Thoughts on Rosen's Debut

I'm beginning to believe that it's not what your QB is capable of, but how well the coaching staff uses what a QB is capable of. I do not agree with the "QB carrying a team on his back" thinking. It blinds you to reality for two reasons:

1) We never really know what a QB is capable of, although many posters believe they do.

2) All that counts is winning and that is based on how well the team performs, not just the QB. For better or for worse, this is really where the coaching staff has the most effect.

This is what I like most about football; it really is the ultimate team sport.

If you are more interested in individual effort, watch baseball where every player has their moment in the sun. It occurs when a player is at bat. Defensive skill is also on display one player at a time, but only after a hit or a pickoff play by the pitcher or the catcher.

"Irishman wrote:

I'm beginning to believe that it's not what your QB is capable of, but how well the coaching staff uses what a QB is capable of. I do not agree with the "QB carrying a team on his back" thinking. It blinds you to reality for two reasons:

1) We never really know what a QB is capable of, although many posters believe they do.

2) All that counts is winning and that is based on how well the team performs, not just the QB. For better or for worse, this is really where the coaching staff has the most effect.

This is what I like most about football; it really is the ultimate team sport.

If you are more interested in individual effort, watch baseball where every player has their moment in the sun. It occurs when a player is at bat. Defensive skill is also on display one player at a time, but only after a hit or a pickoff play by the pitcher or the catcher.

That just doesn't fit the data. In general, the more elite the QB (the more we'd say the "QB is carrying the offense") the more it's the QB and not the coaching staff.

Take Peyton Manning for example. Look at the performance of his teams' offense in terms of points scored both before and after his tenure:
https://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/clt/index.htm
https://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/den/index.htm

First the Colts. For the 20 years prior to Manning (1978-1997) the Colts on offense (by points scored) ranked on average 21.5 with their best ranking being 9. Manning comes in (1998-2010) and look at the difference! 9 top 5 rankings on offense out of 13 years with an average of 6!! Then Manning leaves and it's back to the gutters: rank 28 the very next year with the same coach.

Then with Denver. Denver was averaging rank 20 on offense with a range of 19-25 for the 5 years prior to Manning, then with Manning they go 2, 1, 2 and 19 and this is NOT the QB?? In fact that last year they went 19 is precisely because Manning was a shell of himself. And of course once Manning leaves it's rank 22, 27 and 24.

Of course it's the QB and not the coach! If it was the coach you'd see changes based on when the coach changes with a decent correlation. But you can see that Indy had that great performance on offense regardless of whether it was Mora, Dungy or Caldwell, and Denver with Fox and (one of the worst QB's ever in) Tebow had a pathetic offense while the very next year Manning comes in and makes that the best offense in the NFL.

Similar thing with Wilson and Seattle btw:
https://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/sea/index.htm

With others like Marino it's hard to see because Miami was already a good team before him, but in general the better the QB the more it's the QB and the less it's the coach. I do agree with you when we're talking about more average level QB's however.

** The usual disclaimer about ranks obviously holds here: ranks don't really measure anything (difference between rank N and N+1 isn't the same for every N, and rank N doesn't mean the same thing if the number of teams in the league changes!) but those links use ranks and it's good if you can see for yourself the dramatic change so I used that. Using z-scores will give you the same dramatic result of course.. I mean the differences are HUGE.

"Irishman wrote:

I'm beginning to believe that it's not what your QB is capable of, but how well the coaching staff uses what a QB is capable of. I do not agree with the "QB carrying a team on his back" thinking. It blinds you to reality for two reasons:

1) We never really know what a QB is capable of, although many posters believe they do.

2) All that counts is winning and that is based on how well the team performs, not just the QB. For better or for worse, this is really where the coaching staff has the most effect.

This is what I like most about football; it really is the ultimate team sport.

If you are more interested in individual effort, watch baseball where every player has their moment in the sun. It occurs when a player is at bat. Defensive skill is also on display one player at a time, but only after a hit or a pickoff play by the pitcher or the catcher.

