but we'd be a consistently winning franchise with Brady. And don't forget how much easier it is to build the rest of the team when you don't have to worry about the QB position. I think we'd have 2-3 SBs over 2 decades if we had Brady. No, not 7. That's also partly due to luck anyway (especially the Seahawks' worst ever play call in NFL history handing NE the win.. still can't get over that one).

 

Thoughts on this article?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nf...ant-to-sign-him-to-a-new-contract/ar-BB1p7zJw

 

I think this is the key paragraph:

There's no justification for not signing Tua to an extension at market prices given that there's no better option out there and that he legitimately might turn into an elite QB. But it's true that his lack of success in do-or-die games means there is greater risk than if that weren't the case. We'll see how good a negotiator Grier is once we see the structure of the contract.

Otherwise I think the article is undervaluing Tua more than it should, especially with this quote:

No, 10-15 QBs would not produce at elite statistical levels regardless of surrounding cast over 2 years. Elite stats, especially over multiple years, are VERY hard to achieve regardless of surrounding cast. The author of that article doesn't seem to understand that. I also disagree with him saying Tua doesn't elevate players around him given how difficult it is to produce those types of stats. But yes, not winning games in January is still a concern, even if it's very small sample size, until Tua proves otherwise.

 

And Tua led the league in PR last year and was top 5 this year with horrible defenses both years. Got to the playoffs both years. Is he as good as Brady?

Look, no one is saying that a great QB can’t elevate their team. The problem is when people blame one player for the failings of a team. The Dolphins didn’t lose in KC because of Tua. The only difference between his and Mahomes’ play was one INT. The reason KC won was because their entire team was much better. Not because Mahomes “beat” Tua.

 

If Tua can do that 15+ years and win multiple SBs then yes. If he's good enough, the SBs will very likely come.

I agree it wasn't only Tua, but Tua was an important reason we lost which is why wins can be treated as an individual stat. One just has to note how strong or weak an individual stat it is. The weaker it is the larger the sample size needed to see the contribution of the individual. If Tua makes the playoffs a few more times and never wins, that can't be blamed on the rest of the team anymore. So yes the loss against KC counts. It's just absurdly small sample size.

 

The whole notion that 10-15 quarterbacks could run this offense and produce the same results is utterly absurd!!

I was never a Bridgewater fan. Many here were and yet, when Tua went down in 2022 due to his concussions, Bridgewater wasn’t able to produce nearly the results that Tua did. McDainel’s offense can’t be run by just “anyone”.

 

While that may be true, I find it incredibly perplexing that the team isn't offering contracts in line with other teams.

 

We don’t know that. Most reports are saying that the Dolphins are “in the ballpark”, but we really have no clue what’s going on. I guess we can be certain that they aren’t offering $100m/season. They could have offered Tua $50m/season, which is in line with these other contracts, but he turned it down. We just don’t know. Which sucks.

 

The biggest reason, and this is just an assumption based on logical deduction, is the Dolphins current and future cap space situation.

Secondly, and I just don’t understand it, is the stigma that seems to be attached with Tua Tagovailoa. Every criticism of Tua and his game has been met and exceeded, from his inability to “throw the long ball” to him staying healthy and playing an entire season.

The only criticism of Tua that he himself can’t seem to scuttle is the fact the DOLPHINS haven’t won a playoff game. Wins and losses are TEAM stats, not individual stats but because Tua hasn’t donned a red cape and personally won a playoff game, the Dolphins lack of playoff wins is somehow attached to him.

This is a hurdle that McDaniel and company are going to have to overcome but in the grand scheme of things, Tua himself has done everything he’s been asked to do and has done so exceedingly well.

The Dolphins need to resolve this contract situation because if they don’t (which I’m confident they will), the Dolphins are going to be in a situation in which they will have a complicated offense, requiring the right quarterback to run it in a market that lacks a gifted enough player to run it.

 

Yes, we don't know exactly what has been offered, but being in Florida, you would think they could be close to Goff let's say, and it wouldn't be an issue because of the tax laws in Florida.

It's just strange to me. If you believe that Tua is the guy, then you pay him. Not hard. If he's the guy, you pay him before guys like Waddle. Right? Like I said, I'm a little perplexed by it.

