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. Hoops

    Hoops Well-Known Member

    1,183
    1,484
    113
    Dec 11, 2016
    backup they say. Lmao
     
    Irishman, resnor and PhinFan1968 like this.
  2. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Absolutely elite arm talent. Top 2 or 3 in the league.
     
  3. The_Dark_Knight

    The_Dark_Knight Defender of the Truth

    11,817
    10,319
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    Rockledge, FL
    Ok I see...if Tannehill isn't throwing 17 touchdowns per game and 1256 yards per game, he isn't producing...because that's what his passer rating says he's supposed to be doing.

    You're too much.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 24, 2019
  4. The_Dark_Knight

    The_Dark_Knight Defender of the Truth

    11,817
    10,319
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    Rockledge, FL
    Brad, call me a simpleton, but your charts that you post look nothing more than an impact zone after an artillery barrage. I have no flipping idea what all of those dots are supposed to represent.
     
    Puka-head, KeyFin and Cashvillesent like this.
  5. Cashvillesent

    Cashvillesent A female Tannehill fan

    770
    641
    93
    Dec 8, 2019

    I agree. Their really hurting at the CB position.

    Logan Ryan is the only starter left.
     
  6. Cashvillesent

    Cashvillesent A female Tannehill fan

    770
    641
    93
    Dec 8, 2019
    They can have tons of picks and still flop. The organization is horrible
     
  7. Cashvillesent

    Cashvillesent A female Tannehill fan

    770
    641
    93
    Dec 8, 2019
    They can free up another 20M next year with Mariota moving on.
     
    Pauly, KeyFin and Irishman like this.
  8. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    PPG includes all points scored by the team, including special teams and pick 6's by the defense. So if let's say the kicking situation is horrible on a particular team we could repeat the same analysis I just did but for passer rating vs. passing TD's instead of passer rating vs. PPG. Of course what's weird here is that passer rating includes passing TD's! But so be it.

    Results:
    The slope of the best-fitting line between z-score passer ratings and z-score passing TD's is 0.7786 which is VERY close to the slope of 0.7857 found for PPG. That's a really important piece of information because it's actual evidence that "averaging out" is occurring with things like pick 6's, FG's and rushing TD's across teams and seasons. In particular, this means we can directly compare whatever result we get here for passing TD's with the PPG result.

    So.. Tannehill's passing TD z-score is 1.5049 (using once again 9.4706 games started due to splitting passing attempts with Mariota in Tannehill's first game) which is higher than his PPG z-score of 1.3286, supporting what you're saying that Tannehill is sometimes being let down by the kicking unit or possibly the running game (w.r.t. scoring). What's the expected z-score for TD's? Tannehill's passer rating z-score is 2.3806 so his expected TD z-score would be 2.3806*0.7786 = 1.8535.

    As was the case with PPG, his expected passing TD's is higher than actual TD's, but by less than for PPG: 1.8535 - 1.5049 = 0.3486 versus 0.5418 found for PPG earlier. So yes some of the difference between expected and actual PPG could be accounted for by scoring (or lack thereof) due to other sources including the kicking unit or running game. Just remember that this kind analysis makes the weird assumption that the QB isn't in any way responsible for scores other than passing TD's (so even if the QB helped drive the team to the 1 yard line, if a RB runs it in for a TD you're assuming none of that scoring was due to the QB).
     
    Irishman and PhinFan1968 like this.
  9. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Here's the thing. The correlation between between passer rating and PPG across NFL history is 0.7780. You know what the partial correlation between the two are when controlling for number of sacks allowed? It's 0.7602, and it's 0.7604 if you control for sack%.

    In other words, controlling for sacks doesn't change the relationship at all (basically). So if you want to incorporate sacks into the argument, you actually need to incorporate that in the passer rating formula itself, for example by replacing Y/A with NY/A = (passing yards - sack yards)/(passing attempts + sack attempts). I haven't found the optimal formula for doing that.

    But if you did that, then you could compare the effect on "actual vs. expected" z-scores and that would give you an answer.
     
  10. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    lol.

    Well I can attempt an explanation. No guarantees it will help though!

    Each open circle in that graph (each impact of an artillery shell) represents one team in one season in NFL history. Draw an imaginary vertical line through any open circle and look at where that line intersects at the bottom of the graph (called the x-axis). That tells you in z-scores the team's passer rating in that year. Don't worry about what z-scores are for now.

    Similarly, draw an imaginary horizontal line through any open circle and see where it intersects the left-most part of the graph (called the y-axis) and that tells you the z-score of that team's points scored per game in that year.

    So what are z-scores? It's best to think of z-scores as a standardized unit of measurement that applies no matter what you are trying to measure. For example, you could measure how fast a person is in the 100m sprint relative to that person's competition, or you could measure how high a person can jump, or how many points a team scores, all relative to their competition, and their z-score puts ALL those different measurements on the same axis so you can compare across sports.

    However, unlike physical measures like "meters" or "seconds", a z-score is a measure relative to the competition, so it only works if you have a larger number of competitors (which isn't needed for "meters" or "seconds").

    That red line is just the best estimate of a trend line for all those data (all the open circles), and its slope (how high it rises for every unit increase on the x-axis) basically tells you that for every z-score unit improvement in passer rating you get 0.7857 z-score unit improvement in points scored per game. Hopefully that helps explain the graph. How I used that info is explained in the post you quoted.
     
    Irishman and The_Dark_Knight like this.
  11. The_Dark_Knight

    The_Dark_Knight Defender of the Truth

    11,817
    10,319
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    Rockledge, FL
    You're right....no guarantee LMAO
     
    Cashvillesent, Irishman and cbrad like this.
  12. PhinFan1968

    PhinFan1968 To 2020, and BEYOND! Club Member

    So essentially its another piece in the puzzle, is what I'm taking from that. That a fair assumption?
     
    Irishman and cbrad like this.
  13. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Of course, and this piece of the puzzle can at least partially be quantified.

    btw.. I think a better approach than looking at passing TD's would be to give the QB partial credit for ANY score by the offense based on the proportion of total yards in the drive that were passing yards. That way you don't have the weird interpretation of not giving the QB any credit for a rushing TD or a FG even though most of the drive involved passes by the QB, or (conversely) falsely giving the QB full credit for a passing TD even if much of the drive was due to rushing.
     
    Irishman likes this.
  14. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    In the rating??? That would pull rating even farther away from actually describing QB performance than it currently is. Lol
     
  15. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    No not in the rating. The rating stays the same (the x-axis stays the same). What was changed was the y-axis (the effect, not the cause), from PPG to passing TD. I'm saying you'd probably remove more of the effects of the running game and/or special teams if you didn't use PPG or passing TD's but instead used a weighted PPG based on how much of each scoring drive was due to passing.
     
    Irishman and resnor like this.
  16. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    I'm pretty surprised at that when the page linked below indicates that the correlation between offensive sack rate and win percentage (which goes well beyond only points scored) is -0.28.

    https://www.footballperspective.com/correlating-passing-stats-with-wins/

    Here's something you might find interesting. The offensive pass efficiency variable in the regression model is NY/A.

    http://archive.advancedfootballanalytics.com/2007/07/what-makes-teams-win-3.html
     
  17. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    The correlation between the variable you are trying to control for (sacks or sack%) and either of the two variables you are looking at in the (partial) correlation doesn’t on its own tell you what to expect from the partial correlation. The relationship could be anything, including that the variable you’re controlling for doesn’t matter.

    And personally I think the result is intuitive: sacks and sack percentage should only minimally affect the strength of the relationship between passer rating (which doesn’t include sacks) and either PPG or win%, even if the correlation between sacks and both passer rating and win% is not zero. I mean.. why should passer rating become a better or worse predictor if you conditioned only on cases with few sacks or only on cases with a lot of sacks? It should remain similarly strong in both cases (and it does).

    btw.. that link purportedly gives you correlations from 1990-2011, but those correlations are generally too low in magnitude because the author of that post, Chase Stuart, seems to have just combined the data across years without any adjustments. For example, the correlation between passer rating and wins is over 0.6 and not his listed 0.51, but you do get into that 0.5 range if you don’t take into account passer rating inflation!

    On my phone right now so I can’t easily search for everything I’d want to, but that link explicitly defines offensive pass efficiency as Y/A right after that Wins = 5.31 etc... equation. Is there someplace else where he says he’s using NY/A?

    I do like that he’s doing a regression analysis using z-scores.
     
    Irishman and The Guy like this.
  18. cuchulainn

    cuchulainn Táin Bó Cúailnge Club Member

    23,698
    39,847
    113
    Sep 7, 2012
    Hattiesburg, MS
    @cbrad - do speak to the mods about changing your username to "z-brad" . :tongue2:
     
    smahtaz, KeyFin, The Guy and 3 others like this.
  19. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Yeah the correlation between season sack percentage and points scored between 2016 and 2018 (96 cases) is -0.46, so I guess it's sufficient to just stay with that and not involve passer rating.

