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

Ryan Tannehill

Discussion in 'Other NFL' started by bbqpitlover, Oct 16, 2019.

Ryan Tannehill is...

  1. A terrible QB

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. A below average QB

    4 vote(s)
    5.7%
  3. An average QB

    7 vote(s)
    10.0%
  4. An above average QB

    39 vote(s)
    55.7%
  5. An elite QB

    16 vote(s)
    22.9%
  6. The GOAT.

    4 vote(s)
    5.7%
  1. M1NDCRlME

    M1NDCRlME Fear The Spear

    731
    543
    93
    Oct 26, 2009
    Orlando
    I could be wrong, but I'm 100% certain that this thread was supposed to be about Ryan Tannehill starting at QB for the Tennessee Titans but it got hijacked and turned into this Tom Brady masturbation session.
     
    VManis, Silverphin and KeyFin like this.
  2. KeyFin

    KeyFin Well-Known Member

    10,488
    12,821
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    To me, the "why" in cheating is irrelevant....it really doesn't matter to me if they could have won without cheating or not. The fact that they've been caught cheating, spying and stealing countless times is all I really need to know.

    The question I'm more concerned with is how others rank a player with a history of cheating among others who played the game fairly.
     
    Hiruma78, RGF and resnor like this.
  3. KeyFin

    KeyFin Well-Known Member

    10,488
    12,821
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    To me, if you're a cheater then you're also a loser...talent doesn't even come into the equation for me. It's really that simple.
     
    RGF and resnor like this.
  4. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Because, without any facts to support, they simply state that ALL teams are doing those things. Then they disregard the Patriots who've, you know, ACTUALLY been caught cheating.
     
  5. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    What makes it difficult for me to attribute any significant portion of the Patriots' success to cheating is, believe it or not, their performance in just one game.

    I'm sure we all remember it well, but in the 2017 Super Bowl the Patriots were down 28-3 to the Falcons with 8:31 left in the third quarter, and then down 28-9 with 2:06 in the third quarter, and then down 28-12 with only 9:44 left in the fourth quarter.

    Of course we all know they won that game 34-28 in overtime.

    That improbable a win against very good competition, when the competition was highly motivated to win, has to be explained by either 1) highly effective cheating, and/or 2) highly effective performance.

    To believe the Patriots' success is attributable significantly to cheating, however, one would also have to believe one or more of the following:
    1. They cheated a lot, and it was highly effective in helping them win, but in that Super Bowl, the most important game of the year, they waited until nearly halfway through the third quarter to start cheating.
    2. They cheated a lot, and it was highly effective in helping them win, but in that Super Bowl the cheating they did throughout the game was completely ineffective until nearly halfway through the third quarter, when it suddenly became highly effective.
    3. The Falcons also cheated in that game, and their cheating was highly effective until nearly halfway through the third quarter, when it suddenly became highly ineffective.
    Of course all three of those statements are nonsensical.

    And you could apply a slightly different permutation of the above statements to a Super Bowl loss, in 2012, where the Patriots could've been only the second undefeated team in history by winning the game, but lost to the heavy underdog Giants. What happened with their supposed cheating in that game?
     
    Last edited: Oct 24, 2019
  6. KeyFin

    KeyFin Well-Known Member

    10,488
    12,821
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    Their extra-curricular exploits are very well documented for anyone that bothers to look-

    - Bugging locker rooms and stealing play sheets for the first 25 plays called
    - Using listening equipment in Gillette to capture play calls
    - Jamming opponent equipment in Gillette during critical drives
    - Deflating footballs for 20 years (dating back to Bledsoe in 1999)
    - Collecting opponents playbooks and reporting play calls in real time
    - Interrogating new players on their prior team's playbooks/signals
    - Having "fans" stay outside of opposing team's hotels and screaming all night (with the police watching it all)
    - Exploiting the NFL rulebook as much as possible (like the minute plus they burned off the clock in the Jets game last week without snapping the football, or the illegal formations where a TE in a lineman's jersey yells "I'm eligible" just before the snap)
    - This is just off the top of my head...there's been A LOT more complained about

    Do other teams try to pull a fast one every now and then? Sure. But the Pats are the only team in the league with a dedicated spy network to intercept play calls live....and they also have one of the world's best lip readers doing it. The Pats admitted to doing this back in like 2004 and promised to stop doing this kind of stuff (they claimed they thought every team did it). Funny thing- it was one of Goodell's first meetings with team owners where this took place. Again, this is all heavily documented by major news outlets and I also know for a fact that numerous teams have protested it year after year once they're behind closed doors. Goodell simply doesn't care since he was essentially hired by Kraft.

