Ryan Tannehill

"Dol-Fan Dupree wrote:

But an average quarterback

Obviously that opinion isn’t shared by the Hall of Fame voters.

"resnor wrote:

And a bunch were win by the same QB. You make it sound worse than it actually is. It's not like there's 25 other QBs.

And that makes it an even worse prospect for the average quarterback, because it indicates that there is a small group of exceptionally good quarterbacks that have a much stronger likelihood of winning Super Bowls, even to the tune of repeat wins.

"The Guy wrote:

Obviously that opinion isn’t shared by the Hall of Fame voters.

Fits your description of Tannehill

"The Guy wrote:

And that makes it an even worse prospect for the average quarterback, because it indicates that there is a small group of exceptionally good quarterbacks that have a much stronger likelihood of winning Super Bowls, even to the tune of repeat wins.

Or it's actually a higher percentage of non HoFers winning Super Bowls this era than you were attempting to represent. 4 out 25 is worse than 4 out of 12 (not sure the exact, but take Brady's 6 out and Warners 2 leaves 12-14 other QBs). So it's actually better odds that you can win a Super Bowl with an non elite QB than most people probably think.

"resnor wrote:

Or it's actually a higher percentage of non HoFers winning Super Bowls this era than you were attempting to represent. 4 out 25 is worse than 4 out of 12 (not sure the exact, but take Brady's 6 out and Warners 2 leaves 12-14 other QBs). So it's actually better odds that you can win a Super Bowl with an non elite QB than most people probably think.

Well sure, if you exclude certain Super Bowls from consideration, then of course you’re left with an entirely different percentage.

By the same token, if you choose to exclude the Super Bowls that average quarterbacks have won, then you’re left with average quarterbacks’ having won 0% of them.

"Dol-Fan Dupree wrote:

But an average quarterback

Kurt Warner an average QB?? If Warner is "average" then there are almost no above average QB's!

Obviously his performance during the "greatest show on turf" is well known. He came in #1 in passer rating rankings twice and #3 once during 1999-2001. The z-scores for those years are 3, 1.7 and 2.3 which is absolutely elite level that very few ever reach (especially that 3).

But you can ignore those 3 years and ask what his career z-score would be otherwise, and it's 0.5716 which is a solid above average level for a QB. Maybe adjusted ratings are easier to intuit than z-scores. That 0.5716 is a 100.5 rating in 2018. That was Kurt Warner's average when excluding his 3 best years. Include all his years and it's an average z-score of 1.19 or 108.2 rating.

You can look at individual years too and it's impressive. Once again ignore the "greatest show on turf" years and he has only 1 year that was statistically below average among seasons where he started 5+ games: an adjusted 77.9 rating for 2002. That was done with different teams, coaches and surrounding casts, and he didn't have a great surrounding cast most of the time. I mean.. he was well above average statistically in 6 of those 7 years despite having a losing record in 4 of them!

Absolutely no justification for calling Kurt Warner average. Guy was elite for several years and otherwise solidly above average.

"djphinfan wrote:

Got Mariota way wrong coming out of the draft..

Got Tannehill way right..

And fans here want his left handed clone Tua with the first pick...

"Vertical Limit wrote:

And fans here want his left handed clone Tua with the first pick...

Tua doesn't really have the decision making and accuracy issues that you sometimes saw with Mariota. Really the only knock against Tua is that he's on such a good team you just don't know how he'll do when he's not on one. Wasn't the case with Mariota. And I personally value decision making and accuracy FAR more than raw physical ability in QB's (which btw is why I don't think Darnold will be very good).

Tua simply has a higher floor than Mariota did. Much less likely to just be average, though I agree it's hard to tell if he'll ever be "great".

Hall of Fame players in any sport are subjective choices. There is not a one to one equivalency between who was the best at a position and who got into the Hall of Fame.

Being on a Superbowl team helps, but that is based on a taem result in combination with an individuals overall effort.

There are players who are not in the Hall of Fame who were better then some players at the same position who made it in.

I recall there is even a list of players who should be in the Hall of Fame, but aren't. I'll leave it to you to re-discover that list.

"Irishman wrote:

Hall of Fame players in any sport are subjective choices. There is not a one to one equivalency between who was the best at a position and who got into the Hall of Fame.

Being on a Superbowl team helps, but that is based on a taem result in combination with an individuals overall effort.

There are players who are not in the Hall of Fame who were better then some players at the same position who made it in.

I recall there is even a list of players who should be in the Hall of Fame, but aren't. I'll leave it to you to re-discover that list.

That really doesn’t have any meaning with regard to the present conversation unless you’re prepared to deconstruct the fact that 20 of the past 25 quarterbacks to win Super Bowls have been present or future Hall of Famers, by indicating which of those 20 quarterbacks should not have been or won’t be Hall of Famers.

In the end you’re left with 80% of the past 25 Super Bowl winners’ being quarterbacks who have been or will be designated to have significantly greater individual ability than the other five Super Bowl winning quarterbacks, again unless you’re willing to deconstruct that.

What you’re saying in essence is that Hall of Fame designation may not be valid because it’s subjectively determined, but you’ve provided no argument for invalidity in that regard, with regard to the present conversation.

"The Guy wrote:

That really doesn’t have any meaning with regard to the present conversation unless you’re prepared to deconstruct the fact that 20 of the past 25 quarterbacks to win Super Bowls have been present or future Hall of Famers, by indicating which of those 20 quarterbacks should not have been or won’t be Hall of Famers.

In the end you’re left with 80% of the past 25 Super Bowl winners’ being quarterbacks who have been or will be designated to have significantly greater individual ability than the other five Super Bowl winning quarterbacks, again unless you’re willing to deconstruct that.

What you’re saying in essence is that Hall of Fame designation may not be valid because it’s subjectively determined, but you’ve provided no argument for invalidity in that regard, with regard to the present conversation.

I'm afraid you missed my point. Teams win Superbowls, not QB's!

Tanny will do nothing for the Titans, but win a couple games and drop their draft position, which is good for Miami.

Speaking of old Miami QBs, Matt Moore is playing tonight for the Chefs. Mahomes got hurt.

Trade Fitzpatrick to the Chiefs.

"TheHighExhaulted wrote:

Trade Fitzpatrick to the Chiefs.

Could trade Rosen at this point. Would be interesting with the weapons they have, how he'd do. Cheap backup if nothing else, which is also a reason to keep him in Miami.

Well, Matt can still throw a nice deep pass. Chefs up 27-6.

"Irishman wrote:

I'm afraid you missed my point. Teams win Superbowls, not QB's!

They both win Super Bowls.

Has Tom Brady not won Super Bowls?

"The Guy wrote:

And unfortunately the likelihood of assembling those pieces is fairly low, which is why Super Bowls in this era are almost never won by average QBs.

It's actually pretty easy- get him a decent line and things work out great.

"KeyFin wrote:

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.

"The Guy wrote:

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.

"The Guy wrote:

They both win Super Bowls.

Has Tom Brady not won Super Bowls?

No!

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.

"Irishman wrote:

No!

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"?

"KeyFin wrote:

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.

You would need to measure the frequency of heavy pressure across games and correlate it with Tannehill's performance to determine that definitively.

"KeyFin wrote:

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.

Titans are apparently the worst team right now in total sacks given up (29) and in sack% (14.2%) lol..
https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2019/index.htm

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.

"cbrad wrote:

Titans are apparently the worst team right now in total sacks given up (29) and in sack% (14.2%) lol..
https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2019/index.htm

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.

"The Guy wrote:

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"?

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?