Miami Dolphins Ryan Tannehill: Judge me on wins

Here is some food for thought:

Let's take the Broncos game (because its a game we didnt expect to win IN Denver at night, Tannehill was ballin', and the defense cost us a winnable game down the stretch) and extrapolate it to a 16 game season for funsies.

Tannehills entire season looks roughly something like this:

~72% completion 48TD / 16INT 3700 yards 90+ qbr.


Dolphins entire season looks something like this:

0-16.

Interesting.

 

And this post illustrates the folly of counting wins. Tannehill is considerably closer to Rodgers than Manziel and we know that.

 

When has this happened before?

 

Imagine if somebody made that argument with respect to climate change: well, if you can't prove exactly how much carbon emissions contribute then you can't say they contribute at all...

 

Tannehill had the ball in his hand 4 points down inside 4 minutes, not unlike the situation Rodgers was in against us. But instead of driving down the field with that opportunity Tannehill threw it to the other team...

Here's a news flash: against great teams with elite QBs games are going to come down to the last possession or two more often than not. What you do with those possessions is what separates the champs from the chumps.

 

You are right. Aaron Rogers amazing ability to fumble the ball to his own player is what won the game for the Packers.

 

So we should judge him on his wins then. Just like he says.

 

And when Tom Brady got hurt in 2008, New England went 11-5.

What does that tell you? That should tell you, there's no true measure to evaluate the value of a QB, suffice it to say, the position is important. I think most of us can agree, the QB is likely the most influential player in any given game, as they touch the ball every snap. But we cannot measure their importance with something as simple as W/L. There are 21 other variables on the field, alone. Nevermind all the other variables that exist. Home v. Away. Weather. Coaching. Scheme. Matchups. Turnover margin. Time of Possession. The list is endless...

It's so incredibly lazy and dishonest to assign a QB's W/L record as representation of a QB's talent.

 

If you did that, the defense would give up an astrominical 39 points per game. Something that has never happened in the history of the NFL. And that's why you don't take one game and extrapolate it. You look at the whole season. You look at a career.

That's why you don't say, If Hartline catches 253 yards per game, he'd have 4,048 yards, and 16TDs, and we'd still be 0-16.

 

The guy who filled in, also made the playoffs and win a division with a different team, becoming a pro-bowl alternate, and 11-5 is a 5 game drop from the year before with largely the same team.

I do like that you called Tannehill lazy and dishonest though.

 

Clark.. to my knowledge no one is saying that. All we are saying is that W/L record has to be included in the evaluation. Even that 18.5% estimate I came up with shows you it's not the dominant factor from a statistical point of view.

 

This made my day, dude. Regardless of the fact that I put 'for funsies' in my post. Im here at work. I typed that up and I literally wrote '39 ppg .....Jdang' on my notepad on my desk. I knew someone was going to bring up the ppg, and I was literally willing to bet money it was gunna be you. . Epic. I wish I could upload a pic. Surprised I didnt get the usual passive aggressive wink face

Even though I did it as a joke, the point remains pretty obviously clear that a qb can play extremely well and lose every game. Obviously not in that fashion, but still perfectly possible. Its interesting that a qb can score and gain the lead, and then sit on the bench and watch his defense lose for him in the final seconds, but the w/l is really on him as a QB in the grand scheme of things. Its a warped reality I don't agree with.

 

Jay Fiedler is a better QB than Ryan Tannehill, right?


Jay Fiedler compiled a 36-23 record as Miami Dolphins QB. Hell, for fun, let's look at Ryan Tannehill and Jay Fiedler's first three years, shall we?


Jay Fiedler's first three years with Miami.
Total Wins: 28
Total Losses: 13
Win %: .682
TD: 48
INT: 42
Yards: 7,716
Completion % (avg): 59.7
YPA (avg): 7.0
QB Rating: 79.7

Ryan Tannehill's first three years in Miami
Total W: 23
Total L: 25
Win %: .479
TD: 63
INT: 42
Completion (avg): 61.9
Yards: 11,252
YPA (avg): 6.8
QB Rating: 84.0

* And these numbers include Tannehill's rookie season, while unfair to him, it's fair to the argument.

You guys are making this WAY to easy. W/L are not a true measurable of any one players ability and talent. I can't wait for the mental gymnastics that follow to justify why the above is wrong. It's going to be hilarious.

 

Jay Fiedler. See post above.

 

If W/L record let's say counts 18.5%.. then obviously tons of other factors count 81.5%. You can't imagine how those "tons of other factors" would put Tannehill > Fiedler?

 

See this is what happens when you debate with someone with a bias, they have a penchant for creating strawmen.

