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

Thoughts on Rosen's Debut

Discussion in 'Miami Dolphins Forum' started by KeyFin, Aug 9, 2019.

  1. The_Dark_Knight

    The_Dark_Knight Defender of the Truth

    8,304
    6,370
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    Melbourne, FL
    I don’t know Key, the one trait you seem dismissive of is at the top of my list, the ability to read defenses. In my opinion, the QB has to be able to look at the defense and know exactly what they’re going to do before they even do it and adjust accordingly if needed.

    That keeps drives alive and increases the opportunity for scores. Pure athleticism and sheer will only goes so far ie; Michael Vick and Tim Tebow.
     
    KeyFin and Irishman like this.
  2. Dol-Fan Dupree

    Dol-Fan Dupree Tank? Who is Tank? I am Guy Incognito. Club Member

    33,778
    23,777
    113
    Dec 11, 2007
    Vick is 1 million times the quarterback than Tebow. Doesn't deserved to be insulted that way
     
    Bumrush and resnor like this.
  3. The_Dark_Knight

    The_Dark_Knight Defender of the Truth

    8,304
    6,370
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    Melbourne, FL
    Point completely missed
     
    Irishman likes this.
  4. Surfs Up 99

    Surfs Up 99 Team Flores

    1,604
    1,519
    113
    May 5, 2016
    LOL!

    I’ll just respond for him...

    No compute...No compute...No compute...abort...abort...abort!

    [blue screen]

    System is unresponsive. Please reboot or call for technical assistance.

    ;-) :-D

    Just joshin ya cbrad. You know I love your posts and analysis.
     
    Last edited: Aug 13, 2019
    Pauly, KeyFin and Irishman like this.
  5. Irishman

    Irishman Well-Known Member

    237
    266
    63
    Oct 16, 2017
    High Point, NC
     
  6. Irishman

    Irishman Well-Known Member

    237
    266
    63
    Oct 16, 2017
    High Point, NC
    I notice in your last paragraph that you pointed out about a certain type of anomalous result " That type of result generally happens only if the QB is injured".

    This being the case, then Manning's time in Denver after he made a LIMITED recovery from his neck injury should not be compared to his pre-injury playing prior to going to Denver.

    If this is a valid consideration then a z-score of 2.4563 is occurring after a drop off in ability should not be compared to a z-score of 2.9263 that occurred 10 years before he was injured.

    The information about Manning's more limited arm strength when he got to Denver was widely reported.

    How can we use statistics to compensate for the reduction in Manning's ability while he was in Denver in order to say how much the coaching was, or was not, accountable for his z-score then as opposed to his z-score from 10 years the previously recorded?
     
  7. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    7,171
    8,073
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    I think we all agree (or should agree) winning is the most important thing. Everything else is just something that increases the chances of winning. To that point, what really matters is just the first point on your list: can the QB consistently keep the drive alive and get to the end zone. I mean.. why care about "handling pressure" or "staying poised" or "being a leader" if the QB leads the team to TD's?

    The 2nd and 3rd points on your list really shouldn't matter in that context, or if they do they shouldn't be anywhere close to the level of importance of the 1st point because results (i.e., winning or something highly correlated with it) are what matter.

    And if results are what matter, then obviously stats like passer rating matter. I mean.. how can you have a QB that consistently keeps drives alive and gets to the end zone that doesn't have a high passer rating? Or vice versa? Getting to the end zone means higher TD%, keeping drives alive means lower INT% and more passing yards, and doing so on 3rd down means higher Y/A, etc.. So saying one cares about keeping drives alive and scoring is basically saying you care about passer rating.

    I'll also note that the stats kept showing Tannehill was no better than average, which I think is now the "consensus" within the NFL. So w.r.t. Tannehill the stats turned out to be a good barometer of his ability.

