QB In Focus- Ryan Tannehill

[roy_miami]

That is exactly what you are saying. It is funny how holding on to an illogical position ultimately comes back to bite you.

How did it come back to bite me? I'm pretty sure we both understand he's not really the 11th best hitter in the league right? And how do we know that?

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

How did it come back to bite me? I'm pretty sure we both understand he's not really the 11th best hitter in the league right? And how do we know that?

Your baseball analogy is flawed and irrelevant. Please justify your belief that Brady was the 17th best QB last season.

 

[WVDolphan]

You obviously don't understand what I'm trying to say here.

A qb rating is determined by how th whole offense moves and plays. If a qb throws a 2 yard out and the TE or WR take it 60 yards to the endzone he has a high 100 rating without actually doing anything. If the same WR drops a pass into a CB arms and he intercepts it it negatively affects the qb rating..That's the simplest way to explain that.

A batting average is a singular player stat, no other player has a positive or negative impact on a batting average besides the batter.

You obviously do not understand baseball.

While you could still argue that a baseball players batting average is not nearly as affected by circumstances and his teammates as a QBs passer rating is(because it is not), the idea that batting average is not skewed at all by these things is just plain false.

I agree it is a bad analogy on the part of whoever is using it. If someone wants to argue that Tannehill is mediocre all they need to do is stick to facts. There is no need to bring baseball into it.

 

[WVDolphan]

Your baseball analogy is flawed and irrelevant. Please justify your belief that Brady was the 17th best QB last season.

I do not think he believes that Brady was the 17th best QB last season. I do not see where you draw that conclusion from his argument.

I think the poster believes that thus far in his career, Ryan Tannehill has been nothing more than mediocre, and some posters on here reach and spin information to suggest he is much more than that. The facts indeed support his claim.

 

[roy_miami]

Your baseball analogy is flawed and irrelevant.

Do you believe Cabrerra is the 11th best batter in baseball, yes or no?

 

[roy_miami]

I do not think he believes that Brady was the 17th best QB last season. I do not see where you draw that conclusion from his argument.

I think the poster believes that thus far in his career, Ryan Tannehill has been nothing more than mediocre, and some posters on here reach and spin information to suggest he is much more than that. The facts indeed support his claim.

In the beginning I'm sure that when the first person claimed his favorite batter was the best in the league and used stats to back that claim up he met resistance, very similar resistance we're seeing to accepting the passer rating stat as a measure of the QB. "But he's playing a different team." "He didn't play the same pitcher." "He always has guys on the base." "The weather is different" "The dimensions of the field are different."

But over time after it became painfully obvious that the best hitters were almost always near the top of the rankings it just became commonly accepted that batting average is a very good indicator of a hitters abilities. Simple logic tests can prove this is the case. Do the best hitters tend to have the best batting average? And does it work in reverse-- Do the best batting averages tend to include the best hitters? If the answer to both is yes and the same players tend to show up on both lists then logically batting average is a good indicator of a batters ability, regardless of any extenuating circumstances. But we already knew that.

So using the same logic test:

I think everybody would agree that known great QBs are Peyton Manning, Aaron Rodgers, Tom Brady and Drew Brees
These players all have multiple 100+ passer rating seasons, so what separates top QBs is they tend to have multiple 100+ seasons
Is the reverse true? Here is a list of all QBs in the history of the league with multiple 100+ seasons:
Aaron Rodgers
Joe Montana
Peyton Manning
Tom Brady
Steve Young
Drew Brees
Kurt Warner
Ben Roethlisberger
Phillip Rivers
Russell Wilson

Looks like a list of great QBs to me. So how can anybody reasonably deny that passer rating correlates with QB play? It passes a very simple logic test: the best QBs typically have the best ratings and the best ratings are typically just a list of the best QBs.

