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

Charles Harris

Discussion in 'Miami Dolphins Forum' started by danmarino, Dec 7, 2017.

  1. hitman8

    hitman8 Well-Known Member

    1,366
    689
    113
    Nov 11, 2016
    Haha, I'm so good at predicting stuff. That's why I said you'ld try to come up with some irrelevant cherry picked stat.

    Fact is Watt has had a MUCH better season than harris, every top edge defender out of this year's draft has had a better season than harris up to this point.
     
  2. KeyFin

    KeyFin Well-Known Member

    6,524
    8,556
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    That's the pattern though- you throw out nonsense without anything to back it up, then others show stats to prove you're wrong. If you're so good at predicting being wrong, maybe you should work on being right every now and then instead of just starting all these silly arguments.
     
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2017
  3. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh Club Member

    72,252
    43,680
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    I challenge you to explain how pointing out the amount of plays each player has played is "irrelevant".
     
  4. danmarino

    danmarino Quarantining like a MoFo Club Member

    10,163
    11,075
    113
    Sep 4, 2014
    Here is some more pretty good info:

    The first two columns represent total number of passing snaps played and total pressures. The last number is pressure rate:

    Lawson: 292-52- 1 pressure ever 5.6 passing plays played
    Barnett: 257-35- 7.3
    Wise: 305-30- 10.2
    Takk: 228-30-7.6
    Garrett: 173-24-7.2
    Thomas: 262-23-11.4
    Watt: 341-21-16.2
    Harris: 221-21-10.5

    Harris is tied for 7th in the top 8 (Out of 32 rookie DE's) rookie DE's in regards to total pressures. He's 6th best in pressure rate.
     
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2017
  5. danmarino

    danmarino Quarantining like a MoFo Club Member

    10,163
    11,075
    113
    Sep 4, 2014
    The assertion that Harris is playing a lot more on passing downs than all the other rookie DE's is provably false. The assertion that he's playing the worst out of all the rookie DE's is patently false.
     
    The Finest and Irishman like this.
  6. danmarino

    danmarino Quarantining like a MoFo Club Member

    10,163
    11,075
    113
    Sep 4, 2014
    Top 10 Rookie DE's that have played in at least 25% of their teams defensive snaps:



    upload_2017-12-9_9-46-51.png
     
    The Finest and Irishman like this.
  7. hitman8

    hitman8 Well-Known Member

    1,366
    689
    113
    Nov 11, 2016
    Wrong, I put up the ENTIRE stats for the top edge defenders in this year's draft which clearly show harris has produced less than almost anyone. You know the stats that really matter like tackles, sacks, PD, INT, TFL and his overall PFF rating.

    Then danmarino just tries to find some silly irrelevant cherry picked stat and then claim that harris actually has not played worse than the other rookie edge guys.

    If you cherry pick stats you can always find something to back up your bogus assertion. What I did was give the whole stats to backup my claims which are correct if you look at the whole picture.
     
  8. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh Club Member

    72,252
    43,680
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    What are you talking about? The stats you posted showed PFF grades Watt and Harris similarly.

    That is why you need to understand that the amount of snaps is important.

    If QBX threw 5 TD in 20 passes and QBY threw 6 TDs in 50 passes, following your logic QBY did better.
     
    eltos_lightfoot and Irishman like this.
  9. danmarino

    danmarino Quarantining like a MoFo Club Member

    10,163
    11,075
    113
    Sep 4, 2014
    Lawson: 292-52- 1 pressure ever 5.6 passing plays played
    Barnett: 257-35- 7.3
    Wise: 305-30- 10.2
    Takk: 228-30-7.6
    Garrett: 173-24-7.2
    Thomas: 262-23-11.4
    Watt: 341-21-16.2
    Harris: 221-21-10.5
     
  10. hitman8

    hitman8 Well-Known Member

    1,366
    689
    113
    Nov 11, 2016
    First of all pressure rate is not an objective stat, I never put too much credence into pressure rate because it is subject to the observer's perception of wether the rushers was close to the QB and affected the throw or not before it came out.

