1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Evaluating Tannehill's Value

Discussion in 'Miami Dolphins Forum' started by finsfandan, Jun 1, 2017.

  1. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Last word argument is just about the cheapest bull**** a person can pull in a discussion.

    We all know you struggle with definitions, like clutch, it factor, etc. I mean you talk about data that is defined incorrectly and use it all the time.
     
    eltos_lightfoot and cbrad like this.
  2. Ohio Fanatic

    Ohio Fanatic Twuaddle or bust Club Member

    32,070
    22,827
    113
    Nov 26, 2007
    Concord, MA
    the discussion was around leadership, not human traits. so, keep trying.
     
  3. finsfandan

    finsfandan Well-Known Member

    2,547
    600
    113
    Dec 14, 2014
    No but he's always been better and you can't convince me Tannehill would be able to do the same.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  4. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    The bold says it all.
     
    eltos_lightfoot and danmarino like this.
  5. finsfandan

    finsfandan Well-Known Member

    2,547
    600
    113
    Dec 14, 2014
    So now CAREER ratings aren't enough of a sample apparently. Nobody takes that away from Warner because he won it all. I wouldn't criticize Tannehill if that was the case but he has very good weapons and hasn't cracked top 10 or appeared in a playoff game. And even if he was healthy, he would've lost. Landry would be a stud without Tannehill, let's not kid ourselves.

    Wow, Ryan's passer rating dipped to 89, 2.5 points higher than Tannehill's career rating lol. Goes to show what people expected out of him. Of course I was asking the question to invite debate. I wasn't asking a question with a closed mind like you've been suggesting. Make an argument about how he's a good value and I'll listen.

    You went on and on about Tannehill being better than Moore but I haven't argued against that. I'm saying, like I've said a million times, I believe we would've been better off sticking with Moore, drafting Kuechly and retaining players like Miller, Clay, Smith, Vernon, etc.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  6. finsfandan

    finsfandan Well-Known Member

    2,547
    600
    113
    Dec 14, 2014
    Well yeah, it's not unreasonable to say Tannehill won't be MVP, offensive player of the year and nearly win a SB. Most QBs never do that.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  7. Finster

    Finster Finsterious Finologist

    3,087
    2,038
    113
    Jul 27, 2013
    So I understand, you're saying that people all have equal mental abilities?
     
  8. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    It is a nebulous subject but it has been studied and some traits have been identified as central to leadership. Research has shown leadership to be around 30% genetic, and 70% learned through life.

    That 30% is what we mean by innate.
     
    Bpk likes this.
  9. Finster

    Finster Finsterious Finologist

    3,087
    2,038
    113
    Jul 27, 2013
    Leadership is always from a group of other traits, drive, confidence and responsibility being nearly unilateral, but the way you can really tell is by others following him, that's a real leader.

    Jack Hamm tells a story of Lambert's rookie season, at some point during the season.
    Lambert, the rookie, got on Hamm after a play for not playing his assignment correctly, Hamm couldn't look him in the eye and that's when Hamm realized there was a new captain on D, and he accepted that on the spot.

    There are countless examples of leadership like that, guys that had leadership at such a high level it begs the question, is it an opposing type of mental issue to autism? Because some of them HAVE to be the leader, there's no defense where Jack Lambert isn't going to be the leader, lol.
     
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2017
  10. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Hey first of all kudos for actually searching the internet to see what kind of research has been done!

    I'm not in this particular field but I think it's good to just go through in a bit more detail where the issues lie with this kind of research (including whether you think taxpayer dollars are wisely spent on this kind of stuff haha). So I found this paper from 2012 that supports what you said:
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3583370/

    OK.. it might seem a bit complex to read, but the first thing to note is (as I pointed out in post #122) how they measure "leadership". They say that right up front: leadership role occupancy

    Obvious issue here is that it's often not the case that people get placed in leadership roles BECAUSE they demonstrated good leadership! But nevertheless they've agreed on some operational definition.