And as far as Brady being rated 17, interpreting stats is an art as much as a science. For me passer rating for a season is more of a pass/fail test than a ranking.
100 and above =exceptional
87-100 =very good
70-87=average
below 70=poor

You can nitpick on where to draw the lines and that could even be fluid over years or circumstances but I'll say it until I'm blue in the face: a 100+ rating over a season is indicative of great QB'ing.

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

In the beginning I'm sure that when the first person claimed his favorite batter was the best in the league and used stats to back that claim up he met resistance, very similar resistance we're seeing to accepting the passer rating stat as a measure of the QB. "But he's playing a different team." "He didn't play the same pitcher." "He always has guys on the base." "The weather is different" "The dimensions of the field are different."

But over time after it became painfully obvious that the best hitters were almost always near the top of the rankings it just became commonly accepted that batting average is a very good indicator of a hitters abilities. Simple logic tests can prove this is the case. Do the best hitters tend to have the best batting average? And does it work in reverse-- Do the best batting averages tend to include the best hitters? If the answer to both is yes and the same players tend to show up on both lists then logically batting average is a good indicator of a batters ability, regardless of any extenuating circumstances. But we already knew that.

So using the same logic test:

I think everybody would agree that known great QBs are Peyton Manning, Aaron Rodgers, Tom Brady and Drew Brees
These players all have multiple 100+ passer rating seasons, so what separates top QBs is they tend to have multiple 100+ seasons
Is the reverse true? Here is a list of all QBs in the history of the league with multiple 100+ seasons:
Aaron Rodgers
Joe Montana
Peyton Manning
Tom Brady
Steve Young
Drew Brees
Kurt Warner
Ben Roethlisberger
Phillip Rivers
Russell Wilson

Looks like a list of great QBs to me. So how can anybody reasonably deny that passer rating correlates with QB play? It passes a very simple logic test: the best QBs typically have the best ratings and the best ratings are typically just a list of the best QBs.

And as far as Brady being rated 17, interpreting stats is an art as much as a science. For me passer rating for a season is more of a pass/fail test than a ranking.
100 and above =exceptional
87-100 =very good
70-87=average
below 70=poor

You can nitpick on where to draw the lines and that could even be fluid over years or circumstances but I'll say it until I'm blue in the face: a 100+ rating over a season is indicative of great QB'ing.

Let me adjust the groups to be more logical:

100 and above =exceptional
90-99 =very good
80-89=average
70-79=below average
below 70=poor


So that makes Brady average last season. That fits well with the middle of the pack ranking. Do you also believe that Luck is only an average QB? Do you believe that Wilson is way better than Luck? How about that Tanneill is closer to Luck and Brady than they are to Wilson? Was Nick Foles better than Russell Wilson? Was Josh McCown better than Russell Willson? All of those conclusions are drawn from your simple flawed argument that QB rating is reflective of the QB's play alone and is a sufficient measure to accurately reflect his performance.

You still haven't explained the 30 point swing in Brady's rating from 2007 to 2007. I'll give you a hint, you cannot explain it with your flawed premise. You have to account for the players around the QB. But you won't do that because it opens up the argument that Tannehill's efficiency was brought down by his teammates too. And if there is one thing that a Tannehater cannot do is share the blame.

Here is my belief in a nutshell. You can achieve a 100+ rating without playing great but you cannot achieve it without playing efficient. I reserve the great label for those performances that are both efficient and a central focus of the offense. IMO, that is how you distinguish between Russell Wilson and Aaron Rodgers. That is how you distinguish between the 2001 Tom Brady and the 2013 Tom Brady. That is how you distinguish between the 2004 Roethlisberger and the 2009 Roethlisberger.

Look, we all draw the line somewhere. Some minimum role in the offense is required. If a QB throws 10 passes a game and end the season with a 110 QB rating, did he have a great season?

