Keep Texans Talk Google Ad Free!
Venmo Tip Jar | Paypal Tip Jar
Thanks for your support! 🍺😎👍

Objectively assessing our QBs

santo said:
But somebody has to get that kicker there, unless you break it down to how many times the running back got the kicker down field, but since they are running out of time, it's mainly the qb passing the ball.
Click to expand...

There's alot of someones in those drives that can and do contribute. In some instances more than the qb.

ST returner-a good return may only have the qb on the field to "center" the ball for the kicker or move it like 10-20 yds more into fg range. We've seen some of the most inept qb's be able to do that from time to time.

running backs & WR's.....YAC - outside of catching the ball these guys' jobs are to make people miss. We all saw how Tebow got credit for a 60-70 yd TD pass & game winning drive to win that playoff game against the Steelers a few years ago. In reality he only threw it like 12 actual yds and Thomas did the rest. That's so clutch. Tell me again what Tebow actually did?

Kickers - The greatest qb clutch play in the world would mean nothing if the kicker shanks it.

referee - penalties often contribute to moving the ball as well. We've all been witnesses to that bogus PI call that bails a team out, and not only advances the ball, but also stops the clock & gives them a fresh set of downs to work with. How did the qb actually contribute to that other than throwing the ball?

That's not even talking about the o-line giving these guys time to sit back and work. It's just not a very good stat and needs to be done away with imo.
 
Mr teX said:
Yeah and its a terrible way to try and measure the "clutchness" of a qb too. Football is too team oriented for a stat like that to mean much of anything. Many of these game winning drives the qb is not even the actual guy winning it...it's the kicker. For instance, are we going to equivocate Brady's game winning drive in the SB against the Rams alongside say Montana's game winning drive against the Bengals in 89' or even Elway's 99 yd drive against the Browns?


Not bagging on you DB, i know its not a stat you made up, i just hate it when people try to use that stat as some kind of indicator of a qb's clutchness. Too many things have to go right for those kinds of drives to take place and be successful.
Click to expand...

Okay, take that Adam Vinatieri kick for an example. Did the Pats need a TD to win? No, they needed a FG.

And they got the ball on the 17 with 1:30 on the clock and no timeouts.

Did Vinatieri march the offense down the field to set up his own kick?

Of course not.

It was Brady who drove his team down the field, with no timeouts, to set up that FG.

Yeah, it is a team sport. But this is the NFL, where having a great QB is paramount to experiencing championship success.

A lot of things do have to go right. That goes without saying. But, if the QB sucks or is a choker, none of the rest of it matters. The entire team can be great, but if the QB cannot perform under pressure to win games in the end, the team suffers for it.

Clutch stats are not the be all/end all of metrics, but I think they should certainly be part of the evaluation. Just like turnover ratios and third down conversion rates, they tell a story and give insight to a bigger picture analysis. JMO, but for me, it is a stat that I want my QB to excel in at the end of the day.
 
Mr teX said:
There's alot of someones in those drives that can and do contribute. In some instances more than the qb.

ST returner-a good return may only have the qb on the field to "center" the ball for the kicker or move it like 10-20 yds more into fg range. We've seen some of the most inept qb's be able to do that from time to time.

running backs & WR's.....YAC - outside of catching the ball these guys' jobs are to make people miss. We all saw how Tebow got credit for a 60-70 yd TD pass & game winning drive to win that playoff game against the Steelers a few years ago. In reality he only threw it like 12 actual yds and Thomas did the rest. That's so clutch. Tell me again what Tebow actually did?

All the great clutch play from the qb in the world means nothing if the kicker shanks it.

referee...penalties- often contribute to moving the ball as well. We've all been witnesses to that bogus PI call that bails a team out, and not only advances the ball, but gives them a fresh set of downs to work with. How did the qb actually contribute to that other than throwing the ball?

That's not even talking about the o-line giving these guys time to sit back and work. It's just not a very good stat and needs to be done away with imo.
Click to expand...

I don't see how anything you're saying makes it a poor stat. disaack's post is spot on. You can dissect any one game and try to give credit to everyone but the QB but over a career all QBs get opportunities - some do it and some don't.

In 10 years in the league Fitz has 7 4QC and 9 GWDs.

In 3 years Willson has 10 4QC and 15 GWDs.

That straight up matches the eyeball test on which one is clutch.

Edit - I'd expect Schaub to be in between and sure enough 11 4QC and 14 GWD. Better than Fitz. Not as good as Wilson.
 
infantrycak said:
I don't see how anything you're saying makes it a poor stat. disaack's post is spot on. You can dissect any one game and try to give credit to everyone but the QB but over a career all QBs get opportunities - some do it and some don't.

In 10 years in the league Fitz has 7 4QC and 9 GWDs.

In 3 years Willson has 10 4QC and 15 GWDs.

That straight up matches the eyeball test on which one is clutch.

Edit - I'd expect Schaub to be in between and sure enough 11 4QC and 14 GWD. Better than Fitz. Not as good as Wilson.
Click to expand...

That's my point...If you watched or saw how many of those games unfolded, you can dissect all those games and give credit to multiple people as to why those drives were ultimately successful. Yes everyone gets opportunities, but not all opportunities are equal.

Eli Manning is top 3 amongst active qbs in 4QC in the playoffs and before his career is up will be probably be top 2. Will you or anyone really think that he's more clutch or as clutch in the playoffs than Montana or Elway were? b/c that's who he'll be tied/ahead of.

There are examples like this all up and down those lists. Hell Mark Sanchez is top 5 in terms of active qbs in the playoffs with 4QC..............just ahead of Rothlisberger...
 
Double Barrel said:
Okay, take that Adam Vinatieri kick for an example. Did the Pats need a TD to win? No, they needed a FG.

And they got the ball on the 17 with 1:30 on the clock and no timeouts.

Did Vinatieri march the offense down the field to set up his own kick?

Of course not.

It was Brady who drove his team down the field, with no timeouts, to set up that FG.

Yeah, it is a team sport. But this is the NFL, where having a great QB is paramount to experiencing championship success.

A lot of things do have to go right. That goes without saying. But, if the QB sucks or is a choker, none of the rest of it matters. The entire team can be great, but if the QB cannot perform under pressure to win games in the end, the team suffers for it.

Clutch stats are not the be all/end all of metrics, but I think they should certainly be part of the evaluation. Just like turnover ratios and third down conversion rates, they tell a story and give insight to a bigger picture analysis. JMO, but for me, it is a stat that I want my QB to excel in at the end of the day.
Click to expand...

Yes the greats show up tops on these lists, but just as frequent, so do the mediocore too. Look at the lists and look who's where. In a few years, the likes of Colin Kaepernick, Joe Flacco and Alex Smith could be top 5 in this category. Short of any of those guys going to at least 3 SB's and/or vastly improving thier games, i'm not gonna be looking at them as being more clutch than Montana or Elway or yes even Brady.
 
Mr teX said:
Eli Manning is top 3 amongst active qbs in 4QC in the playoffs and before his career is up will be probably be top 2. Will you or anyone really think that he's more clutch in the playoffs than Montana or Elway? b/c that's who he'll be ahead of.
Click to expand...

You're aware the Giants have 2 rings due to him being clutch in the playoffs right?

And then there's his playoff choking brother with 1 playoff 4QC.

There are examples like this all up and down those lists. Hell Mark Sanchez is top 5 in terms of active qbs in the playoffs with 4QC..............just ahead of Rothlisberger...
Click to expand...

He's not ahead, they are tied with 2 each.

Nobody is saying it's the be all end all. It's a valid reference point.

I personally think the regular season stats are more useful because the sample sizes are so small in the playoffs. But even there you can see a correlation with Peyton being the perfect example - regular season hero, postseason zero.
 
ObsiWan said:
Yeah, but it sure is good to know that it's there when you need it.

We saw it first hand from Russell Wilson right here in Reliant. We had them beat until Wilson took over the damn game in the 4th qtr.

And as far as those other stats....

Over the past three seasons Drew Brees averaged 5100 yds, 39 TDs, 16 INTs. In only one of those years did they make the playoffs. The other two years they finished 7-9.

Meanwhile, in game manager-land, Russell Wilson averaged 3300+ yds, 24 TDs, 8.67 INTs over the same period. And his team went to three NFC championship games winning two and picking up one SB trophy and was one inexplicable play call from another.