    Part of this is just good strategy to manipulate NFL rules for an unfair advantage...but other parts are straight out cheating and it does not belong in the league at all. Heck, some of the stuff they pull at home is criminal- good luck getting a NE cop to arrest anyone though.
     
    RGF and resnor like this.
  7. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    3,582
    2,579
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    I dont recall that anyone said cheating made them unbeatable. Just contributed to the absurd level of their sustained success.

    I think it's a fair question to ask, even if it doesnt have a foolproof definitive answer.
     
    RGF and resnor like this.
  8. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    But if whatever it is about their success that’s not attributable to cheating enables them to come back from a 28-3 deficit nearly halfway through the third quarter and win the Super Bowl, then how much can cheating really mean?
     
    AGuyNamedAlex likes this.
  9. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    3,582
    2,579
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    You're a hardcore stat guy, you know any sample size that small is meaningless in the grand scheme.

    I'm not arguing his side, I'm just saying I think it's a valid question to ask. It obviously means something or they wouldnt do it.

    Edit: Also if our subject is Brady generally, the defense shutting the Falcons down second half really made it possible regardless, though he obviously did his part.
     
    resnor likes this.
  10. Pauly

    Pauly Season Ticket Holder

    3,696
    3,743
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    I have crunched the numbers on the Pats win rates and there is no statistical evidence that the Pats are getting a benefit from cheating.

    Their win % at home is consistent with what you would expect from their win% away. I don’t have the exact numbers with me now, but using some proxy number if a team wins 65% away then you expect them to win 75% at home, and that’s exactly what the Pats do.
    There is no evidence that their bugging other teams and jamming of radios has any effect on their win%. The evidence would be a disproportionate win% at home, and that does not exist.

    their win% against the rest of the AFCE is what you would expect given their records against the rest of the NFL.
    There is no evidence that stealing signals and game plans helps their win%. If it did help then the evidence would be that thePats would have a disproportionate record against the Dolphins, Jets and Bills, and that evidence does not exist.

    What the statistical evidence supports is
    - The Pats don’t cheat
    - The Pats cheat more than other teams, but it doesn’t help them.
    - The Pats cheat, but because everyone else is cheating just as well as the Pats do it is a wash.
    What it does NOT support is
    - The Pats cheat and get a significant benefit from it.
     
  11. KeyFin

    KeyFin Well-Known Member

    10,488
    12,821
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    Three things- #1, this isn't about statistical evidence...this is about physical evidence. Belichek has dismissed their spying by saying that Adams gets just as many plays wrong as he gets right from the booth. Against the other powerhouses of the league though, just getting one call right on a late 4th quarter drive can be all that's needed to flip a L to a W.

    #2- You're comparing the Pats road record to their home record, and also to the AFC East. Where do I start? First, one AFC East team has won up north in the past decade...so I'd like to see your numbers there to see how it aligns with a Seattle or Green Bay divisional battle. But even if the math does "add up", you're assuming that the Patriots aren't cheating on the road. Enrie Adams travels with the team and he has everyone's playbook/signals memorized. That's their #1 advantage and it works equally well home or away.

    #3- Let's say you're 100% right and the Pats get zero benefit from cheating. Does that in turn make it okay to cheat in professional sports? The way I see it, if they're cheating but not gaining an advantage, then that makes them even bigger pieces of crap. There's an honor code among athletes that should never be intentionally broken and those who step outside the lines are almost universally hated. Think about that- it's like earning $20 million in business and then stealing $30k from a senior citizen just for the heck of it...would you say it's not a crime because the thief really didn't need the money?

    The logic that they cheat just for the thrills makes zero sense no matter how you spin it.
     
    Hiruma78 and resnor like this.
  12. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Sample size is important only when there is variation in what's being measured. If you get on an accurate scale, you need get on it only once, and not on any other scale, to measure your weight correctly at that time. If you take an accurate IQ test, you need take it only once to determine your IQ. You don't need a "sampling" of your weight (at any one time) or your IQ, because there is no variation in those characteristics.

