Nonsense. The funny thing is that you want to credit his surrounding "all-star" cast (with no evidence) when he did well (especially 2019) but ignore the worse surrounding cast when he did worse. Can't have it both ways
It's nonsense to say that what you wrote is disproven if we use PBWR? I showed you the correlation is 0.17. That is actual data. What you just wrote is total nonsense. All you're demonstrating right now is you don't care at all about evidence if it goes against your beliefs. You said PBWR is one of the stats you would suggest using. So I used it and showed you were wrong. Have some integrity and admit it.
I'm not wrong. I don't care what your faulty statistical analysis says. PBWR is just one measure. Rankings are another. When his OL was poor at pass blocking his performance is affected. This is not difficult to understand.
lol. You are wrong using PBWR. Correlations are not "faulty statistical analysis". You're digging yourself an integrity hole worse than those anti-Tua posters. Fine, you don't have the integrity to admit you're wrong and you want to keep pushing your narrative no matter the evidence (like anti-Tua posters repeatedly did last year). Not my problem if you want that reputation, but so be it.
LOL.... old mister "use one stat in a vacuum". That is why it is flawed. I gave multiple measures of the pass blocking by year. You locked on to one. In 2021, their PBWR was 24th but PFF's pass blocking efficiency had them at 31st. There is no one perfect measure of pass blocking. Clearly both measures had them worse in 2020 and 2021 than in 2019. This is supported by WHO THE BLOCKERS WERE. They lost both starting tackles. This is simply obvious stuff. I don't care if you think we shouldn't use rankings.
Aaron Rodgers disagrees with you. He called Tannehill the best play action passer in the history of the game. Studied him. Tannehill has/had (haven't watched him in the last few years) specific tools that required a team built for those tools. My assessment is this: He had a fabulous arm. One of the strongest ever to put on a Dolphins uniform. Great at throwing on the move. He could turn his back to the D, know where his WR would be, and throw late with his fabulous arm and still get it there. All of which meant his play action game was his super power. His pocket movement was generally okay. His pocket presence was occasionally okay, but usually non-existent, just could not feel pressure. He did not process things quickly. People that talk about Tua being one read often don't seem to understand how many things Tua is reading before that "one" read (which is usually a multiple receiver option read anyway, ie high low). Tua is usually making the correct decision (changed that word from "pick"... no Jinxing!) for his "one" read. I mention that because I think Tannehill didn't change from the moment the play left his mouth, no matter what else happened, D coverage look, pressure looks, actual pressure, and so forth. This is also why I don't think turning his back to the D mattered to him as much. A long play action should mitigate pass rush and take most of the confusion out of the secondary as they will be out of position. Tannehill can feast on that with his arm strength. His accuracy and ball placement was average, he benefited from big WRs with large catch radiuses greatly. Every QB does, but he did far more than a QB like Tua. Assuming Tannehill still has the same abilities and time/injury hasn't degraded him, then I think he would have been a better back up this year than White or Thompson. The offense would have to change. But, it's not like the guys we have can do what Tua can anyway. Skylar I think has the potential to grow though and Tannehill is on the down side, so I wouldn't have brought him in. If Tua goes down for an extended period I don't think Tannehill makes enough of a difference not to use that time to improve Skylar. The season is done either way, barring Skylar having some sort of epiphany.
I asked you to admit you are wrong using PBWR. You haven't done so yet. Instead you claimed my statistical analysis was faulty, which it is not by any statistician's criteria. Before going further you need to come clean with this. Admit you were wrong if we use PBWR (one of the stats you suggested to use!) and that my statistical analysis is NOT faulty. And I explicitly made a claim only based on PBWR. Of course it's only one measure. I asked you to provide a different measure if you wanted to and we can explore that. But ranking aren't measures. Every measure must have an equal interval property: difference between 10 and 11 seconds is the same as between 61 and 62 seconds, etc. That's not true with rankings. You mentioned other possibilities like time to throw, etc. You want to make an argument using those statistics let's see it. But don't go around claiming solid statistical analysis is flawed.
So we can expect about an on average +2 game increase per season with an elite QB, correct? How would you suggest that we also account for other good to elite players leaving when that elite QB leaves? In Brady’s case we saw other good to elite players leave when he left. Granted, there was turnover when Brady was on the Pats, but what we saw there was a good player would be replaced with another good player. And in Tampa the Bucs had terrible defenses before Brady and when he got there they picked up some good defensive players and that defense went from bad to really good. That’s not because of Brady. My opinion is, if Brady had went to Tampa a year or two before he did, and the players stayed the same, Brady wouldn’t have really mattered much and they most certainly would not have won a SB. That’s speculation, of course, but Brady’s history shows that he really never won with average to below average defenses. In 2015, for example, the Pats did get to the SB with an average defense (15th), but they lost. In 2020, the Bucs had the 8th ranked defense when the won the SB, the previous two years their defense ranked 29th and 31st.
I stated from my first post on this topic that PBWR was just one measure. You chose to try to correlate it to passer rating. I never said that PBWR was the sole measure of pass blocking. My only claim was that Tannehill's worse years tracked with having worse OLs. I don't need a statistical analysis to tell me that.