    But even here, harris is toward the bottom of the list, being 7th in pressures when you were the third edge guy off the board is not exactly a good performance. That means there are at least 4 other guys picked after him who are outperforming him in terms of pressures.

    However if you look at sacks which actually is not a subjective stat since it is very black and white you either get the sack or you dont. In that category harris is dead last among the top edge rookies in the draft.
     
  11. danmarino

    danmarino Quarantining like a MoFo Club Member

    10,163
    11,075
    113
    Sep 4, 2014
    Watt: 341-21-16.2
    Harris: 221-21-10.5
     
    eltos_lightfoot, Irishman and Fin D like this.
  12. hitman8

    hitman8 Well-Known Member

    1,366
    689
    113
    Nov 11, 2016
    Again, cherry picking stats. Pressure per snaps is not a clear stat that gives the whole picture. Watt plays as a 3-4 old, he plays a lot more in coverage in that defense as opposed to harris who plays in our 4-3. Hence naturally his pressure per snap number will be lower since he is not rushing the passer as much as harris. Why don't you look at the amount of pass rush opportunities per snap to get the whole picture?

    See what I mean? At the end of the day in the stats that really matter like tackles, sacks, TFL and OVERALL rating watt is outperforming harris by a significant margin.

    Stop cherry picking and give a complete honest assessment. Harris has NOT performed very well compared to the other top rookie edge defenders.
     
  13. ExplosionsInDaSky

    ExplosionsInDaSky Well-Known Member

    2,062
    1,183
    113
    Sep 13, 2011
    He's a rookie, obviously we're still waiting for his breakout game or better yet, game changing moment. It hasn't happened yet, maybe it comes Monday night? I hope so.
    By next year this time if he's still playing poorly, we can start the bust talk. It wouldn't surprise me, none of our first round picks turn into anything good lol.
     
  14. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,161
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    These are pass rush snaps right? Not just passing play snaps. In any event dear goodness we're in his rookie season. Let it play out for two more years
     
    eltos_lightfoot and danmarino like this.
  15. djphinfan

    djphinfan Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    97,013
    49,950
    113
    Dec 20, 2007
    but it wasn't just edge players that we could had..

    I had players TJ watt..Evan Engram..Jabril Peppers..David Njoku and Ruben Foster as better prospects..and we had positions for all those guys.

    no question I'm rooting for the guy we selected, I'm really impressed by his mental approach to life and the game so I'm hoping that thats what gets him the edge to become draft valuable for us.
     
    eltos_lightfoot likes this.
  16. KeyFin

    KeyFin Well-Known Member

    6,524
    8,556
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    Harris has played about 50% less snaps than Watt- that is certainly relevant. I agree with your point that Watt has played better overall, but you're twisting this into a hatefest for a few posters here. I disagree with Dan and Fin D all the time, but I don't call them names or try to belittle them. And you know what? It's a heck of a lot more productive for everyone involved.

    Something you have to realize is that you can disagree with someone without turning them into your mortal enemy. But when you have an attitude towards others and an axe to grind, you're going to end up being wrong even when you're right. People just see it as you being a jerk.

    Plain and simple, Harris has played 12 NFL games. Tank, Howard and several other young defenders are developing nicely for the Dolphins and from what we hear, Harris is outworking all of them off the field to get better daily. I did not like the Harris pick...I've said that several times now...but it's hard to judge anyone after 12 games when we see them working hard. Maybe he will be a bust, who knows, but arguing that point today is a fool's errand. We just don't know after 221 snaps.
     
  17. djphinfan

    djphinfan Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    97,013
    49,950
    113
    Dec 20, 2007
    well said, and if you think bout this, even if we wanted other players thinking they could be better NFL players over the long run, there is no way of determining that after a half of season of reps, maybe harris does have the right mental makeup to supersede players we thought were better football players, so I can understand being disappointed they didn't select the one you or anyone else wanted, but to have to much conviction that harris was the wrong choice is way too early.
     