    More importantly, the 2nd point I made in post #122 comes up very quickly: modern genetics tends to fail when you're trying to figure out how multiple genes interact together to produce a trait. This is why this quote isn't surprising:

    So what do they do? They choose "candidate" genes where they hope these genes have something to do with the trait in question. Obvious issue here is we do not KNOW these candidate genes are proxies for the leadership trait lol.

    Still.. gotta start somewhere. So they say this:

    OK.. first of all they only choose a small number of genes in this category (resources are limited but still it's a limitation of the study) but more importantly note how generic the functions of the chosen genes are. I mean these genes could affect any kind of trait that affects whether you get into a leadership occupancy role (which as pointed out before doesn't mean you demonstrated leadership).

    To be more specific they look at:

    You see how generic and broad based the effects of these genes are? Dopamine receptors affect everything from motivation, learning, memory, cognition.. well they're found almost everywhere lol.

    Otherwise, note the study uses the same approach used in that LA Times article, a twin design, comparing monozygotic twins that have nearly 100% of their genes in common with dizygotic twins that share around 50% of their genes.

    The rest is just statistical analysis to estimate the portion of variance due to these relatively non-specific genes. They found 24% is heritable, but they cite papers that put it around a third as you point out.

    In any case.. you can see how weak the conclusions really are (at least I hope you see that).

    Maybe you can also see how easy it is to do such twin studies (which cost some money btw) on practically any kind of trait you're interested in. Doesn't mean we're gaining that much knowledge from having tons of studies like this.
     
    danmarino and eltos_lightfoot like this.
  11. sports24/7

    sports24/7 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    32,924
    41,461
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    Career ratings aren't enough of a sample when that career is as a backup, the majority of those starts come from playing in a different system, and with a different supporting cast. Is career QB rating, really the only thing you have? Because that's all I've heard you reference. And honestly, Tannehill's is higher by a decent margin.

    Ryan's rating "dipped" to about his exact rating for his career in those first 6 years. And if that 2.5 points higher than Tannehill's career average is such a big gap, what is the 4.5 (almost double that) gap between Tannehill and Moore's career ratings?

    You have said that over and over again, without any real supporting evidence or breakdown of their play. And I have said why I disagree with that and given reasons why I don't believe your belief to be true. Just because you don't like what I said doesn't mean I haven't tried to make my point.
     
    danmarino and Fin D like this.
  12. Pauly

    Pauly Season Ticket Holder

    3,696
    3,743
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    Well here is where I insert my comment that different cultures appraise leadership differntly.
    I've lived and worked in Japan. What Americans consider "leadershio" the Japanese consider to be "obnoxiously boorish" and is definitely negative if you want to get Japanese to follow you.
    So even if specific traits are heritable whether those traits become leadership is affected by cultural standards and tolerances.

    In addition there are many different paths to success. Tony Dungy was repeatedly passed over as a HC candidate because of his quiet and calm demeanor yet he managed to go on and have a pretty successful career once he was given the opportunity.
     
  13. Conuficus

    Conuficus Premium Member Luxury Box

    18,044
    19,676
    113
    Dec 8, 2007
    Well away from here
    Now see there you go using logic and common sense when debating a topic. You know you can't do that - it's not allowed.

    How dare you continue to use such underhanded methods to prove your point.

    You're cold man, just cold. :shifty:
     
  14. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Sample size per se isn't an issue with Moore's career numbers. The issue is whether you think 2016 Moore is similar enough a QB to pre-2012 Moore so that it's fine to combine stats across years (Moore didn't start a single game from 2012-2015). Only if 2016 Moore is in your mind a different QB, then sample size is an issue because he had less than 150 passing attempts (the minimum threshold from which passer rating becomes reliable).

    However, 2016 Moore numbers "fit" with what he did pre-2012. That is, they are not sufficiently different that a statistical test will say they come from different distributions (not even close actually.. in fact he has multiple 4-game stretches pre-2012 where he did better than in 2016 and many 4-game stretches where he did worse).

