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

Ryan Tannehill

Discussion in 'Other NFL' started by bbqpitlover, Oct 16, 2019.

Ryan Tannehill is...

  1. A terrible QB

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. A below average QB

    4 vote(s)
    6.1%
  3. An average QB

    7 vote(s)
    10.6%
  4. An above average QB

    35 vote(s)
    53.0%
  5. An elite QB

    16 vote(s)
    24.2%
  6. The GOAT.

    4 vote(s)
    6.1%
  1. danmarino

    danmarino Winning isn't everything, but wanting to win is. Club Member

    10,534
    11,603
    113
    Sep 4, 2014
    IMO, one thing that stands out to me when comparing passer ratings is that "average" yearly passer ratings include not only the best, but the worst. Well, if a QB is supposed to be one of, if not, the best should we see what the average passer rating is for the top 10?

    For example...in 2001 the average passer rating was 78.5. However, out of the top 10 QB's that year, the average was 90. Was Brady's 85 that year really that good?

    Just like this year. The average passer rating may be 91, but what do the top 10 QB's average? They average 106. Brady's 94 is not good in comparison...especially if we are to consider him "elite". In 2018, Brady had a 97...the top 10 QB's averaged 106. Again, not good in comparison.

    Now, maybe @cbrad can point out why looking at it this way is no good, but I think it's a good way to look at who is really the top QB's in the league in any particular year.
     
    resnor likes this.
  2. The Guy

    The Guy Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    4,893
    1,876
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    There has been only one significant period of time since 2001 in which Brady hasn't played -- in 2008, when Matt Cassel started 15 games after Brady's injury in game one that year.

    Matt Cassel played better two years later for the Chiefs than he did for the Patriots that year, so I'm not sure how one can argue that Cassel's performance with the Patriots is evidence that Brady's success is due to the team and not to Brady, or that the team's success has had little to do with Brady.
     
  3. KeyFin

    KeyFin Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    7,729
    9,976
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    It's also common knowledge that Brady used deflated footballs, knew defensive schemes before the snap and had a coach that could exploit those schemes. Combine that with a staff member that studied opponents playbooks and signals 24/7 to shut down their offenses, plus great recruiting and conditioning, and one with common sense could argue that Brady hasn't contributed anything but a quick release.

    Again, as Dan said and you completely ignored....Brady's backups have put up equal (or better) numbers when he wasn't on the field- they're 9-1 in their last 10 starts WITHOUT Brady.
     
    resnor and danmarino like this.
  4. Bumrush

    Bumrush Stable Genius Club Member

    24,437
    23,912
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    And Teddy Bridgewater is 5-0 without Brees.

    Good teams win.
    Good teams with Hall of Fame all time greats win championships. Brady is one of the best and any attempt to diminish his accomplishments and HOF career, which historians will likely judge as the best QB in NFL history is just sour grapes IMO.
     
    DolphinGreg and Pauly like this.
  5. The Guy

    The Guy Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    4,893
    1,876
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Are you surprised the Patriots haven't gone out and tried to get a better QB, since they would know better than we just how much better they could do with a truly elite one, amidst all those other favorable circumstances within their organization? Why stand pat with Brady for 18 years and win just six Super Bowls, when they could've won so many more?
     
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2019
  6. danmarino

    danmarino Winning isn't everything, but wanting to win is. Club Member

    10,534
    11,603
    113
    Sep 4, 2014
    That's the point you're missing.

    Even though Brady, over his career, as been better than average, they don't need better than average.

    Take a look at the Pats wins/losses even when Brady has horrible games.
     
  7. Tin Indian

    Tin Indian Rockin' The Bottom End Club Member

    7,445
    3,437
    113
    Feb 10, 2010
    Palm Bay Florida
    While I'm not going to try to take anything away from Brady in particular I will point out that EVERY Qb of the last 15 years or so have benefited greatly to the more protective rules guarding QB's and Receivers. Before those rules changes you could bury a Qb and light up a receiver going across the middle. Much like in the late 70's when they changed the pass interference rules. In both cases the numbers jumped dramatically from the previous norm. So when it comes to QB play you are really talking about 3 distinct era's. How would Marino have done with these rules? Heck how would a guy like Fran Tarkenton done with these rules?
     