    Yeah it was a four-part series, and he says this in part one on a different page:

    http://archive.advancedfootballanalytics.com/2007/07/what-makes-teams-win-part-1.html
     
    cbrad likes this.
  20. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    cbrad - Thanks for being such a level headed stats guy. You bring really good stuff to the forum. Obvious excellent knowledge of statistics with game knowledge and a healthy perspective that you cannot look at numbers in a vacuum. Kudos.

    Merry Christmas.
     
  21. The_Dark_Knight

    The_Dark_Knight Defender of the Truth

    11,817
    10,319
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    Rockledge, FL
    That or Zorro since he's always "scratching" Z's all over the boards lol
     
  22. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Some interesting info on sacks (copied from different parts of the article):
    https://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/index2ad6.html?p=4152
     
  23. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Finally a fair ranking.

    upload_2019-12-26_16-35-11.jpeg
     
    smahtaz, resnor and Irishman like this.
  24. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    I was fooling with this (the highlighted portion above) a bit earlier. If you replace Y/A with NY/A throughout the passer rating formula, you end up with something that correlates with points scored at 0.84 over the past three seasons of play (2016-2018). That's an increase from 0.80 for traditional passer rating. So you get roughly a 6% increase in variance in points scored associated with passer rating by modifying passer rating in that manner.

    What's interesting as well is that when you apply that to individual quarterbacks, you sometimes get an increase in passer rating, and other times a decrease. For example, Tannehill's 2019 passer rating goes from 116.5 to 112.8 as a function of his gaudy 10.43% sack rate, whereas Patrick Mahomes's 2018 passer rating of 113.9 goes up to 117.9 as a function of his much more meager 4.26% sack rate that year. So in that sense you get a more complete measure of how the quarterback is affecting his team.

    I don't know if this is the optimal formula for incorporating sack data, but I thought it was interesting nonetheless. Fun with numbers. I'd be interested to hear your take on it.

    EDIT: What gave rise to this for me initially was the 10-point loss by the Titans to the Saints despite the 15-point passer rating differential in their favor, with only a -1 turnover margin. That was highly unexpected.

    Well in light of the above, if Tannehill's 15.6% sack rate and Brees's 7.3% sack rate in that game are figured into the above formula, the passer rating differential goes from 133.6 (Tannehill) to 118.2 (Brees), to 121.1 (Tannehill) to 118.5 (Brees). Tannehill loses 12.5 passer rating points due to sacks, while Brees's passer rating remains virtually unchanged.

    Those figures are far more consistent with a 10-point loss when Tennessee's -1 turnover margin is considered.
     
    Last edited: Dec 26, 2019
    cbrad and Pauly like this.
  25. PhinFan1968

    PhinFan1968 To 2020, and BEYOND! Club Member

    Only one person saw this coming...I don't think so.

    Then again, I wouldn't expect them to read Dolphin fan forums haha.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 26, 2019
  26. Mcduffie81

    Mcduffie81 Wildcat Club Member

    6,053
    5,608
    113
    Mar 23, 2008
    Lake Worth, Fl.
    I’ll never listen to another evaluator who dismissed Tannehill as garbage. I’ll do my own evaluations I suppose. Thanks.
     
    Irishman, Pauly and resnor like this.
  27. PhinFan1968

    PhinFan1968 To 2020, and BEYOND! Club Member



    May have a tough time finishing the season on top though...Brees is just behind and he's playing Carolina for a potential bye Sunday.
     
    resnor likes this.
  28. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Nice work!

    Regarding "optimizing" the formulas (so that the methodology for arriving at them is the same), the simplest way to do this is through multiple linear regression, separately for each formula. The components of (traditional) passer rating are: COMP%, Y/A, TD%, INT% and a constant, while the components of a new "NY/A-modified passer rating" will be the same except that Y/A is replaced by NY/A.

