How Does Gase Have The Audacity To Be Irritated?

And we got even hotter after Tannehill went down with Moore. If Cutler is not at least even with Moore then why is he on our team? If Cutler is better than Moore then something has changed.

Also, not buying in to the London travel and missed practice excuse. We chose to go to London. We also chose to have the bye week later in the season instead of this week.

 

lol, funny.

 

We did not even get closer to "hotter with moore." That change absolutely crippled our offense.

 

Our best offensive production of the year was Moore vs. the Jets when he posted a perfect passer rating. Why do people make things up? No, we didn't get hotter with Moore but he sure didn't cripple us either. He had an awesome game, a good game, and two average games. That's not either extreme- he simply did well.

 

But that doesn't refute what phins18 aid at all. it does however refute what roy said.

 

Sure, but we started 1-4 last season with almost zero offense at all. So if we're going to compare Moore to Tannehill to Cutler objectively, and we know Moore stepped in when the offense was firing on all cylinders, wouldn't we need more than 3 games to pass judgement on Cutler and how he compares?

All three are very good quarterbacks....yet our offensive production sucks. For instance, I saw at least 4 dropped passes last week and at least that many brutal hits from unblocked defenders. Those problems have to be fixed before we can really say who Cutler is within this offense. THEN we can compare him to RT and Moore.

 

Umm.. he posted a 126.2 rating. Perfect passer rating is 158.3

 

Well, you can't have a perfect passer rating and blow someone out with a "crippled offense." I was basically saying they are both wrong because they both went to extremes. Moore is a solid, dependable backup- not a superstar but not a slouch either.

 

hmmmm... could be because we played a terrible jets team. but when we played better teams/not terrible teams our offense was not nearly the same/not nearly as explosive. And IDK what you were watching vs the steelers in the playoffs but his game was not nearly close to awesome. he was horrific and blew any chance we had to win that game, which was 0 to begin with regardless.

 

Putting up one good game against a team that gave up then being pedestrian the rest of the games is crippling the offense. The offense was humming prior to that.

 

passer rating is a horrifcally flawed stat. There is a reason why Matt Moore has been a career backup and PFF gave him a below average grade for every year of his career except the year he killed any chance we had of getting andrew luck. there is also a reason why he has been our backup for nearly 6 years now. Its because he is not a good QB and is best suited to be a backup QB.

 

These are the PFF grades for Matt Moore's career. Obviously some of them involve limited playing time. Also, 70 is average, 80 is above average, 90 is elite, 60 is below average, and 50-59 is essentially not an nfl player. Starting in 2009, 59.5, 47, 81.4(year he sabotaged the suck for luck campaign), 76.3, 51, 53, 61.8, and then 67.9 last year.

 

Well, people like to use stats to prove the "hottness" over Tannehill's great stretch. But when the stats improve across the board with Moore then they are like: stats are for losers, use your eyes.

 

Also, if you actually remember those games against the jets, bills, pats, and steelers to end the year, we played like absolute dog ****.

 

Says the guy that if Thill cured cancer, he'd say "whatever, what about malaria?"

 

Passer rating is one of the better stats invented for football. It's simple, has a high correlation with win% (especially for an offense-only stat) and is robust in that the correlation has remained high throughout NFL history.

That doesn't mean it can't be improved. A simple improvement would add QB rushing yards and QB fumbles. But it's certainly not a "horrically flawed" stat.

What's really flawed is relying on pff which is purely subjective.

 

PFF isnt really all that subjective and has also been proven to be correlated also with the highest free agent deals. IT is subjective in the sense that any tape viewing is subjective. It is a hell of a lot more effective to recognize quality football players than a stat like qb rating.

 

https://www.profootballfocus.com/news/stat-sheet-misconceptions-passer-rating

 

Actually, I can prove passer rating is better for judging QB's, at least for 2016. I know the relationship between passer rating and win% is linear. Well the relationship between pff ratings for QB's (that's the only position player in question in a comparison to passer rating) and passer rating in 2016 is this:



As you can see, the relation isn't linear, meaning that pff underweights the worst QB's OR they overweight a bunch of average QB's. And pff doesn't get a higher correlation to win% as a result. So at least for QB's the simple stat of passer rating is on average a better measure.

 

I don't disagree....but the offense was humming in that game too, and they were pretty darn good against Buffalo the following week. That's more of a credit to Moore coming off the bench than proving anything about Tannehill though. RT was fantastic the month prior to getting hurt and I just don't think what Moore or Cutler did in limited playing time proves anything....other than we need to make some adjustments on offense if we're going to win another game this season.

In any case, it has nothing to do with how good/bad Tannehill or Moore was last season.

