Ryan Tannehill

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

"resnor wrote:

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?

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.

"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"?

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.

"The Guy wrote:

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.

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.

"The Guy wrote:

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.

I'll talk about current HoF QB's that should probably not be in the HoF.

Namath
Aikman

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.

"danmarino wrote:

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.

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.

"danmarino wrote:

I'll talk about current HoF QB's that should probably not be in the HoF.

Namath
Aikman

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.

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.

"The Guy wrote:

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.

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.

"The Guy wrote:

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.

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.

"danmarino wrote:

You did. You're implying that QB's win Super Bowls.

Where did I say that they are in the Hall of Fame because they won Super Bowls?

"The Guy wrote:

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

"danmarino wrote:

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.

"The Guy wrote:

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.

"danmarino wrote:

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.

"The Guy wrote:

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...

"The Guy wrote:

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.

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.

"danmarino wrote:

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.

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?

"resnor wrote:

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.

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.

"cbrad wrote:

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.

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?

"The Guy wrote:

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.

I think you misunderstand nightmare. Cbrad is just as falable as all posters on this board.

"AGuyNamedAlex wrote:

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?

BOOM! Nightmare

"The Guy wrote:

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.

"The Guy wrote:

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.

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)

"AGuyNamedAlex wrote:

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.

"The Guy wrote:

They both win Super Bowls.

Has Tom Brady not won Super Bowls?

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.
:smh: