Ryan Tannehill

"The_Dark_Knight wrote:

Of course he did...he won 6 of them all by himself. He trotted our onto the field and in a display of daring bravery lined up against 11 defenders.

He snapped the ball to himself
Amazingly he blocked the pass rushers while at the same time, he ran downfield and caught the ball he threw to himself.
:smh:

And I could swing the pendulum completely the other direction and say that Tom Brady is a terrible quarterback who’s done nothing individually during his career, has been nothing but the beneficiary of his surroundings, and that none of the Patriots’ success or Super Bowl wins have had anything to do with him at all.

And if I did that, then both of us would be making a strawman argument that no one in this thread on either side has stated.

"The Guy wrote:

So again, like I’ve invited several people to do in this thread, break that down and show how there are Hall of Fame quarterbacks in the past 25 years who were inducted primarily because of their Super Bowl wins and not because of their individual ability.

You’re talking about a theory that is certainly plausible, but not supporting it with anything based in reality, or even in your personal view of reality.

Why don't you prove your own point instead of requesting other people do your research, and then disregarding what they say with more questions?

"The Guy wrote:

And I could swing the pendulum completely the other direction and say that Tom Brady is a terrible quarterback who’s done nothing individually during his career, has been nothing but the beneficiary of his surroundings, and that none of the Patriots’ success or Super Bowl wins have had anything to do with him at all.

And if I did that, then both of us would be making a strawman argument that no one in this thread on either side has stated.

Except one of you would be closer to the truth than the other. One of you is actually correctly saying that the team is a large part of it, and one of you is arguing that the QB is essentially doing it by himself.

"resnor wrote:

Why don't you prove your own point instead of requesting other people do your research, and then disregarding what they say with more questions?

I’ve already proven my point multiple times. The fact that we are taking common knowledge and making it seem debatable is laughable.

"The Guy wrote:

I’ve already proven my point multiple times. The fact that we are taking common knowledge and making it seem debatable is laughable.

You've proved nothing in regards to too HoF QBs and why they're there. Why do people consider Montana or Brady in the conversation for GOAT? Super Bowl wins. Why are they in the Hall, or going to be in the Hall? Mostly on team wins. That doesn't mean they aren't better than other QBs, but it also doesn't mean that they were winning because of them. You have yet to even consider the possibility that your precious rating to win% correlation is extremely flawed.

"resnor wrote:

You've proved nothing in regards to too HoF QBs and why they're there. Why do people consider Montana or Brady in the conversation for GOAT? Super Bowl wins. Why are they in the Hall, or going to be in the Hall? Mostly on team wins. That doesn't mean they aren't better than other QBs, but it also doesn't mean that they were winning because of them. You have yet to even consider the possibility that your precious rating to win% correlation is extremely flawed.

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.

"The Guy wrote:

So again, like I’ve invited several people to do in this thread, break that down and show how there are Hall of Fame quarterbacks in the past 25 years who were inducted primarily because of their Super Bowl wins and not because of their individual ability.

You’re talking about a theory that is certainly plausible, but not supporting it with anything based in reality, or even in your personal view of reality.

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.

"resnor wrote:

Except one of you would be closer to the truth than the other. One of you is actually correctly saying that the team is a large part of it, and one of you is arguing that the QB is essentially doing it by himself.

Obviously the quarterback isn’t doing it all by himself, because average quarterbacks have indeed won Super Bowls, which I acknowledged from the outset.

"The Guy wrote:

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.

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.

"resnor wrote:

We do not agree that HoF is an accurate indication of ability.

Then we should agree to disagree.

Look, if Super Bowls were won BY QBs due to their eliteness, Marino would have a ring.

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.

"The Guy wrote:

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.

That would indicate that SB wins don't influence HoF votes.

"Fin D wrote:

That would indicate that SB wins don't influence HoF votes.

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.

"The Guy wrote:

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.

Wait....where did resnor say that?

"Fin D wrote:

Wait....where did resnor say that?

In a different thread about passer rating.

"The Guy wrote:

In a different thread about passer rating.

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.

"The Guy wrote:

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.

It's unbelievable that certain people can't admit that they were wrong about Ryan Tannehill and will resort to mind numbing justifications.

"Fin D wrote:

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.

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.

"The Guy wrote:

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.

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

height=360;id=TheAmazingAlexandersnlSpoof;width=540

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.

I know we are tanking and therefore suck major ass and there isn't much to talk about that isn't related to the future ....

but a 3 page Ryan Tannehill thread? :deadhorse:

"The Guy wrote:

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.

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.

"Fin D wrote:

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.

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.

"AGuyNamedAlex wrote:

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

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

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

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.

"AGuyNamedAlex wrote:

How come when the #'s dont support your theory you can revert to solid logic and using your eyes (Saying RW has better pocket presence despite #'s) and yet when other people want to do the same you only fall back to #'s as if they are the end all be all?

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.

"The Guy wrote:

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.

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.