 

[roy_miami]

Let me adjust the groups to be more logical:

100 and above =exceptional
90-99 =very good
80-89=average
70-79=below average
below 70=poor


So that makes Brady average last season. That fits well with the middle of the pack ranking. Do you also believe that Luck is only an average QB? Do you believe that Wilson is way better than Luck? How about that Tanneill is closer to Luck and Brady than they are to Wilson? Was Nick Foles better than Russell Wilson? Was Josh McCown better than Russell Willson? All of those conclusions are drawn from your simple flawed argument that QB rating is reflective of the QB's play alone and is a sufficient measure to accurately reflect his performance.

Wilson played at an elite level.
Brady and Luck played at a very good level last season.
Tannehill played at an average level.
Brady has sustained at an elite level at times during his career, therefore he is probably elite.

That is what I believe so stop trying to twist my words.

You still haven't explained the 30 point swing in Brady's rating from 2007 to 2007. I'll give you a hint, you cannot explain it with your flawed premise. You have to account for the players around the QB. But you won't do that because it opens up the argument that Tannehill's efficiency was brought down by his teammates too. And if there is one thing that a Tannehater cannot do is share the blame.

Yes I have. Its could be variance. Maybe its something else, who cares? Brady has already proven to be elite. Brady still had a very good rating and won 12 games. Why would anybody just assume that Tannehill is also playing at an elite level but has just been stricken by the variance bug or was the unluckiest young QB in the NFL and ended up with a roster full of turds? Is it possible? Sure. But why would anybody want to sing that theory from the rooftops?

Here is my belief in a nutshell. You can achieve a 100+ rating without playing great but you cannot achieve it without playing efficient. I reserve the great label for those performances that are both efficient and a central focus of the offense. IMO, that is how you distinguish between Russell Wilson and Aaron Rodgers. That is how you distinguish between the 2001 Tom Brady and the 2013 Tom Brady. That is how you distinguish between the 2004 Roethlisberger and the 2009 Roethlisberger.

At least you now admit that passer rating correlates with QB play. Chip chip chipping away...

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

Wilson played at an elite level.
Brady and Luck played at a very good level last season.
Tannehill played at an average level.
Brady has sustained at an elite level at times during his career, therefore he is probably elite.

That is what I believe so stop trying to twist my words.

But Luck and Brady only fit in the average category. How could that be?

How about Foles vs Wilson? Who was better last season?

Yes I have. Its could be variance. Maybe its something else, who cares? Brady has already proven to be elite. Brady still had a very good rating and won 12 games. Why would anybody just assume that Tannehill is also playing at an elite level but has just been stricken by the variance bug or was the unluckiest young QB in the NFL and ended up with a roster full of turds? Is it possible? Sure. But why would anybody want to sing that theory from the rooftops?

Variance? Something else? Phase of the moon? Biorhythms? The answer is obvious but you can't go near it.

I never said that Tannehill played at anything other than an average level last season. The question is WHY? An OL full of turds is the TRUTH. The fact that you cannot admit it makes you a blind homer. I have data, visual evidence, and the fact that they replaced most of them supporting my side of the argument.

At least you now admit that passer rating correlates with QB play. Chip chip chipping away...

Never said it wasn't. What I said (a dozen times) that is is a measure of the whole offense, I assumed you knew that included the QB. My bad.

There are plenty of articles discussing the issues with QB rating but here are a few excerpts to help educate you:

We’ve already seen that completion percentage is imperfect, and while interceptions per attempt are better than just plain interceptions, many of the same problems we discussed remain. Yards and touchdowns, in my opinion, aren’t as bad, but are both still largely dependent on situation and supporting cast. Putting them all together in a formula doesn’t make them any less flawed, so the Passer Rating incorporates all of the problems mentioned in the past two articles plus some.

Well I'm here to tell you that while it is a useful statistic to measure a QB's efficiency year in and year out, and is helpful in comparing how efficient different QBs are, it has little use beyond that and has no use in determining if one QB "performed" better than another in a given game, season or career.

However, interception numbers are highly volatile, especially with regard to game situations. For instance, Russell Wilson has thrown an interception on only 0.79% of his attempts this year while leading but on 3.3% of his attempts while trailing*, meaning Wilson throws over four times as many picks while trailing. This phenomenon makes sense according to game theory as well, as a defense will be geared up to stop the pass in situations where passes are expected. A quick look at how those situations can fluctuate from team to team and you can see why one QB might have a tougher job of avoiding turnovers than another.