    Hiruma78 and danmarino like this.
  8. The_Dark_Knight

    The_Dark_Knight Defender of the Truth

    9,610
    8,101
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    Rockledge, FL
    Ummmmm, I'm not the smartest person in the world but...

    2008 New England Patriots under Matt Cassel; 11-5
    2010 Kansas City Chiefs under Matt Cassel; 10-6
     
    resnor likes this.
  9. The Guy

    The Guy Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    4,893
    1,876
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    What does that mean to you?
     
  10. The Guy

    The Guy Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    4,893
    1,876
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    The Patriots have the second-best opponents' passer rating surrendered in the league during Brady's career. No team with that kind of pass defense needs any better than an average quarterback to be successful.

    However, the best team in the league in opponents' passer rating surrendered during Brady's career is the Ravens. Let's compare their performance with that of the Patriots during that period.

    The Ravens' offensive passer rating during that period is 80.4 Their win percentage during that period is 57%, which translates to an average regular season record of 9-7.

    The Patriots' offensive passer rating during that period is 96.6. Their win percentage during that period is 77%, which translates to an average regular season record of 12-4.

    So obviously the effect of Tom Brady on the Patriots' success is quite large. When you compare the Patriots to a similar team in terms of pass defense throughout Brady's career, the Patriots stand head and shoulders above that team when Brady's performance is considered.
     
  11. KeyFin

    KeyFin Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    7,729
    9,976
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    Not trying to diminish anything- Brady is a solid, dependable quarterback that's asked to do little on a very dominant team. If that makes him the GOAT in your book then so be it.

    To me, he's 100% replaceable in New England...that's why Brady went out of his way to get Jimmy G. traded.
     
  12. The Guy

    The Guy Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    4,893
    1,876
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    For that to be true, given that Brady has the sixth-highest passer rating of all time and his team has won six of the past 18 Super Bowls, you would expect there to be a whole host of present or future Hall of Fame offensive players that have been responsible for that kind of success.

    Who exactly are those players? If it isn’t Brady, it has to be a relatively large number of other players. Who are they?

    We’ve already shot down the wide receivers, so now you’re down to running backs, offensive linemen, and tight ends.
     
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2019
    Bumrush likes this.
  13. Tin Indian

    Tin Indian Rockin' The Bottom End Club Member

    7,445
    3,437
    113
    Feb 10, 2010
    Palm Bay Florida
    While I do believe there is something to the notion that a good bit of Brady's success is from the Patriots system, I think its a little ridiculous and disingenuous to suggest Brady isn't a great QB. He clearly is and he is matched with a great defense year in and year out. When you have all three of those things going for your team you are going to be dominant. And that is just what the Patriots have been.
     
    Pauly and The Guy like this.
  14. The Guy

    The Guy Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    4,893
    1,876
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Sometimes people mistakenly characterize something as an either-or, when it should be a both.

    You don’t have to choose whether it’s Brady or the other aspects of the Patriots’ organization. It can be all of the above.
     
    Tin Indian likes this.
  15. Bumrush

    Bumrush Stable Genius Club Member

    24,437
    23,912
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    Whatever makes you sleep well at night.

    Guess the Dolphins should have kept Scott Mitchell when he ripped off 5 consecutive wins. Maybe the Saints should cut Drew Brees as Bridgewater is 5-0. I'm also glad the 2008 Patriots, a team that didn't even make the playoffs and lost the division to the previous 1-15 Dolphins is your case for Brady being a system guy.
     
  16. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh Club Member

    72,252
    43,682
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    ....and cheating.
     