While the fit between the team/scheme and the QB is vitally important, I wouldn't say, "We never really know what a QB is capable of". There are certain skills that are required in all schemes and QBs with elite skills absolutely carry/elevate teams.

There are different ways to do it, but all QBs must be able to make plays within the system on a relatively consistent basis and be able to make plays when the system fails (ability to improvise). How consistent they are with those system plays and how well they improvise on non-system plays determines whether they are elite, can carry the team and winning. If you put a really good team around him then the QB won't have to improvise much and the team will still win much of the time. If the team around him is not so good then he will have to improvise successfully more often for the team to win. One recent example was Goff. He looked like crap in an ill-fitting system under Fisher. Then he looked fantastic for most of the year with a good system and a good supporting cast. Then in the SB, the Pats did a great job of changing the defense late each play forcing Goff to improvise more often and he struggled.

"cbrad wrote:

That just doesn't fit the data. In general, the more elite the QB (the more we'd say the "QB is carrying the offense") the more it's the QB and not the coaching staff.

Take Peyton Manning for example. Look at the performance of his teams' offense in terms of points scored both before and after his tenure:
https://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/clt/index.htm
https://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/den/index.htm

First the Colts. For the 20 years prior to Manning (1978-1997) the Colts on offense (by points scored) ranked on average 21.5 with their best ranking being 9. Manning comes in (1998-2010) and look at the difference! 9 top 5 rankings on offense out of 13 years with an average of 6!! Then Manning leaves and it's back to the gutters: rank 28 the very next year with the same coach.

Then with Denver. Denver was averaging rank 20 on offense with a range of 19-25 for the 5 years prior to Manning, then with Manning they go 2, 1, 2 and 19 and this is NOT the QB?? In fact that last year they went 19 is precisely because Manning was a shell of himself. And of course once Manning leaves it's rank 22, 27 and 24.

Of course it's the QB and not the coach! If it was the coach you'd see changes based on when the coach changes with a decent correlation. But you can see that Indy had that great performance on offense regardless of whether it was Mora, Dungy or Caldwell, and Denver with Fox and (one of the worst QB's ever in) Tebow had a pathetic offense while the very next year Manning comes in and makes that the best offense in the NFL.

Similar thing with Wilson and Seattle btw:
https://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/sea/index.htm

With others like Marino it's hard to see because Miami was already a good team before him, but in general the better the QB the more it's the QB and the less it's the coach. I do agree with you when we're talking about more average level QB's however.

** The usual disclaimer about ranks obviously holds here: ranks don't really measure anything (difference between rank N and N+1 isn't the same for every N, and rank N doesn't mean the same thing if the number of teams in the league changes!) but those links use ranks and it's good if you can see for yourself the dramatic change so I used that. Using z-scores will give you the same dramatic result of course.. I mean the differences are HUGE.

Stats like this is where I get confused, but the way I see it is I am giving up the farm in next years draft to grab a franchise QB if there is one. I mean, why not just go for it? Let's get our guy and build from there. He can hone his skills while he waits until we can surround him with more talent.

"Surfs Up 99 wrote:

Stats like this is where I get confused, but the way I see it is I am giving up the farm in next years draft to grab a franchise QB if there is one. I mean, why not just go for it? Let's get our guy and build from there. He can hone his skills while he waits until we can surround him with more talent.

I don't see any other viable strategy unless some miracle occurs and Rosen turns out to already be the answer (proved this year).

There's also a downside to building the rest of the team first: you make it less likely you'll be able to grab that franchise QB later on because you'll have too good a record to pick high.

"cbrad wrote:

That just doesn't fit the data. In general, the more elite the QB (the more we'd say the "QB is carrying the offense") the more it's the QB and not the coaching staff.

Take Peyton Manning for example. Look at the performance of his teams' offense in terms of points scored both before and after his tenure:
https://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/clt/index.htm
https://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/den/index.htm

First the Colts. For the 20 years prior to Manning (1978-1997) the Colts on offense (by points scored) ranked on average 21.5 with their best ranking being 9. Manning comes in (1998-2010) and look at the difference! 9 top 5 rankings on offense out of 13 years with an average of 6!! Then Manning leaves and it's back to the gutters: rank 28 the very next year with the same coach.