  18. hitman8

    hitman8 Well-Known Member

    1,366
    689
    113
    Nov 11, 2016
    Point taken, but I think you are exaggerating some things. I have never directly called anybody any names. I have referred to idiots in general, but never named anybody specifically. If Dan or anybody else took it as a direct insult then I apologize for hurting their feelings it wasn't meant to offend anybody specifically. I have no specific hatefest against Dan or anybody else other than disagreeing with their constant excuse making and defending of this team's terrible decisions and terrible play by specific players. I have a problem with this honky dory attitude they have as if everybody is playing fine and gase and tbaum know what the **** they are doing. I don't remember a single instance of Dan ever criticizing the FO or any player on the team, except when a certain player is criticized by the coach himself as in the case of ajayi. Dan could literally pass as a PR rep for the dolphins since all he does on this forum is defend ****ty decisions and try to find cherry picked stats to cover up for ****ty play.

    I'm sorry but that is not the type of fandom I agree with. If I see the team stinking and making terrible decisions I am going to call it out and keep it real, not cover it up and act like everything is fine.
     
    eltos_lightfoot likes this.
  19. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh Club Member

    72,252
    43,680
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    You wouldn't have a problem with Dan (or me) if your negative critiques made sense. If they were well founded and explained with logic or facts or common sense, instead of emotional hot takes, there'd be no issue.
     
    eltos_lightfoot and danmarino like this.
  20. Dolphin North

    Dolphin North Well-Known Member

    366
    387
    63
    Apr 30, 2017
    You can call it out and keep it real all you want. Nobody has a problem with that. The problem as Key said, is belittling people and saying you don't call any poster names directly doesn't mean you aren't doing it. Most of us have been on forums long enough to have seen that tactic overused. Notice I didn't say "Most of us have been on forums long enough to have seen that tactic overused by other idiots", because that would just be a way to insult you. Directly or not it doesn't help anything. It drags down the level of conversation and participation.
    Another example I could use, (because I disagree with the way you and some others on here treat people that you disagree with) would have been to simply reply, "Anybody who refers to idiots in general and doesn't think it is belittling is an immature @$$hole." It wouldn't be calling you a name directly, but it would still belittle you for doing just that. I want to be clear, I am not doing that I am just trying to show you and others a couple of examples, because I don't think it is just you.

    I also generally find there is a mocking or sneering tone on this site, name calling or not. It's like the interesting football talk on here is buried in a huge pile of people's own personal mental health issues. A forum like this could be more of a place for people to escape whatever is bothering them in their own lives and enjoy a few minutes here if they would just leave it at the door. Some come on here simply looking for a way to prove somebody else is wrong and that was proven to me early on, when a poster jumped all over my 2 line post and put words in my mouth in order to refute those same words. Others realized how I had been misinterpreted and although it may have been by accident, it almost certainly happened because somebody was looking for an argument that just wasn't there. Was there ever acknowledgement made by the person who misinterpreted me? Of course not. You can't expect anyone here to admit when they are wrong. Which leads me to my final point...
    I notice I even see some "...so I'm right" or "...so you're wrong" type of posts. I think that shows exactly the mentality that is ruining this forum for a lot of people. BTW, I have never seen a person on a forum that is laden with insults ever say to another person, "You know what? Now that I think about it you have a good point and I never looked at it that way." But I saw it all the time when I belonged to a site where people respected each other, agree or disagree. Without a change in attitude, some people here will be beating their heads against each other's equally hard heads for eternity.

    Sorry to interrupt. Back to my partial participation.
     
    Last edited: Dec 10, 2017
  21. Triggercut

    Triggercut Well-Known Member

    702
    364
    63
    Aug 12, 2011
    "Don't do this" but continue reading while I do that (I'll make it all nice and respectful, bless your heart).
     
    danmarino likes this.
  22. danmarino

    danmarino Quarantining like a MoFo Club Member

    10,163
    11,075
    113
    Sep 4, 2014
    upload_2017-12-10_8-55-55.png

    upload_2017-12-10_8-57-12.png

    More lies, as my screenshots prove.

    And as FinD wrote, justifiable criticism is one thing, but irrational dislike for a player and criticism without any sound logic or critical thinking doesn't work. The more knowledgeable posters here will call out anybody doing those things.