Too difficult to do right now. In principle with large enough sample size we can estimate the effect on win% of any position player. We simply don't have that data (or analysis) to account for all the other factors, which is why an average effect is probably the best to go by. I wouldn't argue that all the 5 win difference for Belichick with vs. without Brady is due to Brady leaving, but we're talking 11 years here with Belichick without Brady, so it's probable that a large portion of that 5 win difference was due to Brady.
You implied that correlating PBWR to passer rating is "flawed statistical analysis" even when I was making a claim specific to PBWR and didn't generalize beyond that? C'mon man. Choose your words carefully. In any case, you have to admit that the result with PBWR is not what you expected. Of all the OL stats right now PBWR is probably the best even if it's not that great per se. Of course OL has an influence, and in the direction your intuition suggests. But that PBWR result suggests that maybe you're overemphasizing the effect of OL on Tannehill. Maybe it's more the QB than anything else. Either way we should be using data to test hypotheses, not assume hypotheses are correct regardless of the data.
I do think that Brady helped BB. I also think BB helped Brady. The biggest link we have and failed to mention here, however, is Ernie Adams. He left the Pats the same year Brady did and the Pats were never the same. One thing we can also look at, albeit it’s a small sample, is how well back-up QB’s played for BB. Matt Cassell, when he came in after Brady tore is ACL, won 11 games. He was a guy who hadn’t started a football game since high school. His stats were very similar to Brady’s stats at that time. For the Pats he a 90 PR that season and he never had a season PR out of the 70’s on other teams. Then we saw Garop come in when Brady was suspended and he played fantastic. With BB AND Ernie it seems nearly any QB could come in and be very Brady-like. When Brady left the Pats he had 2 very good years (out of 3), but by that time he’d been playing for over 20 years and the Bucs did a great job of mimicking the Pats offense… not to mention creating very good defenses. In Brady’s final season the Bucs defense dropped out of the top 10 (13th) and Brady finished the season with a 90 PR.
"Of course OL has an influence, and in the direction your intuition suggests." Which is what I was saying. "But that PBWR result suggests that maybe you're overemphasizing the effect of OL on Tannehill. Maybe it's more the QB than anything else." Or maybe there are other factors at play in addition to the OL. Or maybe PBWR is not the best measure. In 2021, PBWR had the Titans line at 24th, but PFF's pass blocking efficiency had them at 31st. Unfortunately, PFF's data is behind a pay wall. Also, passer rating is just one measure of QB play. Did his YPA drop? Explosive plays drop? Did the play calling go to shorter, safer routes to avoid the OL problems? Football is just too complex to pick two numbers to compare in isolation, especially with so few data points, in this case. That is why the analysis is flawed.
Ernie Adams was with Belichick for 5 years in Cleveland too though. No great success there. He was also there in 2000 with Bledsoe, etc. And the backup QB thing is taken into account with all those other NE years post-Brady. That's why going with an average effect is probably best. I personally think the average effect is much higher than 2 wins with Brady, but probably not all the way to 5 wins which we see. I don't know, maybe 3-4 win difference? Who knows for certain but it was big. The most important thing is that it disproved predictions many made that it was primarily Belichick not Brady. I agree both helped each other, but Brady did win a SB without Belichick while Belichick was slightly below average over 11 years without Brady, so it does suggest Brady was a major reason for Belichick's success.
No, the analysis is not flawed because I didn't make a claim beyond PBWR. If I made a claim beyond PBWR you can make this argument, but I didn't. My analysis was in no way flawed.
In Cleveland BB (with Ernie) won a playoff game. And Testaverde was the QB. 2 of Vinny’s best 3 seasons were in Cleveland with BB. And we haven’t even talked about BB’s time with the Giants when his defenses were destroying some of the greatest offenses of all time that were led by guys like Montana and Kelly.
Testaverde is a weird case. He puts up a 87.8 in 1995 with Belichick and Ernie (that was 8.6 points above league average) then puts up a 88.7 the very next year with Marchibroda in 1996 (that was an even better 11.8 points above league average). Are we really seeing the effect of Belichick and Ernie here? BB was a great defensive coach. No question. But he never put together a good offense until Brady came along. That turned out to be a 6 SB difference and vastly more playoff wins than the one in Cleveland.
Again, my point was he learned multiple different systems over his career in Miami. While people complained that he was struggling. I listed his different head coaches and OCs, and you guys still act like I said something ridiculous. It's so dumb.
So where exactly did I say that Tannehill learned a new offense every year? I clearly stated that it was "like every other year." Clearly I was referencing the constant change at HC and OC. Again, you guys take everything I say as an absolute, even when I indicate that it isn't.
Huh play action passer? I didn’t say anything on that I said he was excellent on the move right or left scripted and throwing He was not good at scrambling off script and making a play
Math (Maths for our British friends). You said (wrote? Maybe, you sound it out when typing. I do) "Only thing he was great at was". Which means that you technically said something about everything he does (not being great) through the transitive verb property, or Chaos Theory. I'm not sure which. Point is, Aaron thought he was great at another thing.
