Ryan Tannehill

"The Guy wrote:

Unfortunately there hasn't been any sample of play in which Brady has been divorced from those surroundings to permit such a conclusion (or its opposite) with any certainty.

Personally I would put my money on its not being an either-or, but a both, where both Brady and his surroundings are exceptionally good, which is likely the best explanation for any dynasty.

I don't think there is any situation in which a relatively poor or mediocre quarterback's surroundings can elevate him to career-long Hall of Fame-level play. You can get a very good season from that on occasion, like Andy Dalton in 2015 for example, but you're not going to get career-long Hall of Fame performance from it.

I mean, you could be seeing an average QB play for an an above average team that cheats and has great coaching...and you wouldn't know. Honestly, what is Brady better than other QBs at? Processing and getting rid of the ball? That's not a talent and it's not special if Ernie Adams is in his helmet talking after the mic is supposed to shut off.

"The Guy wrote:

Well if you're willing to leave it at that, it must not be that important.

It's pretty obvious. Eli , imo, has not had a career that defines him as one of the greats...he's not had a HoF career. But I'd bet that he'll be inducted into the HoF. And he'll be inducted, if we're being honest, because he's a Manning and he has 2 rings. Because the HoF isn't inducting based on individual talent all the time.

"resnor wrote:

It's pretty obvious. Eli , imo, has not had a career that defines him as one of the greats...he's not had a HoF career. But I'd bet that he'll be inducted into the HoF. And he'll be inducted, if we're being honest, because he's a Manning and he has 2 rings. Because the HoF isn't inducting based on individual talent all the time.

Eli has more rings than our QB.

"resnor wrote:

It's pretty obvious. Eli , imo, has not had a career that defines him as one of the greats...he's not had a HoF career. But I'd bet that he'll be inducted into the HoF. And he'll be inducted, if we're being honest, because he's a Manning and he has 2 rings. Because the HoF isn't inducting based on individual talent all the time.

Right, and I designated him as such in this thread by putting him in the group of average QBs who have won five of the past 25 Super Bowls, rather than in the group of Hall of Famers. I agree with you that he's an average QB and has no business in the HoF, despite the Super Bowl wins.

But if the point you're making is that Hall of Fame designation isn't a valid indication of quarterbacks' individual ability, we're going to have to analyze the QBs who are already in the HoF and show why they shouldn't be there. We can't say HoF induction isn't a valid indication of QBs' individual ability on the basis of one guy who isn't even in the HoF and may never be.

"The Guy wrote:

Right, and I designated him as such in this thread by putting him in the group of average QBs who have won five of the past 25 Super Bowls, rather than in the group of Hall of Famers. I agree with you that he's an average QB and has no business in the HoF, despite the Super Bowl wins.

But if the point you're making is that Hall of Fame designation isn't a valid indication of quarterbacks' individual ability, we're going to have to analyze the QBs who are already in the HoF and show why they shouldn't be there. We can't say HoF induction isn't a valid indication of QBs' individual ability on the basis of one guy who isn't even in the HoF and may never be.

The point I'm making is that being in the Hall does not automatically mean that you had great individual ability.

"resnor wrote:

The point I'm making is that being in the Hall does not automatically mean that you had great individual ability.

I understand the point, but you’re not basing that on any quarterback in the Hall of Fame from the sample we’re talking about.

Which HoF quarterback(s) from the sample we’re talking about did not have a great individual ability? If you can identify no one, then it becomes very difficult to say that Hall of Fame induction isn’t a valid indication of quarterbacks’ individual ability.

"The Guy wrote:

I understand the point, but you’re not basing that on any quarterback in the Hall of Fame from the sample we’re talking about.

Which HoF quarterback(s) from the sample we’re talking about did not have a great individual ability? If you can identify no one, then it becomes very difficult to say that Hall of Fame induction isn’t a valid indication of quarterbacks’ individual ability.

LOL
Do you even read what you write? You have a sample you made and based only on your sample, you make a conclusion? And the further declare that the conclusion based only on the sample is irrefutable evidence?

"cbrad wrote:

They're all well above average statistically so you can just substitute "well above average" for HoF QB. Here are the career regular season only z-scores of all HoF QB's whose rookie year was 1966 or later:

Ken Stabler = 0.4051
Bob Griese = 0.7704
Dan Fouts = 0.8233
Warren Moon = 0.3908
Kurt Warner = 1.1918
Jim Kelly = 0.7422
Troy Aikman = 0.4316
Steve Young = 1.8627
Terry Bradshaw = 0.3516
Roger Staubach = 1.3849
Brett Favre = 0.6032
Dan Marino = 0.9476
John Elway = 0.3703
Joe Montana = 1.5602

The average is 0.8454 which is top 20th percentile (out of 32 QB's that's top 6-7). So really, instead of talking about HoF QB's you can just go back to argument about needing a QB that plays in that top 20% range often enough that you can expect to win a SB maybe once per decade (which is WAY better than we've had it!).