All that to say that gaudy passing numbers don't always translate into team success.
Click to expand...

Football is a team sport, and winning or losing is about the team, but you can still choose any given position and say what sort of production you want out of that position. This isn't saying that getting that production out of that position is going to make you a perennial winner or a Super Bowl champion, it's just saying that if you're not getting that production out of the position, there's room for improvement.

I want 1300 yards rushing out of the RB position and I want >4.4 ypc and >10 TDs. I want 2 WRs going over 1000 yards. I want an edge rusher getting more than 15 sacks. I want a DB to get over 4 INTs. I want an ILB to get more than 80 tackles and a few forced fumbles.

None of those things achieved individually are going to produce a winning team or assure me of the playoffs, but those are standards to have your players aspire to.
 
Double Barrel said:
The Steelers did lead the league in passing offense for one of those Super Bowl years. Maybe the 1978 season when Bradshaw won the MVP?

As far as what I want in our QB, three things: ball security, high third down conversion rate, and the clutch factor.
Click to expand...

Exactly this^^^^ AND outplay Andrew Luck at least once a year.
 
My $.02:

1) Mallet (The Texas Hammer) is the only QB with a shot
of turning into anything on the roster. It's 50/50 that
happens. I think his upside is somewhere around Tannehill.
(or he could be JAG too..)

2) Hoyer sucks. Waste of money, truly a head scratching move.
It just seems like BoB did it for the sake of surrounding himself
with more NE castoffs..

3) Savage is savage -- he was a veritable nobody in college and
he's not going to amount to much in the pros either..
 
My $.02 is that I feel the reason the people in the Middle East hate S'mores is because they believe marshmallows are instruments of the devil especially when they melt.

After debating the QB thing for over 2 years I've tapped out.
 
Double Barrel said:
Okay, take that Adam Vinatieri kick for an example. Did the Pats need a TD to win? No, they needed a FG.

And they got the ball on the 17 with 1:30 on the clock and no timeouts.

Did Vinatieri march the offense down the field to set up his own kick?

Of course not.

It was Brady who drove his team down the field, with no timeouts, to set up that FG.

Yeah, it is a team sport. But this is the NFL, where having a great QB is paramount to experiencing championship success.

A lot of things do have to go right. That goes without saying. But, if the QB sucks or is a choker, none of the rest of it matters. The entire team can be great, but if the QB cannot perform under pressure to win games in the end, the team suffers for it.

Clutch stats are not the be all/end all of metrics, but I think they should certainly be part of the evaluation. Just like turnover ratios and third down conversion rates, they tell a story and give insight to a bigger picture analysis. JMO, but for me, it is a stat that I want my QB to excel in at the end of the day.
Click to expand...

WHAT AN IDEA! It takes a team to play clutch football! Who would have thought anybody other than the QB is needed? That's the song and dance we've been hearing ad nauseum.
 
Marshall said:
WHAT AN IDEA! It takes a team to play clutch football! Who would have thought anybody other than the QB is needed? That's the song and dance we've been hearing ad nauseum.
Click to expand...

For that conversation may I suggest we start an "Objectively assessing our Team" thread?
 
I doubt this is a result of the new server lol, but this board has gotten stranger than strange even affecting mods :elvis:
 
Marshall said:
WHAT AN IDEA! It takes a team to play clutch football! Who would have thought anybody other than the QB is needed? That's the song and dance we've been hearing ad nauseum.
Click to expand...

It is one metric of many to be utilized in big picture analysis. However, it is a telling stat for a QB. If it was not, then please point me to the NFL.com stat page that lists comeback wins for offensive linemen.

If you could bother yourself to read entire posts before you do your goofy kneejerk reply, perhaps you would see that I never said otherwise. But, I would never expect you to understand nuance.
 
ok, let me get this straight now that I'm sober for a minute and not terribly high. Are we supposed to analyze the qb's on our roster or what our dream season for them would be? Or are we supposed to throw out a hypothetical what our dream qb would do whoever that may be?

Or we supposed to be fairly realistic and state what we think our current batch of qb's could accomplish if health is not an issue?
 
JB said:
ok, let me get this straight now that I'm sober for a minute and not terribly high. Are we supposed to analyze the qb's on our roster or what our dream season for them would be? Or are we supposed to throw out a hypothetical what our dream qb would do whoever that may be?

Or we supposed to be fairly realistic and state what we think our current batch of qb's could accomplish if health is not an issue?
Click to expand...

You've nailed it precisely.

Good job.

So waddaya think?
 
  • Like
Reactions: JB
JB said:
ok, let me get this straight now that I'm sober for a minute and not terribly high. Are we supposed to analyze the qb's on our roster or what our dream season for them would be? Or are we supposed to throw out a hypothetical what our dream qb would do whoever that may be?

Or we supposed to be fairly realistic and state what we think our current batch of qb's could accomplish if health is not an issue?
Click to expand...

If you remember back to the beginning of last season, most of us expected very little from Fitzpatrick. He was even criticized for his poor play. Then four or five games into it someone mentioned he wasn't doing half bad.

Though we can use stats to support any argument I'm suggesting we identify a few that we could point at to say, "He was good because. .."

I've got three I'm going to be looking at & I'm saying so now, so that I can't go back & change my criteria to suit my favorite.

I'd like Mallett to be the guy, but I don't want to unfairly criticize Hoyer.

My three are passer rating, yards per attempt, and completion percentage. If Hoyer can deliver 90+ passer rating, 7+ yards per attempt, 60+ percent completion percentage I'm going to cut him some slack.
 
hmmmm... I figured this was your objective when you started. My issue with this is: if our starter isn't delivering on whatever numbers folks decide on but we are still winning, should we really be calling for his head? Or to flip the question, if the starter is surpassing our preferred stat numbers but we're losing, why should we give him more rope?

Edit:
You may have noticed that the folks who are more likely to scream bloody murder have not answered your call.
You should have done a poll.
:)
 
JB said:
ok, let me get this straight now that I'm sober for a minute and not terribly high. Are we supposed to analyze the qb's on our roster or what our dream season for them would be? Or are we supposed to throw out a hypothetical what our dream qb would do whoever that may be?

Or we supposed to be fairly realistic and state what we think our current batch of qb's could accomplish if health is not an issue?
Click to expand...

It's like this . Your buddy says his girlfriend has a cute friend that's in town and wants to go out . They'll be by your place at 7:00 and it's noon . You spend the next 7 hours running through every scenario known to man and you will not know the results until they drop you back off .
 
thunderkyss said:
If you remember back to the beginning of last season, most of us expected very little from Fitzpatrick. He was even criticized for his poor play. Then four or five games into it someone mentioned he wasn't doing half bad.

Though we can use stats to support any argument I'm suggesting we identify a few that we could point at to say, "He was good because. .."

I've got three I'm going to be looking at & I'm saying so now, so that I can't go back & change my criteria to suit my favorite.

I'd like Mallett to be the guy, but I don't want to unfairly criticize Hoyer.

My three are passer rating, yards per attempt, and completion percentage. If Hoyer can deliver 90+ passer rating, 7+ yards per attempt, 60+ percent completion percentage I'm going to cut him some slack.
Click to expand...

But the thing is, without knowing what else is going on how do you quantify? If Hopkins and Washington//shorts /strong are injured do you expect the same lofty numbers from your qb or is 50%qbr, more td's than picks and some wins enough. Or do you expect or need a qb that will carry a team with no receivers and no running game, a gimpy OL and a shithead OC? I'm having a hard time grasping what you are looking for from a bunch of other unknowing
 
I would like our QB to execute the "multiple" plan that we keep hearing about. Based on who we play, the QB should either throw more, or less, horizontal or vertical. Accuracy is important and ball security. I would rather seen him take a sack than throw up a prayer.
 
ObsiWan said:
hmmmm... I figured this was your objective when you started. My issue with this is: if our starter isn't delivering on whatever numbers folks decide on but we are still winning, should we really be calling for his head? Or to flip the question, if the starter is surpassing our preferred stat numbers but we're losing, why should we give him more rope?

Edit:
You may have noticed that the folks who are more likely to scream bloody murder have not answered your call.
You should have done a poll.
:)
Click to expand...