Did anyone in this thread argue he should SOLELY be judged on his record?

 

Not very likely. Because you don't play Peyton Manning every week. You play some Derek Carrs, you play some Geno Smiths. You play some EJ Manuels. You play some Blake Bortles. You are supposed to beat them, and hope to beat the elites.

Of course you can look at that game and say, the defense gave up 39 points.

or you can look at it and say, Peyton Manning lead his team to score 39 when his defense let up 36. And why he's elite.

 

You're saying that a QB W/L record is indicative of his talent and ability. I'm saying, it's not. There are too many variables that factor into W/L.. The W/L record is representative of the team and organization's ability. That's all.

 

One of those variables is QB ability. So some portion of the W/L record is due to the QB. So unless you have an individual QB measure that's perfect (so that it perfectly captures the QB's influence on W/L record, which is ultimately what counts), you want to weight W/L record to some degree. What you do NOT want to do is totally leave it out of an evaluation.

 

I appreciate the attempt, but we are talking about comparisons. Comparing X to Y is different than asking can X kill us all or not. If you were making a comparison between what's a bigger hazard, climate change or smog, I wouldn't use carbon emissions in part of the equation because we cannot give a proper weight to carbon emissions in regards to climate change. (That is for your example only, because I think we did actually come up with some numbers as to how much carbon emissions effects climate change. I could be wrong about that. But that's not really here nor there.)

 

Not very likely =/= impossible, nor is it a counter point to what I said.

Considering it was a primetime game that a majority of the universe expected us to get blown out in, if you actually watch that game, you say 'the defense gave up 39'. Not sure how you don't.

If there werent examples of mediocre QBs or QBs in general winning superbowls on the backs of elite defenses, then maybe, but to each their own, im not gunna keep spinning this wheel.

 

If not solely, than how much. You are fighting to have it count, then how much should it count?

 

Totally aside from this QB discussion, but it's worth pointing out. Depending on the general circulation model you use, you can show what % of the observed warming is due to carbon emissions by comparing the warming without the emissions to what is observed.

Problem: the models make tons and tons of assumptions about positive and negative feedback mechanisms that in general can't/haven't been tested, so one can't really trust too much the actual % of observed warming that they say is due to carbon emissions.

The best argument for anthropogenic global warming is that you have known greenhouse gases that trap heat, and that heat has to go somewhere. Where, and how it affects global surface temperatures (which is what people like to talk about) is not that well known.

 

The Super Bowl is one game. That's why we look at the career. And the career of all the best QBs show they all have great records. That's how important their contribution is. It's how a single person, can mask the bad play of an entire unit (defense). Take those Colts teams led by Peyton all of those years. Keep the WRs,keep the mediocre to bad defense, keep the Oline, keep the running backs.

Plug in Geno Smith.

What is their record.

 

As much as it needs to.

If you are looking at a numerical specific number from 1-100 you're looking at it wrong. You don't look at just one thing. It is a fluid analysis, like almost everything in life. If someone is blessed with Adrian Peterson and a top 5 defense, and doesn't win, you count it more against him a lot. More than if you're Tony Romo and you play lights out but your defense is the worst in the league.

Tannehill played to the 14th ranked rating and the team was 8-8. So mediocre all the way around, including QB. The record is always taken into account, but it can be offset (good or bad) by other factors. It's called analysis. Not scoring. Scoring doesn't require any critical thinking.

W/L. Above 500 good. Below 500 bad. 500 meh.

No it's not that simple and anyone arguing such is just creating a strawman to argue against using a QB's W/L record.

QB play is the single most dominant factor in predicting a W/L record.

 

There's more to it than that. It's not pure coincidence that elite QBs tend to have good/great teams around them, but it does tend to be true. QB performance is affected by coaching, scheme and situation (winning, losing, solid running game, pass protection, etc.) and so is a team's record. There's really no support for the 3.5 win number. Few teams have backup QBs that are really average NFL starting QBs. The Manning/Sorgi example is really an outlier as there was a lot more wrong with that team and there are indications they actually started tanking for Luck. The truth is the QBs you listed simply haven't missed much time. When Brady was down for effectively a whole season, Matt Cassel got his first starts since high school and they went 11-5. When Rodgers was out at the end of 2011, Matt Flynn put up historic numbers. When Flynn played in 2013, he was 2-2-1, with one of those losses a game in which they scored 31 points and the tie being a game they scored 26. Yeah, it was worse when they had to start 3rd/4th string level guys, but those guys are not average NFL QBs.