    Finally, and most importantly for this discussion, neither Fitz nor Rosen check that all important 1st box. Fitz has a long enough history showing he can't consistently keep drives alive and score because of.. (wait for it).. INT's!! Fitz was worst in the league among starting QB's last year in INT% by a long shot (4.9% vs. 2nd worst Josh Allen who btw is a rookie at 3.8%). And Rosen? Definitely bad at keeping drives alive and scoring TD's based on the best evidence we have so far about his ability: his rookie season last year.
     
    danmarino and KeyFin like this.
  8. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    7,171
    8,073
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    The only way to use statistics to compensate for any reduction in QB ability under similar circumstances to what Manning experienced is to see what the average change in ability is for QB's that experienced the same (or similar) thing.

    Since we don't have that kind of data all we can conclude is that the limited (from a medical perspective) recovery didn't lead to a statistically significant change in footballing ability. The reason for that could be either the QB (either QB's in general or just elite ones like Manning might be able to compensate for the deficiencies) or a change in environment (teams/coaches). Can't tell.

    That's the important point though: can't tell, meaning that this one additional piece of information is inconclusive.
     
    Irishman likes this.
  9. Dol-Fan Dupree

    Dol-Fan Dupree Tank? Who is Tank? I am Guy Incognito. Club Member

    33,778
    23,777
    113
    Dec 11, 2007
    I got your point. My point stands
     
  10. KeyFin

    KeyFin Well-Known Member

    6,001
    7,723
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    I agree with all of your points, and I only added my #2 and #3 because we can't seem to get a line down pat (which leads to frustrated players, which leads to the need for leadership). But yeah, the sustaining drives is all that really matters...it's what makes the stats and the wins.

    As far as Rosen and Fitz, I guess I should have phrased that differently. So far this year, in pre-season 1 and practices, they've kept drives alive and found ways to score. That obviously has no bearing on what they'll do in the regular season or even tomorrow- but we know they're both gamers who are going to take shots to move the chains. We just need to see them do it consistently enough so that TD's are much more common than pick-6's.

    As long as that happens, then I really don't care about sacks or INT's as much as the average fan would. Like you said, the only stat that should matter is that W.
     
    Surfs Up 99 and cbrad like this.
  11. KeyFin

    KeyFin Well-Known Member

    6,001
    7,723
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    It's not that I'm dismissive of it, but not all starting QB's can process the field like Manning or Romo and still make the play. For instance, I think Tannehill did have that elite processing ability, but he was so busy reading the field and playing it safe that he'd sometimes forget to be a football player....which made reading the defenses a liability. That's why Gase dumbed everything down so he had a few quick reads and a fast release.

    You mentioned Vick- that's a guy who didn't read defenses at a high level but had enough talent to make things work out anyway. If he saw a lane, he ran. If he saw someone open, he threw it. If he was pressured, he was off to the races. And it worked very well for him for a number of seasons. That's not to say you don't want a QB that's elite at reading the field...I just don't think it's a deal breaker if an athlete has other traits that let's him move the chains.

    To me, the problem is that a lot of folks go down a checklist-
    • Can he read the D at a high level?
    • Does he have a quick release?
    • Does he have elite footwork?
    • Is he tall enough?
    • Heavy enough?
    • Smart enough?
    • Does he have elite accuracy?
    • Can he throw every pass?
    • Is he a good person?
    • Did his 10th grade science teacher like him?

    The list goes on and on and on to the point where traits become more important than the QB's actual body of work. You mentioned Tebow- a team can definitely win with Tebow...Denver already did. Yet his throwing motion trumped all the records he set at Florida and his brief success in the NFL. Did it really matter? Maybe...or maybe not. All I know is that Tebow has a playoff win and over half the starting NFL QB's don't.

    Preston Williams is another great example- some scouts said he was 1st round talent, but he had a misdemeanor domestic incident years ago that knocked him out of the combine and ultimately being drafted. After the pre-season game last week, do you think he's good enough to be considered one of the top 224+ prospects of 2019? Something that didn't ultimately matter cost 31 other teams an AMAZING receiver.

    So while I agree with you that the ability to read defenses is very important, I don't think it defines what a QB will develop into. A QB that's average in reading the D can still become elite, while someone like RT can be great at it and still end up a backup.
     