    So career comparisons I think are fine though ideally you adjust all stats to some baseline year before comparing, but that would only help Moore not hurt him in a comparison. And playing in multiple systems and having comparable ratings would only support the idea we're looking at the influence of the QB rather than the system.

    In any case, that's only one piece of evidence in your debate.. not taking sides in the overall debate because as I said from the outset in post #3 there are too many unknowns IMO to know what a Moneyball approach to this looks like.
     
    eltos_lightfoot likes this.
  15. Fin-O

    Fin-O Initiated Club Member

    11,375
    11,392
    113
    Sep 28, 2015
    Just watched Ryan vs the Rams last season....he was Geno Smith for 54 minutes and Tom Brady for 6.

    I need to go watch the 49er game now, Im back to being really nervous.
     
  16. eltos_lightfoot

    eltos_lightfoot Well-Known Member

    4,297
    720
    113
    Apr 14, 2008
    Remember the superbowl? Tom Brady wasn't Tom Brady for the first half.
     
    danmarino and Fin D like this.
  17. Fin-O

    Fin-O Initiated Club Member

    11,375
    11,392
    113
    Sep 28, 2015
    While that sounds good on paper and will get you some likes from the usual suspects.....Tom Brady is a proven NFL QB and a legend. Ryan Tannehill is a guy with the arrow pointing up finally. Big difference


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  18. finsfandan

    finsfandan Well-Known Member

    2,547
    600
    113
    Dec 14, 2014
    It's enough of a sample size. We're not talking about Jimmy Garoppolo here. Moore has been around for 9 seasons. At this point we know what type of player he is.

    Might wanna check your math there. I made a post about this already. Even if you factor in Ryan's 6th year, it goes down to 90.08 (which you shouldn't because Tannehill hasn't played 6 years). So really it would be Matt Ryan 3.68 points above Tannehill. Tannehill would be 4.5 points above Moore, and only 3.03 if you only factor in Dolphins games.

    Matt Ryan's first 5 seasons: 90.18 passer rating.
    Matt Ryan's career: 93.6 passer rating.
    Tannehill's first 5/career: 86.5 passer rating.
    Moore as a Dolphin: 83.47 passer rating.
    Moore's career: 82.0 passer rating.


    What evidence am I supposed to give? I'm not a stats guy like cbrad or Pauly. I simply believe Moore, Kuechly and a combination of Miller, Clay, Smith, Vernon, etc. would be better than just Tannehill. Without stats, it's up to us to speculate, but you haven't participated in that, you've only made me go in circles about just Tannehill and my bias (when everybody has one).



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
    jdang307 likes this.
  19. eltos_lightfoot

    eltos_lightfoot Well-Known Member

    4,297
    720
    113
    Apr 14, 2008
    No question. I was just pointing out that being a QB isn't an easy, consistent process. There are ups and downs. I actually would point to that Rams game as a sign of fourth quarter growth for THill. Those last two drives were awesome. Which it appears you do as well.
     
    Fin-O likes this.
  20. eltos_lightfoot

    eltos_lightfoot Well-Known Member

    4,297
    720
    113
    Apr 14, 2008
    Back on track, I think the huge underlying problem with the idea of not drafting Tannehill is that an assumption is being made that we would have drafted Keuchly instead of a crappy linebacker. I am not sure that we should be accepting that as a given. Kind of like the Brady Quinn argument back in the day. What if all of the above end up being not-so-great?

    Either way, the best part about all this is that with great coaching hopefully we will be able to develop any given player to a greater degree. Then the margins won't be so tight on player development.
     
  21. Fin-O

    Fin-O Initiated Club Member

    11,375
    11,392
    113
    Sep 28, 2015
    Yes. I was ecstatic at the outcome not only for personal reasons, but because we had never seen him catch fire like that the final two drives. It was a good sign that carried over.

    Im just going to skip the Ravens game, so I can stay as positive as I have been about his 2017 all offseason.
     
    eltos_lightfoot likes this.
  22. eltos_lightfoot

    eltos_lightfoot Well-Known Member

    4,297
    720
    113
    Apr 14, 2008
    Yeah that Ravens game was a stinkbomb all around.
     