All we can do is all we can do. If our QB is delivering what I consider good performance I'll simply say so & try to find more plausible reasons we lost.

If he is not playing up to par, I'll start calling for the next guy, just like last year. Even if we are winning. My thinking is if he isn't hitting my numbers then he isn't contributing to the win. We could win with Case Keenum if need be.
 
thunderkyss said:
All we can do is all we can do. If our QB is delivering what I consider good performance I'll simply say so & try to find more plausible reasons we lost.

If he is not playing up to par, I'll start calling for the next guy, just like last year. Even if we are winning. My thinking is if he isn't hitting my numbers then he isn't contributing to the win. We could win with Case Keenum if need be.
Click to expand...


So what you are saying is wins mean nothing, stats are everything. No thanks. not for my football team.I think you're a little on the ridiculous here

btw, what is Keenum's career record? You happy with that pace? Really?
 
JB said:
But the thing is, without knowing what else is going on how do you quantify? If Hopkins and Washington//shorts /strong are injured do you expect the same lofty numbers from your qb or is 50%qbr, more td's than picks and some wins enough.
Click to expand...

See I don't think my numbers are lofty. Wiining QBs put up those numbers when their OL fail them, when the lose their star receiver, when the defense fall apart. These aren't the kind of numbers that would propel a QB to the pro bowl. They just say he is better than average. Like Russell Wilson, he didn't hit all three in every game. He did in most & there weren't many where he didn't hit at least two.

JB said:
Or do you expect or need a qb that will carry a team with no receivers and no running game, a gimpy OL and a shithead OC? I'm having a hard time grasping what you are looking for from a bunch of other unknowing
Click to expand...

If you have no expectations from our QB other than winning or losing, I can see how this is difficult for you to grasp. If your evaluation runs more to subjective qualities then this exercise may not be for you.

I'll start a thread for you where we can post when our QB gets a haircut, or someone says he's the first one there, last to leave, or has an impromptu practice with Jj Watt.
 
JB said:
So what you are saying is wins mean nothing, stats are everything. No thanks. not for my football team.I think you're a little on the ridiculous here

btw, what is Keenum's career record? You happy with that pace? Really?
Click to expand...

Not at all what I'm saying. Can you discern whether the QB aided in a victory, or was he merely along for the ride. Can you tell when the QB lost the game, or did everything he possibly could to win?

How?
 
thunderkyss said:
See I don't think my numbers are lofty. Wiining QBs put up those numbers when their OL fail them, when the lose their star receiver, when the defense fall apart. These aren't the kind of numbers that would propel a QB to the pro bowl. They just say he is better than average. Like Russell Wilson, he didn't hit all three in every game. He did in most & there weren't many where he didn't hit at least two.



If you have no expectations from our QB other than winning or losing, I can see how this is difficult for you to grasp. If your evaluation runs more to subjective qualities then this exercise may not be for you.

I'll start a thread for you where we can post when our QB gets a haircut, or someone says he's the first one there, last to leave, or has an impromptu practice with Jj Watt.
Click to expand...


wow!
full of yourself are ya? Keep your condescending hypothetical bullshit to yourself. That was totally uncalled for and un-necessary
 
thunderkyss said:
Not at all what I'm saying. Can you discern whether the QB aided in a victory, or was he merely along for the ride. Can you tell when the QB lost the game, or did everything he possibly could to win?

How?
Click to expand...

With observation, not by some darn newspaper stats
 
Ball security should be a part of the evaluation, but there needs to be a way of deducting well thrown balls that the receiver doesn't handle that get intercepted. But that gets to subjective determination on whether interceptions are on the QB or the receiver. The obvious ones are easy, but many are a combination.

It is an old saying, but still true. Turnovers USUALLY determine the winners and losers.
 
For example, let's look at Ryan Tannehill.

Last season he had five games where he had over 90 in passer rating, over 60% completion, & greater than 7 ypa

He had another four games where he met two of the three. His completion percentage is pretty high, & he's never had a passer rating below 70. He averaged 92.8 for the season which is certainly respectable... it's above average.

