No, it wouldn't. There's still defenses, division, other opponents, special teams, weather, travel, bye weeks, injuries, etc.
Exactly so why haven't we seen him do it more consistently over the years? Because he hasn't been a consistent quarterback but that's about to change. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I made a blanket statement to let you know the qb does affect the wins and losses..which is a duh moment I know. I understand variables change with every opponent, but at this point we all have to factor in whatever we think we need to factor in to come to the most accurate projection..
Equating wins to individual performance doesn't work in the NFL. Again, the media and football professionals have told us that Andrew Luck is the next P. Manning. His individual performances do not reflect that. Calling him "elite", IMO, is premature. Unless you think all 5+ year QB's in the league with a career passer rating of over 85 are elite. And if that's the case, RT is elite.
We haven't seen him do it more often because very few QB's in NFL history have been able to do it consistently under those circumstances. If Brady had been playing for the Dolphins over the last 5 seasons he wouldn't have fared any better.
Tom Brady wouldn't have four rings as a dolphin but he certainly would've fared better. He is A top-five quarterback of all time so let's not get carried away Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Your last sentence is saying either: Brady=Tannehill, or QB doesn't matter. So which one did you mean
It's no different when you guys negate other offensive players, coaching, defense, special teams, opponents, and every other thing not the QB. Hell, it is likely that if you take away Brady's uncanny ability to have his headset stay on during in the play, he'd be an average QB.
thats hard to argue when you put it like that..maybe 4th quarter qbr?..last drive of the game down by 7 or less qbr?,on the road qbr?, 3rd down conversion qbr? how many times does Luck run to convert first downs?
Wonder how Tanehill would perform with Deej as his QB coach for a year. Gotta admit, it's be FASCINATING to watch!!!
Yeah Luck is definitely ahead of Tannehill on many key "clutch" stats. Here are some links: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/L/LuckAn00/splits/ http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/T/TannRy00/splits/ 4th quarter passer rating is 91.7 for Luck vs. 80.2 for Tannehill, passer rating when behind and <4 minutes left is 96.4 for Luck vs. 65.2 for Tannehill, 3rd down passer rating is 87.6 for Luck vs. 75.9 for Tannehill. On the road performance isn't too different though: 84.5 for Luck vs. 83.2 for Tannehill. In any case, stats do show Luck is more "clutch" than Tannehill by many measures. Some of those difference might be accounted for by the specific opponent (haven't done a comparable analysis to post #77), but as you can see we're talking huge differences here in 4th quarter passer rating, <4 minutes left and behind, and 3rd down PR, so most of that's probably due to differences between the QB's.
If you watch lucks games you will see his running reps all come from bailing the pocket to convert 3rd downs...Ryans reps are outlying accrued by design.. Huge difference that doesn't show upon the passer rating stat sheet..
I'd get in tha azz..lol Seriously though I'm excited to see the level in play he gets to in this 2nd year, and I hope what I'm looking for, just for my own head, comes thru this year..
Yeah, there are definitely situations where I'd want Luck more than Tannehill, like when you need the QB to create a big play, or when you're down by a lot, or in clutch situations, or when you need to get that 1st down when protection breaks down. And overall I'd say Luck > Tannehill, but those opponent-adjusted efficiency stats show that the difference overall isn't that big (for example, Tannehill has better completion %). So I agree with those saying Luck has underperformed relative to the hype (which was really huge!).
And that's why I am not saying (and said the same above) that Luck's ceiling isn't higher. However, when you compare everything, both QB's have produced the same.
Doubt it. If you search around I've shown what Brady's numbers look like when he's in bad (RT-like) situations and also what the Pats do when Brady plays badly. There has really only been around 4-5 QB's in NFL history that were able to carry their teams on their shoulders and Brady isn't one of them.
If you really believe the only difference in Tom Brady and Ryan Tannehill is their surroundings then I can't help you young man.
Not true Their rushing efficiency is similar. Luck rushes more often than Tannehill. Why is open for debate.
Of course I don't think that's the only difference. Besides playing on overall great teams (that cheat) and having the same HC throughout his career (that cheats) he's also probably the smartest QB in the league (that cheats). He's been able to progress under the same circumstances year in and year out. If Brady had started his career with the Dolphins in 2012 he probably wouldn't be in the league anymore.
When I crunched the numbers last year it came out that consistently performing better than average in the clutch was worth about 1/2 a win per season. And it can be hard to assign all of the credit/blame to the QB, for example Lazor's play calling when behind hurt Tannehill whenever he was in a behind situation, not just clutch situations. The best was the Brady/Belichek combo which is worth about 1 game a year., and they were a long way ahead of the next best.
So playing Devil's advocate here. If Andrew Luck is that much better in the 4th quarter, but overall total, they are close to the same, doesn't that pretty much say that Tannehill is performing at a higher level early on, thus (on a good team) preventing his team from being in the situation that 4th quarter heroics are needed? I would take winning a game comfortably by the 4th quarter all day over last second heroics. The problem is we haven't had the team to allow solid play from our QB early on, to put the other team away.