    Last edited: Aug 12, 2019
    resnor likes this.
  12. KeyFin

    KeyFin Well-Known Member

    6,001
    7,723
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    Out of curiosity, who's the worst QB (stat-wise) with the highest win percentage? I think that would be a fun little piece of meaningless trivia knowledge...and likely a surprising answer.
     
    resnor and Dolphin Don like this.
  13. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    7,171
    8,073
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    It's a problematic question because you're not controlling for sample size. It makes little sense to compare win% over a 10+ year career vs. win% for a rookie, and you'd expect a rookie to be the answer to your question because smaller sample size means larger variation.

    Anyway, first a disclaimer about the data plotted below. I haven't been able to scrape the complete database for ALL QB's on pro-football-reference (still trying to completely automate that, but there are issues like the program sometimes not going to the right page etc...) and so for only 165 QB's is the database totally complete (it includes all the big names though so for most questions it suffices). So this is only a partial answer but it should suffice to show you the problem with your question.

    [​IMG]

    All those guys with really low z-scores played only a year or at most 2 so far (or ever). The worst QB in my database by both career z-score rating and by win% is DeShone Kizer, but again he's only started one year and we don't know how he'll do in the future. And guess who the 2nd worst QB is.. lol.. Josh Rosen.

    Anyway, to answer your question the "QB with the highest win% among statistically bad QB's" is Josh Allen with a career z-score of -2.0853 and a win% of 45.45%. But again he's played only one year.
     
  14. Irishman

    Irishman Well-Known Member

    237
    266
    63
    Oct 16, 2017
    High Point, NC
    I agree. Thanks for the response. As little as I know of the real application and detail of statistics the less I know about "fuzzy Logic". Having said that I'll again risk displaying my ignorance in asking if there is any value to trying to apply it to Manning's situation i.e. comparing his pre-injury performance with his post- injury performance in order to develop some kind of ratio that would let us fairly try to equate those performances, making the assumption his pre-injury performance would be better than his post-injury performance.

    Possibly we could limit it to something unique and measurable such as his throwing ability for distance, accuracy and velocity. This would leave any differences to other factors such as defensive coaching effectiveness and offensive coaching effectiveness. I expect that coaching effectiveness measurments have already been established by analytics departments.
     
  15. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    7,171
    8,073
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    As useful as statistics is one shouldn't just apply statistics without looking at the data to see what kinds of hypotheses make sense to test.

    I agree that asking the question of whether there are statistically significant differences pre- vs. post-2011 injury is a good question. The t-test applied to z-scores (this time we're including all 4 years post-injury for Manning) says there's a 45.2% probability the two datasets come from the same QB. However, I wouldn't be surprised if the result was different for the throwing ability stats you mention.

    But beyond that, I wouldn't just go trying to find some kind of stat that might capture the difference pre- vs. post-2011 because when you look at the data what stands out is that 2012-2014 was good while 2015 was atrocious. As pointed out before we know 2015 is the only anomalous year in Peyton's career. So at this point the question needs to change: what happened in 2015?
     
    Surfs Up 99 and Irishman like this.
  16. KeyFin

    KeyFin Well-Known Member

    6,001
    7,723
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    Well, I said I expected a surprising answer....and there we go! Thanks for doing that!

    I think you'd almost have to work the equation backwards (if possible)- to look at the top 100-200 winning percentages and then name the one with the lowest QBR. Would anyone jump out or would QBR directly correlate with that win percentage? I mean, it should correlate....but I'm curious how often it doesn't.

    I see the problem though- you get a bunch of 1-year names and backups who don't have enough stats to really make the numbers significant. Like a Matt Moore who comes off the bench and wins 3 in a row sort of thing, only to sit for another 12 months before winning 1 out of 2. We really don't want those guys unless it was consistent across multiple seasons.
     
  17. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    7,171
    8,073
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    The correlation between career z-scores and QB win% is a whopping 0.69. You can kind of see that strong linear relationship in the graph.

