LOL at this comment and the people liking it. Combine this with the idea that you promoted that the receivers should just run whatever routes they want and you've got chaos. This is literally how we played football as kids in the school yard......
Do you mean this season or in general? Tannehill played really well for them for a few seasons and they made it to the AFC championship.
I can see the press conference now.... Coach why does the offense seem like a chaotic mess? Because progressions are BS.
It was very possible that Tua might have seen a deep route option and thrown it deep only to see Wilson stop and run a come back route ( the play that was ultimately called) while being wide open. You, and a select few, would have bashed Tua for not hitting the open man that would've went for a first down. Would you have felt better then ??? I'll say it again. The ball was thrown BEFORE Wilson decided to keep running deep. What's so difficult to understand?
The one thing Tua still hasn't demonstrated is winning in the playoffs, so that's one thing Tannehill has. But otherwise, there's no comparison. Tannehill has conclusively demonstrated he cannot overcome bad team play, which is essential in the playoffs, while Tua has. The two elite seasons are also not that similar (in context) because no QB ever went on to produce elite seasons year after year after 6+ years of average play (like Tannehill), while many elite QBs have "broken out" in years 3-4 and gone on to become elite QBs. Very different situations. No, aside from Marino, who has a full career we can look at, Tua is arguably the best QB this franchise has had.
Tua hasn't done anything besides put up nice stats. In this offense Tannehill would be doing the same. Win a big game in primetime or win a playoff game then we can talk about who's better Tua or Tannehill.
Tua hasn't done anything except be the QB of the #1 offense in the NFL, including #1 passing offense with #1 passer rating — that last stat he's now doing it for the 2nd year in a row (thus far.. it is a tight race). And no Tannehill (nor almost any other QB) would not produce the same in this system. You need to have the elite accuracy + decision making speed of Tua to fully take advantage of this offense.
You don’t know that. That’s an assumption: Tua and Mr Irrelevant, Brock Purdy were two of the highest rated passers at one point this season. Guess what systems they are in?
Why did you single out my post for making assumptions? Destroyer was the one who started it by saying Tannehill would perform the same in this system. Assumption right? I just want to highlight how ridiculous some of this sounds. Destroyer thinks Tannehill (currently 71.9 rating) would do as well as Tua (106.4 rating) if you put him in this system, while hitman8 says the same about Mac Jones (80.2 right now). No surrounding cast statistically speaking has that kind of effect. That last statement isn't an assumption. Regarding Purdy, we'll have to see how he pans out. He hasn't played as well lately, but if he can play at a high level consistently then you give him credit for that. You don't just say it's all the system.
Is there a down side to being the QB of the #1 scoring offense and the highest rated passer in the league? Trying to figure out why your making that statement like it is a slur.....
Sorry but supporting cast can have that kind of effect. Take these two consecutive years. Same team, same HC, same OC, same QB, same TE, 3 new WRs. Nearly 30 point swing in passer rating. Up to that point, his highest passer rating was 92.6.
If that were true it would be sustained. But in 2021 where the Titans were arguably the best team in the NFL except at QB, Tannehill posted only a 89.6 rating. So what's going on? It's because there are many sources of variability all having an effect. In 2019 a lot of sources of variation just happened to come together, "by chance" if you wish, in the right direction. When I say statistically speaking supporting cast doesn't have that kind of effect, it means that when you model the variability (i.e., you take into account that each player can play at different levels game-to-game etc.) then the estimated effects are much lower. Despite how much I pan some of these modeling approaches that try to adjust for surroundings, like ESPN's QBR or FO's DVOA etc. none of them are going to predict this kind of effect from just a change in surrounding cast. That's a bit technical, but it's the only thing that's consistent given the data. Otherwise you'll have to make up explanations post-hoc for almost every change you see. Have to take into consideration that there are many sources of variability all influencing the outcome.
Sorry just don't agree with this. Not even close. THey didn't have AJ Brown for the whole season and their other receivers were Nick Westbrook-Ikhine, Julio Jones, and Chester Rodgers. Their OL was very bad. https://www.si.com/nfl/titans/news/tennessee-titans-nfl-draft-take-a-first-round-offensive-lineman That brings us back to the offensive line, which struggled in 2021 by just about any measure. The Titans ranked 24th last season with a pass-block win rate of 56 percent, per ESPN, and 24th with a run-block win rate of 69 percent. Pro Football Focus ranked the Titans 27th in pass-blocking with a 54.3 grade, but was more generous than ESPN with a run-block grade of grade of 75.5 (12th overall). Not a single Titans offensive lineman ranked among the NFL’s top 10 in either pass-block or run-block win rate in 2021. We also know that unit gave up 47 sacks last season, nearly doubling the 25 the team allowed in 2020. While it’s true we can’t blame the offensive line for all sacks, PFF attributed just three to Tannehill last season, tied for fourth fewest in the league. So, the offensive line was guilty far more often than not.