  23. Finster

    Finster Finsterious Finologist

    3,087
    2,038
    113
    Jul 27, 2013
    I have to disagree Pauly, first on what "Americans consider leadership", because I don't think there is a stock answer, and also I think you are speaking on a cultural difference in general, not just in leadership.

    Lets not forget either, that obnoxious and boorish goes with the territory, when you combine drive, confidence and ability, obnoxious is a predictable possible side affect, and in Japan being boorish is nearly synonymous with leadership.

    No matter the culture, leadership is weighed by the same measure, will people follow, it's that simple, that is the only true way to see if someone is a leader, and they almost all have drive, confidence and ability as their 3 strongest traits.
     
    cbrad likes this.
  24. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Good observation here.

    In order to really do a study where the uncertainty on how leadership is measured isn't an issue, you'd have to do a more "controlled" experiment and actually test to see how many people will follow a given person. You'd still have the issues I pointed out on the genetic side that will put ?? in the conclusions, but a major uncertainty would be removed if they did what you're suggesting (could run into ethical issues though if they don't design the experiment carefully haha!)

    Only issue might be terminology. People might prefer to just call what you're talking about "power" and dispense with the nebulous concept of "leadership".
     
    Finster likes this.
  25. Dol-Fan Dupree

    Dol-Fan Dupree Tank? Who is Tank? I am Guy Incognito.

    40,533
    33,035
    113
    Dec 11, 2007
    Dear God no. How did you get that?
     
  26. sports24/7

    sports24/7 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    32,924
    41,461
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    Yes, after those 9 seasons we know he's a backup. I have talked about apples to apples comparisons, and with regards to Moore, we have very few starts with the same system and players around him. Even if we say the sample size is fine, I don't think QB rating is enough to base an entire fictional argument on. And again, even if it were, I don't think it supports your argument, really, because Tannehill is better by a decent margin.

    So you don't think that 89 and 90.08 are almost the same? I mean, are you actually reading my posts? You said "Wow, Ryan's passer rating dipped to 89, 2.5 points higher than Tannehill's career rating lol." If, in fact, 2.5 points is so much higher, than 4.5 points that Tannehill is ahead of Moore should be pretty significant. As for not using Ryan's 6th year, that's kind of a silly thing to say, no? The argument was based off of Ryan's career prior to his break out last season. If Tannehill makes the jump this year (like you have even said you expect him to), then wouldn't that actually be a win for Tannehill for getting there faster? If Tannehill improves his rating in his 6th year from his 5th year (again, like you said he would), his career rating will only go up after 6 years, further closing the gap, or even ending up being higher than Ryan's after 6 years.

    I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but football is not all about math. You could actually break down their play, and explain what you see in Moore's game that would mean there wouldn't be a drop off from what you see in Tannehill's game. I've already used this method in arguing against this notion. I've also speculated, stating multiple times that if Tannehill is a top 10 QB (which you said you think he'll be), it would be obvious to anyone that Miami made the correct decision. I also used your ONLY measure (QB rating) to argue that Tannehill is clearly the better player at the most important position in the NFL, which suggests that yes, they are much better off with him at QB than Moore. If you can't understand that I have in fact speculated in this argument, using examples and facts, I don't know how to help you here. I already tried reposting these exact statements, but apparently that didn't work. Either you aren't reading my posts, or there is a reading comprehension issue. Regardless, I've done all I can here.
     
  27. finsfandan

    finsfandan Well-Known Member

    2,547
    600
    113
    Dec 14, 2014
    Jesus Christ. I'm not saying Moore is better. I'm saying Tannehill's not so much better that we should've reached for him over Kuechly and not dedicated money to other positions we've struggled to fill.

    Also, your calculations were off. You can't just knock a whole point off to make a point. I don't know what else you're going on about, you're just speculating at that point.