Tua is a better ball handler.. Not sure what you’re talking about but like I said I respected tannehills ability to roll to both sides and throw accurately It was a criminally underused trait
Not ignoring it. But unlike Tannehill the statistics do not predict we'll see him drop back to average level after these 2 years. Very different situation given the stats available after 2 years of elite play.
Careful. resnor has been making the argument that Tua's elite play is primarily due to his surrounding cast and that Tua is really not much more than an average QB without it. You vehemently disagreed with that last year. So while the two of you agreed on Tannehill, you're very different in terms of your willingness to ascribe elite play to the QB in Tua's case. You're actually on opposite sides in principle.
Do you need a hug? NO YOU! It's simple. Tua performed better in a worse situation than Tannehill and the reasons that his situation was worse was remarked on. You then claim that Tannehill's situation was the same. You ignored most of what was stated about Tua's situation and focused on not just the multiple coordinators in the same year, but narrowed that to Tua learning new O systems every year to start his career. Only Ryan didn't have to learn a new system every other year as you claimed. (which even it was true, is still half the rate that Tua had) He didn't have to learn a new system from high school until his third year, which was Bill Lazor's system, then had Bill two years in a row until he had Gase for three years, and that was it for Miami. That isn't a new system every other year. The only two year stretch in a system was Lazor. Now you are changing what you said to "multiple" which is more than one. So, technically true, but not what you said. You changing what you are claiming now doesn't change what you claimed before. Don't take my word for it, check what you wrote. I bolded the things to check the math with. I don't understand why you think I'm just going to accept your new narrative as your old narrative. You've tried to shift it multiple times now. Also, you wrote, "I listed his different head coaches and OCs" The F? You did not do that. You are not me. What an absolutely weird thing to claim to the person that actual did list coaches and OCs.
He's talking about post #95: https://thephins.com/threads/tannehill-to-miami.98933/page-3#post-3644676
Oh, my bad. I missed that. Why list Campbell as a "HC", but then not list Taylor as an OC? Lazor was fired with Philbin.
My philosophy is a bit more nuanced. IMO, supporting cast can hinder a QB much more than it can help. Look at it this way, the best QB in the league will have terrible stats if his receivers drop every pass. The extent to which they can make up for poor QB play is much more limited and can often be examined further by looking at more data. A better receiver can catch more poorly thrown balls but that can be studied by looking at the % of accurate throws data that (can't recall which) some sites provide. Similarly, it is easy to determine if passing yards are due to air yards or YAC. That very argument was tried against Tua. Claims were made that he just dumps it off to Tyreek, when in fact, he was throwing the ball farther downfield and benefiting from less YAC than most other QBs. If a QB was throwing all short passes and getting huge YAC, I'd absolutely agree that they were being propped up by the supporting cast. Same thing with pass blocking. A complete whiff and a quick sack (<2 seconds) can kill a play (and a QB), but blocking for 5 seconds isn't going to be that much more beneficial than blocking for 3 or 4. So again, a great OL only enables the QB to play at their best. It isn't going to make a poor passer better or a poor decision maker better. My position is the same for Tua and Tannehill. I can see how they've been held back some seasons without denying them credit when they do well.
I have no obvious issues with that given how difficult it is to estimate partial credit different units should receive for a given play (best stats are EPA or WP related). Only thing I'll say is there's a difference between the theoretical impact a player or unit could have vs. actual effect. Theoretically you're obviously correct, but it's still an open question in actual play where you don't see anything close to the theoretical limit of 100% for dropped balls etc. I'll just say there are statistical estimates out there that suggest the QB and the entire WR unit contribute about equally to offensive points scored. Some like to apportion credit for OL, but I don't trust any estimate I've seen (stats are too weak for that unit). But these estimates are uncertain enough there's a good deal of wiggle room for different views.
I would be suspicious of any estimate that did not apportion for OL. Weak stats or not, the OL is clearly important. I suppose you could make the case that OL affects the QB and WRs equally since they are looking a passing stats and both depend on the same stats. Comparison of QBs between teams? That must take into account OL.
You're misunderstanding. These estimates are in the form of "variance explained". So (toy example) if 15% of variation in win% is "explained" by variation in QB ability and a similar amount is for the WR, that's 30% total. That means 70% is unaccounted for. About 45% is usually for defense, so you get 25% left for the rest of the offensive unit (RB and OL) and special teams. You may not know how to estimate what portion should go to OL due to "weak stats" but that doesn't mean OL isn't important. It just means you can't quantify what portion of the remaining amount should go to OL.
Depends on who is claiming to have a good estimate. The proper way to do it is to calculate the variance in a given stat like EPA per play with and without a given player. The stat (e.g., EPA per play) has a known correlation to win%, the square of which is variance explained. And if you can measure how much that variation changes w.r.t. a replacement player you can get an idea of how much any player (and technically how much any position) affects the outcome. Theoretically you can do this for any position, but obviously the more influential a single player is the easier it is to estimate, which is why estimates for QBs are more reliable than an OG. Not everyone does it this way of course, and I haven't seen anything I'd defend myself, but that's the correct way of doing it.
