Here's What's Wrong With Cutler...Give Me A Minute...Wait I Know There Has To Be Something...

But how much better does a QB have to be in order to play in nearly 5 times as many games and look better than a guy who started 5 times less? The thing with MM is he will have one or two really good games and then totally crap the bed once he gets to playing more than 3-4 games in a row. There's no question that he's the inferior athlete, but this shows me that he's also inferior mentally. Some people say Cutler is a head case due to his outward facial expressions etc, but at least he's pretty consistent in his play. I could find 16 games or even 30 games from nearly any NFL QB that would make you believe they're an all time great when in reality they're not very good.

 

in all honesty if your saying waiving the white flag is starting MOORE that's sad and your going to be a very pissed off individual if you think cutler is that much better than MOORE and excited about it and not particularly fond of MOORES ability and THE FPI agrees with me not you!!!!, Moore has played easily up to the ability to run this team and get his shot. but like I always say I hope im wrong and cutler balls out, but I think its a shame moore isn't getting his chance specially when you sign a guy for 10 mill who is pretty much the same to get the job done as the guy who is already on the team and has the support of the locker room. But I do think his concussions and injury proneness is an issue.

 

That is why backup quarterbacks are so loved.

 

Interesting! No, I didn't see that.

So.. looking it up, we have these links:
http://www.espn.com/blog/statsinfo/post/_/id/123048/a-guide-to-nfl-fpi
http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/...ootball-power-index-was-developed-implemented

OK.. based on a short read of it, it looks like ESPN's doing the same kind of stuff with FPI as in their proprietary QBR which has been rightfully panned except that they're adding more stuff. They're using QBR to get the efficiency of the QB based on past games then adding stuff like rest, altitude, distance traveled, etc.. I actually think all the components they're adding can be done in an unbiased way, but the issue is using QBR in the first place. QBR starts off correctly, basing everything on expected points added, but then attempts to apportion credit to different players in a way that I'm sure if they ever made their algorithm available would look like cherry picked analysis.

That second link is typical of ESPN: they say they don't want their method to be a black box which is why they want to clear things up, but never divulge the method at the end of the day.

So my take on this is if I can't see their methodology (or if they can't explain it well enough for others to replicate) then I can't take it seriously. Good find though!

 

Depends on what your sample looks like, meaning there's no fixed answer to that question. Point is the t-test I used is specifically designed for two samples of unequal sample sizes so it's better than your intuition on this.

If you want to put an asterisk on post #38, note that the analysis (except that trend line of -0.05 at the end) doesn't take into consideration the sequence of events. That is, it assumes those ratings could have been in any sequence. However, the trend lines for both QB's are so close to zero over time so I don't think it matters in this case.

 

This is a 6-10 or possibly a 7-9 team in 2017. They are certainly building a quality team for the future but it is going to take two more solid drafts before they are a legitimate threat to the Patriots or the other legitimate playoff teams in the NFL.

My view of Cutler is that there was a reason no other team signed him after he was released by the Bears. He just isn't a very good starting QB and while he might have a rocket for an arm, he will lose more games for the Dolphins than he will win with his bonehead plays.

With the huge question marks on the OL and at the LB position and now at QB, Gase should be voted coach of the year if he can get this team to 8-8 this year.

 

Yes, depleted. Look at who played that season.

 

Actually he had a few offers, but they were from teams with really no chance at the playoffs. The majority of playoff caliber teams don't need a QB. He accepted the Dolphins offer because they are coming off of a playoff season.

 

I just told you who played, forte had 900 yards Langford had 500 yards martellus bennet had a good year and so did alshon Jeffrey, not to mention a breakout year from Zach miller!!! those are 5 players who had above avg years all at skill positions. but maybe the long snapper was hurt I need to check into that lol

 

And before he was even a free agent he was contemplating retirement further cooling suitors

 

Forte had less yards and TD's that year than any year prior in is career and missed 3 games. A sub 900 yard back with 4 TD's isn't "good". Langford averaged 33 yards per game...not good. Bennett missed 5 games and had 400 yards and 3 TD's while averaging less than 40 yards per game...again, not good. Zach had a breakout year? Averaging 29 yards per game is "break-out"?

They had 12 players go on IR that season. 10 of which who missed more than 5 games that season.