    I know that, which is why I've said multiple times that we should've dedicated the draft pick and money that went to him on Kuechly and a combination of Miller, Clay, Vernon, Smith, etc. I don't see how Tannehill is so much better than Moore that it's worth giving all that up. Ajayi is better than Miller but Miller is better than any backup we have. Clay is better than and more reliable than any TE we've had since. Vernon is almost surely better than Harris and other DEs we've had since. Smith is arguably better than our corners. But again, more speculation on your part instead of an actual argument.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  28. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    The Ravens are a very well coached team. Been in that system for a while. Before the game they told Gannon Tannehill has trouble with progressions and if you take away the first read he has trouble finding the second. Afterwards I think Db Smith said Weddle made great calls and confused Tanny, and he didn't know whether they were in cover 1 or cover 2.

    In his first year in Gase's you kind of expect him to be outwitted by the well coached defensive teams. And the Ravens are one of the best. You want him to beat the lesser teams and eventually, with years in the same offense, be able to compete with the better defenses because that's what you get mostly in the playoffs.
     
    finsfandan likes this.
  29. sports24/7

    sports24/7 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    32,924
    41,461
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    Again, reading is fundamental. Where did I suggest you said Moore is better.
    Also, again (repeating myself is becoming a trend here), my calculations weren't off. I said almost exactly his career average. A point away would qualify. I'm not knocking off a whole point because I didn't say it was the exact same number to the decimal point. If you can't understand why using Ryan's first 6 years as a measuring stick is valid, and not speculation in the least (considering we were talking about what he was prior to his breakout) then I really don't know what to tell you here. It's simple logic.

    You've said that over and over again, without any facts or stated argument to back it up, other than QB rating, which is 4.5 points apart.

    Miller appears to be a lesser player to Ajayi, and Ajayi would probably be gone or at the end of the bench if Miller were still here. Clay is being paid $9 million to be a mediocre-at-best TE this year in Buffalo. You really would have wanted Miami to pay that? Vernon is a good player that you hate to lose, but he was overpaid. Smith is solid, but I'm not sure he's a significant upgrade to what they have. I also think it's cherry picking quite a bit to suggest that Miami would have kept all of these guys if they hadn't paid Tannehill. It just isn't true.

    The main issue here is, though, that you don't just want to settle at the QB position. You don't win in the NFL that way. And by starting a backup for 5 years, that's exactly what you'd be doing. So even if they did keep those guys, if Matt Moore were the QB, it wouldn't matter because the team wouldn't be going anywhere.
     
    Fin D likes this.
  30. finsfandan

    finsfandan Well-Known Member

    2,547
    600
    113
    Dec 14, 2014
    "And again, even if it were, I don't think it supports your argument, really, because Tannehill is better by a decent margin." What are you getting at then? You're so focused on just the QBs we've discussed that you're not getting at the point of this thread. Just how much better is he that he's worth having passed on Kuechly and retaining other good players we had with the money he was paid?

    I'm not gonna keep writing a ton to dispute every single point. You keep speculating anyway and I've stated before we could've locked certain guys up before their demands were too much. I'm not saying we could've signed every guy at the contracts they ended up getting.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  31. sports24/7

    sports24/7 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    32,924
    41,461
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    I'm focused on the QBs because it's the most important position in professional sports (which I've said a few times now). Is Kuechly a better player? Sure. But you win with good QB play, and it's almost impossible to contend without it. It doesn't matter how good your MIKE linebacker is, if you're starting a backup QB. That's my point. It's been my point from my first post. If you don't agree with that, then that's fine. But don't tell me I'm not answering the question.
     
    Fin D likes this.
  32. Finster

    Finster Finsterious Finologist

    3,087
    2,038
    113
    Jul 27, 2013
    Well then doesn't that actually prove that if people can and do have different mental abilities, ceilings/floors, that some are just naturally better?

    It's no different then being born strong, fast or can leap like a deer, our mental make ups are just as unique as our physical make ups.
     