As for your last question/challenge, from 2010-2013 Tony Romo was 25-28 as a starter while posting a passer rating in the mid-high 90s. From 86-89, Marino was 29-31 as a starter while in his physical prime (although not always playing at his peak during the latter half of that time period).

 

There has to be a weight. If you claim it counts then there has to be a weight.

 

Again, statistically Ryan had about 8 under par games and 8 over par games. We were 8-8. All the other bs typically evens out, your QB is the most important player on your team and has the biggest impact on Ws and Ls than anyone else.

It is rather elementary tbh.

 

Significant. More than any other single factor. Did his team win. If not, then nobody on earth is going to consider him a great QB ever. Was his team in the playoffs every single year after a few years in? Then he's once in a lifetime. Manning. Brady. Rodgers.

Were they Super Bowl threats every year? How much of his own play contributed to that? Is he Andy Dalton getting into the playoffs? Or is he Big Ben?

Did he depend on a good team around him? Did he need a great team just to get into the playoffs? Did he overcome mediocre units?

When Tanny or any other QB first get into the league, the question is, can they play at this level. He can. 4000 yards, 92 rating, 8-8 record. He can play at this level. That question is answered.

The next question is, can he win at this level? Is he great? That's when you judge him on his record. Stats are nice. Now it's time to win. He won't get knocked for never winning it all. Look at how close Peyton is, to being ringless. He was completely bailed out by Bob Sanders in his one SB year. His first two games against KC and Balt were absolutely stinkers. But he was in the playoffs every year, competing for it every year.

That's the measuring stick of greatness. If we have to say "but" in discussing Tannehill, he isn't great. Simple as that. Tanny said it best. You play to win the game. So how many did you win.

 

Again, what's the weight? Without the weight and solid justification then its subjective. if its subjective then its as valid as saying his haircut counts towards what type of player he is.

Which is fine. If its subjective then its subjective, but quit passing it off as fact, cause its not without weight.

 

Didn't you say that Ryan was much closer to Aaron Rodgers than Johnny Manzeil (totally agree btw) but couldn't he flip that argument into "how do we really know" then dispute every common sense reasoning you have for making that claim? Yes, he could and it would be silly. See what I'm saying..

 

No.

We have actual stats. We have actual game tape. These are actual things to judge him by. There is no sufficient weighting of wins to judge an individual by in football.

So if you're going to assess any QB, you're going to look at a number of things and all of those things you're going to weight in importance. If "wins" is a legit qualifier, then how are you weighting it? For example, we all know DJ finds the ability to run probably more important than virtually anything else a QB does. He weights that higher than say, completing 3rd and Longs. So, QB X is really good at running and really bad at 3rd & Longs, while QB Y is the opposite. DJ is going to take QB X over QB Y because DJ has weighted running to be more important than 3rd & long completions. That's his opinion and its fine.

You guys are saying wins should be factored in and you're saying it as fact and yet not one of you can define how much they matter in any suitable way. That is what is silly. You're saying we are wrong and this is important, but you can't tell us how important it is nor can you actually back it up.

 

plug in Geno Smith on the seahawks and he might have a ring. yet take him out of seattle and you see the flawed qb he is

 

Geno Smith played well the last few games of 2014. Prior to that, highly doubtful.

 

this is just not true Fin, that a poor analysis of my analysis.

ftr..I don't think the qbs most important job is to run the football.lol..I cant believe how stupid that sounds.

I think the most dangerous type of qb is one who can do both relatively speaking..Id rather sacrifice a little in the pocket and have a dual threat presence, then have a strict pocket passer with no scrambling/running ability.. \

while ryans passing stats are good for a 3rd year qb, it hasn't quite got us over the hump..I know whats missing from the skill set..He's too one dimensional when playing from the pocket...if he just thinks having better skill players around him is the secret we will always wind up disappointed..

 

goodness gracious

 

"We" never will be able to because there is a reason intangibles are called intangibles. Do you believe intangibles exist, and if so how would they manifest themselves in the stats books?

 

You just keep repeating this lie over and over because it doesn't fit your narrative. I showed as valid a way of assigning a weight to wins as any of those stats about Rodgers/Tannehill you're referring to (my calculation was just a logical implication of one such stat: YPA). And every one of those stats you refer to is a TEAM stat, not an individual stat (took more than the QB to get the stat), and every one of those stats comes with the same uncertainties about how much the QB is responsible for the stat that you're criticizing with wins (remember? "We don't know").

 

This isn't the 2000s.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

 

Stop.

I'm getting tired of this. When you showed that stupid magic number you keep harping on, you even admitted we have no idea if its an accurate representation. You pulled it out of your *** and acknowledged it could be wrong and we don't know.

Talk about lies and fitting an effing narrative.