Depleted

 

I fully expect this team (if we can stop losing everybody to injury ), to be at least 8-8. Cutler was the 16th rated QB the year he had Gase and that was on a much worse team. I expect that here Cutler should be able to produce a top half rating. I would not have felt confident signing Cutler if we still had Philbin (involuntary shudder) or even for most of the teams in the league, but with Gase here I like our prospects.

 

yet that was cutlers best year LOL kind of goes against your argument lol Yes Zach came in for bennet and played well in the games bennet was out I don't have the fortitude or the willingness to look at bears stats but im sure 90% of his stats came from the games bennet was out. and his avg would decline with bennet back in the lineup, so in a sense in a starting role yes it was "break out", man stat cruncher so you think a guy with 4 carries in 1 game counts as an average he was a rookie and lead the team multiple times in rushing and went for over 500 in a backup role, that's pretty decent to me or is every rookie RB supposed to have stats like zeke?

this is really 6 of 1 and a half dozen of another, looking at 1 year of a 11 year career is kinda of a joke to me to get excited about a guy who isn't even over .500 after 11 years as a starter and he was on decent teams not playing for the browns or jax is all im saying.

 

Yeah, I'm just popping in to say this - if you're using ESPN's QBR to critique a QB.... don't.

 

I find it really funny that you are calling some very poor playing people on a 6-9 team "good", "above average", and having "break out seasons", but then use a 6-9 season to criticize the QB and totally disregard his ACTUAL above average play. So, which is it? lol


I've already explained to you that no one, or at least mostly no one, is looking at just one year. They are looking at Cutler's entire career, which is actually pretty similar to Tannehill's in that he's played on some crappy teams and had to learn multiple systems. However, he was able to still stay a starter in the NFL for 11 years. And on top of that he had one of his best years under Gase playing on an inferior Bears team.

 

I just read from Unlucky that during Cutler's last 4 years in Chicago their opponents averaged 34 ppg in each of their losses. The Bears defenses over that span were ranked, on average, 27th worst in the league. With 2 of those seasons being ranked 30th and 32nd. And yet Cutler sucks?

 

What do you mean?All cutler had to do was throw 5 tds a game and hes a winner.
Not even brady wins with that garbage defence.

 

With the support Moore has gotten over the years, I'm actually shocked that many posters aren't ecstatic over the Cutler signing.

 

This forum loves to lay the blame at the feet on everything/anyone else other than the QB ....... when it's not Matt Moore.

As for why Moore supporters aren't ecstatic over Cutler, I can only speak for myself here but it's because of character. Cutler lacks it. I don't know many backup QB's who arguably are considered more of a leader than the starting QB (as reported by guys like Jeff Darlington). Moore has been the consummate professional about everything - even the slightest perception that he hasn't been fairly given a chance to start. He's simply a hard guy not to like, well except if you're a Tannehill fan.

One could argue that based on style of play i.e. gunslinger, not afraid to rip it again after a mistake. Cutler is Moore with better arm talent, but we know it takes more than that to win games. It requires having a guy back there in the pocket who can lead and who other players will listen to. His passion and enthusiasm for the game is out there on display for practically every possession - not just occasionally. Dude took one of the hardest hits ever levied on a QB up in the playoff game in Pittsburgh and basically got his *** right back up and into the game. That's a warrior.

That will never be who Cutler is. Cutler's exit stage left to the broadcasting booth after a tumultuous career in Chicago tells you everything you need to know about him. Rather than want to prove everyone wrong for the blame he took - he said nah, I'm good. Even after the situation in Miami arose it still took his wife of all people to coax him to play.

I read a report the other day that Moore is already chummy with Cutler. That just shows you the kind of person MM8 is. Even in the face of some shmuck coming here and being given $10 million off the street to start right away after not putting in any of the time with the Dolphins that he did. Truth be told - Matt was starting to hit his stride at the end of the Sparano era. Alas, that momentum was stomped out by yet another regime change and the fans clamoring for dopamine hit of "high draft pick generated hope". And yet here we are still with uncertainty at the QB position long term.

It's like an echo chamber.

 

Moore or Cutler? Cutler or Moore? Chances are, we'll need both of them to get through the season. No sense getting into a pissing match trying to prove which one is statistically better.

 

I love Moore and am a huge RT fan.

Your post is nonsense.

 

I find it funny that your looking at cutlers "best year" and only him had above average year, someone had to be blocking someone had to be catching passes, or did he throw to himself? Im not criticizing his year im merely saying he had a good year but he only won 6 games that year for last in his division, what im criticizing is that the guy played on decent teams (not great) and the guy has a below .500 winning percentage in 11 years and he was accepting of that and was willing to retire lol. when teams do bad the qb gets blamed when teams do good qb is given the credit, so why now are we not holding him accountable? now the rest of the team was "Depleted" and comparing him to RT is a joke; RT has played 5 years cutler played 11 if you willing to take 5 year numbers after 10 years of service for 10 year money good thing your no GM and im wondering if your willing to buy some slightly used toilet paper for sale $10 a roll jk!!!!

just messin with you Dan all in fun don't get bent outta shape

 

I think the difference between Cutler and Moore, or between Tannehill and Moore, is like the difference between "efficacy" and "effectiveness" in medicine. "Efficacy" refers to the ability (of a treatment) to produce the desired result, while "effectiveness" refers to the degree to which that treatment actually produces the desired result.

In other words, a drug might have high efficacy if in a controlled environment it produces the desired result, but it might have low effectiveness if in real life the drug is taken on a different schedule or in circumstances different than in the controlled environment (and effectiveness is ultimately what you care about).

Cutler and Tannehill have greater "efficacy" than Moore (e.g. in controlled environments like in practice they can more often make throws Moore can't), but Moore has a surprisingly high level of "effectiveness". Measure it by effectiveness (the outcome in games however bad it may look) and Moore's not that bad.

 

The Bears team only won 6 games. Their defense sucked. Cutler did not play defense.

 

Loved the analogy.

Thing is if you look at Cutler's year in Chicago, that was coach Gase running the "efficacy" standard on Cutler. He was "managing" both his play and literally his demeanor as well. They were a run-heavy team determined to not let Jay's mistakes beat them.

 

I agree to an extent.

However, Moore can not come close to the things that RT and Cutler have the potential to do. The question isn't whether or not Moore has played close to RT and Cutler's level, the question is, who has the most potential to play the best. Matt Moore has shown that he's a tough gamer who can come in in a pinch and win 3-4 games for a team when their starting QB goes down. RT and Cutler have shown that they can be long time starters in this league. Every coach that has had MM has seen that he's a great back-up QB. He's had his chances, multiple chances, and is STILL a back up. Why? It's because his effectiveness potential and efficacy are far below that of a Cutler or Tannehill.

The hopes are that Cutler can come to a team with some really good players (most likely the best team he's ever played on), with a coach that seems to be able to get the best out of him, and have him play at his ability. An ability that far exceeds Moore's. Matt Moore is what he is. No one thinks that Moore can play any better than he has in the past. Has Cutler ever played a full season at his potential? Maybe....but maybe not. And that's why he's the starter

 

1. Wins don't determine anything about a QB.

2. No, I'm not just looking at his one season and I've explained that multiple times.

3. He doesn't have a below .500 winning %.

4. You may blame or give credit to QB's for wins and losses, and other than media lip service or the uninformed, no one else does.

5. The Bears had 12 players go on IR with 10 of those missing 5 or more games. If that's not the definition of depleted I don't know what is.

6. I didn't compare him to Tannehill. I compared their respective teams.

7. I don't know what "if you willing to take 5 year numbers after 10 years of service for 10 year money good thing your no GM" means

 

Hmm.. I think you're agreeing completely, not just to an extent.

All I'll add is that at some point the best estimate of a QB's potential is that QB's past record. So Gase is going to have to prove that Cutler's theoretical potential (efficacy) can translate into effectiveness. And as I showed in post #38, once you adjust passer ratings the year with Gase was Cutler's 4th best, not best (though there isn't that big a difference).

So he's got to prove it before I believe it.

 

Had a post in another thread where I looked at two things: 1) total career wins and 2) career win%, both for QB's that played at least 5 seasons (80 games). The reason for the 80 game cutoff was because otherwise you get backups or guys early in their careers. I listed the top 10 in both categories and showed there's a pretty obvious and high correlation between those rankings and what you'd think are top QB's.

So wins and win% do matter over a career but not so much over shorter time periods. Statistically speaking, all that's saying is wins and win% matter but so does sample size (which isn't a surprise).

