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

Titans to start Ryan Tannehill

Discussion in 'Miami Dolphins Forum' started by bbqpitlover, Oct 16, 2019.

  1. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    946
    659
    93
    Oct 1, 2018
    So if like you said above you believe that the quarterbacks who are in the Hall of Fame are better individually than other quarterbacks, then we agree about that.

    Now that we’ve agreed that Hall of Fame status is a valid indication of quarterbacks’ individual ability, we can now turn our attention to determining the frequency with which Super Bowls are won by Hall of Fame quarterbacks, as a way of determining the importance of having such a quarterback to winning a Super Bowl.

    And that, ironically, is where the conversation started.
     
    mooseguts likes this.
  2. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    1,192
    1,003
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    I'm not saying is the case for everyone and I dont actually know how impactful it is, but one criteria in any sport you always hear on borderline players is "He doesn't have a ring"

    Obviously a guy like Manning or Marino is in either way (Though Manning won his), just saying its something to consider. Though it may not impact much.
     
    The Guy likes this.
  3. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    946
    659
    93
    Oct 1, 2018
    Obviously the quarterback isn’t doing it all by himself, because average quarterbacks have indeed won Super Bowls, which I acknowledged from the outset.
     
    mooseguts likes this.
  4. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    12,890
    6,991
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    We do not agree that HoF is an accurate indication of ability. That is exactly my point. I don't believe that HoF/Super Bowls/win% is an indication of individual ability of the QB. I believe that all of those things are greatly influenced by factors outside of the QBs individual ability. Look, if Super Bowls were won BY QBs due to their eliteness, Marino would have a ring.
     
  5. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    946
    659
    93
    Oct 1, 2018
    Then we should agree to disagree.
    You’re looking at that precisely backwards. We aren’t talking about the probability with which any one Hall of Fame quarterback wins a Super Bowl; we are talking about the probability with which Super Bowls are won by Hall of Fame quarterbacks.
     
    mooseguts likes this.
  6. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh Club Member

    71,664
    42,687
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    That would indicate that SB wins don't influence HoF votes.
     
    The Guy likes this.
  7. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    946
    659
    93
    Oct 1, 2018
    So would the fact that the average quarterbacks who’ve won Super Bowls mentioned earlier in the thread are not Hall of Famers.

    resnor has stated previously that he doesn’t believe there are differences in individual ability among quarterbacks, so neither Hall of Fame status nor any other measure is going to distinguish quarterbacks from each other for him, because there is nothing to distinguish — they all have the same ability in his opinion. I’m not surprised that he believes Hall of Fame status is meaningless with regard to that as well.
     
  8. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh Club Member

    71,664
    42,687
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Wait....where did resnor say that?
     
    resnor likes this.
  9. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    946
    659
    93
    Oct 1, 2018
    In a different thread about passer rating.
     
  10. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh Club Member

    71,664
    42,687
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    I think you either misinterpreted or he misspoke, cause he doesn't think that...or if he does its a new thing, but i still doubt it.
     
    resnor likes this.
  11. Bumrush

    Bumrush Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    22,116
    20,722
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    It's unbelievable that certain people can't admit that they were wrong about Ryan Tannehill and will resort to mind numbing justifications.
     
  12. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    946
    659
    93
    Oct 1, 2018
    Either way, to think that Hall of Fame status doesn’t distinguish quarterbacks from each other in terms of individual ability is startling and an opinion that is shared by probably an extremely small percentage of planet earth.

    You might as well shut down Canton in terms of quarterbacks, because everything housed there is meaningless. Where there is Dan Marino’s bust, there should instead be the entire Dolphins team.
     
    mooseguts likes this.
  13. Bumrush

    Bumrush Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    22,116
    20,722
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    I'm starting to think that Ryan Tannehill put an evil spell on some people.. He's like the Great Alexander!!

    :D One of my all time favorite SNL skits

     
  14. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    1,192
    1,003
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    I think the main issue with this entire line of argument is that while youd like a HOF QB, you dont really know you have that for quite a while.

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

    Especially over different eras. Dont shoot me but Bob Griese probably wouldnt cut it today for example.
     
    danmarino likes this.
  15. texanphinatic

    texanphinatic Senior Member

    9,624
    3,124
    113
    Nov 26, 2007
    Austin TX
    I know we are tanking and therefore suck major *** and there isn't much to talk about that isn't related to the future ....

    but a 3 page Ryan Tannehill thread? :deadhorse:
     
    Irishman likes this.
  16. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh Club Member

    71,664
    42,687
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    If the HoF was the end all be all, Zach Thomas would be in already.