The specific example isn't important. What IS true is that when you try to make predictions saying player X will increase stat Y by a certain amount, predictions will often be FAR off from what you observe if you don't model the variation. I mean, we beat Denver 70-20 and then they beat KC 24-9. Imagine trying to predict that without modeling variation. Won't work. And when you model the variation the effect size is much less than picking specific examples. So no, surrounding cast won't have that massive amount of effect on a QB statistically speaking. That's true whether you agree with a specific example or not.
I agree that making predictions is very difficult but the idea that supporting casts don't have a huge effect is wrong. This is true for even the best QBs.
The way you test hypotheses is by seeing how accurately you can predict things. I've done this a lot with widely available stats. You'll get nowhere assuming massive effect sizes. Best way to convince yourself is to try something like that on a smaller scale. Take a team you follow (obviously the Dolphins) and try to predict where we'll do well and where we won't do well in the next game (e.g., running game, passing game, etc.). You'll often find your predictions based on the supposed quality of the starters fails miserably, at least in some areas. It's like that prediction last year by hitman8 that Tua would do well against the Chargers defense because it was weak against the pass, and exactly the opposite happened. It's because of the "variation" at each level, each player, etc. that is very hard to measure except after the fact. So yes, when you're forced to test your models you'll find out yourself that supporting casts can have a large effect, but not 25+ point passer rating change, at least not in the NFL. Such a model would perform terribly.
I'm not making predictions. I'm evaluating what happened in the past. I don't need a model to predict Brady's passer ratings in the past. I can just look them up. If you don't think the variation was supporting cast, then you have to think the variation was due to the QB. Sorry but if you stack up these players: Nobody on earth is claiming that the supporting cast didn't have a HUGE impact. Especially since prior to 2007 Brady never cracked 93 for a passer rating. Not sure why you are trying to argue the point.
When he was being paid by Miami to play for Tennessee and he was being carried by the best RB of this generation? Yes, he was marginal but it was still his brutal backbreaking mistakes that cost em going further. Then he got put on Tennessee’s books and (over)paid and started holding the salary cap hostage, lost some of those studs around him and now, he’s got a 2nd round rookie making him look like he don’t even belong in the XFL. But I digress. I’m just thankful Tua is now our QB.
Yeah you're not understanding this. When you force yourself to be consistent in how much each player (or unit) improves a given stat you WILL find that there is NOT a huge effect. You keep looking at one comparison at a time, completely ignoring how consistent or inconsistent your evaluation for that comparison is to your evaluations in other comparisons. For example, how much extra improvement do you expect from Moss? Whatever it is, fix that — don't change it — and see how well it fits the data. For example, Brady's stats went way UP after Moss left in 2010. That's a major advantage of modeling and statistical analysis: it's internally consistent. And the only internally consistent models that fit the data well (even if you're only looking at the past) will NOT show huge effects. That's the best I can do to explain this. This isn't opinion either, it's a fact. You really should try this instead of coming back with another specific example. Specific examples don't cut it because humans aren't good at being internally consistent.
I understand about the statistics but it doesn't pass the eyeball test. If you put three all pro's as WR's where they had none last year, you will get better results. Better players = better results. I think that's what he's saying.
Better players on average = better results, no question. However, once you estimate that average effect it's a lot smaller than what "eyeball" tests (at least for some) suggest. Either way, try the Moss example. Brady's stats hover around 90-ish until Moss arrives, then in 2007 he has a career year with 117.2 rating. In 2009 that's down to 96.2, still with Moss. But look at 2010. He starts off with Moss who plays a minor role the first few games (all 3 games less than 59 yards), Moss leaves for Minnesota, and Brady's stats in 2010 jump way UP to 111.0. So Moss leaving helped. If you try explaining this by assuming the huge effect from 2006-2007 is the "real" effect the prediction totally fails in 2011. That's what you'll generally see happen when you're forced to remain consistent, which is all I'm saying. The effect just isn't as large as one would think based on selected comparisons, at least not if you're internally consistent in your evaluations.
How many Super Bowls, dude? Yeah, Brady wasn't putting up crazy stats, but the offense functioned and the team won. Have you seen Tua win, at any level, without superstar talent around him? I'm not saying this to knock him, but Brady showed an ability to win, and once they gave him superstars, he not only won but he also put up monster stats. Tua has done the second part, I'd like to see him be able to do the first. Until then, probably shouldn't compare the two.
I'm getting it. You are just wrong. I don't care what the weather models say about last week's weather.