  17. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    8,541
    10,057
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    When you look only at the top 10 you're looking at a highly skewed distribution, and it's important to summarize skewed distributions with more than a single number. Maybe the simplest approach is to state both the mean and the skewness of a distribution when you can see how skewed it is. For 2001 the average of the top 10 is 89.9 but with a skewness of 0.522. That skewness of 0.522 should alert everyone that we shouldn't be looking only at "average" because to use "average" you want skewness to be close to zero.

    And even without explicitly calculating skewness it's easy to see how skewed the top 10 is. For example, in 2001:
    https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2001/passing.htm

    Note how QB's 8-10 all have the same 84.1 rating and that QB's 5-10 differ by at most 2.4 passer rating points. Compare that to the 5.9 passer rating point difference between just QB #1 and QB #2. The average for the top 10 is 89.9 and the difference between #10 and the "top 10 average" is 5.8 points while the difference between #1 and the "top 10 average" is 11.5. This will in general be true.

    So stating only the "average" for top 10 is highly misleading.
     
    The Guy and Pauly like this.
  18. The Guy

    The Guy Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    4,893
    1,876
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    It sounds like what you’re suggesting is that there is a jump in passer rating among the top 10 in the league that distinguishes them from the average-level quarterbacks. Even if that were true, I’m not sure how relevant it would be when Brady has the sixth-highest career passer rating in history.
     
  19. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    14,331
    8,262
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    it was all so logical...then you jumped to “So obviously the effect of Tom Brady on the Patriots’ success is quite large.”...which again completely ignores the entire rest of the offense. You know, the guys without who Brady could not complete even one pass.
     
  20. The_Dark_Knight

    The_Dark_Knight Defender of the Truth

    9,610
    8,101
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    Rockledge, FL
    It tells me you don’t know what you’re talking about. YOUR WORDS...

    “Matt Cassel played better two years for the Chiefs than he did that year for the Patriots”
     
  21. The Guy

    The Guy Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    4,893
    1,876
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    And you’re basing how well Matt Cassel played on his team’s record?
     
  22. The Guy

    The Guy Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    4,893
    1,876
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Here we are again debating whether career passer rating is a valid indication of a quarterback‘s performance.

    Let’s just imagine for a moment that Brady’s sixth-highest career passer rating in history is more attributable to his surroundings on offense than to him.

    When Brady is inducted to the Hall of Fame on his first ballot, tell me which of the Patriots’ offensive players should be inducted instead, you know, the guys Brady should be apologizing to in his Hall of Fame induction speech because they are so more deserving than he.

    Or does an offense generate the sixth-highest career passer rating in history, win at least six of 18 consecutive Super Bowls, and nobody from that offense is Hall of Fame-worthy?

    Break it down for us. Who exactly is going to end up in Canton because of all this. Or is it nobody, and they did it with smoke and mirrors.
     
  23. The_Dark_Knight

    The_Dark_Knight Defender of the Truth

    9,610
    8,101
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    Rockledge, FL
    Oh I see, it doesn't matter whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game. Then by your "logic", Tannehill was indeed the best quarterback the Dolphins had since Marino by every STATISTICAL measure...since numbers and statistics are now your measuring stick and not wins or loses.
     
  24. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    14,331
    8,262
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    you love to create false dichotomies. Further, I’ve said numerous times that Brady is a HoF QB. Not sure why you have such an issue with only crediting the QB for wins.
     
  25. The Guy

    The Guy Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    4,893
    1,876
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    I would encourage either person above to explore the forum for a post in which I’ve used wins and losses to measure the quality of a quarterback.
     
  26. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    14,331
    8,262
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    You constantly talk about QBs winning games. You constantly credit QBs for teams dominance. If you don’t believe wins and losses are a measure of the quality of QB, then you should probably take a look at how you’re writing. Pretty every disagreement between us starts when you start attributing wins to the QB.
     