 

Really? You're going to keep repeating this nonsense after I carefully explained why that's not logical?

Wins are both team AND individual stats because the individual affects the outcome, which is why wins tell you something about the individual. Unavoidable logic. With large sample size wins become fairly good individual stats.

Argue otherwise and it's like saying we can't infer anything about Peyton Manning from the Colts going 2-14 after 10-6, or the Broncos going 13-3 after 8-8, when the only important change was Peyton Manning. Yes the wins tell you a LOT about how good a player Peyton Manning is.

You HAVE to use wins as an individual stat to see the effect of any player on win%. That's just pure logic. So let's not repeat this nonsense that wins aren't an individual stat. They are.

 

Yeah the Colts tanked to get Luck. It wasn't all Manning.

 

Actually I do like what the Dolphins and Grier are doing in this case so far. To bad we don’t know no numbers but with what’s out there it seems like that they made a fair offer and Tua and his team didn’t like it, which makes me think that Tua ain’t no Brady when it comes to taking less. All fair and good but ain’t going to make things easier for him in the long run when it comes to actual team success.

 

Who said it was ALL Manning? I repeatedly said wins and losses are weak individual stats. Please read my posts.

Now, do you agree that the change in win% tells us SOMETHING about Manning? Or does the QB have absolutely no influence on the outcome of the game? If the QB has SOME influence on the outcome of the game, then yes wins and losses are (weak) individual stats.

And I've already estimated the effect an elite QB has on win% (on average) in posts from years back. It's about 2-3 wins per year extra. So that should be the baseline for estimating the effect of Manning leaving or being the new QB on a team.

 

Yes, I am saying it again and Brad, no disrespect intended, but just because you say it doesn’t make it so.

For every example you want to point to attributing wins and losses to a single player (quarterback in this instance) I can point to an equal number of examples where it’s not. In fact, I can point to a number of examples in which mere average, or even below average quarterbacks had successful careers and championships because of the TEAM play.

Don’t go and Sheldon Cooper this. Your mathematical equations do not take away from the fact that football is a TEAM sport played by men, executing plays designed by men and it’s the TEAM that wins or loses the game.

 

I don't think Manning's 67 PR in the 2015 season, or his 56 PR in that year's SB win was really the factor. lol...
The following year Trevor Siemian took over for Manning, put up an 85 PR, but the team lost three more games than they did the previous season. If Manning's 67 PR was good enough to get to the playoffs and win the SB, why wasn't Siemian's 87 good enough? I'll tell you why, the TEAM, as a whole, played much worse. TEAMS win and lose. Players affect that outcome because the team is made up of players.

Are you to make us believe that Dale Earnhardt's engines were responsible for his successes? Or was it JUST Earnhardt? Now, I think Earnhardt was the MOST responsible because he was able to utilize his engines better than most. However, without an engine Earnhardt wins nothing. Without Earnhardt the engine never moves.

Mahomes threw 6 TD's against the Rams in 2018. The Chiefs lost that game because the KC defense gave up 54 points. Mahomes gets "credit" for the loss, right? I don't think so. So why should any other single player get credited for wins and losses when 52 other people affect the outcome of any game?

Again, individuals affect the outcome of games, and the QB may affect those outcomes more than other players because they are involved in nearly 100% of the offensive plays, but they don't "win" games. They HELP, some to a larger degree than others, win games.

If an offense went out on every play with no center, they'd lose every game. If an offense went out there with only 4 people on the OL, they'd lose every game. If a defense played with 10 guys on the field, no matter who was missing, chances are that the other team would score on nearly every drive.

Malcolm Butler "won" the Super Bowl by intercepting Wilson. Is that your stance? I mean, Brady played really well that game even with his two INT's. Wilson played better. So how did Brady win that game?

In reality, the ENTIRE Pats team outplayed the ENTIRE Seahawks team. Each team had players that beat and lost against their counterparts on the other side. Brady "won" that game because Carroll called a stupid play and Butler jumped the route and made a great play. Right?

 

lol...Brady never really took less money. That's just a thing Brady homers have said for years. It's not true. He did restructure his contracts a lot in order to free up money for the upcoming season, but he never really took less money when you compare him to what other QB's were making when he played.