Nick Foles gave hints he could lead a Super Bowl team. Has Dolphins’ Ryan Tannehill? | Page 12 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

Nick Foles gave hints he could lead a Super Bowl team. Has Dolphins’ Ryan Tannehill?

The Goat said:
Exaggerate much?
Click to expand...
My post was a play on the quote that had a 42 millionth time reference. Come on, do I need to explain it to you?

Next time I will use some footnotes to help you along.
 
this is how 2012 qb class is looking
1.Wilson 3rd or 4th rd superbowl cham
2.foles 3rd superbowl cham, mvp
3 k. curtsin 4rd highest paid qb 2018
4. luck 1st hurt when health he is best in class
5?????
6. rg3 1st rookie of yr injury done out of nfl.
 
Third Eye said:
My post was a play on the quote that had a 42 millionth time reference. Come on, do I need to explain it to you?

Next time I will use some footnotes to help you along.
Click to expand...

LOL. Your post preceded my 42 millionth comment. My comment was in response to yours not the other way around. Perhaps you could use some help.
 
Third Eye said:
W-L is another stat. Just like QBR. And YPA. And sack %.

You take all of them and use them for evaluation along with the other evaluations such as intelligence, leadership, work ethic, intangibles, physical measurables, and film study.

You don’t just use one and go from there. No one is advocating using just a single stat.
Click to expand...
BS. There is a huge #QBwinz crowd on this forum. Any positive stats are simply ignored.
 
39wildman said:
we will find out soon who can evaluate qb after 2018 season...it doesn't have be war on here. let thill17 play on field do talking.
Click to expand...
Yep let’s see franchise QB RT in 2018. It’s gonna be fun, what with the QBR of 100 and 30 TDs. The stats that matter not those pesky Wins and Losses. Bring on the stats!!!
 
superphin said:
Yes, I see now only our very own Dan Marino has been named an all pro with a non winning record at 8-8.
Click to expand...
That’s how bad our defenses were those years. Everyone knew our coordinator was holding us back but Shula for whatever reason stuck w Olivadotti forever.
 
It’s weird to me that Foles didn’t play after that 2013 monster season. Is it weird to anyone else?
 
superphin said:
Well here's how Tannehill stacks up compared to his contemporaries.

3rd down % in 2016 from weeks 1-14. Not much of a difference.

Tannehill 118 attempts 43 1st downs 36.4%--7.5 y/a
Carr 137 attempts and 49 1st downs 35.7%--6.6 y/a
Newton 119 attempts and 47 1st downs 39.4%--7.4 y/a
Flacco 149 attempts and 53 1st downs 35.5%--6.9 y/a
Wilson 113 attempts and 42 1st downs 37.1%--7.4 y/a
Smith 100 attempts and 35 1st downs 35%--5.8 y/a

Bonus
Foles 2013 78 attempts and 36 1st downs 46.1%--8.4 y/a
Foles 2014-2016 219 attempts and 65 1st downs 29.6%--5.6 y/a
Foles 2017 including playoffs 60 attempts and 28 1st downs 46.6%--8.2 y/a

Looks like Foles excels when he has a great team around him and not so much when he doesn't.
Click to expand...

This is one of the best posts on this forum so far this year. Took the time to look at the numbers and actually put evidence into a claim. Well done.
 
miami365 said:
Thought Gase had a bit of that in 2016 in terms of putting his players in good situations. Last year was a step back, possibly overestimating what he had with the likes of Cutler and Thomas.
Click to expand...

It's amazing, good coaches put their players in more favorable situations.

Pete Carroll does with Wilson. Belichick does with Brady. Tomlin does with Roethlisberger. Payton does with Brees, and on and on and on.
 
SCLSU Mud Dogs said:
This is one of the best posts on this forum so far this year. Took the time to look at the numbers and actually put evidence into a claim. Well done.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I may not agree with all of superphin's posts, but damn if he doesn't try to play it equal and present facts and arguments for both sides even.
 
superphin said:
Tannehill win % through 5 years .481 and here are some QB's records through their first 5 years.

Carr .452(4 years)
Smith .380
Stafford .393
Brees .517
Winston .400 (3 years)
Mariota .476 (3 years)
Palmer .492
Cousins .475
Warren Moon .434.

Every single one of these QB's besides Brees has a losing record through 5 years or less due to not having played 5 years. Should all of them have been cut out of the league?
Click to expand...

Another great post. :)
 
Carr .452(4 years) you know answer to that
Smith .380 let see he is better than thill17
Stafford .393 the same better than thill17
Brees .517 you know answer to that
Winston .400 (3 years)
Mariota .476 (3 years) he is better thanthill17
Palmer .492 you know answer to that he is better than thill17
Cousins .475 you know answer to that
Warren Moon .434. you know answer to that
Click to expand...

What is this crap? What makes all of those quarterbacks better? Most on there have a worse % than RT, so what makes them head and shoulders above him?

Before you have said that "Cousins balled out" and that is why he will be getting a mega contract. Why is his winning % lower?
 
Gents, this is a bell curve. The top of the bell curve represents the average, and each vertical line represents a quadrant. From the line "0" to the next line over is called one standard deviation. From 0 to the first standard deviation on either side accounts for 68.2% of the data set.

Let's call this data set NFL quarterbacks, and let's talk about every QB to ever play the game. About 68.2% of all QBs fall within the first standard deviation from 0. The further toward it goes, the more anomalous the data becomes. For example, you'd probably find Tom Brady past the 3a marker, and Ryan Leaf around the -3a marker.

Where does Tannehill fit in? Well, somewhere between the 0 and 1a. You could also plot the same graph for the "Tannehill QB" argument. Around -2a is the people who say "Tannehill needs to go now!" and the 2a is the "Tannehill is a top-10 QB in the league".

AKA a large percentage of us are sitting back while you far-lefters and far-righters bicker like children.
2000px-Standard_deviation_diagram.svg.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom