Hoss Posted November 9, 2015 Report Share Posted November 9, 2015 (edited) Not with football I'm not. I'm not using ESPN's stupid QBR, I'm using what I've always called a passer rating. QBR is also a "meh" stat. Neither are good gauges of the QB position (do we really think Tyrod Taylor is better than or has played better than Aaron Rodgers all season? Passer rating thinks so, and QBR has them close). Sample size also comes into play when considering Manuel who has only played in a few games. This is really a worthless discussion since Manuel will likely never start a game at QB without injuries to the starter and Tannehill will be starting for the next few years at least. But it's worth discussing find a good way to judge QBs. When looking at basic statistics I generally look for the stats that have the best guys at the top and the worst at the bottom. Lately it's been yards per game that has done a good job of separating them. It's extremely basic thinking, but if you don't want to take a deep dive into advanced stats you can put your mind more around why they might have more yards per game. A lot of it has to do with the fact that their teams trust them in every situation and will have a playbook designed to let them make the plays. It's not indicative of who is better, but it is pretty indicative of who has played better. It also won't give you anything conclusive without looking at other stats and watching games, but it's a start. Edited November 9, 2015 by Hoss Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted November 9, 2015 Report Share Posted November 9, 2015 QBR is also a "meh" stat. Neither are good gauges of the QB position (do we really think Tyrod Taylor is better than or has played better than Aaron Rodgers all season? Passer rating thinks so, and QBR has them close). Sample size also comes into play when considering Manuel who has only played in a few games. This is really a worthless discussion since Manuel will likely never start a game at QB without injuries to the starter and Tannehill will be starting for the next few years at least. But it's worth discussing find a good way to judge QBs. May Tannehill start for the Fins for a thousand years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted November 9, 2015 Report Share Posted November 9, 2015 I agree with everything except the part where you said he isn't a lot better than EJ. He's leaps and bounds better than EJ. How have we ever disagreed on Tannehill? My argument this entire time has been that he's average...now Eleven goes and says it, and you agree!?!?!?! FFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!!!! And yes, he is much better than EJ. Not with football I'm not. I'm not using ESPN's stupid QBR, I'm using what I've always called a passer rating. I don't think you're old enough for this sort of thing :thumbdown: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted November 9, 2015 Report Share Posted November 9, 2015 I don't think you're old enough for this sort of thing :thumbdown: Now I'm lost again! What do you mean? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted November 9, 2015 Report Share Posted November 9, 2015 QBR is also a "meh" stat. Neither are good gauges of the QB position (do we really think Tyrod Taylor is better than or has played better than Aaron Rodgers all season? Passer rating thinks so, and QBR has them close). Sample size also comes into play when considering Manuel who has only played in a few games. This is really a worthless discussion since Manuel will likely never start a game at QB without injuries to the starter and Tannehill will be starting for the next few years at least. But it's worth discussing find a good way to judge QBs. When looking at basic statistics I generally look for the stats that have the best guys at the top and the worst at the bottom. Lately it's been yards per game that has done a good job of separating them. It's extremely basic thinking, but if you don't want to take a deep dive into advanced stats you can put your mind more around why they might have more yards per game. A lot of it has to do with the fact that their teams trust them in every situation and will have a playbook designed to let them make the plays. Neither is total yards yet you seem happy to use it as a defense for Tannehill :p But yea, there is no single stat that's great for QBs. Unfortunately, I don't think any of us watches enough All-22 of QBs around the league to base our opinions on the real good stuff for evaluation. We are all Jon Snow. Now I'm lost again! What do you mean? "I'm going to do what I've always done and not accept anything new. And while you're at it, get off my lawn!" ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted November 9, 2015 Report Share Posted November 9, 2015 Neither is total yards yet you seem happy to use it as a defense for Tannehill :P But yea, there is no single stat that's great for QBs. Unfortunately, I don't think any of us watches enough All-22 of QBs around the league to base our opinions on the real good stuff for evaluation. We are all Jon Snow. "I'm going to do what I've always done and not accept anything new. And while you're at it, get off my lawn!" ;) Oh! I just think ESPN is kind of . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted November 9, 2015 Report Share Posted November 9, 2015 Neither is total yards yet you seem happy to use it as a defense for Tannehill :P But yea, there is no single stat that's great for QBs. Unfortunately, I don't think any of us watches enough All-22 of QBs around the league to base our opinions on the real good stuff for evaluation. We are all Jon Snow. You answered your first gripe with your second statement. There aren't great stats. But some are better than others. Yards, touchdowns, interceptions are better gauges than attempts and even passer rating for me. That was my entire point (and that's why I made sure to type half an essay when explaining my stance on yards). There are exceptions to every statistic. Most statistics are just numbers with no context or meaning. How have we ever disagreed on Tannehill? My argument this entire time has been that he's average...now Eleven goes and says it, and you agree!?!?!?! FFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!!!! And yes, he is much better than EJ. Chances are, when we got heated in discussion, I said he was far above average. He's not far above it. He's average or, at best, JUST above it. This whole thing started when I defended Tannehill after Bills fans continuously laughed or "picked on" his play. I was arguing that he's a starter you're comfortable with in this league and isn't a joke in line with guys like Sanchez, EJ, etc. He's probably not going to lead you to a Super Bowl with almost himself playing well, but he's definitely good enough to give you a chance to win any game when surrounded with a good roster. There are very few guys in this league that will outright win you games more than once or twice a year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted November 9, 2015 Report Share Posted November 9, 2015 Oh! I just think ESPN is kind of ######. I think you might be understating just how bad it is. Still, I think QBR is a marked improvement upon traditional rating. You answered your first gripe with your second statement. There aren't great stats. But some are better than others. Yards, touchdowns, interceptions are better gauges than attempts and even passer rating for me. That was my entire point (and that's why I made sure to type half an essay when explaining my stance on yards). There are exceptions to every statistic. Most statistics are just numbers with no context or meaning. Chances are, when we got heated in discussion, I said he was far above average. He's not far above it. He's average or, at best, JUST above it. This whole thing started when I defended Tannehill after Bills fans continuously laughed or "picked on" his play. I was arguing that he's a starter you're comfortable with in this league and isn't a joke in line with guys like Sanchez, EJ, etc. He's probably not going to lead you to a Super Bowl with almost himself playing well, but he's definitely good enough to give you a chance to win any game when surrounded with a good roster. There are very few guys in this league that will outright win you games more than once or twice a year. There are some metrics I really like such as adjusted yards per play, and yards per attempt, largely because I think small ball passing attacks are inadequate in the long run (too easy for the better defenses to defend IMO) unless you have somebody with the brain and precision of older Brady/Manning/Brees and so on. Do you follow Cian Fahey, by chance? He does a tremendous job breaking down QBs and ignores stats almost entirely. Love his work. And I seriously can't believe we're basically in agreement on Tannehill. Man, text-based conversations sometimes, I tell ya :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted November 9, 2015 Report Share Posted November 9, 2015 There are some metrics I really like such as adjusted yards per play, and yards per attempt, largely because I think small ball passing attacks are inadequate in the long run (too easy for the better defenses to defend IMO) unless you have somebody with the brain and precision of older Brady/Manning/Brees and so on. Do you follow Cian Fahey, by chance? He does a tremendous job breaking down QBs and ignores stats almost entirely. Love his work. And I seriously can't believe we're basically in agreement on Tannehill. Man, text-based conversations sometimes, I tell ya :lol: I don't follow Fahey. Familiar with some of his work, but I just followed him on Twitter. I'll get a little closer and try to learn from him. I also like those stats you mentioned. I'm often too lazy to get into advanced stats for football, especially in discussions/debates. The advanced stat brigade (aka people smarter than me) should find some way to rate QBs based on the context of their team. I don't think Russell Wilson is a great quarterback, but I think he offers basically everything that team needs. He's a good mix with the running game and smart enough to avoid a ton of mistakes which allows the defense to rest up and be consistently good-to-great. Peyton Manning has played with some terrible defenses so he's had to be a Hall of Famer just to win some games and win with some teams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted November 9, 2015 Report Share Posted November 9, 2015 I don't follow Fahey. Familiar with some of his work, but I just followed him on Twitter. I'll get a little closer and try to learn from him. I also like those stats you mentioned. I'm often too lazy to get into advanced stats for football, especially in discussions/debates. The advanced stat brigade (aka people smarter than me) should find some way to rate QBs based on the context of their team. I don't think Russell Wilson is a great quarterback, but I think he offers basically everything that team needs. He's a good mix with the running game and smart enough to avoid a ton of mistakes which allows the defense to rest up and be consistently good-to-great. Peyton Manning has played with some terrible defenses so he's had to be a Hall of Famer just to win some games and win with some teams. Stop saying things I agree with, this isn't fun. And yea, I'm right there with you on laziness when it comes to looking up advanced football stats in debates :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doohickie Posted November 9, 2015 Report Share Posted November 9, 2015 Just finished catching up on the thread for today's game. Pretty good until the infighting about Tannehill and QB rating. You're better than that, ladies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted November 9, 2015 Report Share Posted November 9, 2015 (edited) I'd say that was one of the more tame and productive discussions this board has had when the discussion starts with a disagreement. Back pat to myself and the other males involved in the discussion. Edited November 9, 2015 by Hoss Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted November 9, 2015 Report Share Posted November 9, 2015 Just finished catching up on the thread for today's game. Pretty good until the infighting about Tannehill and QB rating. You're better than that, ladies. Ummmm.... no we're not. :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted November 9, 2015 Report Share Posted November 9, 2015 I'd say that was one of the more tame and productive discussions this board has had when the discussion starts with a disagreement. Back pat to myself and the other MALES involved in the discussion. Why is this capitalized? :huh: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted November 9, 2015 Report Share Posted November 9, 2015 Just finished catching up on the thread for today's game. Pretty good until the infighting about Tannehill and QB rating. You're better than that, ladies. I, for one, am not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted November 9, 2015 Report Share Posted November 9, 2015 Why is this capitalized? :huh: Because the genitalia of those in the discussion was prioritized. Just finished catching up on the thread for today's game. Pretty good until the infighting about Tannehill and QB rating. You're better than that, ladies. So either BJ doesn't know the gender of us posters or he believes only females bicker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted November 9, 2015 Report Share Posted November 9, 2015 Because the genitalia of those in the discussion was prioritized. So either BJ doesn't know the gender of us posters or he believes only females bicker. Cue the sex vs. gender debate in 3...2...1... (I pray to god I'm kidding) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted November 9, 2015 Report Share Posted November 9, 2015 Because the genitalia of those in the discussion was prioritized. So either BJ doesn't know the gender of us posters or he believes only females bicker. Well, I'm not about to prove him wrong. You can have this one Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted November 9, 2015 Report Share Posted November 9, 2015 Cue the sex vs. gender debate in 3...2...1... (I pray to god I'm kidding) Me too. I'm uninterested in a debate about it. I see no reason to bring it into the discussion in the first place, but I was also mostly kidding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted November 9, 2015 Report Share Posted November 9, 2015 For whatever it's worth, I took the entire exchange to be in a joking manner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted November 9, 2015 Report Share Posted November 9, 2015 Anyways, I went to the game today. It's really weird, but through the entire tailgating, noise, food, etc., I still had way more fun at the Sabres game Saturday afternoon. Seeing Eichel live is beyond cool, the arena just gets a different vibe when he's out there. I'll never forget that game. As for the Bills, good win, and a must win. Pretty stoked about Thursday night game, despite the jerseys. It's a damn good weekend when you get to attend both a Sabres and Bills win :beer: For whatever it's worth, I took the entire exchange to be in a joking manner. We've gone over this in multiple threads True, joking is not allowed And there's Meh Cassel throwing a huge pick 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted November 9, 2015 Report Share Posted November 9, 2015 Come on Johnson, you know the correct thing to call them was children. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted November 9, 2015 Report Share Posted November 9, 2015 And there's Meh Cassel throwing a huge pick 6 He's so, so bad. For all of the consternation directed at Rex and the coaches, they deserve a huge amount of credit for 1) pushing Whaley to go get Taylor and 2) choosing him as the starter. For a team with playoff aspirations, it would have been so easy to go with the "safe" veteran who has had some "success" in the league before, but they made the bold (and right) choice. Come on Johnson, you know the correct thing to call them was children. That is IT! I'm going to my room and not coming out for dinner! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted November 9, 2015 Report Share Posted November 9, 2015 He's so, so bad. For all of the consternation directed at Rex and the coaches, they deserve a huge amount of credit for 1) pushing Whaley to go get Taylor and 2) choosing him as the starter. For a team with playoff aspirations, it would have been so easy to go with the "safe" veteran who has had some "success" in the league before, but they made the bold (and right) choice. TBF he just threw the tying touchdown in the only manner he can, by praying Dez catches a hail marry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted November 9, 2015 Report Share Posted November 9, 2015 TBF he just threw the tying touchdown in the only manner he can, by praying Dez catches a hail marry I can't believe he came down with that. Reminiscent of Megatron's one TD between three Dallas defenders a few years back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.