    As Key wrote he and I don't see eye-to-eye very often in regards to the Dolphins, but we get along fine and I respect him because his posts have some merit and substance. Even cbrad, who is one of my favorite posters, and I seem to have differing opinions about the Dolphins more often than not. Yet we get along just fine. Same thing with Fin-O and a few others around here.
     
  23. KeyFin

    KeyFin Well-Known Member

    6,524
    8,556
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    Here's the thing- I write for a living at a very high level. In general, the world struggles communicating these days because of the internet and social media and twitter....we're trained to get our message across in as few milliseconds as possible. But when you do that, meanings just get lost in the process and people assume all kinds of stuff that's not really there. That's because you can't see emotion and personality and all the other good stuff in writing most of the time.

    For instance, J-Lo posted a photo on social media last year that showed a bunch of people of different nationalities dancing and had the caption "All Lives Matter." We all know J-Lo loves everyone, yet she received death threats from some saying that she was insulting the black movement with her ignorance. That's just people not understanding one another and resorting to hate...and everyone loses in that situation.

    Dan is a pretty good guy and I disagree with him ALL THE TIME. But I've also posted with him long enough for him to know that I respect him and his opinions. And like I said earlier, I agree with you on your points a decent bit but I don't think you realize how hostile you come across at times. It's probably not even intentional most of the time, but when you give attitude and someone gives you attitude back, things quickly spiral downward for no reason.

    All I'm trying to say is that you have to give people the benefit of the doubt online until they prove otherwise. Most of the time when you do that, you'll see posts in a different light and realize it's not a personal attack on you (or your beliefs). But when you just fire back at something you think is ugly then it's game over...the other person is going to get even uglier and it turns into this mess of a forum.
     
    Last edited: Dec 10, 2017
    danmarino, ChrisKo and cuchulainn like this.
  24. KeyFin

    KeyFin Well-Known Member

    6,524
    8,556
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    Folks, Dolphin North is easily my best friend online since we've talked the Dolphins together for over a decade on three different forums. He's completely right, we're not used to the petty arguments because we've always had a "every member is a moderator" type of attitude- if someone gets out of line, talk to them and try to make it clear that disagreements are not personal. We all see stuff different but to have a great community, we always have to put the members first and show that we're all here for the same thing. And once you get that level of respect, then you can really have some great arguments where you attack the **** out of other people's ideas but they know it's out of football passion.

    For instance, I still say Matt Moore is better than Tannehill. I LOVE arguing that here, but people flat-out get angry at me. I think RT is a great QB though and I always look forward to seeing him play- that often gets lost in the translation here though. So I try to choose my words ultra-careful when I bring that up because I want everyone to know that I'm not trying to pee in their Corn Flakes...I just see it different than 97% of the folks out there. And that's okay....we can disagree. Friends do it in person all the time when they're talking football.

    As members, we should want to make this a place where we can argue stuff like that respectfully. That's all I've been trying to say because when that happens, all of us win.
     
  25. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    7,632
    9,061
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    As the number of passing attempts and games started has increased, I think it's becoming pretty clear that: 1) Matt Moore is NOT as good as Tannehill production-wise or efficiency-wise, and 2) Matt Moore's production seems to be a lot better than most people (not you) think he "looks" as a QB just using their eyes.

    Under Gase, here are some key summary stats:

    Tannehill:
    Passer rating = 93.5
    TD/INT ratio = 1.58
    Y/A = 7.7
    Comp% = 67.1%

    Moore:
    Passer rating = 89.6
    TD/INT ratio = 1.44
    Y/A = 7.5
    Comp% = 64.8%

    On every one of those metrics Moore is slightly worse than Tannehill. So whatever your "eyes" tell you, these metrics are starting to paint an increasingly solid picture that Tannehill is both production- and efficiency-wise slightly better than Moore. However.. I do think those metrics show Moore is better than many people have suggested.
     
  26. dirtylandry

    dirtylandry Well-Known Member

    4,214
    1,750
    113
    Aug 2, 2015
    history indicates to me that after 6 years, Tannehill's ceiling has been reached. He is a one-year filler next year
     
  27. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    7,632
    9,061
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Even if he's reached his ceiling, you still have to find someone better which is not easy. A 93.5 rating puts Tannehill at around 12th or 13th best in the league, and it's not guaranteed you'll draft a better QB.