That's five games where he did what a team needs their QB to do, to win football games. Stretch the field, & make good decisions with the football. That's what those three stats tell me. The other four games, I don't know exactly what happened to drop his ypa, or his passer rating. Maybe the defenses were confusing him or getting to him where he couldn't get the ball downfield. Maybe his "star" receiver was out of the game. Maybe who knows? What I do know is that it wasn't a total waste, because he did hit on two of the three. So I'm looking at 9 games total that he didn't bring the overall performance of his team down.

That still leaves seven games where he didn't play well enough, not even average. I don't really care whose fault it was.

Would I have extended his contract, guaranteeing $45M dollars? Based on 2014 alone, no. However, if the structure is such that I can dump him with little repercussion in two years, then maybe so. The Dolphins may very well have already decided to give him two more years, maybe three more years to see what happens. So the $18M he was due to get in 2015 & 2016 was virtually guaranteed anyway.

By March of 2016 -- early in the 2016 league year -- Tannehill would have another $3.5M in guaranteed money triggered for the following season. As of today Miami already had his rights through 2016 if they want him ‎(via the 2015 base and the 2016 fifth-year option) so they aren't actually chipping away at additional years until the third year of this deal, and even then they are buying him in 2017 dollars at well below what the 2015 exclusive rights franchise tag was, much less what the 2017 QB franchise tag will be.

The Dolphins would pay him $14.475M for the 2017 season -- which will be well, well below what the exclusive franchise tag figure would be by that time (possibly above of $25M by then pending other big extensions to top passers), and that season (2017, is the first year of Tannnehill's free-agency the team has now secured the right to. At his point he will have earned $39.5M over three years -- an average of $13.15M a season. Good money, to be sure, but we're talking Sam Bradford money. The Dolphins aren't breaking the bank here. They are mitigating risk.
Click to expand...
IMO, that looks like a good deal for the Dolphins. A really good deal for Tannehill. However, while that performance is acceptable for a guy who is still developing, our guys are already a few years older. Five above average games, four decent games... I don't think I'll be ready to anoint either of them at the end of the season. That's seven games where he wasn't average, for whatever reasons. I'd like to see a 3:1 ratio before I'm satisfied with our QB situation.
 
thunderkyss said:
All we can do is all we can do. If our QB is delivering what I consider good performance I'll simply say so & try to find more plausible reasons we lost.

If he is not playing up to par, I'll start calling for the next guy, just like last year. Even if we are winning. My thinking is if he isn't hitting my numbers then he isn't contributing to the win. We could win with Case Keenum if need be.
Click to expand...

On the one hand, I agree. If we're winning in spite of, what we fans interpret as, substandard QB performance I don't blame you for calling for a change.

But on the other hand, there must be a reason why O'Brien wouldn't be willing to make that change. The scary answer is the other two guys suck even more than the starter. And when given the chance to show, during practice, that they can do better and snatch the starting job, they do not. So O'Brien may know that, given the guys on the roster, this is as good as it gets.


thunderkyss said:
Not at all what I'm saying. Can you discern whether the QB aided in a victory, or was he merely along for the ride. Can you tell when the QB lost the game, or did everything he possibly could to win?

How?
Click to expand...
There's not a good way to ascertain what you ask without knowing the game plan and evaluating the All-22. If we're playing a team we can run on at will and O'Brien decides - wisely - to take advantage of that weakness, the QB is "along for the ride" but that's not on the QB, that's a product of the game plan. If the other guys play 3 deep safeties and the all-22 shows why we were forced to dink & dunk because everything over the top was well covered. Again, that's not on the QB. He's forced to take what a stingy pass defense is giving him.

All that to say, and I think someone else brought this up earlier, numbers in a vacuum won't give you the whole story. You need to study the All-22 to see if, as Kubiak used to say, we left some points out on the field.
 
ObsiWan said:
On the one hand, I agree. If we're winning in spite of, what we fans interpret as, substandard QB performance I don't blame you for calling for a change.

But on the other hand, there must be a reason why O'Brien wouldn't be willing to make that change. The scary answer is the other two guys suck even more than the starter. And when given the chance to show, during practice, that they can do better and snatch the starting job, they do not. So O'Brien may know that, given the guys on the roster, this is as good as it gets.
Click to expand...