EDIT: found it.. post #111 in the Tebow thread
https://thephins.com/threads/miami-considered-reaching-out-to-tebow.91523/page-3

Career win% leaders (top 10):
Brady = 77.3%
Montana = 71.1%
Wilson = 70.1%
Peyton = 68.5%
McMahon = 68%
Roethlisberger = 67%
Danny White = 65.7%
Rodgers = 65.6%
Young = 65%
Elway = 64.5%

Career total wins leaders (top 10):
Brady = 208
Peyton = 200
Favre = 199
Elway = 162
Marino = 155
Brees = 137
Roethlisberger = 136
Montana = 133
Eli = 116
Kelly = 110

 

I totally understand the hesitation and criticism of the Cutler signing and it's because he's been pretty average his entire career. Moore, OTOH, has been a great back-up. And I would much rather have an average QB than a great back-up. Especially if you consider the fact that Moore has had plenty of opportunities to become a starter and not one coach, out of many, has seen him as a starting QB.

Saying this, Cutler has made some pretty outstanding plays over his career. His inconsistency has been the reason he's been average, but when Cutler is playing at his max level he shows top 10 or even top 5 level talent. Moore, as I wrote earlier, is what he is and plays to his max level most of the time. And his max level is 2nd string talent.

 

Are QB's who play well and win doing so because they're on good teams? That's the question.

When you look at someone like Brady, (cue jdang..lol) who plays on a team that throws any QB out there and they look just as efficient as Brady and still wins, what does that mean about Brady? When you take Manning off of a team and that team goes 1-15. What does that say about Manning?

Teams win games because they ALL played well. Including the QB. However, one player, even the QB, can crap the bed or play really well and the team can win or lose. So what does that say about wins and losses and individual play? Very few QB's have been able to carry a bad team to wins. And even then they still got some sort of help...

 

Edited the post you quoted with the rankings.

In any case, if the QB was not influential on wins and win% the correlation would be near zero (you'd have lots of bad QB's on that list too), so this really does suggest QB's influence wins and win%, and both total wins and win% over a career tells you something about how good that QB was. Note that you don't need to have a great influence on wins to get a high correlation because you have so many games played.

 

All positions have an influence or there wouldn't be a position. Not many people would think that Danny White, Big Ben, Wilson, Eli, or McMahon are anywhere close to great QB's. However, all played on some epic teams. Marino, Favre, Peyton (other than his Bronco Super Bowl team), and Brees never played on anything close to "epic".

 

Yeah.. dammit you responded before my last edit which I think was important haha!

Just wanted to make sure the logic is clear: if a QB influences wins then wins tell you something about a QB. Caveat is sample size. Take away the sample size constraint and you'll really see close to zero correlation.

 

Fox did in Carolina. He was a dead coach walking, then bailed on Moore after he suffered a major concussion in Week 2 and a torn labrum in Week 6 or 7. I'm sorry but you can't trot a guy out there as a first time season opening starter and put him on a leash 2 inches long. It's counterproductive, as was rotating the disaster on wheels Clausen.

What do I care what some of these other coaches think though. I mean that brainiac Tony "The Turtle" thought better to start Chad Henne over Matt Moore and the results bared otherwise.

 

Don't you think comparing Cutler at his best and Moore at his average is unfair? Moore has had runs of games (6 here, 4 there in his limited starts) where his numbers would put him in the top 3 in the league but you're saying he plays at his max level most of the time. Doesn't add up. If you're saying Matt Moore is what he is then you must also believe that about Cutler, he is no better or worse than what he's been, which is around average on the field.

The only difference between Moore and Cutler (besides Moore being the better athlete and Cutler having better arm talent) is largely sample size.

 

Moore has started 28 games in 10 years. 28 games isn't even two full seasons. This is mainly due to his overall poor play with a few great games scattered in there. He's not good enough to be a full time QB.

Cutler is twice the athlete as Moore. He's stronger,faster, more accurate, and bigger than Moore.

 

Reminder Cutler started around 139 games and seemed to lead todays games' offense.

 

And all of those traits meant nothing in the grand scheme of Cutler's average career ..... especially his whopping 61.9% completion percentage. Neither QB has proven to resemble someone among the upper tier of accuracy. But that's also partially due to the two of them willing to take shots down field.

 

Adam Gase, the only guy that has coached both of them, disagrees with you.