    I do think we have to try next year though. Dump Moore and Cutler, keep Tannehill and draft a QB high to compete with him. But don't be surprised if Tannehill is our starting QB for more than just a year given how hard it is to draft a top 10 QB (this also presupposes Gase will draft a QB!.. which isn't clear either).
     
  28. dirtylandry

    dirtylandry Well-Known Member

    4,214
    1,750
    113
    Aug 2, 2015
    Im ok with this. Gravy if we can move some money to the backend of the his deal. I would also say this. You draft a qb automatically because of the uncertainty of his knee and after this season of scrambling to play qb's, you don't want to go through that again
     
    ChrisKo likes this.
  29. KeyFin

    KeyFin Well-Known Member

    6,524
    8,556
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    You're a numbers guy and I completely respect that, but let me ask you a question- where did Moore's late TD pass against NE rank him on PFF or NFL.com? On paper, it was just another TD like any other that was thrown that week. But to the Miami Dolphins, watching their QB scream in victory at midfield after being leveled made it one of the most important TD's of the year. Your stats may not show it, but it was right around that time the defense started tightening up and playing really good football...and we definitely saw it carry over to last week as well. That's just a Matt Moore thing- he's an awesome leader and inspires people to play better around him.

    I'll always agree with you that Tannehill is the more gifted QB- there's no question. But if it were my team, my decisions, I personally would have started Moore the past five seasons because of that "x factor"...whatever it is. I just love watching the guy play and practically all his teammates have agreed with me over the years- people go to battle for the guy because they're nuts over him.

    I don't want to hijack this thread with a change of topic, but I will add this- your "key stats" under Gase are bull****. Gase has invested tens of thousands of hours in Tannehill and maybe 2 weeks with Moore. Also, Moore has started against NY, Buffalo, NE, Pitt (in the playoffs) and then Baltimore, the Raiders and the Pats this year. If you want to talk apples to apples here, compare the win percentage against Moore's opponents and the win percentage of Tannehill's- a Moore loss against NE is certainly not the same as an RT win against San Francisco....but on paper that's what it shows. If the starting roles were "flipped" last year, I think Moore has that same six-game win streak against those bad West Coast teams.


    Like I said earlier, I'll happily argue Matt Moore all day long. I don't do it though because I don't want to upset people- I am a HUGE Tannehill fan and I understand my Moore-love can be taken the wrong way. But every time someone throws out a stat, I can't help but say, "Wait a darn minute...how would your QB do after 4 seasons on the bench?" If you're being honest, there might not be any QB's who can be as successful as Moore has been in those limited opportunities. And that's why we still have him.
     
  30. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    7,632
    9,061
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Those stats aren't bull****, they show actual performance under the same head coach even if not everything was the same for both QB's. I'm also pretty confident you'd happily use such stats if they supported your argument.

    Point is this: whatever qualities you think Moore has over Tannehill (e.g. leadership), the effect of that should show up in the stats. So no the stats aren't bull****. They provide evidence Tannehill > Moore.
    I didn't include win% as a stat, but if you do then yes one should look at who they beat. And there I don't think you can make any good claim for Moore over Tannehill. In games under Gase where Moore had 10+ passing attempts, he beat the Jets and Buffalo once in 2016 and the Jets this year. Jets last year were 5-11, Buffalo last year was 7-9, and Jets this year (pending today) are 5-7. In other words Moore's wins are all against teams with losing records. His losses are against Pit, Balt, NE twice and Tampa, with Tampa the only one with a losing record.

    Tannehill also had this problem last year, beating teams with losing records except Pit, and losing to teams with winning records (or 8-8 in the case of Baltimore) except the loss to Cinci. So I don't see how you make an argument using win% for Moore.
    Well.. two things: 1) what we care about is performance regardless of layoff, and 2) the layoff seems to have helped Matt Moore by the very metrics you call bull****. Moore's overall passer rating from 2007-2012 is 80.5, which is just a tad below the league average of 80.9 to 83.8 during that time. From 2016 it's 89.6 which is a tad above the league average of 87.6. So at least in Matt Moore's case, the layoff isn't an excuse.