Oh.. something else. Eli Manning's career regular season z-score is -0.1381 lol. If he gets in due to those 2 playoff performances he will be a true statistical anomaly in the HoF, at least in the SB era. I hope he doesn't make it.

It doesn't matter to you that 5/14 are .43 or lower? Three of them are .39 or lower? That's 5/14 QBs who are .45 away from average?

"resnor wrote:

LOL
Do you even read what you write? You have a sample you made and based only on your sample, you make a conclusion? And the further declare that the conclusion based only on the sample is irrefutable evidence?

I'm saying the Hall of Fame quarterbacks in the sample we're talking about had great individual ability by virtue of the fact that they were inducted into the Hall of Fame. That is a point (they have great individual ability) that is supported by some kind of evidence (the Hall of Fame voters believed they should be inducted).

You on the other hand are making a point that the Hall of Fame isn't a valid indication of quarterbacks' individual ability, and basing that on no kind of evidence. You won't even propose a quarterback from the sample whom you believe doesn't have great individual ability.

"resnor wrote:

It doesn't matter to you that 5/14 are .43 or lower? Three of them are .39 or lower? That's 5/14 QBs who are .45 away from average?

Depends on the context. I guess if we're talking about who I personally would prefer to see in the Hall of Fame then yeah I agree that the bar should be set higher because the lowest there puts you at around top 36% or top 12 in the league and that's not that impressive IMO. And if we ignore SB wins, should one really put Terry Bradshaw or Elway (who won only at the end of his career when he had a great running game) in the same category as guys like Young and Marino? I wouldn't.

I think that if HoF voting was based more on stats adjusted for era, then we'd see a slightly different group. Baseball MVP voting has definitely changed after they introduced WAR (wins above replacement). Mike Trout is one of the best ever but he's on a mediocre team and it's hard to imagine him being MVP or so high in MVP voting each year without a stat like WAR.

However, if the context is whether "HoF QB" is statistically speaking different than "non-HoF QB" then a good number being only in the top 12 or top 10 rather than top 6 or so is of no concern. Any statistical test (that applies) will show these are two different categories of QB's.

"The Guy wrote:

So what’s being said here as I read it, and I think people should take note of this, is that sacks are more strongly related to quarterback play than they are to offensive line play.

There's a caveat to this statement. You're right that that's what those correlations suggest among stats we have!

We don't have a good stat for OL play so while your interpretation is correct given the stats we have available, it's too strong a statement in general because there isn't a good OL stat, and maybe with a good OL stat you'd see that it's the OL that matters more.

"cbrad wrote:

However, if the context is whether "HoF QB" is statistically speaking different than "non-HoF QB" then a good number being only in the top 12 or top 10 rather than top 6 or so is of no concern. Any statistical test (that applies) will show these are two different categories of QB's.

And if you adjusted for whatever (likely minuscule) invalidity there is in HoF induction's being an indication of QBs' individual ability, that difference between the two groups would still remain and be very large.

So putting this degree a microscope on whether HoF induction is a valid indication of QBs' individual ability is really senseless. It's not like we're going to determine that HoF induction is such a highly invalid indication of QBs' individual ability that suddenly HoF QBs become equivalent to non-HoF QBs in individual ability. My lord.

"cbrad wrote:

There's a caveat to this statement. You're right that that's what those correlations suggest among stats we have!

We don't have a good stat for OL play so while your interpretation is correct given the stats we have available, it's too strong a statement in general because there isn't a good OL stat, and maybe with a good OL stat you'd see that it's the OL that matters more.

I personally like the stat ESPN has. It judges which OL gives their QB at least 2.5 seconds before surrendering a pressure or sack. If they block for at least 2.5 seconds its considered a "win".

"cbrad wrote:

There's a caveat to this statement. You're right that that's what those correlations suggest among stats we have!

We don't have a good stat for OL play so while your interpretation is correct given the stats we have available, it's too strong a statement in general because there isn't a good OL stat, and maybe with a good OL stat you'd see that it's the OL that matters more.

I think if we also had a statistic that measured quarterbacks’ awareness and evasion of pressure, that one would be a moderator between the offensive line statistic and sacks. We are also missing that quarterback statistic.

"mooseguts wrote:

I personally like the stat ESPN has. It judges which OL gives their QB at least 2.5 seconds before surrendering a pressure or sack. If they block for at least 2.5 seconds its considered a "win".

Presented without comment. pic.twitter.com/IfQTX7BeW3

— Mike Herndon (@MikeHerndonSk1) October 18, 2019

And 2.5 seconds is not an arbitrary period of time, because it is the average time after the snap when pressure occurs in the NFL.