IF that's the case, then we have a coaching/GM problem. Guys shouldn't be on the roster if the men putting them on the roster do not believe they have anything to add to the success of the team.

ObsiWan said:
There's not a good way to ascertain what you ask without knowing the game plan and evaluating the All-22. If we're playing a team we can run on at will and O'Brien decides - wisely - to take advantage of that weakness, the QB is "along for the ride" but that's not on the QB, that's a product of the game plan. If the other guys play 3 deep safeties and the all-22 shows why we were forced to dink & dunk because everything over the top was well covered. Again, that's not on the QB. He's forced to take what a stingy pass defense is giving him.

All that to say, and I think someone else brought this up earlier, numbers in a vacuum won't give you the whole story. You need to study the All-22 to see if, as Kubiak used to say, we left some points out on the field.
Click to expand...

Dink & dunk is one thing. But an average over 7 ypa is not dinking & dunking. I agree with a run heavy philosophy throwing off some stats, like passing yards. Passing yards is not one of the stats I'll be using to evaluate our QB. If you look at QBs like Russell Wilson you'll see he measures up pretty well with my criteria, even though he's in a run based offense on a team with a very strong defense.

& I'm not saying numbers tell the whole story. If you want to use more subjective stats, like QBR, or PFF's DVOA (or whatever) that's fine. But Peyton Manning has a mean, Tom Brady has a mean, Mark Sanchez has a mean... I'm suggesting we should expect our QBs mean to be closer to Aaron Rodgers, than Josh McCown.
 
ObsiWan said:
But on the other hand, there must be a reason why O'Brien wouldn't be willing to make that change. The scary answer is the other two guys suck even more than the starter. And when given the chance to show, during practice, that they can do better and snatch the starting job, they do not. So O'Brien may know that, given the guys on the roster, this is as good as it gets.
Click to expand...

Or the coach is making a mistake. It seems like that possibility gets left out of these discussions. Coaches generally seem to make starters/vet QBs play their way off the field rather than truly have any kind of ongoing heads up competition. And there's lots of valid reasons why that is and should be the case. But it isn't just about the other guys suck more.
 
thunderkyss said:
For example, let's look at Ryan Tannehill.

Last season he had five games where he had over 90 in passer rating, over 60% completion, & greater than 7 ypa

He had another four games where he met two of the three. His completion percentage is pretty high, & he's never had a passer rating below 70. He averaged 92.8 for the season which is certainly respectable... it's above average.

That's five games where he did what a team needs their QB to do, to win football games. Stretch the field, & make good decisions with the football. That's what those three stats tell me. The other four games, I don't know exactly what happened to drop his ypa, or his passer rating. Maybe the defenses were confusing him or getting to him where he couldn't get the ball downfield. Maybe his "star" receiver was out of the game. Maybe who knows? What I do know is that it wasn't a total waste, because he did hit on two of the three. So I'm looking at 9 games total that he didn't bring the overall performance of his team down.

That still leaves seven games where he didn't play well enough, not even average. I don't really care whose fault it was.

Would I have extended his contract, guaranteeing $45M dollars? Based on 2014 alone, no. However, if the structure is such that I can dump him with little repercussion in two years, then maybe so. The Dolphins may very well have already decided to give him two more years, maybe three more years to see what happens. So the $18M he was due to get in 2015 & 2016 was virtually guaranteed anyway.


​
IMO, that looks like a good deal for the Dolphins. A really good deal for Tannehill. However, while that performance is acceptable for a guy who is still developing, our guys are already a few years older. Five above average games, four decent games... I don't think I'll be ready to anoint either of them at the end of the season. That's seven games where he wasn't average, for whatever reasons. I'd like to see a 3:1 ratio before I'm satisfied with our QB situation.
Click to expand...


Says the man who thinks Luck is only an avg QB.
 
infantrycak said:
Or the coach is making a mistake. It seems like that possibility gets left out of these discussions. Coaches generally seem to make starters/vet QBs play their way off the field rather than truly have any kind of ongoing heads up competition. And there's lots of valid reasons why that is and should be the case. But it isn't just about the other guys suck more.
Click to expand...

I believe this is what happened last yr and BOB wanted to wait until the bye to make the QB change.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top