Then with Denver. Denver was averaging rank 20 on offense with a range of 19-25 for the 5 years prior to Manning, then with Manning they go 2, 1, 2 and 19 and this is NOT the QB?? In fact that last year they went 19 is precisely because Manning was a shell of himself. And of course once Manning leaves it's rank 22, 27 and 24.

Of course it's the QB and not the coach! If it was the coach you'd see changes based on when the coach changes with a decent correlation. But you can see that Indy had that great performance on offense regardless of whether it was Mora, Dungy or Caldwell, and Denver with Fox and (one of the worst QB's ever in) Tebow had a pathetic offense while the very next year Manning comes in and makes that the best offense in the NFL.

Similar thing with Wilson and Seattle btw:
https://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/sea/index.htm

With others like Marino it's hard to see because Miami was already a good team before him, but in general the better the QB the more it's the QB and the less it's the coach. I do agree with you when we're talking about more average level QB's however.

** The usual disclaimer about ranks obviously holds here: ranks don't really measure anything (difference between rank N and N+1 isn't the same for every N, and rank N doesn't mean the same thing if the number of teams in the league changes!) but those links use ranks and it's good if you can see for yourself the dramatic change so I used that. Using z-scores will give you the same dramatic result of course.. I mean the differences are HUGE.

To be fair, Manning is not a typical representation of a QB leading your team. Personally, I'd say he's the best who ever played because he was a QB and a head coach all wrapped into one. Manning wasn't just elite...he was two or three levels beyond that. The Colts were 14-2 the year Manning got hurt and then 2-14 the next season (in suck for Luck)? That's really the only stat we need to prove Manning was the team.

Wilson does prove your point though as does players Like Rodgers, Brees, Big Ben, etc. Again though, these are elite players who are a notch above your typical QB...so of course they have a bigger effect.

If a coach forces the qb to hand the ball off or only throw screens, chances are his stats will be poor. If the oline is terrible and the qb isn’t allowed to audible and the play called is bad for the defense, the QB stats will suffer as well.

"cbrad wrote:

That just doesn't fit the data. In general, the more elite the QB (the more we'd say the "QB is carrying the offense") the more it's the QB and not the coaching staff.

Take Peyton Manning for example. Look at the performance of his teams' offense in terms of points scored both before and after his tenure:
https://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/clt/index.htm
https://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/den/index.htm

First the Colts. For the 20 years prior to Manning (1978-1997) the Colts on offense (by points scored) ranked on average 21.5 with their best ranking being 9. Manning comes in (1998-2010) and look at the difference! 9 top 5 rankings on offense out of 13 years with an average of 6!! Then Manning leaves and it's back to the gutters: rank 28 the very next year with the same coach.

Then with Denver. Denver was averaging rank 20 on offense with a range of 19-25 for the 5 years prior to Manning, then with Manning they go 2, 1, 2 and 19 and this is NOT the QB?? In fact that last year they went 19 is precisely because Manning was a shell of himself. And of course once Manning leaves it's rank 22, 27 and 24.

Of course it's the QB and not the coach! If it was the coach you'd see changes based on when the coach changes with a decent correlation. But you can see that Indy had that great performance on offense regardless of whether it was Mora, Dungy or Caldwell, and Denver with Fox and (one of the worst QB's ever in) Tebow had a pathetic offense while the very next year Manning comes in and makes that the best offense in the NFL.

Similar thing with Wilson and Seattle btw:
https://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/sea/index.htm

With others like Marino it's hard to see because Miami was already a good team before him, but in general the better the QB the more it's the QB and the less it's the coach. I do agree with you when we're talking about more average level QB's however.

** The usual disclaimer about ranks obviously holds here: ranks don't really measure anything (difference between rank N and N+1 isn't the same for every N, and rank N doesn't mean the same thing if the number of teams in the league changes!) but those links use ranks and it's good if you can see for yourself the dramatic change so I used that. Using z-scores will give you the same dramatic result of course.. I mean the differences are HUGE.