    There’s a popularity element to HoF just like there is to the pro bowl.
     
    danmarino and Irishman like this.
  17. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    946
    659
    93
    Oct 1, 2018
    So again, which of the current or probable Hall of Fame quarterbacks who have won Super Bowls in the past 25 years are or will be in the Hall of Fame due to popularity and not individual ability?

    You have to flesh that out if you are going to argue that Hall of Fame status is a measure of popularity and not individual ability. Otherwise you’re just talking theory and providing no support for it.
     
    mooseguts likes this.
  18. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    946
    659
    93
    Oct 1, 2018
    Hall of Fame status is merely an indication of the level at which these players performed during their careers. The fact that they were designated Hall of Famers after their careers ended, and not during their careers, doesn’t make it any less valid a designation of their performance.
     
    mooseguts likes this.
  19. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    6,977
    7,951
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Ultimately, stats and the observations that aren't captured by stats have to be consistent. So in any endeavor where you apply statistical analysis you have to ask the question "does this make sense?". And I attempt to do that.

    For example, consider how I debated the issue of the degree to which passer rating becomes a measure of QB ability with large sample size. After acknowledging that passer rating is technically a team stat, I pointed out that the only constant in the formula itself is the QB and showed that the variance in win% over 5-year periods for individual teams is about half that of what you'd expect if team strength were randomly selected from game to game, which suggests that about half of the effect of surrounding cast is removed with large sample size.. but only half.

    That's an example where I would argue I used "solid logic" with statistics, which really helps to properly interpret the stat. The hypothesis is consistent with the observation that passer rating doesn't account for all kinds of things it should if it were a better measure of QB ability while explaining the high correlation with how people tend to rate QB's with career (adjusted) passer rating.

    Conversely, there are times where using "solid logic" I argue that the human observation component should be completely ignored and that you should only rely on stats. Best example was with the use of in-game win probabilities. You can easily do an experiment to show humans are terrible at estimating how much each play in a game contributes to the end result.

    The issue with sack% is going more in the other direction, where I think there are good reasons to doubt its utility as a measure of "pressure due to OL on the QB" as I outlined in the post you quoted. However, just like with passer rating sack% has one constant in the formula itself, the QB, so it does reflect on the QB ability more and more over large sample size as evidenced by sack% being the highest correlated passing stat for a QB when he changes teams.

    Either way, whenever I present stats I try to use what you call "solid logic" to properly interpret them. Challenge my interpretation if you want, but it's not like I'm ignoring what we see when I present stats nor am I inconsistent in my interpretations (it's not like I change them from argument to argument). I'm just cognizant of the weaknesses of both approaches. Humans (including experts) can't agree on what they see (and if you can't agree you don't have a "measure"), they have imperfect memories and are biased, etc... while with stats you have no such problems but you remove tons of information. Have to leverage both.
     
  20. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    1,192
    1,003
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    I think that is valid if you can say that all (most even) HOF QB have similar numbers. I'm not sure if that is or isnt the case, but I'd guess not.
     
    The Guy likes this.
  21. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    946
    659
    93
    Oct 1, 2018
    What would matter is whether the variation among the numbers of Hall of Fame quarterbacks is significantly less than the variation between their numbers and the numbers of non-Hall of Fame quarterbacks.

    What that would do is distinguish the two groups, Hall of Famers and non-Hall of Famers, from each other, statistically speaking.

    So there could be variation in the numbers among Hall of Fame quarterbacks, as long as it was significantly less than the variation in the numbers between Hall of Fame quarterbacks and non-Hall of Fame quarterbacks. You wouldn’t need Hall of Fame quarterbacks to be statistically identical to each other to distinguish them statistically from non-Hall of Fame quarterbacks.
     
    AGuyNamedAlex likes this.
  22. Galant

    Galant Love - Unity - Sacrifice - Eternity Staff Member

    11,712
    7,203
    113
    Apr 22, 2014
  23. Galant

    Galant Love - Unity - Sacrifice - Eternity Staff Member

    11,712
    7,203
    113
    Apr 22, 2014
    Just in case you guys didn't realise.
     