    If the goal is to maximize their prediction of win% in each year, the average coefficients you get across NFL history are:

    Passer rating:
    0.0004*COMP%
    0.0686*Y/A
    0.0489*TD%
    -0.0469*INT%
    -0.0349 = constant

    NY/A-modified passer rating:
    -0.0017*COMP%
    0.0966*NY/A
    0.0371*TD%
    -0.0454*INT%
    0.0343 = constant

    A few things to note:
    1) The ratings you get in the two cases can't be directly compared to each other or to traditional passer rating (they're not on the same scale.. each is on its own scale.. of course you can re-scale the ratings you get with the coefficients above to any range you want).
    2) It's weird but true that the average coefficient for COMP% in the NY/A-modified rating is negative (it's only an average)! More important is to note that the weight on COMP% is very close to zero. In other words, traditional passer rating overweights COMP%.
    3) Average correlation to win% for "passer rating" with those coefficients is 0.6486 so slightly above the 0.633 for current passer rating.
    4) Average correlation to win% for "NY/A-modified passer rating" with those coefficients is 0.6696.

    Summary:
    When you "optimize" the weights (coefficients) on both passer rating and NY/A-modified passer rating, the difference in variance in win% explained is 0.6696^2 - 0.6486^2 = 2.77%, so including sack% in passer rating explains about 2.77% extra variance in win%.
     
    Last edited: Dec 26, 2019
    The Guy likes this.
  29. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    3,582
    2,579
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    I would argue that because of making down and distance more difficult, sacks are already generally (not always) incorporated to the degree they impact a game into the passer rating already.
     
  30. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    I think if you took your second equation and re-scaled it so that it ranged from 0 to 100, you'd end up with probably the best and most user-friendly measure of quarterback play there is at present.
     
    cbrad likes this.
  31. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    I think that's probably true to some extent, but consider a crazy and unrealistic example just to illustrate a distinction.

    Consider that a QB gets the ball on every drive at his own one yard line. He then throws a 65-yard pass in the air (which is extreme but not unrealistic) and completes it, putting his team in field goal range and creating a scoring opportunity. On the next two plays the team runs the ball for no gain. On third down the QB is sacked for a loss of 10 yards, and the team is put out of field goal range and punts.

    This then ridiculously repeats itself throughout the game in "Groundhog Day" fashion, and there are no defensive or special teams touchdowns scored, which is typical.

    At the end of that game that QB's traditional passer rating would be astronomical, but his sacks and yards lost on sacks (NY/A) would have been the primary cause of his team's having scored zero points. Had he even just thrown the ball away on those third downs, there would've at least been some field goal tries, some of which likely would've been successful. Those throwaways would decrease his passer rating, but the drive-killing (and game-killing) sacks don't!

    Obviously that game scenario is never going to happen, but can you see how that illustrates what sacks can do in terms of scoring opportunities and not just down and distance?

    Remember that 84% of drives that include a sack result in zero points, and sacks on third down, which are the most common, result in zero points on the drive 96.5% of the time. A sack is virtually a guarantee a team isn't going to score on that drive. Most often what a sack does is make the down and distance fourth down and something, which often results in a punt and ends the scoring drive. The quarterback wouldn't even attempt a play on that down.
     
    Pauly and AGuyNamedAlex like this.
  32. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    3,582
    2,579
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    I do agree with this. It's why I made it a point to say not always. Not because I anticipated your exact scenario of course but just because there are almost always some sort of exceptions occurring.

    I do think the 3rd down sack making it 4th is a big flaw in what I said though. Perhaps finding a way to only incorporate third down sacks into passer rating because sacks on 1st or 2nd down are already at least -partially- accounted for.
     
    The Guy likes this.
  33. The_Dark_Knight

    The_Dark_Knight Defender of the Truth

    11,817
    10,319
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    Rockledge, FL
    You can’t calculate sacks into passer ratings. The ball was never thrown. It’s not a completion; it’s not an incompletion, it’s not a touchdown; it’s not an interception.

    As it was pointed out before, a sack is a team play, or failure there of. The line didn’t pick up a block; the RB failed to pick up a blitz, etc. until the ball is thrown, there is no pass to evaluate
     
    resnor likes this.
  34. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    I agree that there's no pass to evaluate so as long as we call it "passer rating" we should probably leave it out. But if the goal is to come up with an improved "QB rating" then you put it in because the QB is influential in whether a sack occurs or not. The argument that a sack is a team play isn't distinguishing it from any other passing play because at minimum you need the receiver to catch the ball (and without good enough blocking the QB might throw a less accurate pass).

    The same argument could be made for QB rushing yards. If you insist on calling it "passer rating", fine.. don't put QB rushing yards in, but for more complete evaluation of QB's you put it in. In fact, you'd probably want to incorporate sacks AND QB rushing yards together in any improved "QB rating" because scrambling QB's tend to have both more rushing yards AND more sacks.

