Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Other NFL' started by bbqpitlover, Oct 16, 2019.
They both win Super Bowls.
Has Tom Brady not won Super Bowls?
It's actually pretty easy- get him a decent line and things work out great.
No, what he needs is an exceptionally good line, and the likelihood of compiling one of those is low.
Was the line exceptionally good when he won 10 of 11 across two seasons? I seem to remember that they got cussed out, a few starters were fired and everything worked out from there.
Look, I'm not defending Tannehill and want nothing to do with this discussion. But if you eliminate heavy pressure from the equation, he's shown that you can win with him. I have no idea how good/bad Tennessee's line is but it feels pretty safe to assume that they're at least as good as what Miami had the past few seasons.
I reiterate, only TEAMS win Super Bowls.
You can assign any success you want to any player, but football is a TEAM sport.
In Baseball, you can clearly identify the individual performance of a batter. He hits the ball. How often he hits it and how often he gets on base or scores are clearly due to an individual effort, and sometimes a little luck (good or bad).
This is not possible in football due to the simultaneous and sequential interactions of every player on the field during a given play. Fans who ignore these complexities are doomed to be inaccurate to greater or lesser degrees by putting all the responsibility for success on one player, while in reality, there is usually plenty that goes wrong on a play, even if it turns out to be successful. The TEAMS that make the fewest mistakes are generally the TEAMS that consistently win.
In football, a simple pass is DIRECTLY affected by at least three people who must handle the ball; the center, the passer (usually but not always the QB), and who ever is the receiver. That's because the ball is handled in sequence starting with the center who gets it to the QB, or whoever is passing, and then from the passer to the receiver.
This scenario doesn't even account for blocking by the offensive line and any backfield players involved in protecting the passer prior to the throw, but it could. I left the other players out of this scenario because I don't feel a 30 page post will add any more clarity to this scenario that I have just described.
These interactions can't be ignored, or you end up misrepresenting the TEAM function in football.
I feel the interactions that I describe in this post are what makes a TEAM a TEAM, and are immutable.
I see no need for any more input on my part in this discourse for just that reason.
So then why are only individual players (and other individuals) inducted into the Hall of Fame, and why is that widely regarded as an indication of their individual ability and performance, despite the fact that all of them played on teams? Does all of that have zero validity because football is a team sport? Do you sit back and laugh, watching the induction ceremony in Canton every year, as the inductees' very teammates laud their performance and deservedness, thinking "all of this is ridiculous -- they should be inducting only teams into the Hall of Fame"?
You would need to measure the frequency of heavy pressure across games and correlate it with Tannehill's performance to determine that definitively.
Titans are apparently the worst team right now in total sacks given up (29) and in sack% (14.2%) lol..
And Tannehill apparently took 4 sacks after relieving Mariota who had already taken 3 sacks lol. Fuel to the fire!
Nevertheless.. the most surprising stat for me is this: the correlation between Marcus Mariota's game by game adjusted passer ratings and sacks taken is an unbelievable -0.0346.. or essentially zero! I have NEVER come across anything like that for any QB, including mobile QB's, though admittedly I haven't written a program to go through all QB's to see how many others are like that. For comparison, Tannehill's is -0.18, meaning that the more sacks he takes the lower his rating is (intuitive) though not by that much.
In other words, for Mariota sacks are completely irrelevant in determining his passing efficiency (with large sample size). Weird but true.
You won’t find any strong relationships between sacks and passer rating across the league, because when a sack occurs, a pass isn’t thrown, and therefore nothing registers with regard to passer rating.
Constantly responding with questions instead of answering the points that are made, is more than a little annoying. Perhaps the HoF is exactly the popularity contest that many people say it is?
Ryan comes in and play well behind a solid run game and defense. I placed a nice sized wager last night on the Titans and "The Blonde Charlatan"
TEN 23 LAC 17
OK, so then show why the current or probable Hall of Fame quarterbacks who have won 20 of the past 25 Super Bowls really have no business in the Hall of Fame.