  24. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    6,977
    7,951
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    They're all well above average statistically so you can just substitute "well above average" for HoF QB. Here are the career regular season only z-scores of all HoF QB's whose rookie year was 1966 or later:

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

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

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

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    12,890
    6,991
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    That's not at all what I said. I said that in a skills test like throwing at targets, dropping balls into buckets, those sorts of things, I'd be surprised if there's the massive variation that some of you think there would be, between the worst and the best. I'd even bet that there'd be some "bad QBs" that would do better than some "great QBs." The worst QB in the league is still elite at his position. It's why he's even on an NFL roster. These are guys who can do that **** in their sleep. I said where the variation I think would come, is in processing speed when things break down. The worst QBs respond worse under pressure of any sort than the best. Clearly some guys are better scramblers than others, but, were not talking necessarily about running here.

    That's what I was saying about individual ability.
     
    Fin D and The Guy like this.
  26. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    12,890
    6,991
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Dude. Eli Manning hasn't had, imo, a HoF career. But he'll get in for his name and the 2 rings.
     
  27. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    946
    659
    93
    Oct 1, 2018
    I didn’t even include Eli Manning in the group of Hall of Fame quarterbacks involved in 20 of the last 25 Super Bowls. I counted him as one of the average quarterbacks who won a Super Bowl during that period.
     
    mooseguts likes this.
  28. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    12,890
    6,991
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    So what? I'm saying, he's probably gonna be in the HoF, based on his name and 2 rings. It's speculation.
     
  29. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    946
    659
    93
    Oct 1, 2018
    I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make.
     
    mooseguts likes this.
  30. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    1,192
    1,003
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    I didnt necessarily mean identical, just that they should be within the same range. Kind of what you're saying really.
     
    The Guy likes this.
  31. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    946
    659
    93
    Oct 1, 2018
    Then you intuitively came up with an analysis of variance to support your point. Good work.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analysis_of_variance
     
    AGuyNamedAlex likes this.
  32. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    946
    659
    93
    Oct 1, 2018
    So what’s being said here as I read it, and I think people should take note of this, is that sacks are more strongly related to quarterback play than they are to offensive line play.
     
    cbrad likes this.
  33. Irishman

    Irishman Well-Known Member

    268
    291
    63
    Oct 16, 2017
    High Point, NC
    Great response.

    I actually understood every word.

    If I can get it, you'd think the rest of the folks here could also get it.

    This should separate the interested fans from the self-interested fans!
     
    cbrad likes this.
  34. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    12,890
    6,991
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Yes you do.
     
  35. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    12,890
    6,991
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    And if stats tell you that poor oline play doesn't lead to sacks, then I'd question my stats.
     
  36. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh Club Member

    71,664
    42,687
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    The quibble I've always had, with a lot of the statistical approaches used in here and in sports in general, is that macro stats are often used to make definitive conclusions about X player/unit/team, which ignores the reality that, very often, things happen counter to the statistical conclusion.

    It's like gambling, sure over time, the house will win over all, but people still do win and if we made the same stat based arguments we do here about, say, winning the lottery, we'd be telling people that won the lottery that they didn't.
     
    danmarino likes this.
  37. Arodgers12

    Arodgers12 Well-Known Member

    967
    1,349
    113
    Oct 18, 2010
    I miss the Phins league on NFL.com that I was in with you guys. That was fun.
     
  38. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    946
    659
    93
    Oct 1, 2018
    What the statistics in that post illustrated is that quarterback play is a moderating variable between pressure and sacks, which is an intuitive finding, given that quarterbacks vary in their awareness and evasion of pressure. Hopefully this isn't another piece of common knowledge that's going to be taken up as eminently and endlessly debatable.
     
  39. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    946
    659
    93
    Oct 1, 2018
    Well if you're willing to leave it at that, it must not be that important.
     
  40. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    946
    659
    93
    Oct 1, 2018
    This is really what's noteworthy here in my opinion.

    The very simple explanation for all this as I see it is that the league has evolved such that the modifications in the rules of the game prioritize the passing game. Teams that win are those that exploit those rules to their benefit, by having better personnel in the passing game. Obviously that increases considerably the importance of the single player who is involved in every passing play -- the quarterback.

    It's no surprise that a vast majority of Super Bowls during that era have been won by the league's best quarterbacks, those who by virtue of their individual performance are far more likely to be inducted into the Hall of Fame.

    The above really isn't debatable in my opinion. The game can be a team sport, and other parts of teams can be important as well, but those facts don't change the above.

    This is why every team clamors for an elite QB. Why would they do that if it wasn't so important? If the fact that "it's a team sport" were more important, they wouldn't clamor for such QBs. They'd sit back and relax and assemble pieces of teams at random, rather than prioritizing certain pieces over others and paying them accordingly.

    Again, none of this should be debatable in my opinion. It's common knowledge.
     
    mooseguts likes this.

Share This Page