I would point out that Manning's performance with Denver is intertwined with the performance of his OC, a guy named Gase. After Gase left, Peyton's performance dropped off. The Denver Defense was very good and got even better in Peyton's last year; the year Gase wasn't there. I feel that shows that the biggest difference in Peyton's performance during those two years was due to his OC, Adam Gase.

I would also point out that Tim Tebows best performance as a QB was while he had Adam Gase as the QB coach.

I feel these two examples of two very different QB's, both being on the same team during a consecutive three year period show the results that a good coach had on two very different QB's.

I just don't see any other explanation that is as good or better in explaining the improvement in each QB's performance under coach Gase then after with other coach's, while the QB's were playing on the same team.

Also, doesn't the fact the those two QB's were playing on the same team eliminate, to the extent possible, a lot of potential variables that could effect a QB's performance, such as the performance of the OL?

"rafael wrote:

While the fit between the team/scheme and the QB is vitally important, I wouldn't say, "We never really know what a QB is capable of". There are certain skills that are required in all schemes and QBs with elite skills absolutely carry/elevate teams.

There are different ways to do it, but all QBs must be able to make plays within the system on a relatively consistent basis and be able to make plays when the system fails (ability to improvise). How consistent they are with those system plays and how well they improvise on non-system plays determines whether they are elite, can carry the team and winning. If you put a really good team around him then the QB won't have to improvise much and the team will still win much of the time. If the team around him is not so good then he will have to improvise successfully more often for the team to win. One recent example was Goff. He looked like crap in an ill-fitting system under Fisher. Then he looked fantastic for most of the year with a good system and a good supporting cast. Then in the SB, the Pats did a great job of changing the defense late each play forcing Goff to improvise more often and he struggled.

I don't disagree, but to put more of a point on my concept of what a QB's capabilities are is not based on extremes like a strong arm vs. a weak arm, but more on a QB's ability to get the receiver a catchable ball.

This would include anticipating where the receiver will be when the ball gets there; anticipating where the opponents will be when the ball gets (hopefully) to our receiver; knowing which receiver offers the best chance of a clean reception based on the route run and the defenses response, and the variations of trajectory and force on the ball to successfully meet those conditions.

What fans see on the field is only a small percentage of what the coaches see every day, and for that reason alone I feel the coaches have the best information to help a QB be successful.

I hope this clarifies my original post to some extant.

"Irishman wrote:

I would point out that Manning's performance with Denver is intertwined with the performance of his OC, a guy named Gase. After Gase left, Peyton's performance dropped off. The Denver Defense was very good and got even better in Peyton's last year; the year Gase wasn't there. I feel that shows that the biggest difference in Peyton's performance during those two years was due to his OC, Adam Gase.

I would also point out that Tim Tebows best performance as a QB was while he had Adam Gase as the QB coach.

I feel these two examples of two very different QB's, both being on the same team during a consecutive three year period show the results that a good coach had on two very different QB's.

I just don't see any other explanation that is as good or better in explaining the improvement in each QB's performance under coach Gase then after with other coach's, while the QB's were playing on the same team.

Also, doesn't the fact the those two QB's were playing on the same team eliminate, to the extent possible, a lot of potential variables that could effect a QB's performance, such as the performance of the OL?

Gase was QB coach in Denver from 2011-2012 and then OC from 2013-2014. These were also the 4 years Fox was HC. If coaching was the primary driver of QB or offensive performance, then why is it that with Tebow you had a 72.9 rating in 2011 while from 2012-2014 you had a 105.8, 115.1 and 101.5 rating with Peyton?

That's the main question to ask here. If it's coaching then the QB shouldn't matter too much. If it's the QB then the coach shouldn't matter too much. Clearly the Denver experience shows it's the QB. And the same is true for that Suck for Luck year 2011 in Indy where you had the same HC with essentially the same team but the QB changed. Once again QB was the difference.