 

thats under the assumption that any kind of quarterback play is directly correlated to win %. There are 21 other starters and special teams that play a role in whether a team plays wins a certain percentage of their games. While QB is obviously the most important position, to act as if their play is the only thing important to win percentage is one of the most stupid arguments you possibly could have ever made. There really is no "right" answer in this debate, but to use "win %" as an answer for anything is completely and utterly devoid of the point as to why PFF does their rankings in the first place.

So to make my point in laymens terms, PFF can watch actual tape and determine that Tom brady is the best QB ever and had a 99% rating under their system and was failed hypothetically by a team that was completely incompetent and dropped every perfectly thrown pass or ran terrible routes or something like that from every other aspect of their football team whereas a QB can have a great QB rating but be propped up by a great supporting cast more than he actually made quality throws or led a receiver or something like that. Ill take watching tape, even if it is admittedly subjective, over a blanket formula any day of the week.

 

lol pff is obviously very biased in saying they have a better system. Not sure why you'd even look to them for an argument against passer rating.

Regardless, the arguments they put in that link are laughable. Basically they're saying that because the calculations don't seem "intuitive" in some cases that the calculations can't be good. Dude.. you don't evaluate how good stats are through intuition. You use correlation to win% (in this case) and passer rating is really good there.

The issue with passer rating inflation is real of course, and there's an easy way to fix that by adjusting to a common year which I frequently do. But that doesn't mean passer rating itself is the problem. That inflation is just telling you that the passing game has become more important over time, which is true. And unlike subjective approaches it gives you a quantitive measure of how much the passing game has become important.

 

So, for instance, say a terrible QB had a pro bowl supporting cast, but stlll threw every pass behind the receivers but the receiivers just made incredible catches every single time, that wouldnt be brought into the stats for anything else except the PFF ratings, and especially wouldnt be reflected into a blanket formula like QB rating. Obviously, that is subjective in a non extreme example, but id take that from people like Chris Collisworth and other NFL veterans and great former players who continually choose to invest in the PFF rating system than a stat that is a blanket formula with no room for nuance.

 

ANY play whatsoever has some influence on the outcome. Clearly, making the assumption that QB play is correlated with win% isn't an ad hoc assumption. That's the conclusion from looking at the actual ratings!

If the only thing important to win% were the QB, then the correlation would be 1. Instead it's ranges between 0.5 and 0.6. So clearly there is no assumption the QB is the be all end all. You're creating a strawman no one asserts anyway.

Win% is precisely what matters most, because you are interested in how a player affects the final outcome you care about. So yes there is a correct answer here. The correct answer is whatever pff's intentions or approach, they can't estimate the type of QB ability that matters for increasing win% better than passer rating.

 

correlation does not equal causation. a blanket formula will never be better then experts (who obviously still have room for error) who watch every play rather than blanket stats such as pass, completion, yards gained, etc. Especially for QB's, ball placement, feeling pressure, and things of that nature are better than individual stats that dont take into account how you handle pressure, ball placement, and things like that.

 

Yup, and that reason is concussions and durability. It has nothing to do with him being a bad quarterback.

Also, you skipped several years worth of ratings to try and prove an invalid point-

2016- 105.6
2015- 118.8
2012- 96.6
2011- 87.1
2009- 98.5

The vast majority of these stats come from a season with 5 or less games. The only time he played at length was 2011 with the 87.1 over 13 games. Every other season he was hurt or coming off the bench as a backup.

http://www.nfl.com/player/mattmoore/2507282/profile

If you factor all the stats together on a game by game basis and factor them out to represent a full season, Matt Moore has a low 90's career QBR. That puts him around 16th-18th of all active QB's for 2017....which seems about right. He's average overall.

 

That's is correct, and I'm sure in that case pff would be far better than passer rating. But how often does that happen? You have to look at the entire distribution of cases and see on average which works better. I've shown that at least for QB's, passer rating is better.

 

There are many areas in science, engineering, etc.. where blanket formulas are far better than experts trying to intuit what is occurring. And of course there are as many examples where the opposite is true.

Point is this: the richness of the information available to a pff grader is far greater than anything that goes into passer rating (or any other stat), but how well one can make inferences from any data is far better with stats. So you have to simply compare the two cases in practice to see which is better: 1) rich information with poor information processing, or 2) poor information with logically correct inferences.

In this particular case, pff loses.

 

Correlation does not equal causation. That is a basic rule. thats not the conclusion though. Obviously great QB play might be correlated with win %. Just like any great position play might correlate into win %. But YPC might also correlate with win %, and that has more to do with just the ability of a RB. Just like that, there is more that goes into it than just QB rating, and there is way more that goes into QB rating than just yards, attempts, TD's, completions, interceptions, etc. There are so many intricacies that go into the QB position that have nothing to do with what constitutes the QB rating statistic. If a QB throws a ball 5 yards behind a receiver to where the ball should have gone but a receiver makes an incredible play and the CB makes a terrible play but the play goes for a TD, that is not reflected in anything other than watching the tape.