Because Moss was on the down side of his career. Not the gotcha that you think it is. It fails because Moss wasn't the same receiver and other players arrived. The idea that a 30 year old Moss and a 33 year old Moss are different isn't surprising. You cannot remain consistent over several years. Many other things changed including coaching other players etc. That is why the 2006 vs 2007 difference is so interesting. Unless you have another explanation for Brady experiencing 30 point passer rating swings, I'm going with supporting cast.
He's won with the teams that were assembled. Everywhere he's been. Not sure what your point is. With just Waddle he won last year. He's 57 and 18 as a starter. That's over 75% win rate.
Bad analogy. We all agree on the weather (what the stats are for past events). But why that event occurred is the question. And that's where the modeling is superior (weather models are precisely what people use to explain past events, but using updated data). Otherwise, like that Moss example, in one year you'll argue Moss is elite so he helped a ton, and in another year argue he's elite but.. he hurt a ton?? Consistency matters, and like I said when you enforce that you get what I'm describing.
Do you honestly believe that players don't age and skills don't erode? Really? Moss was 33 in his last year in NE. He only had 56 more catches for the rest of his career.
Players age, but Moss played fantastic in 2009. There was no hint of a decrease in his ability. That explanation isn't going to work. And yes you can remain consistent over multiple years IF you assume natural variation in performance. And when you include that the difference in average effect isn't as large. It also explains 30 point passer rating swings, because by chance you will get variation in performance from multiple players going in the same direction. This is the only explanation that will remain consistent over longer periods of time.
Is it though? There are some objective reasons for liking either Biden or Trump. There is no objective or logical reasons to say that Mac Jones or Sam Howell are better than Tua. There's no objective or logical reasons for saying that the QB who is leading the NFL in most QB stats for 2 years straight, is an MVP candidate for the second straight year, and is playing as well or better than any QB in the league for 2 years straight, is "below average" or "mediocre". It is also telling that these posters claiming this only come around when Tua doesn't have a 120+ passer rating game and/or the Dolphins lose. These people are the definition of trolls. They are here to create arguments. The only people I wouldn't say that about in their group isdolphin25 and resnor. They're just jaded and wrong about Tua. Which I can at least understand. The others aren't even Dolphins fans and it's as plain as the nose on your face. I try and stay away from the mains strictly because of them, which sucks because there are some great people here.
Tua had nearly 300 yards and around a 95 passer rating against the Bills. Buffalo's defense allows, on average, a QB passer rating of 88 (Which is average for this year's NFL defenses). Now, I can understand that a troll like you would call that being "shutdown" because you're sick of Tua and all of his 100+ passer rating games, but that's not being shut down. You didn't start this thread. Did you just "jump in"? I can post in any thread I want, troll. Why don't you run back to your team's forum.
"Tua hasn't done anything except play like one of the best QB's in the league for the past 2 seasons which would have been plenty well enough to win games if his team was better. He sucks!" See how stupid that sounds? That's basically what your post reads. Wins are not QB stats. Last season, do you think if Tua had played in the postseason against Buffalo they would have won? They did only lose by 3 points with their 3rd string, rookie QB.
Yeah, that's not correct. His passer rating against the Bills this year was 92.8. The Bills have held opponents to 88.9 this season. When you consider the scheme, and the passing weapons the Dolphins have compared to the rest of the league, he really didn't do well. Now do the Eagles...
Claiming that Brady wasn't surrounded by great players his entire season is just flat wrong. His first three SB wins he had the 5th, 1st, and 2nd ranked defenses. After the Pats first SB win with Brady, the following year they missed the playoffs entirely. Why? The defense was ranked 17th that season. In fact, Brady only played with a below average defense twice and a below 10th ranked defense 3 times in his entire career in New England. In those 2 seasons with a below average defense, the Pats missed the playoffs once, won 10 games and lost in the divisional round once.
lol...The nitpicking of a troll. I was citing some stats from memory. That's why I said "around". So you think 92.8 isn't around 95? If Tua gets about 15 more yards passing he gets to 95. To go from 88 to 88.9 their defense maybe forces one less completion all season. I, as a real Dolphins fan, don't consider the Eagles game. It was an outlier for the entire team mainly because the refs skewed it too heavily in favor of the Eagles. I'm sure you'll die on that hill because it's really the only game you have where you can say Tua underperformed against the competition, but again, the refs factored into that outcome. Expecting any player to come out and have a perfect game, week in and week out, is just stupid. Blaming losses on one player who leads the league in nearly every major category for their position is even more stupid.
So now basing an evaluation of Tua on realistic criteria is moving goal posts? LOL. YOU are the one that brought up the rest of the league. Try to keep up.