Also, Gase didn't improve Peyton's play in any significant way. Using z-scores so we can compare over time (even 5-10 years difference requires this) Peyton's best years were actually in Indy from 2004-2006 with z-scores of 2.93, 2.21 and 2.02 while in Denver from 2012-2014 his z-scores are 1.76, 2.46, 1.27.

And Tebow? He only really started one year (minimum 150 passing attempts) so by default that's his "best year". It's also by default his "worst year" in case one would prefer to make that argument (if you ignore sample size it actually was his worst year):
https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/T/TeboTi00.htm

Side note- I read yesterday that Tebow's baseball season just ended and he struggled this year. If he was any ordinary player, it would be his last year taking a roster spot. Because of his name though I'm sure a minor league ball club would play him until he's 50 if that's what he wants to do.

"cbrad wrote:

Gase was QB coach in Denver from 2011-2012 and then OC from 2013-2014. These were also the 4 years Fox was HC. If coaching was the primary driver of QB or offensive performance, then why is it that with Tebow you had a 72.9 rating in 2011 while from 2012-2014 you had a 105.8, 115.1 and 101.5 rating with Peyton?

That's the main question to ask here. If it's coaching then the QB shouldn't matter too much. If it's the QB then the coach shouldn't matter too much. Clearly the Denver experience shows it's the QB. And the same is true for that Suck for Luck year 2011 in Indy where you had the same HC with essentially the same team but the QB changed. Once again QB was the difference.

Also, Gase didn't improve Peyton's play in any significant way. Using z-scores so we can compare over time (even 5-10 years difference requires this) Peyton's best years were actually in Indy from 2004-2006 with z-scores of 2.93, 2.21 and 2.02 while in Denver from 2012-2014 his z-scores are 1.76, 2.46, 1.27.

And Tebow? He only really started one year (minimum 150 passing attempts) so by default that's his "best year". It's also by default his "worst year" in case one would prefer to make that argument (if you ignore sample size it actually was his worst year):
https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/T/TeboTi00.htm

My point was that those QB's played better with Gase coaching then without him. Since Gase was with Manning for just one year and Manning had a different coach the second year, My range of observation was for just those two years. It is true that this represents a very small sample size, but it is also true that Manning's performance was noticeably lower after Gase left.

It is true that Manning and Tebow played at two very different levels QB skill, I was pointing out that in both cases where Gase was involved followed immediately with a year where he wasn't involved, they played their best football. The fact that Tebow never played a second year could certainly be described as a "0" for any statistical analysis.

I don't know what statistical method would apply to these small sample sizes I'm limiting my comparisons to.

"Irishman wrote:

My point was that those QB's played better with Gase coaching then without him. Since Gase was with Manning for just one year and Manning had a different coach the second year, My range of observation was for just those two years. It is true that this represents a very small sample size, but it is also true that Manning's performance was noticeably lower after Gase left.

It is true that Manning and Tebow played at two very different levels QB skill, I was pointing out that in both cases where Gase was involved followed immediately with a year where he wasn't involved, they played their best football. The fact that Tebow never played a second year could certainly be described as a "0" for any statistical analysis.

I don't know what statistical method would apply to these small sample sizes I'm limiting my comparisons to.

Yeah.. like I pointed out in my previous post Gase was with Manning for 3 years, not 1. And the z-scores I pointed out from 2004-2006 vs. 2012-2014 show it isn't true that Manning played his best football when Gase was coach. He played his best under Dungy.

As far as what statistical test to use in cases like these, you use a "t-test for unequal sample sizes".

Peyton Manning z-scores:
1998: -0.5703
1999: 1.2710
2000: 1.4042
2001: 0.5659
2002: 0.8978
2003: 1.8301
2004: 2.9293
2005: 2.2060
2006: 2.0189
2007: 1.3295
2008: 1.1643
2009: 1.1340
2010: 0.6768
..
2012: 1.7560
2013: 2.4563
2014: 1.2729
2015: -2.5245

Let's first compare Manning's 3 years with Gase vs. all other years. A t-test shows there's a 32.52% chance that the stats under Gase came from the same QB as the stats under all other coaches Manning had. So we can reject the hypothesis that Gase improved Manning in any way that couldn't be explained by random variation alone.