"mooseguts wrote:

I personally like the stat ESPN has. It judges which OL gives their QB at least 2.5 seconds before surrendering a pressure or sack. If they block for at least 2.5 seconds its considered a "win".

Presented without comment. pic.twitter.com/IfQTX7BeW3

— Mike Herndon (@MikeHerndonSk1) October 18, 2019

Not much we can conclude about the following relationship given the small sample size, but here are the current season passer ratings that correspond to the teams listed above:

1. 94.9
2. 92.8
3. 99.1
4. 73.5
5. 96.7
6. 90.7
7. 102.9
8. 86.6
9. 105.3
10. 99.0

The average passer rating above is 94.2. The league average right now is 91.2, so thus far this season, having a top-10 offensive line in the league in terms of pass block win rate is associated with three more passer rating points on average.

"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.

But if Brady was with the Lions and had the same kind of career minus the SB's he would still be 2nd all time in TD's soon to be 1st, 2nd all time in yards with potential to be 1st, 4th all time in passer rating, 2nd lowest INT% of all time.

Accolades would include 14 time pro bowler (tied most all time), 3 time 1st team all pro (tied 2nd most all time), 2 time 2nd team all pro, 3 time MVP (tied 2nd most all time), 2 time offensive player of the year.

If that doesn't get you in the door for GOAT discussion than I don't know what will.

"The Guy wrote:

Not much we can conclude about the following relationship given the small sample size, but here are the current season passer ratings that correspond to the teams listed above:

1. 94.9
2. 92.8
3. 99.1
4. 73.5
5. 96.7
6. 90.7
7. 102.9
8. 86.6
9. 105.3
10. 99.0

The average passer rating above is 94.2. The league average right now is 91.2, so thus far this season, having a top-10 offensive line in the league in terms of pass block win rate is associated with three more passer rating points on average.

Logically the bottom 22 teams must have a lower passer rating than average.
Just to make some assumptions from this
- assume that the relationship between OL win% and passer rating is linear (not exponential) which is true for most NFL correlations. That way roughly 1/3 of teams will have good OLs, 1/3 average OLs and 1/3 “poor”.
- assume that the relationship is generally true year to year.

Having a “good” pass blocking OL is worth about +1 wins per year
Having a “poor” pass blocking OL is worth about -1 wins per year.

Obviously more number crunching is needed to put proper numbers to the relationship. Maybe the difference is bigger if we can correctly identify “elite” and “horrible” OLs, but that is speculation.

"mooseguts wrote:

But if Brady was with the Lions and had the same kind of career minus the SB's he would still be 2nd all time in TD's soon to be 1st, 2nd all time in yards with potential to be 1st, 4th all time in passer rating, 2nd lowest INT% of all time.

Accolades would include 14 time pro bowler (tied most all time), 3 time 1st team all pro (tied 2nd most all time), 2 time 2nd team all pro, 3 time MVP (tied 2nd most all time), 2 time offensive player of the year.

If that doesn't get you in the door for GOAT discussion than I don't know what will.

Volume stats should get you in the Hall? The only reason Brady has so many is because he's played so much longer than most QBs. Not because he's fine impressive things that others couldn't do.

"mooseguts wrote:

But if Brady was with the Lions and had the same kind of career minus the SB's he would still be 2nd all time in TD's soon to be 1st, 2nd all time in yards with potential to be 1st, 4th all time in passer rating, 2nd lowest INT% of all time.

Accolades would include 14 time pro bowler (tied most all time), 3 time 1st team all pro (tied 2nd most all time), 2 time 2nd team all pro, 3 time MVP (tied 2nd most all time), 2 time offensive player of the year.

If that doesn't get you in the door for GOAT discussion than I don't know what will.

Being in the discussion for GOAT means that you were better than your peers during the time you played. It means doing what others are not and have not done. It means being a level above the players during your time.

Graham
Unitas
Stabauch
Marino
Manning

All changed the game. (Among others). Brady has done nothing better than the other great players during his era. IF/When he gets the all time TD record, he would have needed how many more games and attempts? Pro bowls nowadays are popularity contests and mean little. All-pros are great, but if he had not of been playing for the Pats I seriously doubt he gets those. I mean, Brees has been putting up better numbers...How many All pros does he have? (1) How many league MVP's? (0)

Brady is who he is because of the BB, Ernie Adams, and (proven) cheating. Does anyone believe that Brees or Rodgers or Favre or Marino or Montana or Manning or a number of other QB's could not have been drafted by the Pats in 2000 and not had the same or better career than Brady? Now, if Brady had been drafted by the Colts, Dolphins, Saints, etc etc....How much does his career suffer?

"AGuyNamedAlex wrote:

I think the main issue with this entire line of argument is that while youd like a HOF QB, you dont really know you have that for quite a while.