We tried that once already above with Kurt Warner and it was a nightmare for the person who proposed it, courtesy of cbrad.
You and the other guy above who are presenting yourselves as Hall of Fame detractors really aren’t breaking anything down in that regard. You’re just giving hypotheticals and talking about maybes.
Because individual players are not inducted into the HoF based on wins. I will admit that Namath is most likely there because of his brash nature and his prediction of the Jets beating the Colts in SB III. So sometimes we will see laziness, such as "Tom Brady deserves to be in the HoF because of SB wins." In reality, if Brady had played for the Lions, and was able to have the same type of career, stats, etc., except the Lions never won the SB, not many people would be talking about him anywhere near the GOAT. So, yes, laziness occurs, but it's not right. However, when you see a player like Marino, who played like he did, and even though Miami never won the SB with him as QB, he still made the HoF. Why? Because he is a true GOAT QB.
Individuals do not win games. Some players, HoF players, typically play better than their peers. Of course that will most likely help the team win, but teams win games.
I think it's more complicated than that.
On one hand there's evidence that "pressure on the QB" negatively affects passer rating, even if you define it like FO does. On the other hand, many mobile QB's that are good at evading pressure have very high sack% (e.g., Russell Wilson's career sack% of 8.37% is higher than Tannehill's 7.93% yet it's pretty clear RW > RT when it comes to pocket awareness). The QB's with the lowest career sack percentages are pocket passers with quick releases (Peyton and Marino are best all time at 3.13%).
This basically suggests that sacks and sack% are not good proxy measures for "pressure due to OL on the QB", and if that's true then you would expect a low (but still negative) correlation between sack% and passer rating. Nevertheless it's really hard to intuit how the correlation is essentially zero like with Mariota. That really surprised me.
I'll talk about current HoF QB's that should probably not be in the HoF.
They are both in the HoF due to their team's success.
As for Warner, I agree that while he played he was HoF level, but I'm just not sure he played enough to get my vote. The guy started only 116 games. Same with Terrell Davis, fantastic player, but didn't play enough.
When did anybody say anything about how those quarterbacks are in the Hall of Fame because of wins?
I never said that those quarterbacks are in the Hall of Fame because their teams won Super Bowls. I merely said that 20 of the past 25 Super Bowls have been won by teams with quarterbacks who are current or probable Hall of Famers.
Even if we concede Aikman, we still have 18 of the past 25 Super Bowls (72%) having been won by teams with current or probable Hall of Fame quarterbacks.
And when we determine the percentage of Hall of Fame quarterbacks that exist among league quarterbacks in general, that 72% is still startling, because it indicates that the greater prevalence of lesser quarterbacks around the league, in terms of a quarterback’s probability of winning a Super Bowl, is overcome substantially by the greater ability of a much smaller group of Hall of Fame quarterbacks.
If you put the name of every quarterback who’s played in the league in the past 25 years in a hat and pulled 25 of them out at random, you would have to repeat that an absurd number of times (perhaps even billions) to pull the Hall of Fame quarterbacks from that time period out of the hat 18 of 25 times.
You did. You're implying that QB's win Super Bowls.
And I thought Aikman was part of the QB group who won a couple of the past 25 Super Bowls? Isn't that what you asked?
Eli x2, Dilfer, Aikman, Johnson, Flacco, Warner (again I don't think he played long enough), Big Ben x2(He's another Aikman)
By my count that's 9 out of 25 Super Bowls won by QB's that I don't think should be in the HoF.
Your argument is that having an elite QB is the best way to win a super Bowl. You then started in on the last 25 years... how many QBs have won Super Bowls in the past 25 years? You have Brady with 6, Eli with 2, Warner with 2? That’s 10 right there between 3 QBs. Frankly, 2 of those guys are going in based, IMO, on team success, not on their own individual ability. But regardless, that’s 10 of 25. That leaves 15 potential other winning QBs. Then you’ve got Johnson, Flacco, and a few others that i I wouldn’t call elite. So, really, that is showing that football is the ultimate TEAM sport.