    As to how he would have performed if X, Y or Z had happened, who knows.. that's just speculation. But the data so far suggest Tannehill > Moore, though not by a huge amount.
     
  31. KeyFin

    KeyFin Well-Known Member

    6,524
    8,556
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    Those stats are BS because you're not comparing two starting quarterbacks. And as far as the games Moore won/lost, those were the only games he had to play. You can't directly compare a player who starts for two or three weeks out of the season to a guy that starts all 16...it's just not a fair comparison. You're also jumping to conclusions that the layoff helped Moore...how do you know? He was 6-3 before being benched for Tannehill....and he was 2-1 last season (not counting playoffs). That's an identical win percentage with completely different pieces of the puzzle around him.

    It's very easy to say we care about percentages regardless of layoff when only one QB is laid off. You're comparing apples to oranges here. Again though, I'm not speculating at all- I'm simply stating my opinion. Hopefully you realize that this isn't personal...it's just one of the cases where I don't think the stats tell the entire story.
     
  32. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    7,632
    9,061
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    You can compare starting QB's to backups in this case because I've already shown that passer rating starts to become stable at about 150 passing attempts, and that included ALL QB's, including those that only had one passing attempt. So efficiency stats can be compared even when they're not starting QB's.

    Notice I didn't include win% as a stat in post #110 because of sample size. You suggested comparing win%, and all I did was point out that I don't see how YOU could make the claim win% would suggest Matt Moore was better.

    Stats NEVER tell the whole story. But the ones I posted do provide evidence for certain hypotheses over others.
     
  33. rackhound

    rackhound Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    278
    280
    63
    Jan 4, 2008
    miamisburg ohio

    I like moore also and its funny you posted this because I was thinking along the same lines.....I also like tanny.....those two arent my argument though mine is cutler over moore......I was high on cutler to start the year but having watched it play out I cant understand why moore isnt our starter over jay......the games he started and lost were against really tough teams in tough situations....he played as well or better than cutler against better competition....Thats not saying much but my point is that when playing other teams that both played in the same game he nearly or did bring the team back and played worlds better than cutler......I get the concussion injury worry and why they weren't confident starting the season with him but both guys are on the team now and Moore clearly gives the dolphins the better chance to win. I think had they started moore from the time he played his first game this year on we would be in the playoff hunt not on playoff life support.
     
    Dolphin North and KeyFin like this.
  34. KeyFin

    KeyFin Well-Known Member

    6,524
    8,556
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    But you're comparing throws over multiple seasons, and multiple parts of the season, to piece together that 150. That's a lot different than a QB starting 6-7 consecutive games and giving you a good 150+ throws to look at.

    The other part of that is QB growth- you're taking RT's 9 or 10 games from 2016 and tossing out the rest. That's fair with a new coach on RT's end but it's not for Moore since he hasn't benefited from QB1 reps/criticisms. The only way we know for sure is if you start Moore for 16 games (or the majority of the season)....and we both know that's not going to happen. So we're right back to where we started- my opinion and yours.

    I brought up win percentage because you said being benched favors Moore. But he won 2/3 of his games as a starter in 2011 and 2/3 off the bench again in 2016. It is a small sample size but so are any other stats you introduce for 2016/2017. My sample size is actually larger than yours (12 games to 6) in this case.

    If my stats aren't reliable enough due to sample size then neither are yours....that was my entire point to begin with.

    Sure, but a hypothesis is where you start- it's never the answer in itself unless you're not talking about science. It is my hypothesis that a backup quarterback shouldn't win any games off the bench after a long layoff, and I believe the math is overwhelmingly in my favor in that opinion. Few backups thrive in the NFL because those practice reps against defenses at full speed is ultra-important.
     
  35. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    7,632
    9,061
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Yeah.. looking at ALL cases, whether it was all during one season or across multiple seasons, you see the standard deviation stabilize at 150 passing attempts. Doesn't mean that's reliable for every single QB, just means that statistically speaking you're fine doing this comparison.