    You're asking whether there are any outliers. Outside of the aforementioned QB's who haven't played many games, you can see that the vertical spread of win% is very similar for any given z-score with almost no points far away from the crowd (along the vertical axis). So there are very few outliers and the relationship between z-score ratings and win% holds regardless of QB ability.
     
    Surfs Up 99 and KeyFin like this.
  18. Surfs Up 99

    Surfs Up 99 Team Flores

    1,604
    1,519
    113
    May 5, 2016
    Interesting discussion as always, ya’ll. So let's say we are picking 9th next year and Seattle offers us Russell Wilson for all of our picks. Do we do it?
     
  19. Irishman

    Irishman Well-Known Member

    237
    266
    63
    Oct 16, 2017
    High Point, NC
    I wouldn't.
     
    Surfs Up 99 likes this.
  20. Surfs Up 99

    Surfs Up 99 Team Flores

    1,604
    1,519
    113
    May 5, 2016
    Imagine the team we have this year, plus a reasonable allowance for a FA player or two and you still wouldn’t do it? I would be willing to wait until the year after next to add some young talent if we could get most of our offense whipped into shape with one bold move. Especially considering the odds on if a draft pick will pan out or not.
     
    Last edited: Aug 13, 2019
    Irishman and KeyFin like this.
  21. KeyFin

    KeyFin Well-Known Member

    6,001
    7,723
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    I don't think so, simply because we have so many picks next year (one 1st, then at least 2 in every other round). There's no way Seattle lets Wilson walk though unless he demands to be traded. We have too many needs in the trenches to pay that much.
     
    Surfs Up 99 likes this.
  22. Surfs Up 99

    Surfs Up 99 Team Flores

    1,604
    1,519
    113
    May 5, 2016
    Let’s say there is only one so-called franchise QB in the draft next year. Using my example, we are drafting 9th. The team picking 1st is willing to trade the pick for the right price. What would we have to give up to move up? Because it’s a QB, I think the asking price would be high. Not saying the guy won’t be legit or eventually better than a QB like Wilson, but at least Wilson has proven he’s a pretty decent NFL QB. The same cannot be said about a rookie. Knowing what we are getting is worth the picks to me. We can add OL talent the following year. :-)
     
  23. Irishman

    Irishman Well-Known Member

    237
    266
    63
    Oct 16, 2017
    High Point, NC
    For what you are suggesting to make sense to me; we would have to have a lot of improvement in a lot of positions in order to be justified in giving up year 2020 of our draft.

    I really don't see that happening. It could and that would make me very happy, but I think we would still need to take on and have success with a lot of UDFA's and some FA's. This assume we could afford the FA's we would need to assure we remain competitive.
     
    Surfs Up 99 likes this.
  24. Surfs Up 99

    Surfs Up 99 Team Flores

    1,604
    1,519
    113
    May 5, 2016
    I know it's crazy, but I don't think our FO puts enough emphasis on getting a legitimate QB. They seem to settle for someone whereas I think they should be very aggressive until they get a legitimate guy. Cbrad has proven statistically that it is critical that teams have a franchise QB if they want to make some noise. If in the NBA teams can buy themselves a championship, why can't we? Seriously though, I know it is pure fantasy, and it will never happen for a lot of reasons. I was throwing it out there. Hopefully, our luck will change, and we somehow manage to find someone legit. Otherwise, we will probably get much of what we have gotten these last 20 years. :-)
     
  25. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    13,220
    7,281
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    It's much easier to buy a championship, or contend, in the NBA. Individual effort is much more influential in basketball than in football.
     
    texanphinatic likes this.
  26. Surfs Up 99

    Surfs Up 99 Team Flores

    1,604
    1,519
    113
    May 5, 2016
    True. Even if we wanted to buy a franchise QB it doesn’t mean we could. There has to be a willing trade partner,etc.
     
  27. Sceeto

    Sceeto Well-Known Member

    12,451
    5,002
    113
    Oct 13, 2008
    New York
    ......and Golf.
     
    resnor likes this.
  28. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    13,220
    7,281
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Or tennis.
     