Where did I say that they are in the Hall of Fame because they won Super Bowls?
You didn't. You implied that QB's win Super Bowls
And they do. Every team that wins the Super Bowl has a starting quarterback.
That doesn’t mean the quarterback is exclusively responsible for the team’s success, but it does mean that every team that wins the Super Bowl has a quarterback, which permits comparisons among teams regarding those quarterbacks’ individual ability.
Including SB wins when comparing QB's is lazy. And if it must be done it should be about as low on the stat sheet as possible.
What we are doing is distinguishing quarterbacks from each other by looking at the kinds of quarterbacks whose teams have won the vast majority of Super Bowls in the past 25 years. That isn’t lazy. That is what every general manager in the league should be doing if he’s going to try to give his team a leg up on winning.
You don't compare QB's by looking at their teams. And you don't choose a QB by looking at other teams.
You isolate the player(s). You look at the player and try to determine if he's a good fit for the scheme you're using.
When you walk into a thread...
It is lazy if you are then concluding that teams that don’t win the Super Bowl are not winning because they don’t have an elite QB. It’s why I’ve been ranting about passer rating and it’s flaws, and how it’s correlation to win % is a red herring.
That’s what Hall of Fame induction does. Or do you consider that meaningless or invalid in having determined the individual ability of the quarterback in isolation?
Once again, when you can put the names of every quarterback who has played in the league in the past 25 years in a hat, pull out 25 of them at random, and you would have to repeat that process likely billions of times for 18 to 20 of those 25 picked out of the hat to be Hall of Famers, it becomes quite obvious that having a Hall of Fame quarterback is a key ingredient in winning a Super Bowl in the past 25 years.
Does it do it all by itself? Of course not. But is it a key ingredient? Of course.
How come when the #'s dont support your theory you can revert to solid logic and using your eyes (Saying RW has better pocket presence despite #'s) and yet when other people want to do the same you only fall back to #'s as if they are the end all be all?
I think you misunderstand nightmare. Cbrad is just as falable as all posters on this board.
I will say there is a correlation you arent looking at.
A QB who wins a superbowl or 2 is more likely to receive votes than the same QB without the rings.
Superbowl winners are HOFers partially because, usually but not always, Superbowl winners get more votes. Especially in the early years of the NFL (70's, 80's)
So again, like I’ve invited several people to do in this thread, break that down and show how there are Hall of Fame quarterbacks in the past 25 years who were inducted primarily because of their Super Bowl wins and not because of their individual ability.
You’re talking about a theory that is certainly plausible, but not supporting it with anything based in reality, or even in your personal view of reality.
Of course he did...he won 6 of them all by himself. He trotted our onto the field and in a display of daring bravery lined up against 11 defenders.
He snapped the ball to himself
Amazingly he blocked the pass rushers while at the same time, he ran downfield and caught the ball he threw to himself.
And I could swing the pendulum completely the other direction and say that Tom Brady is a terrible quarterback who’s done nothing individually during his career, has been nothing but the beneficiary of his surroundings, and that none of the Patriots’ success or Super Bowl wins have had anything to do with him at all.
And if I did that, then both of us would be making a strawman argument that no one in this thread on either side has stated.
Why don't you prove your own point instead of requesting other people do your research, and then disregarding what they say with more questions?
Except one of you would be closer to the truth than the other. One of you is actually correctly saying that the team is a large part of it, and one of you is arguing that the QB is essentially doing it by himself.
I’ve already proven my point multiple times. The fact that we are taking common knowledge and making it seem debatable is laughable.
You've proved nothing in regards to too HoF QBs and why they're there. Why do people consider Montana or Brady in the conversation for GOAT? Super Bowl wins. Why are they in the Hall, or going to be in the Hall? Mostly on team wins. That doesn't mean they aren't better than other QBs, but it also doesn't mean that they were winning because of them. You have yet to even consider the possibility that your precious rating to win% correlation is extremely flawed.