    No you didn't. You brought up win percentage first in post #114 without me bringing it up at all before. All I did was point out you probably couldn't make an argument using win%, which is why I didn't use win% in post #110. My Moore argument there wasn't based on win%, but based on passer rating.

    Well.. if you can provide evidence for this belief I'll take it into consideration. But so far you haven't provided the evidence. I'd get it for you if that were easy to do, but some things are hard to parse with the way football databases are structured.

    I'll give you the reps argument, but we have no idea how much that matters. Point is.. the stats I posted aren't bull**** and provide evidence Tannehill > Moore. I'm certainly open to other sources of evidence showing otherwise, but this isn't just an "opinion vs. opinion" issue because there's some data to base conclusions on.
     
  36. KeyFin

    KeyFin Well-Known Member

    6,524
    8,556
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    Just look at the backups that have taken over the starting position this year- how many success stories can you think of? And how many awful, embarrassing losses come to mind? I took a quick look and couldn't find an easy way to pull stats only on backup quarterbacks, but we both know that the numbers are not going to be promising.

    Just looking at QB ratings for backups, I see-

    McCown at #12
    Brissett at #18
    Beathard at #30 (I don't know who this is---assuming he's a backup in SF?)
    14 other backups at #32-50

    We can look at evidence from the reverse side of the equation as well though- how many team do well when their starter goes down and a backup steps in? We know Garappolo went 4-0 last season and Moore went 2-1, but there's way more QB carousel situations around the league for that to be standard. Look at San Fran, Buffalo, NY (both teams), Tampa Bay, Indy, Houston...even Miami. The starter goes down and production plummets (under Cutler).

    So no, I don't have concrete numbers for you...but I think there's enough examples of backups struggling to say it's pretty much common sense. You have 3 backups in the top 30- that's less than 10% of the league that has had even okay success with a backup in 2017.
     
    Last edited: Dec 10, 2017
  37. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    7,632
    9,061
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Wait, let's be clear about something. I'm definitely with you that Moore is performing way better than an average backup. That can be inferred from the 89.6 rating itself. And as I said, I think he is performing better than most give him credit for just based on how he "looks" when he plays.

    The question is the effect of a long layoff. That's what I was specifically responding to in that part of the post. Using passer rating, it doesn't seem to have affected Moore after adjusting for league averages.
     
    KeyFin likes this.
  38. KeyFin

    KeyFin Well-Known Member

    6,524
    8,556
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    But you're accepting that Moore is average to begin with and simply maintaining that level regardless of layoff...that's the only problem I have here. We have seen in Tannehill and almost every other starting NFL quarterback that they do better with repetitions. Why would I be incorrect to think that Moore would be better today if he started the last 10-20 games?

    For everyone else, please note that I'm not saying here we should have benched Tannehill- I'm in the RT camp 100%. This is a theoretical argument between a math nerd and a stubborn idiot....you can guess which one I am.
     
  39. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    7,632
    9,061
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    You're probably right about that, but for the moment we just don't have hard numbers to estimate the effect of having no layoff. However, I think one way to do this is to look at how all starting QB's perform over time (as a function of years started). That's theoretically doable and would be useful info actually, so I think I'll make it a goal to get the data necessary for that analysis because it can be done if I import all individual QB databases instead of team stats (which is what I use now). This will take a bit of time because pro-football-reference has some stupid formatting issues.. so don't expect anything for a week or two lol.

    btw.. just for info.. to get an idea of the difference between starting QB's and backups, one thing I can do now is to put a threshold on games started. So let's say in 2016 we look at ratings of all QB's that started 7 or more games and compare that to those that started 6 or fewer. That's easy to do and probably gets you most "starting" vs. "backup" QB differences.

    The results: average passer rating of QB's starting 7 or more games in 2016 = 90.57, while average passer rating of QB's starting 6 or fewer games in 2016 = 79.04. League overall average was 87.6. So that does show you how Moore's 89.6 over two seasons with basically 6 starts is pretty good.
     
    rackhound, Pauly and KeyFin like this.
  40. KeyFin

    KeyFin Well-Known Member

    6,524
    8,556
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    Thanks for doing that....and it's basically all I was trying to say.
     
    cbrad likes this.

Share This Page