And if that's true, then 2015 isn't a "Gase vs. no Gase" thing. It's just a question of how anomalous 2015 was in Peyton's entire career, and a t-test says that 2015 is the only anomalous year in Peyton's entire career with a 0.0356% of coming from the same QB that produced all those other z-scores. That type of result generally happens only if the QB is injured, and anyone who watched Peyton in 2015 can attest to him just not being physically the same QB as before. So 2015 is also most likely a QB issue and not a coaching issue.

"Irishman wrote:

I don't disagree, but to put more of a point on my concept of what a QB's capabilities are is not based on extremes like a strong arm vs. a weak arm, but more on a QB's ability to get the receiver a catchable ball.

This would include anticipating where the receiver will be when the ball gets there; anticipating where the opponents will be when the ball gets (hopefully) to our receiver; knowing which receiver offers the best chance of a clean reception based on the route run and the defenses response, and the variations of trajectory and force on the ball to successfully meet those conditions.

What fans see on the field is only a small percentage of what the coaches see every day, and for that reason alone I feel the coaches have the best information to help a QB be successful.

I hope this clarifies my original post to some extant.

If you follow most of the analysis on this forum, both here and especially in the club, you'd find that it usually focuses on things like timing and ball placement, reading defenses, etc. You rarely see people focus on simple (and often meaningless) things like strong arm vs. weak arm. There are a few who don't get beyond, "he throws a nice ball", but that's few and far between. In my experience this forum tends to be a little more nuanced in their analysis than most others on the internet. And we're fortunate enough to have many posters with considerable experience, coaching and scouting and/or with access to inside information.

Obviously, the coaches get to see more and have more info, but this is a football forum so the whole point of it is to talk about what we do see, whether it's in the games or from our guys at practices reporting back. IMO there are people posting here with enough knowledge to make reasonable evaluations about what a QB is capable of and it would be a mistake to just ignore or dismiss that and claim. "we really don't know what a QB is capable of".

"rafael wrote:

If you follow most of the analysis on this forum, both here and especially in the club, you'd find that it usually focuses on things like timing and ball placement, reading defenses, etc. You rarely see people focus on simple (and often meaningless) things like strong arm vs. weak arm. There are a few who don't get beyond, "he throws a nice ball", but that's few and far between. In my experience this forum tends to be a little more nuanced in their analysis than most others on the internet. And we're fortunate enough to have many posters with considerable experience, coaching and scouting and/or with access to inside information.

Obviously, the coaches get to see more and have more info, but this is a football forum so the whole point of it is to talk about what we do see, whether it's in the games or from our guys at practices reporting back. IMO there are people posting here with enough knowledge to make reasonable evaluations about what a QB is capable of and it would be a mistake to just ignore or dismiss that and claim. "we really don't know what a QB is capable of".

That's the thing though- we all value different traits to determine what actually makes a good quarterback. How could so many here love Tannehill while just as many hated him? I mean, we all watched the same games....but came to very different conclusions. The same goes for Matt Moore, Cutler, Osweiller, etc....there was zero consensus.

My personal evaluation has changed over the years sort of because of Tannehill; I look for-

- Can he keep the drive alive/get to the end zone?
- Can he handle pressure & stay poised?
- Is he a leader on/off the field (but mainly "on")?

If all three of those things are "yes", then I can really care less about the football traits we're seeking. QB IQ? Meaningless if the guy can score. Big arm? If he's keeping the drives alive, it's big enough. Ability to read defenses? Again, I'm not hung up on that stuff if we're scoring with the guy...I'm fine with a coach dumbing it down if necessary. Size, speed, mobility, pocket awareness...all that stuff is great to watch, but it's not a key to actually winning (hence Dan Marino).