Well to be fair he is actually saying when in a very specific environment (playing for the Dolphins) QB doesn't matter. I do think Brady would perform better then Tannehill, but I think he would struggle to make the playoffs as a Dolphin over the last 10 years.
I don't think you can quantify that #, who is counting the "clutch" plays would be the first thing, because clutch plays don't show up on the stat sheet as clutch plays. Time has proven out that the best way to win the SB is with a QB that performs well in the clutch, you don't need to look any further than the Mannings, Peyton was the better QB, but Eli was the better clutch QB, Eli is one of those rare QBs that has a higher playoff rating than regular season.
No because 4th quarter scoring is the most important. Generally, total offensive points scored has a really high correlation with wins: ~0.7, but the correlation gets progressively worse the further away you get from the end of the game: Correlation between points scored in 2nd quarter and wins: ~0.5 Correlation between points scored in 3rd quarter and wins: ~0.57 Correlation between points scored in 4th quarter and wins: ~0.62 Tannehill is 4 passer rating points above Luck in 2nd and 3rd quarters (both are same in the 1st quarter), while Luck is 11+ passer rating points above Tannehill in the 4th quarter. Using the correlations as weights you'd get 4(0.5 + 0.57) = 4.28 for Tannehill, while for Luck it's 11.5*0.62 = 7.13. That's a decent estimate of which matters more, so I'd say just based on passer rating by quarter you'd rather have Luck.
Well that's why I said Devil's advocate. I wasn't actually saying Tannehill was better, just that for the math to add up, Tannehill is better in the beginning of the game. IF we had a solid team around him, we could put a few games out of reach a little bit earlier. I also wasn't trying to downplay the importance of 4th quarter scoring, but when you let a game go down to the 4th quarter a lot of times you are playing the "whoever has the ball last" scenario. I think we would all rather win and rest our starters for the last 5 minutes then play watch the clock, and hope for another chance.
OK, but in any hypothetical scenario with any fixed level of improvement anywhere on the team, you'd prefer all that improvement to be in the 4th quarter if you just go by quarters. Not sure that's the best for your blood pressure during a game haha but that's another story.
According to Profootballreference: Wouldn't you also need to factor in the scenarios for each QB's 4th quarter? I mean, if RT is constantly having to play from behind wouldn't he be a little more risky in regards to his play and thus have a lesser passer rating?
You can factor in as many other things as you want. I was just going by the passer ratings by quarter. Not sure how to quantify what you're talking about though based on simple published stats.
Yeah, I think it would be a lot of work. Basically, if the Dolphins are behind most of the time in the 4th quarter and the Colts are ahead, wouldn't it be safe to assume that is why there is such a big difference between their 4th quarter passer rating even though in the 1st 3 quarters their passer ratings are a lot closer?
All I can imagine is you holding a giant spoon stirring a big black cauldron over an open fire while laughing.
That difference of ~10 passer rating points is about what you tend to expect between "ahead" and "trailing" situations for most starting QB's, so if you could show the extreme situation is true of Tannehill always playing from behind in the 4th and Luck always ahead then yeah you'll have hit on something really cool. You'd have explained away that difference! I doubt the actual percentages playing from behind for both QB's in the 4th shows that dramatic a difference, but if you ever do get that data I'd love to see it!
Actually, most times the last team with the ball doesn't score, that is a basketball axiom that rarely holds true in the NFL.
Well that is very true. Its more of a "Whoever has the ball last" with a added "with enough time to actually score" scenario. I remember us dueling the Packers and Denver a few years ago. And any year that you give Brady the ball on a last chance drive, it starts to feel like you've lost before they even cross the 50. What I was meaning was, I would rather put a team away, then rely on 4th Quarter heroics from the QB. I do strongly believe for a QB to be elite, he needs to be elite at more then just the 4th Quarter. In my opinion, Luck hasn't really shown it yet. I think he will get there, just isn't there yet. Tannehill isn't elite either, and he still needs to grow. However, I can't knock him when the team around him just hasn't been good. He needs the environment that allows the game to slow down for him, Dolphins failed to give it to him for a long time. Instead, we stuck him out there with bad talent, and expected him to overcome his own deficiencies as well as his own team's. The little flashes I have gotten to see from him when we have had decent protection hold up for a quarter, or a game, has me convinced that he can compete at all levels. I wouldn't say any of that is an actual excuse. Its been what he has needed to grow since he came into the league. Its like saying plants aren't growing cause they don't get the sun is an excuse.
I still disagree with the idea that it's so easy to score in the NFL, many games are determined by the fact that they can't score on that last drive. The whole clutch thing is about scoring when you need to, rising to the occasion, and if you have a QB that can do that, then the entire team believes they can win, that is powerful.