 

thats under the assumption that qb rating or the PFF rating alone had a significant impact on winning percentage. if you controlled for the rest of the team and could show the same point, that would be one thing, but that is not what you are doing. So just showing bare qb rating or PFF rating and correlating that with win % is missing the point entirely.

 

Of course correlation doesn't equal causation. So? Both approaches are being compared using the same method.

The only way to get at causation directly would be to do controlled experiments on a scale that would probably take up this country's entire GDP just to truly pin down what affects what. Don't for once think that people who have tons of experience looking at stuff can somehow figure out what causes what. Just look at all the different theories in social science, or in any science that studies complex systems (e.g. biology). People disagree on all kinds of things, like what causes more crime in this neighborhood than in that one, or just in general why people behave the way they do.

Football is a microcosm of that type of problem: too many possible theories fit the same data. Experts in general can't pin down the causes. So you measure things by how well they can predict things, or you measure correlations to parameters of interest. I don't have the stats on predictive power of pff vs. passer rating, but I did the next best thing with correlation to win%.

 

The two approaches are analyzing the exact same data so you don't have to worry about "conditioning on X or Y". It's simply a question of which analysis is capturing more of what influences the outcome you care about.

 

no, in your opinion, PFF loses. That doesnt mean your opinion is anymore important than anyone elses opinion. QB rating takes nothing into account besides pure numbers, and especially in this day and age of football where YAC and short yardage, high percentage throws makes up such a significant part of the QB position. A stat that doesnt take into account the intricacies of the QB position and stuff like moving in the pocket and adjusting to pressure, that makes QB rating almost useless. That doesnt make PFF rating more effective, obviously, but that obviously goes to show that qb rating is not even close to an effective rating of qb play as is something that takes into the film and context of watching QB play.

 

Correlation to win% is not an opinion. pff lost in this case whether you like it or not.

 

and i completely understand your viewpoint and will wholeheartedly admit that neither stat is perfect, but one that takes into account the different intricacies of the position, even if it is subjective, is more effective than a simple formula stat that doesnt take into account independent things like supporting casts, down and distance, ball placement, situation, and stuff like that. A play where it can be first and 10 and i can throw a perfect ball for 8 yards right in between 2 defenders and a stat where i throw a ball 8 yards behind the intended receiver on 3rd and 6 where a perfectly thrown ball would have resulted in a touchdown is an inherently flawed stat. That is where subjective viewpoints are important, specifically from the QB position. There are pros and cons to each, but ill take a subjective viewpoint over a basic formula any day, especially in a sport as complex as football where there are 22 different guys doing 22 different things during any given play.

 

and again, correlation does not equal causation. I can go to the grocery store and it can rain every single time that i go. that doesnt mean that every time i go to the grocery story i am making it rain, even though publix's prices make me make it rain. Just because a QB has a high QB rating, doesnt mean it is the reason for his team winning. Especially when the QB rating is so inherently flawed that it doesnt take into account the intricacies of the QB position such as ball position and how he reacts to pressure in the pocket.

 

No you're missing the point of the "correlation doesn't equal causation" argument when applied to football stats.

There is NO question that the components of passer rating influence (i.e. help cause) the final outcome. This isn't like your rain example. You can't in general take away a TD or an INT or a completion or change the number of yards on a play and say that had precisely zero influence on the outcome. So yes these are events that are causal in nature.

The real issue with the "correlation doesn't equal causation" argument when applied to football is that higher correlation doesn't necessary mean the causal relation was stronger. My response to that is you simply have no evidence to suggest the causal relationship for pff is higher despite lower correlation to win%.

 

my exact argument is that there doesnt have to be a causal relationship. One's QB play could be incredible and have pro bowl receivers be replaced with autistic receivers and that wouldnt take away from the play of the QB. QB rating would reflect that on the qb;s rating. If My QB put the ball in the right place every time and in a place that could potentially have a touchdown every single time but doesnt because of the poor supporting cast, PFF's rating would take that into account. That is a huge gap. One is a blanket stat that doesnt take into account nuances of the position and one is "subjective" but takes into account intricacies like ball placement, down and distance, etc. Ill take the one that takes an inherently subjective opinion to accurately reflect what actually occurs between 22 players every single play.



And to take your own example, if i had odell beckham as my receiver and i threw a 3rd and goal from the 10 5 yards behind him but he made a great play regardless and turned it into a TD, should that be turned positively into an addition to QB rating, or be accurately assessed by a subjective stat like PFF's rating?

 

That's still a causal relationship. Try your example again WITHOUT a QB (or without whichever player you say has no influence). It there is NO causal relationship in your example, then you should be able to remove the QB (or the player in question) completely and get the exact same result. Clearly that's not possible. So yes there is always a causal relationship.

 

Exactly, just playing catch requires 2 people doing their job correctly. If either person screws up, an incompletion will happen and that reflects on both their stats/grades.