For me SO FAR, both Rosen and Fitzpatrick have checked all three boxes. I know Fitz will "crap the bed" in some games and so will Rosen since he's also a young gunslinger. At this point though I don't even care about INT's or QBR, my only concern is winning. And if a guy can do those three things above consistently, then chances are we'll win more than we lose. That's all I'm worried about personally.

Again, that's just me...and I'm sure cBrad will have an anurism once he reads this. =)

"KeyFin wrote:

That's the thing though- we all value different traits to determine what actually makes a good quarterback. How could so many here love Tannehill while just as many hated him? I mean, we all watched the same games....but came to very different conclusions. The same goes for Matt Moore, Cutler, Osweiller, etc....there was zero consensus.

My personal evaluation has changed over the years sort of because of Tannehill; I look for-

- Can he keep the drive alive/get to the end zone?
- Can he handle pressure & stay poised?
- Is he a leader on/off the field (but mainly "on")?

If all three of those things are "yes", then I can really care less about the football traits we're seeking. QB IQ? Meaningless if the guy can score. Big arm? If he's keeping the drives alive, it's big enough. Ability to read defenses? Again, I'm not hung up on that stuff if we're scoring with the guy...I'm fine with a coach dumbing it down if necessary. Size, speed, mobility, pocket awareness...all that stuff is great to watch, but it's not a key to actually winning (hence Dan Marino).

For me SO FAR, both Rosen and Fitzpatrick have checked all three boxes. I know Fitz will "crap the bed" in some games and so will Rosen since he's also a young gunslinger. At this point though I don't even care about INT's or QBR, my only concern is winning. And if a guy can do those three things above consistently, then chances are we'll win more than we lose. That's all I'm worried about personally.

Again, that's just me...and I'm sure cBrad will have an anurism once he reads this. =)

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.

"The_Dark_Knight wrote:

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.

Vick is 1 million times the quarterback than Tebow. Doesn't deserved to be insulted that way

"Dol-Fan Dupree wrote:

Vick is 1 million times the quarterback than Tebow. Doesn't deserved to be insulted that way

Point completely missed

"KeyFin wrote:

That's the thing though- we all value different traits to determine what actually makes a good quarterback. How could so many here love Tannehill while just as many hated him? I mean, we all watched the same games....but came to very different conclusions. The same goes for Matt Moore, Cutler, Osweiller, etc....there was zero consensus.

My personal evaluation has changed over the years sort of because of Tannehill; I look for-

- Can he keep the drive alive/get to the end zone?
- Can he handle pressure & stay poised?
- Is he a leader on/off the field (but mainly "on")?

If all three of those things are "yes", then I can really care less about the football traits we're seeking. QB IQ? Meaningless if the guy can score. Big arm? If he's keeping the drives alive, it's big enough. Ability to read defenses? Again, I'm not hung up on that stuff if we're scoring with the guy...I'm fine with a coach dumbing it down if necessary. Size, speed, mobility, pocket awareness...all that stuff is great to watch, but it's not a key to actually winning (hence Dan Marino).

For me SO FAR, both Rosen and Fitzpatrick have checked all three boxes. I know Fitz will "crap the bed" in some games and so will Rosen since he's also a young gunslinger. At this point though I don't even care about INT's or QBR, my only concern is winning. And if a guy can do those three things above consistently, then chances are we'll win more than we lose. That's all I'm worried about personally.

Again, that's just me...and I'm sure cBrad will have an anurism once he reads this. =)

LOL!

I’ll just respond for him...

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

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

;-) :-D

Just joshin ya cbrad. You know I love your posts and analysis.

"cbrad wrote:

Yeah.. like I pointed out in my previous post Gase was with Manning for 3 years, not 1. And the z-scores I pointed out from 2004-2006 vs. 2012-2014 show it isn't true that Manning played his best football when Gase was coach. He played his best under Dungy.

As far as what statistical test to use in cases like these, you use a "t-test for unequal sample sizes".

