The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

http://espn.go.com/blog/afceast/post/_/id/51333/qbr-ryan-tannehill-edges-brady

Tannehill has a higher rating than Brady and Tannehill had the 2nd highest ESPN QB rating in the entire NFL this week

^^^ You gotta be fucking kidding me. Are you saying that Tanne's 18 for 26, 253/1/1 is better than Brady's 18 for 28, 323/3/0 ? Well it isn't, I don't care what that silly rating system says. And if you want to go by ratings. To put it in real perspective for you, for the year Brady, is rated #2 with rating of 105.0 and Tannehill is rated #31 with a rating of 72.9, and I only see 34 on the list. Hell, Sanchez is rated higher than Tannehill. Shit I wanna see Tanne do good as much as anyone, but you fanboys gotta stop with this silliness and get back to reality.

I'm not saying anything. I'm telling you what ESPN is saying!  ::)

I just posted a link and stated what ESPN is claiming. I didn't give an opinion. Chill the F' out bro!!

Your lack of NFL knowledge is stunning. The QB rating does not take into consideration the game situation. Brady's numbers are impressive until you realize that most of that occurred during the 2nd quarter against a Jets team that is in disarray. Most of Tanne's numbers were against one of the better defensive secondaries in the NFL in the 4th quarter when Seattle knew that Tannehill would be passing the ball. That's the reason that Tanne's Total QBR (a completely different rating system) is better than Brady's although not by much. It's not based on just pure stats, it's weighted toward the situation in which the stats occurred and the defense against which the stats occurred against. The whole system was put into place by ESPN to try to be a better barometer of QB play since the QB rating doesn't take a lot into account. It's not silly and it's not little as a lot of time and effort was put into it's design by ESPN and a lot of effort goes into coming up with the ratings by ESPN's analysts.

You are looking at the QB rating, not ESPN's Total QBR (http://espn.go.com/nfl/qbr). Brady has a Total QBR of 81.6, best in the NFL and Tannehill's is 53.4, 19th best in the NFL. Sanchez is 34th with a Total QBR of 32.8. Ask the analysts at ESPN who they think has had a better year, Tannehill or Sanchez and the answers will reflect the Total QBR.

I'm not excited one bit, so no need to chill out. You posted this to boost up Tannehill. That's fine, although it's misguided and misleading. Just kind of hypocritical that for all the complaining you do about EK talking shit about Tannehill. You do the same thing, just on the opposite end of the spectrum. Tannehill is not as bad as EK makes him out to be sometimes, but he is definitely not as good as some of you prop him up to be.

I didn't say anything though. I didn't give an opinion!!  ::)  All I did was post a link about something I thought was interesting! Jesus F'n christ!!  You seriously need to chill out cause you are getting worked up over something that didn't happen (ie, ME giving an opinion on this issue because I haven't) and if you would ask me for my opinion you would be surprised to hear that I fall in line with YOUR thought process on this and not ESPN's! But you went knee-jerk reaction and flipped the F' out over nothing and never even got my opinion which I didn't give until the last sentence I just wrote!!

CHILL OUT BRO!

Lack of NFL knowledge ? If you say so. Brady played better than Tannehill Sunday, just like every Sunday. I bet if Henne was still here you would still be riding his jock like you did for so long. Regardless of how much you say it or how much you might believe it, doesn't make it true.

That's your opinion. Obviously the analysts at ESPN don't agree with you. I'm not shocked.

Henne has a better Total QBR (42.7) than Sanchez as well.

Again, I must stress that there is nothing to chill out about, I'm absolutely calm. You seem to be the one that needs to calm down. I do find it kind of odd that you would post this thread with absoluely no opinion or motive behind it. Anyhow, if I falsely assumed that you agreed with the rating of Tanne and were defending it, you have my apology. There, that wasn't too hard. Was it ? Just pretend that the 2nd post was for Pappy. Since in his haste to come to defend you, he actually does agree with your link.

Don't come here looking for fights like EK does!  All is cool but seriously, read what is written before you go on "attack mode". Actually know what my opinion on something is before you attack too! And chill out a bit!

I come here and post interesting news items and stuff I find all the time without giving an opinion on it. Just to spur conversation. This wasn't out of the ordinary for me.

Looks like I jumped the gun, my mistake. I guess Mike's opinion falls in line with my opinion. Even analysts make mistakes and even the most well laid out plans fail. Maybe ESPN should start over with their rating system, it's seriously flawed.

If I was looking for a fight I wouldn't have apologized. I did read what was written. Like I said, I wrongly assumed that you agreed with the article and posted this to knuckle pump Tanne's cock like I have seen a lot around here lately.

I wasn't trying to defend MikeO, I was trying to defend ESPN's Total QBR. I do agree with them and it has nothing to do with what MikeO thinks. At least I think they are a better true indicator of QB play than the antiquated QB rating is, but it wouldn't take much to be better than that.

total qbr is fucking terrible.

I studied statistics in college and the bottom line is there is not, and will never be a perfect methodology in defining a stat. You can pretty much manipulate the data to prove or disprove a given point of view. I have a book called Lies, Damned Lies & Statistics. It says it all. lol

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damned_lies,_and_statistics

Thank you, you are correct.  Stats should only be a minor point in evaluating things.

I hate that stupid ass Quarterback Rating Stat.

ESPN's QBR is even worse. 

People keep inventing formulas to prove the quarterback they like was the best ever.  We'll be arguing that point for as long as there's an NFL (and probably longer).

While I agree, there's no doubt that some ways of looking at stats are better than others. I think the Total QBR is better than the antiquated QB rating. That was the whole point of the Total QBR, to come up with a better statistical analysis than the QB rating. No one is suggesting that it is the best way to determine QB performance, but it at least takes more into consideration than just pure offensive stats. It takes things into consideration like the defense, the situation, the impact on the game etc. It also takes into consideration other negative plays like fumbles and sacks that the QB rating does not. It also takes into consideration things like scrambles which again the QB rating does not. It also takes things into consideration on pure offensive stats as well for instance yards after the catch, so when Tom Brady throws a short pass to Shane Vareen who then runs 83 yards for a TD, that doesn't give Tom Brady as much of a boost to his rating as it would in the QB rating system.

It's also not strictly an evaluation of how well the QB played per se, rather it's more of an evaluation of how much the QB contributed to the outcome of the game. So for instance do you give more credit to Shane Vareen on that 83 yard TD play or Tom Brady? It's more of an eyeball test then a straight numbers game if you will. That's why I like it.

It is what it is. Tannehill is still middle of the pack by TQBR (19th? I think), and next to last among starters in the "normal" QBR. The thruth is, he's probably somewhere in between those two (19-31) in overall play. Since Mike brought this up and was quick to point out in the game thread how the pass defense wasn't all that bad:



I'm curious how he would reconcile Wilson having the best TQBR for the week. -EK

Cause the Dolphins D got put in the grinder and ground to dust.

Oh. Well that explains it, then.  ::) -EK

The amount of variables in a given set of data can be enormous and will affect the outcome and misplace the outliers.

For example, here are some important factors that do not go into a QB's rating. A QBR is just raw data subjected to a defined method of calculation....nothing more.

1. Quality of the O line. Did he have all day or ran for his life.

2. Did the QB have a running game? If not, being forced to pass will certainly hurt his rating.

3. Quality of defense

4. Quality of his WR's


You get the idea. In short, should Brady, who usually has excellent protection and a mature WR core, be compared to the QB for AZ. who has a horrible O line and 1 quality WR?

I rest my case.   

Total QBR factors in all of those things to some degree. It factors in Quality of defense, YAC, drops, down and distance, QB hits and pressures etc.