  27. The Guy

    The Guy Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    4,893
    1,876
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Then it should take a minimum of time and effort to find a post in which I’ve measured the quality of a quarterback with wins and losses.
     
  28. The_Dark_Knight

    The_Dark_Knight Defender of the Truth

    9,610
    8,101
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    Rockledge, FL
    Challenge accepted...

    Shall I continue digging? Apparently you place a great deal of value on quarterbacks winning.
     
    The Guy likes this.
  29. The Guy

    The Guy Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    4,893
    1,876
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    I won’t fault you for failing to make a subtle distinction, because it is indeed subtle.

    There is a difference between saying winning is strongly associated with high-level quarterback play, and using winning as the criterion for determining high-level quarterback play.

    Here’s an analogy: performance on the SAT is strongly associated with intelligence, but we don’t use the SAT to measure intelligence. We use IQ tests for that.

    Likewise, quarterback play is strongly associated with winning and losing, but I have always used passer rating and other more individualized measures, and not winning and losing, to measure quarterback play.

    The reason I have not used winning and losing to measure quarterback play is because there has been a good number of instances in recent history in which a team received stellar play from its quarterback, but the team overall was strongly undermined in terms of winning and losing by its very weak pass defense.

    Obviously you can’t fault the quarterback for that, and so it makes no sense to measure quarterback play with winning and losing.
     
    Last edited: Oct 23, 2019
  30. danmarino

    danmarino Winning isn't everything, but wanting to win is. Club Member

    10,534
    11,603
    113
    Sep 4, 2014

    I get that, but when you allow the worst QB's in the league to prop up the "best", isn't that also skewing how great the best are?

    I get that the more variations you add the better an average can be, but comparing Chris Weinke, who played 20 games, and Alex Van Pelt, who played in 11, their entire careers, to Tom Brady is going to make Brady look otherworldly! lol

    I mean, Brady's 86 passer rating in 2001 wasn't "bad", but when you take out the abnormally low trash, it's not very good either.

    Also, and as @The Guy keeps harping on, this "adjusted" passer rating is including the trash.


    I'm not saying that Brady isn't HoF caliber. He is. He's just not the GOAT, nor should be be mentioned alongside them, IMO. (Especially if you consider his circumstances and cheating)
     
    resnor likes this.
  31. The Guy

    The Guy Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    4,893
    1,876
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    The adjusted passer rating I’ve mentioned adjusts only for the era in which quarterbacks played, because there has been inflation in passer ratings in the league over the years.

    In other words, the average passer rating in the league in 2018 was much higher than the average passer rating in the league in 1988.

    The adjustment for era makes it possible to fairly compare Russell Wilson in 2018 to Dan Marino in 1984, for example.
     
  32. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    14,331
    8,262
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    i still don’t agree that it’sa very good way of comparing. I agree, it’s better than doing nothing. But the rules changes have fundamentally changed how the game is played. So I don’t think it’s as easy as adjusting passer rating to compare eras. I think it’s a good place to start.
     
    danmarino likes this.
  33. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    8,541
    10,057
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Oh I see.. this is a different issue. When I post z-score ratings for QB’s those z-scores aren’t based on distributions of stats for individual QB’s, they’re based on distributions of team passer ratings, precisely because of the sample size issues you just brought up. In other words I’m posting how good/bad that individual QB’s stats were relative to what you expect from teams because team ratings at least remove the sample size bias (in terms of games). Not sure there’s a better way to do it since we don’t have equated sample sizes for passing attempts for all QB’s.

    However, the issue with skewness is separate from that: you can’t just use the mean as a summary measure for any distribution. So you don’t want to state the mean for the “top 10 QB’s” and compare Brady’s ratings to those. You wouldn’t even do that for team ratings even if the skewness might be less pronounced because you’re looking only at the tail end of a distribution.

    z-score ratings should naturally take care of this problem. You generally see that the top few QB’s have very high z-scores while those near #10 are much closer to average. And the same is true for adjusted ratings where you just adjust for the mean (change in league average passer rating by era where you treat ALL passing stats from all QB’s as passing stats from a single QB) without adjusting for standard deviation. The only issue with adjusted ratings is that they no longer make sense when the standard deviation changes, which in practice means you can’t adjust pre-1978 ratings to post-1978. z-scores however work in all cases.. though sample size issues do come into play with pre-1970 merger vs. post-merger (I stick with post merger to be safe).

    So in summary, just use z-score ratings where you compare an individual QB to the distribution of team ratings, or if it’s post-1978 you can just adjust the actual QB rating to a target year by dividing the original rating by the league average rating that year and then multiplying it by the target year’s league average rating.
     
    Pauly and danmarino like this.
  34. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    14,331
    8,262
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Yet passer rating is capturing stats for other players and attributing them to QBs (catches, YAC, TDs that are caught before the endzone and taken in by the receiver, etc). So I still hold that current rating is not an accurate representation of actual QB ability/performance.
     
  35. The Guy

    The Guy Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    4,893
    1,876
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    As we've discussed, as the sample size gets larger, the portion of passer rating attributable to other players becomes more and more equivalent across QBs, thus increasing the validity of passer rating as a measure of QBs' individual performance.

    Also, as applied to the discussion about Tom Brady here, we're talking about the sixth-highest era-adjusted passer rating in NFL history, accompanied by six of the past 18 Super Bowl wins, and so with that degree a sample size and success, certainly if you're going to propose that passer rating is an invalid measure of Tom Brady's performance, then you should be able to determine which other players are responsible for the passer rating associated with Brady throughout his career, as well as the Patriots' offensive success during that time period.

    We have yet to see anybody do that here, yet we have plenty of Brady detractors. That's an internally inconsistent position.
     
    Last edited: Oct 23, 2019
    Pauly and cbrad like this.
  36. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    8,541
    10,057
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Yeah.. this is a good point. To argue Brady’s adjusted rating isn’t a good indicator of Brady’s individual ability after huge sample size because of his surrounding cast means that one should at minimum identify that “great” surrounding cast. Brady played with great defenses but his defense-adjusted rating is still very high, so who on the offensive side of the ball was so great? Often, he played with guys people didn’t think were that great.

    The ONE confound is Belichick. We simple don’t have any data on how well Brady plays without Belichick. However, it is very telling that Belichick is willing to trade or get rid of any and all players (even top notch guys) EXCEPT Brady. It does show how crucial Belichick thinks Brady is to the team’s success.

    Anyway.. since no one here seems to be disputing Brady’s HoF status and this is more an argument about GOAT status, there might not be too big a difference in opinion in the end. Based on stats alone Young is the GOAT if you go by efficiency while Peyton and Brees are the GOAT (essentially tied right now) if you go by wins added over average replacement. Brady’s in top 10 by efficiency and top 5 by wins added. IMO that’s about right.
     
    The Guy and resnor like this.
  37. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    14,331
    8,262
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    I’m not convinced that BB wasn’t trying to trade Brady before the Garap trade. I think there was way more going on than the Patriots org was gonna let get out.
     
  38. The Guy

    The Guy Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    4,893
    1,876
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    I could be wrong, but I’ve gotten the impression during this thread that multiple people have indicated that the Patriots could’ve been just as successful during the past 18 years with any average quarterback. Is there anyone who believes that?
     
  39. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh Club Member

    72,252
    43,682
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    I could be wrong, but I’m 100% certain that during this thread (and many, many, many others) that most people have indicated that the Patriots could’ve been just as successful during the past 18 years without cheating. Is there anyone else who doesn't believe that?
     
    RGF and resnor like this.
  40. RGF

    RGF THE FINSTER Club Member

    5,340
    2,360
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    NY
    Personally , not only do I NOT believe that, I DO believe its impossible. But, we've been down this road before so I expect the same people to insist I'm wrong.
     
    KeyFin and resnor like this.

Share This Page