It stands to reason HOF QB would win a lot of SB. They weren't HOF'ers while they were doing it though. Its something that comes due to success, not necessarily a way to gauge it.

Especially over different eras. Dont shoot me but Bob Griese probably wouldnt cut it today for example.

Griese is another QB in the HoF due to Super Bowls and team accomplishments.

"resnor wrote:

Volume stats should get you in the Hall? The only reason Brady has so many is because he's played so much longer than most QBs. Not because he's fine impressive things that others couldn't do.

You name me one player who is top 3 in stats whether it be rushing stats, receiving stats, passing stats, sacks and isn't in the HOF.

You realize Brady had 456 TDs in 235 games and 137 less pass attempts than it took Marino to get 420 TDs in 240 games.
Brady had 517 TDs in 267 games and 793 less pass attempts than it took Favre to get 508 TDs in 298 games. Jesus man lets not act like he's Vinny Testaverde.

"danmarino wrote:

Being in the discussion for GOAT means that you were better than your peers during the time you played. It means doing what others are not and have not done. It means being a level above the players during your time.

Graham
Unitas
Stabauch
Marino
Manning

All changed the game. (Among others). Brady has done nothing better than the other great players during his era. IF/When he gets the all time TD record, he would have needed how many more games and attempts? Pro bowls nowadays are popularity contests and mean little. All-pros are great, but if he had not of been playing for the Pats I seriously doubt he gets those. I mean, Brees has been putting up better numbers...How many All pros does he have? (1) How many league MVP's? (0)

Brady is who he is because of the BB, Ernie Adams, and (proven) cheating. Does anyone believe that Brees or Rodgers or Favre or Marino or Montana or Manning or a number of other QB's could not have been drafted by the Pats in 2000 and not had the same or better career than Brady? Now, if Brady had been drafted by the Colts, Dolphins, Saints, etc etc....How much does his career suffer?

Your premise was that outside of SB's Brady has the same stats and career so you can't than try to negate his 3 All Pro's and 3 MVP awards since based on your premise he would still have those accomplishments.

I don't see how Manning has changed the game but Brady hasn't they are essentially 1A and 1B as far as best QB's in this era.

I mean I could easily say Dan Marino is who he is because of Don Shula and the freedom he gave him to air it out and the solid offensive cast he had. If Marino was drafted by the Cardinals how much does his career suffer? A lot of his legacy is built on owning the record books but how much of the record books would he own while playing on the Cardinals? Would Drew Brees be putting up those insane numbers if he stayed with the Chargers and didn't hook up with Sean Payton? Probably not. Would Roger Staubach be able to change the game if he went to the dumpster fire that was the Saints in the 70's? Obviously Brady doesn't win 6 SB's without the Pats but the Pats also don't win 6 SB's without Brady.

"Pauly wrote:

Logically the bottom 22 teams must have a lower passer rating than average.
Just to make some assumptions from this
- assume that the relationship between OL win% and passer rating is linear (not exponential) which is true for most NFL correlations. That way roughly 1/3 of teams will have good OLs, 1/3 average OLs and 1/3 “poor”.
- assume that the relationship is generally true year to year.

Having a “good” pass blocking OL is worth about +1 wins per year
Having a “poor” pass blocking OL is worth about -1 wins per year.

Obviously more number crunching is needed to put proper numbers to the relationship. Maybe the difference is bigger if we can correctly identify “elite” and “horrible” OLs, but that is speculation.

What's also noteworthy about that pass blocking statistic is that seven of the top 10 teams in passer rating at the present time do not have offensive lines that are in the top 10 in pass blocking win rate.

Seattle for example is leading the league right now with an astronomical passer rating of 124.7, yet their offensive line is not in the top 10 in that statistic. The Chiefs are second in the league with a current passer rating of 110.9; also not in the top 10 in pass blocking win rate.

How are those teams managing to pass the ball so well, without also having one of the best offensive lines in the league in terms of pass blocking? You think it might have anything to do with the individual ability of their quarterbacks (Wilson and Mahomes)?

"The Guy wrote:

What's also noteworthy about that pass blocking statistic is that seven of the top 10 teams in passer rating at the present time do not have offensive lines that are in the top 10 in pass blocking win rate.

Seattle for example is leading the league right now with an astronomical passer rating of 124.7, yet their offensive line is not in the top 10 in that statistic. The Chiefs are second in the league with a current passer rating of 110.9; also not in the top 10 in pass blocking win rate.

How are those teams managing to pass the ball so well, without also having one of the best offensive lines in the league in terms of pass blocking? You think it might have anything to do with the individual ability of their quarterbacks (Wilson and Mahomes)?

My speculation should be taken with a train load of salt as it’s extrapolating far beyond what is safe with the data we have. However it does seem safe to say that base line QB performance is independent of OL, but that OL can modify QB up or down somewhat.