    Likewise, in this case we're talking about the Patriots' having reached a level of play from which there is little or no more upward variation for any team -- playing against the best competition in the league, in a game the opposing team is highly motivated to win (the Super Bowl), down 28-3 with only a quarter and a half left, down 28-12 with nine minutes left in the game, and winning the game despite all that improbability.

    If they weren't cheating during that quarter and a half, then their "IQ" is off the charts, and we don't need to measure it again. We don't need a sampling of it. And we can safely say that cheating means little if anything with regard to their performance.
     
  13. RGF

    RGF THE FINSTER Club Member

    6,066
    3,436
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    NY
    Quite simple actually. No reason to START cheating if the game plan is working to your advantage. If you're starting to lose all your poker chips, time to pull that ace out of your sleeve. And yes, I honestly believe they do cheat advantageously.
     
    resnor and KeyFin like this.
  14. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    If cheating was a routine part of your formula for success, why would you go into a Super Bowl of all games and not start cheating from the outset? Why would you wait until you’re down 28-3 with a quarter and a half left?
     
  15. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    3,582
    2,579
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    I dont agree with your analogy at all.

    I've seen really bad teams pull out miracle wins against good teams. I dont think the circumstances of it being the Superbowl really matters.

    Unlike an IQ test there can be a large variance in play from quarter to quarter, game to game, so on. A football game is actually nothing like an IQ test since you can play the same game repeatedly with a wide range of results.

    If the debate was "Are the Patriots incapable of winning without cheating" sure I'd agree, but I dont think that is the accusation.
     
    resnor likes this.
  16. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Yeah, the statistical evidence isn't there that NE is doing something no other team can or has been able to do. First of all, even without statistics, NE's run since 2001 is only very marginally better than the 49ers run from 1981-1998 so this type of dominance isn't unprecedented. And secondly, the likelihood NE is doing something to control the outcome should show itself in terms of the consistency of win%, but Buffalo not NE has the smallest standard deviation in win% from 2001-2018 (NE is 2nd for what it's worth). So if anything you should be more surprised by the consistency of Buffalo's mediocrity than NE's dominance.

    So if the statistical evidence for NE doing something utterly abnormal in terms of win% isn't there, why does Belichick cheat? It's pretty simple IMO: the cheating gives them tons of tiny advantages that accumulate to an increase in win% that is marginal at best but better than nothing. There are many competitive people like that: refine every little thing they can to gain even the tiniest competitive advantage.

    As far as the moral issue with cheating regardless of result, people can differ there. I personally don't mind "cheating" as long as you still have a level playing field. That is, if either the cheating doesn't help or everyone else does it I'm OK with it, but as soon as it provides an unfair and consequential advantage in terms of outcome I personally abhor it. For those that say cheating regardless of outcome is bad, all that I ask is be consistent. Don't let Sean Peyton off the hook, don't let the 49ers during their dominance off the hook for using stickum etc.. (cheating has been admitted to by Jerry Rice and also by 49ers OL). And what about all the steroid use known or unknown?
     
    The Guy likes this.
  17. RGF

    RGF THE FINSTER Club Member

    6,066
    3,436
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    NY
    I pretty much stated why already. There's no reason to use that hidden ace if the cards are going your way. Why risk getting caught cheating ESPECIALLY in the super bowl unless there's absolutely no other choice. And again, I honestly believe that's their mindset.
     
    resnor likes this.
  18. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    The Super Bowl matters because it's against the best competition, in a game the opposing team is highly motivated to win.

    If your ability as a team allows you to dominate that competition and opposing team during the final 23 minutes of the game to the tune of changing win probability to this degree:



    ...we shouldn't attribute your success to cheating.
     
  19. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    But in the Super Bowl against the Giants, when they could've become only the second undefeated team in history by beating a heavy underdog, they went ahead and just lost, instead of flipping the "cheating" switch, the one that worked so well against the Falcons, mid-game?
     
    Pauly likes this.
  20. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    well they’re still humans playing against other humans. Knowing the play gives a huge advantage, but there can still be times where teams are able to overcome even that, and the Patriots lose. Point is, the players still have to execute, better than the opposing player, even knowing the play, in order to stop it. So it doesn’t guarantee anything, but it greatly improves the odds of success. D if you’re increasing your odds of success on every play, that will add up to more wins. So yeah, I think little cheating absolutely matters, and I think it matters more than you’re willing to admit, for whatever reason.
     
    RGF and danmarino like this.
  21. cuchulainn

    cuchulainn Táin Bó Cúailnge Club Member

    23,698
    39,847
    113
    Sep 7, 2012
    Hattiesburg, MS
    Yeah, you're wrong. It's an anagram for "Tom Brady is the GOAT. Change my mind."
     
    resnor likes this.
  22. RGF

    RGF THE FINSTER Club Member

    6,066
    3,436
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    NY
    How do we know they didn't cheat in that game ? If cheating was 100% fool proof they would be undefeated every year. The Giants had the perfect defensive game plan . And if your next question is why don't other teams copy that game plan the Giants used, it's not that easy. The Patriots had a great offense that year, no denying that. But, maybe their cheating scheme for that game was focused on their defensive side of the ball - thinking they didn't need to cheat offensively.
     
    resnor likes this.
  23. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    So according to you, the Patriots flipped the "cheating" switch in both Super Bowls.

    The fourteen-point underdog Giants were able to overcome the Patriots' highly impactful (again according to you) cheating, when the Patriots were presumably highly motivated to become only the second undefeated team in history.

    But the only three-point underdog Falcons were unable to overcome the Patriots' cheating, to the tune of blowing a 28-3 lead with a quarter and a half left and 28-12 lead with nine minutes left.

    See if you can really reconcile that in your mind.
     
  24. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Yeah, that looks almost impossible....wonder how they did it?
     
    RGF and resnor like this.
  25. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    If you're implying they cheated to do it, why didn't they do the same thing against the heavy underdog Giants, when it could've made them only the second undefeated team in history? You figure they just went ahead and comfortably lost that one?
     
  26. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Maybe they found a way that works that time and maybe Coughlin knew how to effectively stymy Belicheat.

    Regardless, your reasoning is flawed. You are basically saying....

    - I know they've been caught cheating numerous times.
    - I know during all that they've accomplished things heretofore untold of.
    - I know they did all that with a HC who failed at his first gig.
    - I know they did all that with a QB who was a nobody 6th round pick.
    - I know that if Belichick is a genius that him risking everything he has with all the cheating for apparently no benefit is dumb and contradicts his genius status.
    - I know they that their dynasty started with a questionable call in their favor and that the questionable calls for 2 decades continue to go in their favor.

    Yet, they aren't cheating because they somehow won a game it should have been impossible to win.....

    I mean it literally defies logic. It feels like this:
     
    resnor likes this.
  27. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    I haven’t made any of the statements that were attributed to me above.

    No one has yet to reconcile the information in Post #263, however.
     
  28. Pauly

    Pauly Season Ticket Holder

    3,696
    3,743
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    I know about all the evidence that Pats are bending and breaking the rules. There just any fingerprints in the data that show it is giving them a measurable benefit.
    Logically if they are cheating and they are deriving a benefit from it you would expect:
    - a disproportionate win % at home. In their home environment they can get up to far more shenanigans than away
    - a disproportionate win% against the AFCE. They get more opportunities to practice and perfect their cheating ways.

    If it is turning close games into wins, then you have the other issue of “clutch” or performance under pressure. Almost all HoF QBs and Coaches have a much better than 50% win rate in close matches. Were Don Shula and Dan Marino cheating because they won more close games than expected by random chance? Was Peyton Manning cheating? Were Bill Walsh and Joe Montana cheating? The Belichek/Brady combination is very good at winning close games, but in and of itself it is not evidence of cheating their way to a better than expected win%. And even if you accept that there better than expected outcomes are entirely due to cheating, it works to be worth at most 1 win a year on average. If Belichek and Brady were “average” then that cheating would take them from 8-8 on average to 9-7 on average, a long way short of the 12-4 they average.

    I have tried real hard to find some evidence that there is something fishy in the Pat’s W-L record. Nothing shows in the numbers.
     
    The Guy likes this.
  29. RGF

    RGF THE FINSTER Club Member

    6,066
    3,436
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    NY
    Honest question . Do you think the Patriots ever cheated or still cheat to any extent ?
    Yes, or no. Details aren't necessary.
     
    resnor likes this.
  30. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Which of those statements do you not agree with then?