Everyone knows that quarterback rating is flawed. Everyone has known this for a long time.

I can't believe how perfect these quotes are. They match exactly what I have been trying to explain to you for days. If you won't take my word for it, at least consider other sources.

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

I do not think he believes that Brady was the 17th best QB last season. I do not see where you draw that conclusion from his argument.

Well no kidding. I was merely pointing the flaw in his logic. He claims that QB Rating is a reflection of the play of the QB and the QB alone. Brady was 17th in QB rating last season. That's where I draw the conclusion. Not too much of a stretch.

The problem is that he only wants the use the "QB rating is exclusively a measure of the QB" crap when it matches his previously held opinion. In his mind, 81.7 is accurate for Tannehill and a clear indication that he is far below Wilson, but 87 is not an accurate reflection of Luck or Brady. Why? Ummmm, because...... Also, why does one QBs rating fluctuate by 30 points in one season? Um, random variation?

My opinion (OTOH) fully supports all of the QB ratings and their variations that we have discussed. Not only that, my opinion is widely held and completely logical. QB rating is a measure of the overall offense's efficiency. It is heavily influenced by the QB but is also can be impacted by the surrounding players, coaching, and game situations. None of this is disputed by anyone who isn't trying to tie a QB rating to a single QB to meet some agenda.

 

[roy_miami]

Well no kidding. I was merely pointing the flaw in his logic. He claims that QB Rating is a reflection of the play of the QB and the QB alone. Brady was 17th in QB rating last season. That's where I draw the conclusion. Not too much of a stretch.
.

If thats a flaw in my logic then you must also believe the batting average statistic is flawed. Or that Cabrera isn't a top ten hitter anymore. I never said passer rating is a reflection of the QB alone. I never said I believe Brady is the 17th best QB. I do believe there is a big difference between an 87 rating and 81. And I believe Russell Wilson played at a MUCH higher level than Ryan Tannehill, and Wilson will almost surely be known as elite by all sooner rather than later. I believe Wilson is a top 5 QB in the league right now. Tannehill? Who knows.

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

If thats a flaw in my logic then you must also believe the batting average statistic is flawed. Or that Cabrera isn't a top ten hitter anymore. I never said passer rating is a reflection of the QB alone. I never said I believe Brady is the 17th best QB. I do believe there is a big difference between an 87 rating and 81. And I believe Russell Wilson played at a MUCH higher level than Ryan Tannehill, and Wilson will almost surely be known as elite by all sooner rather than later. I believe Wilson is a top 5 QB in the league right now. Tannehill? Who knows.

I call bull****. You objected to it being considered a team stat. Isn't the alternative that you consider it an individual stat? Is there another choice?

This was the quote from PFF:

"While QB Rating is obviously supposed to be a QB statistic, it’s actually a better gauge of what the entire offense did in a given situation.'

To which you raised an objection.

I don't hate PFF, I hate the argument that because PFF says passer rating is a team stat then it is so.

Now you're really arguing like Junc....

 

[roy_miami]

I call bull****. You objected to it being considered a team stat. Isn't the alternative that you consider it an individual stat? Is there another choice?

Is batting average an individual stat?

Batting average correlates to a hitters ability as passer rating correlates to a QBs ability. Neither are individual stats but both present a strong correlation.

 

[PhinFan1968]

Is batting average an individual stat?

Batting average correlates to a hitters ability as passer rating correlates to a QBs ability. Neither are individual stats but both present a strong correlation.

I don't know what you're smoking...but those are not even close to the same in what they represent, nor is the amount of individuality they represent anywhere in the same realm.

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

is batting average an individual stat?

Batting average correlates to a hitters ability as passer rating correlates to a qbs ability. Neither are individual stats but both present a strong correlation.

wtf?