    Sceeto likes this.
  29. IdrA

    IdrA Rebuilding for Eternity.

    3,345
    1,171
    113
    Oct 15, 2011
    Upstate, SC
    His best plays were handing it off too Drake and a rush for a first down from what I can remember. He had I think two bad throws and/or miscommunications. But he had such little playing time it would be unfair look much into it as far as evaluation terms.

    But if they intend him to start, he certainly needs more reps with the first team. Myself personally would like to see competition with Rosen. I think he also earned a shot to run with the first team, it will be interesting to see how they move forward, it will also be telling if it's a competition or if Fitz is the presumed starter. If he is, I would presume he would get at least a full two quarter reps with the first team. Like I said, it would be dishonest to attempt to evaluate him based on his handful of snaps in game 1.
     
  30. KeyFin

    KeyFin Well-Known Member

    6,001
    7,723
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    Here's all of Rosen's throws for week 2. I did not see this game so I can't provide a lot of context....but here's what I see.

    https://www.miamidolphins.com/video/every-josh-rosen-throw-preseason-week-2-buccaneers-dolphins

    - His first 7 throws were accurate, on time and the smart read. Almost half were dropped or came back on penalties (that had nothing to do with Rosen). Not a lot of success but good start by Rosen.

    - His 8th toss could have been a TD....it was a little short and the receiver went to the ground to try and grab it. Strike 1 on Rosen.

    - 9th toss was a little behind Gisecki. It looked catchable and he was WIDE open, so a strike for both players here.

    - 10th toss a 15ish bullet into double coverage on a comeback route (so a generally safe throw). Meh. Looked like Stills was more open over the top. Good placement though.

    - 11th was a nice toss to Stills on a crossing route about 5-6 yards deep. 12th made his receiver go up and get it on the sidelines...good throw but it was forced. 14th was an intermediate toss dropped but the defender may have had a hand in there too.

    - 15th throw is impressive. Rosen is under heavy pressure, runs a country mile and finds a TE wide open about 20 yards downfield. The receiver had to go to his kness to catch it....a little too low...but Rosen did a lot of dancing and evading just to get in position to throw. Good play!

    -16th is a semi-deep timing pattern that his receiver never even looked for....it was a dropped INT. I want to blame the receiver more than Rosen here but it was clearly on both of them.

    -It's almost halftime so we're in 2 minute mode. 17th is an intermediate toss that's caught...18th is another 10 yard shot. 19th is a bomb Williams tips to himself for the TD, but he stepped out of bounds before securing the catch. Three clutch throws to end Rosen's day.

    I noticed in the chat a lot of folks here said Rosen took a step back tonight, but I saw a guy playing safer in the pocket (there was a semblance of a pocket tonight) and generally throwing on target. I think I counted 8 drops (three because of Rosen's placement)....two of them would have been TD passes....so the stat lines are a little misleading here. I personally think this was Rosen's better game of the two so far because he only threw 3 bad passes out of 19...and only one of those could have been picked (that's the one where the receiver didn't even look though).

    I don't know that I'd call it a good game for Rosen...it was more like an RT performance where he did little wrong yet didn't find a way to win either. The kid did look confident though and if it wasn't for some good throws dropped, we would have won this game comfortably.
     
    Last edited: Aug 17, 2019
    Irishman, Bumrush, Pauly and 2 others like this.
  31. Hooligan

    Hooligan Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    83
    87
    18
    Dec 31, 2018
    Maybe Flores gives Rosen more first team reps during the week to try and develop some chemistry with the receivers. It will be interesting to see who starts in game three.
     
    Irishman and KeyFin like this.
  32. jdallen1222

    jdallen1222 He can smell your fear

    2,414
    1,126
    113
    May 31, 2013
    Plantation, Fl
    After the game Flores specifically stated he started Rosen because he needed to seem him against Tampa’s first unit and also mentioned wanting to see him behind Kilgore. I’d assume Rosen is going to start game 3 as well.
     
    Irishman and KeyFin like this.

Share This Page