  33. The_Dark_Knight

    The_Dark_Knight Defender of the Truth

    11,815
    10,319
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    Rockledge, FL
    You know, as I look through these threads and continuously come across the Anti-Tannehill threads...or those questioning whether or not he's worthy, it just continuously pisses me off. I'm just going to point this out...

    Most single season passing yards in Dolphins history...
    Tannehill has the 7th spot with 4045 yards in a single season...behind Marino who has the first 6 slots

    Most single season touchdown passes
    Tannehill has the 6th spot with 27..behind Marino with the first 5 slots

    Most single season completions
    Tannehill owns the 1st (392) and and 5th spots (355), sandwiching Marino who has the 2nd-4th slots

    Highest single season completion percentage
    Well, Tannehill has the number 2 spot here, not behind Marino but behind Chad Pennington. Marino owns the 3rd, 4th and 6th spots

    http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sports/...dolphins-quarterbacks-20150519-htmlstory.html

    Ryan Tannehill is doing what he's SUPPOSED to be doing, playing quarterback and playing well.
     
    Fin D likes this.
  34. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    That article is a bit outdated (it's from summer 2015). Just go to pro-football-reference:
    http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/mia/single-season-passing.htm

    A key correction:

    Most single season passing yards in Dolphins history:
    Tannehill is 5th with 4208 yards after his 2015 season

    Also, he's now 1st, 4th and 6th in completions.
     
  35. finsfandan

    finsfandan Well-Known Member

    2,547
    600
    113
    Dec 14, 2014
    So you're saying Tannehill is so much better than Moore that he's also worth passing over Kuechly and some combination of Miller, Clay, Vernon, Smith, etc? That doesn't mean all those four, but whatever we could've landed for the price difference.

    Now if we were talking about borderline elite QBs like Matt Ryan, Eli Manning, Joe Flacco, Wilson, etc then I would agree with you, but not for Tannehill.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  36. finsfandan

    finsfandan Well-Known Member

    2,547
    600
    113
    Dec 14, 2014
    So? The Dolphins aren't known for having great QBs except for Marino. I'd take Griese over Tannehill any day.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  37. The_Dark_Knight

    The_Dark_Knight Defender of the Truth

    11,815
    10,319
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    Rockledge, FL
    Thank you for putting more bullets in my magazine
     
  38. The_Dark_Knight

    The_Dark_Knight Defender of the Truth

    11,815
    10,319
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    Rockledge, FL
    You know, Griese had TWO things that Tannehill hasn't had. He had a power running back in Larry Czonka and a phenomenal head coach in Don Shula.

    Could Ajayi be the next Czonka?
    Could Gase be the next Shula?

    Only time will tell but last season with Gase and Ajayi, Tannehill put up great numbers and we made the playoffs...and missed what, 3 games due to his knee injury?
     
    Fin D likes this.
  39. danmarino

    danmarino Tua is H1M! Club Member

    15,354
    20,975
    113
    Sep 4, 2014
    Tom Brady wasn't Tom Brady the first 6 years into his career. lol
     
    Fin D and eltos_lightfoot like this.
  40. sports24/7

    sports24/7 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    32,924
    41,461
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    First of all, I'm not sure that Tannehill had anything to do with signing those players. Davis was traded in Tannehill's rookie year, and Smith left as a FA a year into Tannehill's rookie deal. I don't think either of those had anything to do with him. Clay I wouldn't go anywhere near at that price, and I don't think Miami felt Vernon was worth what he got. So I don't think there was any bearing. All of that being said, let's pretend it did. I'd still rather Tannehill than a backup QB. That's how important the position is in the NFL. You aren't going to win with a backup QB. If Tannehill makes the jump to a top 10 QB, which is something you said you expect him to, then I don't even think this point is arguable.

    Also, I'm not really sure how you say Tannehill isn't at the level of Flacco or Manning, because if we use your statistic of choice, Tannehill had a better QB rating than those two players last season by a mile. 10 points higher than Flacco, and 7.5 points higher than Manning. His career rating is even higher than both of those quarterbacks by 2 and 3 points respectively. So now I'm really confused.
     

Share This Page