Peyton Manning z-scores:
1998: -0.5703
1999: 1.2710
2000: 1.4042
2001: 0.5659
2002: 0.8978
2003: 1.8301
2004: 2.9293
2005: 2.2060
2006: 2.0189
2007: 1.3295
2008: 1.1643
2009: 1.1340
2010: 0.6768
..
2012: 1.7560
2013: 2.4563
2014: 1.2729
2015: -2.5245

Let's first compare Manning's 3 years with Gase vs. all other years. A t-test shows there's a 32.52% chance that the stats under Gase came from the same QB as the stats under all other coaches Manning had. So we can reject the hypothesis that Gase improved Manning in any way that couldn't be explained by random variation alone.

And if that's true, then 2015 isn't a "Gase vs. no Gase" thing. It's just a question of how anomalous 2015 was in Peyton's entire career, and a t-test says that 2015 is the only anomalous year in Peyton's entire career with a 0.0356% of coming from the same QB that produced all those other z-scores. That type of result generally happens only if the QB is injured, and anyone who watched Peyton in 2015 can attest to him just not being physically the same QB as before. So 2015 is also most likely a QB issue and not a coaching issue.

"cbrad wrote:

Yeah.. like I pointed out in my previous post Gase was with Manning for 3 years, not 1. And the z-scores I pointed out from 2004-2006 vs. 2012-2014 show it isn't true that Manning played his best football when Gase was coach. He played his best under Dungy.

As far as what statistical test to use in cases like these, you use a "t-test for unequal sample sizes".

Peyton Manning z-scores:
1998: -0.5703
1999: 1.2710
2000: 1.4042
2001: 0.5659
2002: 0.8978
2003: 1.8301
2004: 2.9293
2005: 2.2060
2006: 2.0189
2007: 1.3295
2008: 1.1643
2009: 1.1340
2010: 0.6768
..
2012: 1.7560
2013: 2.4563
2014: 1.2729
2015: -2.5245

Let's first compare Manning's 3 years with Gase vs. all other years. A t-test shows there's a 32.52% chance that the stats under Gase came from the same QB as the stats under all other coaches Manning had. So we can reject the hypothesis that Gase improved Manning in any way that couldn't be explained by random variation alone.

And if that's true, then 2015 isn't a "Gase vs. no Gase" thing. It's just a question of how anomalous 2015 was in Peyton's entire career, and a t-test says that 2015 is the only anomalous year in Peyton's entire career with a 0.0356% of coming from the same QB that produced all those other z-scores. That type of result generally happens only if the QB is injured, and anyone who watched Peyton in 2015 can attest to him just not being physically the same QB as before. So 2015 is also most likely a QB issue and not a coaching issue.

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?

"KeyFin wrote:

That's the thing though- we all value different traits to determine what actually makes a good quarterback. How could so many here love Tannehill while just as many hated him? I mean, we all watched the same games....but came to very different conclusions. The same goes for Matt Moore, Cutler, Osweiller, etc....there was zero consensus.

My personal evaluation has changed over the years sort of because of Tannehill; I look for-

- Can he keep the drive alive/get to the end zone?
- Can he handle pressure & stay poised?
- Is he a leader on/off the field (but mainly "on")?

If all three of those things are "yes", then I can really care less about the football traits we're seeking. QB IQ? Meaningless if the guy can score. Big arm? If he's keeping the drives alive, it's big enough. Ability to read defenses? Again, I'm not hung up on that stuff if we're scoring with the guy...I'm fine with a coach dumbing it down if necessary. Size, speed, mobility, pocket awareness...all that stuff is great to watch, but it's not a key to actually winning (hence Dan Marino).

For me SO FAR, both Rosen and Fitzpatrick have checked all three boxes. I know Fitz will "crap the bed" in some games and so will Rosen since he's also a young gunslinger. At this point though I don't even care about INT's or QBR, my only concern is winning. And if a guy can do those three things above consistently, then chances are we'll win more than we lose. That's all I'm worried about personally.

Again, that's just me...and I'm sure cBrad will have an anurism once he reads this. =)

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.

"Irishman wrote:

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?

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.

"The_Dark_Knight wrote:

Point completely missed

I got your point. My point stands

"cbrad wrote:

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.

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.