    There's nothing to reconcile. You are arguing under a false pretense that the cheating is always effective and/or the team they are playing against do not have preventative measures in place to combat the cheating. Like for example, fake hand signals, fake plays, etc. or even separate gamelans.

    It is the crux of your whole argument and it is based on this patently false benchmark that if they cheat it is always effective 100% of the time in 100% of all situations.

    What isn't reconciled, however, is that in spite of the proven real and significant cheating people are so amazed at the impossible feats they've achieved they not only ignore the cheating but are even saying those feats prove they aren't cheating......I mean....c'mon?!?!?!?!?!?!
     
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2019
    The Guy and resnor like this.
  31. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    My position on it is very similar to cbrad’s above. I’m just using their performances in Super Bowls to support my position.

    Just because it seems like the Patriots have experienced some kind of mythical level of success, doesn’t mean there is an equally “mythical” or conspiratorial explanation for it (cheating).
     
  32. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    3,582
    2,579
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    The issue is you're calling the cheating mythical when its proven.

    In other words it seems like you attribute 0% of their success to it and if that is the case, why do it?

    Even if it only adds a win or two a year that can be the difference between home field and not having it, which does matter over multiple years.
     
    resnor likes this.
  33. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    That’s why I put the word mythical in quotes, not because the cheating itself is a myth, but because the effect of the cheating on their performance can take on mythical proportions.

    If the cheating had a significant effect on their performance, then one would expect that in the most meaningful games they play, against the best competition in the league, they certainly wouldn’t lose to a heavy underdog, nor would they fall behind by a huge margin in such a game, only to mount a huge comeback late in the game and overcome tremendous win improbability.

    So you’re left with two possible scenarios in that event: 1) they cheat only in less meaningful games, against teams that, by virtue of the Patriots’ performances in Super Bowls, they could beat without cheating, or 2) they cheat in every game, but the variation in their performance is so much more attributable to their ability and other factors that it renders the cheating insignificant.
     
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2019
  34. RGF

    RGF THE FINSTER Club Member

    6,066
    3,436
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    NY
    There has been irrefutable proof the Patriots cheated. I'm curious as to why you choose to try and debate an undebateable fact.
     
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2019
    KeyFin and resnor like this.
  35. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Because they love Brady.
     
  36. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    That's not what I'm saying.

    I'm saying:

    When a team has been caught cheating numerous times achieves mythical feats, how can people assume cheating didn't play a part?

    There's numerous reasons your SB defense, makes no sense. Like I said, there's ways to combat the cheating, plus also there's a lot more scrutiny, security and press during SBs that probably make it harder to cheat.

    But again, why do they get the benefit of the doubt other than sports hero worship? They've shown time and again, they cheat and don't deserve the benefit of the doubt.
     
    resnor likes this.
  37. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    There's a few problems with this.

    1. The assumption that cheating works better at home.
    2. The assumption they cheat every game.
    3. The assumption that cheating should work equally well or even more efficiently against teams that play them more frequently.

    These are all things that must be true for you analysis to be true.
     
    KeyFin and resnor like this.
  38. RGF

    RGF THE FINSTER Club Member

    6,066
    3,436
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    NY
    That makes sense , fair enough.
     
    resnor likes this.
  39. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Because their pattern of performance is inconsistent with having obtained additional ability from cheating.

    So if it’s harder to cheat during a Super Bowl, how did they surmount a 28-3 deficit with a quarter and a half left, and a 28-12 deficit with nine minutes left in the Super Bowl? If they did that without cheating, then they have tremendous ability that renders cheating insignificant in their success.

    If they did indeed cheat to win that Super Bowl, then how did they lose to a 14-point underdog in another Super Bowl, when a win would’ve made them only the second undefeated team in the league history?

    Either the cheating is highly effective and a significant portion of their success, and it helps them win Super Bowls they have no business winning, or the cheating is relatively meaningless, and they are susceptible to losing Super Bowls to 14-point underdogs.

    It can’t be both. It can’t be highly effective and meaningless.
     
    Pauly likes this.
  40. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    You act like the other team doesn't matter. It's eerily similar to your stance on the QB, and how you seem to view their performance as completely unrelated to the rest of the team.
     

Share This Page