    I'd love to repeat the analysis in post #2348 to include QB rushing, but the problem is they don't report QB rushing as a summary stat. They only have it in QB gamelogs. I promised dj long time ago that I'd make the effort to try and match the two separate databases but it just turned into one exception occurring after another (each time you think you've correctly matched the stats in the two databases there's some exception to the rule somewhere.. PFR could really make that easier but I guess they never thought someone would care). So this will have to wait until I finally decide to track down all the remaining exceptions (got tired of doing that long time ago lol).
     
    resnor and The Guy like this.
  35. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    3,582
    2,579
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    QB rating (in my opinion) is a team metric to begin with so I dont think incorporating sacks violates anything.
     
    PhinFan1968 and resnor like this.
  36. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    This is a good point, because the biggest change in season passer rating for any single quarterback in the past three seasons that comes from incorporating sacks and sack yards as I did in post #2344 involved Russell Wilson's 2018 season, where he had a 10.7% sack rate (which is very high) and 355 yards lost on sacks. That changed his passer rating from 110.9 to 104.3, again the biggest change of that kind for any QB between 2016 and 2018.

    However, Wilson also rushed for 376 yards that season (5.6 yards per rush). In 2014 Wilson rushed for 849 yards (7.2 yards per rush), and this season Lamar Jackson for example has rushed for 1206 yards (6.9 yards per rush) in 15 games.
     
    cbrad likes this.
  37. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    That's a function of sample size, because it becomes difficult to say that the career passer ratings of the players with the highest era-adjusted career passer ratings in history (in no particular order, Aaron Rodgers, Peyton Manning, Steve Young, Tom Brady, etc.) are measuring the functioning of their various teams and not their individual abilities.

    What are the odds that the QBs who are the consensus best of all time just so happened to also be on great teams, and that's why their career passer ratings are the highest of all time?

    It becomes even more difficult to say that when for example Drew Brees, one of the best QBs of all time, has posted several very high season passer ratings on losing teams.
     
  38. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    3,582
    2,579
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    When I say it's a team metric I'm not trying to imply the QB isnt responsible for the final rating.

    I just believe that the following is true:

    1) A better team will provide more opportunities for a QB to succeed.

    2) If other parts of the team are failing it causes stress on the QB. Examples could be receivers who are dropping crucial catches, a bad offensive line, offensive confusion from skill players not understanding their role and so on.

    3) The QB needs the ability to convert the chances from point #1 and the ability to mitigate as many of the negative plays caused by teammates.

    4) Point #3 is incredibly rare and you cant always look for a unicorn.

    As far as Brady goes, hes never had bad offensive talent around him. Hes always had very solid and professional WR that do their job extremely well.

    Hes had two of the best receiving TE of all time come through along with guys like Moss, Welker, Troy Brown, so on. Hes also generally buy not always had a strong OL.

    Considering I've never seen Brady in another system with poor talent I'm not sure how his career would have looked. Probably still great, but not so many rings great.
     
    The Guy, resnor and Irishman like this.
  39. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    This is something some people here have addressed on many occasions, where the team variables you mentioned become equivalent enough across teams (or "average out") as the sample size increases, thus leaving passer rating as a valid measure of QBs' individual ability when the sample size is that large. This is why I noted in the post you quoted that the degree to which passer rating is a measure of QBs' individual ability is a function of sample size.

    So we're not disagreeing completely. I would agree with what you said when the sample size is relatively small.

    But consider the number of other players, with varying abilities and across various teams and coaches, involved in Peyton Manning's career passer rating, for example. There is only one individual player or coach who is a constant among all that variability that contributes to Peyton Manning's career passer rating: Peyton Manning.
     
  40. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    3,582
    2,579
    113
    Sep 12, 2015

    I dont really disagree with any of that.

    I agree that a player like Manning will succeed regardless of where he plays. Like I also said Brady would most likely be greatly successful anywhere too (though maybe not entirely to the same degree). Same with Drew Brees.

    We are talking about generational talents now though which I think is unfair when comparing QB.

    If I was trying to determine how much surrounding cast impacted a QB I would probably try and eliminate the top and bottom QB from the equation and focus on the QB who are neither generational talents nor quite obvious busts (Brady Quinn types, Jamarcus Russel)

    In other words if we can get a generational talent...we heck yes I'm all for it because you are right they tend to control their own destiny a lot more. I'm just not sure all QB fall into that category and if we are judging the QB position as a whole I'm not sure they are an accurate representation of the position.
     
    The Guy and resnor like this.

Share This Page