Seattle DL Michael Bennett calls out QBs for $, complaining

[WhitewalkerInPhilly]

 

 

Tannehill is a difference maker simply because he plays QB.

 

If given a choice who makes the bigger impact on a game: Tannehill vs. the worst starting QB in the league or Mario vs. the worst starting DE in the league. I'd say Tannehill is the more important player simply because of his position.

 

That's why guys like Tannehill get paid big bucks. He might not be nearly as good as his craft as Mario but even an average QB has a huge impact on the game vs. what a team might have to deal with if they let him go.

 

It's akin to the baseball stat WAR (wins above replacement.) Imagine the WAR numbers of even an average #1 pitcher if he got to pitch every single game. It would be much bigger than any star player at any other position. That's the QB.

And Mario isn't a difference maker on every play?

 

I'm not saying there isn't a difference. But let's not pretend that A) Ryan Tannehill is anywhere near the best of his position, or ever has been and B) the presence of an above average QB, or even a very good QB is a guarantee of success. I consider Phillip Rivers, Eli Manning, Matt Ryan and Drew Brees to be good to very good quarterbacks, and each was on a losing team last year. I would take one pf them over Tammy in a heartbeat. The other 52 players matter.

Edited August 26, 2015 by WhitewalkerInPhilly

[Luxy312]

Pardon me while a list a few QBs who had better, or as good as, Yards gained per passing attempt: Brian Hoyer. Geno Smith. Mark Sanchez. Austin Davis. Drew Stanton. Kirk Cousins. Mike Glennon. Shaun Hill.

 

You know who was right behind? At a whopping 6.8 YPA to Tannehill's 6.9 was the Uncle Rico impersonator himself, Kyle Orton.

 

You can pick myopic statistics, but it doesn't tell the whole story. The fact is that only about half of the quarterbacks in the NFL account for more touchdowns than turnovers (including fumbles). Turnovers statistically are MILES ahead of any other measure to predict a teams success. If you're -3 as a team, you have only about a 3% chance of winning a game. -2 and it's about 10%. You can like it or not, but Tannehill is and above average quarterback based on what he's doing.

[Utah John]

There's an important point that some have touched on, but it bears emphasis: One reason the Bills have a strong roster at almost every position except QB, is that they don't have a high-quality, HIGH-COST quarterback. The millions they're not spending on, say, an aging Drew Brees, are available to re-sign Jerry Hughes and hopefully Marcel Dareus.

 

Think of a set of bar charts (not that kind of bar, my friends, the one that shows data), one for each team, with the bottm row for each team a particular color for the money paid to D linemen, then another color for LBs, and so on, for each position. On most teams, the color for the pay for QBs will be quite large, and the size of each color will be about the same as the other teams for the same color. On the Bills, the color for the D linemen will be larger than the average, and the color for the Bills QB will be smaller. The Bills whether intentionally or not, have chosen a model different than most other teams.

 

How cool would it be if the Bills set the model for the league going forward, where an average (and relatively cheap) QB surrounded by a strong team can make the playoffs and even win the SB? The Ravens did it in 2000 with Trent Dilfer in the Matt Cassel role. To show how team execs get locked in on the QB-first model, the Ravens then released Dilfer.

[MDH]

The other 52 players matter.

 

Nobody said anything to the contrary.

[WhitewalkerInPhilly]

 

You can pick myopic statistics, but it doesn't tell the whole story. The fact is that only about half of the quarterbacks in the NFL account for more touchdowns than turnovers (including fumbles). Turnovers statistically are MILES ahead of any other measure to predict a teams success. If you're -3 as a team, you have only about a 3% chance of winning a game. -2 and it's about 10%. You can like it or not, but Tannehill is and above average quarterback based on what he's doing.

Fine, if YPA of an individual QB is a stat that is "myopic" by itself, let's have some more: 11th in team passer rating, 17th in yards per game, 16th in ESPN's QBR.

 

Everything about that to me screams "slightly above average".

 

Nobody said anything to the contrary.

And yet the prevailing wisdom on this thread is that it's not at all surprising or somehow confusing to overpay one at the expense of at the expense of the 52 others.

[Luxy312]

Fine, if YPA of an individual QB is a stat that is "myopic" by itself, let's have some more: 11th in team passer rating, 17th in yards per game, 16th in ESPN's QBR.

 

Everything about that to me screams "slightly above average".

 

And yet the prevailing wisdom on this thread is that it's not at all surprising or somehow confusing to overpay one at the expense of at the expense of the 52 others.

 

More myopic statistics. You realize that passer rating has him in the top 34% of the league right. That's 32% above average. Still a myopic statistic, but better than "slightly above average" if you're measuring it. Slightly above Eli Manning and slightly below Matt Ryan. Guess those guys are pretty much hovering right around average as well. YPG, more irrelevance. Cam Newton had 20 less YPG passing and I don't think there's anyone out there that isn't a complete idiot that would say that Cam Newton is a below average QB either. Russell Wilson had 27 less YPG...guess he's absolute garbage. That's what he looks like based on your metrics. He's right there with Case Keenum and Colt McCoy.

 

By your measures here, Tony Romo must be considered one of the best because he had the best QB rating last year at 114.4 followed by Ben Roethlisberger at 103.8. Drew Brees was the most prolific at 309.5, again followed by Ben Roethlisberger at 309.0. So all 3 of these guys must be better than Andrew Luck, Aaron Rodgers and Peyton Manning, right?

 

Your type of argument is a snooze fest and just not based anywhere in reality.

[MDH]

And yet the prevailing wisdom on this thread is that it's not at all surprising or somehow confusing to overpay one at the expense of at the expense of the 52 others.

 

It's not overpaying. It's the going rate for the position. Much like a Safety doesn't get the cash a DE gets, a DE doesn't get the cash a QB gets. Everybody on the team matters but it's putting your head in the sand to think that some positions aren't more important than others.

[Juice_32]

Supply.

 

Demand.

 

Learn how to throw a spiral Michael. Hater.

[Beef Jerky]

Not like he isn't right, bad QBs get paid money. Just look at Fitz Tannehill Dalton...

Supply.

 

Demand.

 

Learn how to throw a spiral Michael. Hater.

I like when haters call others haters.... Just so funny. Edited August 26, 2015 by Beef Jerky

[WhitewalkerInPhilly]

 

More myopic statistics. You realize that passer rating has him in the top 34% of the league right. That's 32% above average. Still a myopic statistic, but better than "slightly above average" if you're measuring it. Slightly above Eli Manning and slightly below Matt Ryan. Guess those guys are pretty much hovering right around average as well. YPG, more irrelevance. Cam Newton had 20 less YPG passing and I don't think there's anyone out there that isn't a complete idiot that would say that Cam Newton is a below average QB either. Russell Wilson had 27 less YPG...guess he's absolute garbage. That's what he looks like based on your metrics. He's right there with Case Keenum and Colt McCoy.

 

By your measures here, Tony Romo must be considered one of the best because he had the best QB rating last year at 114.4 followed by Ben Roethlisberger at 103.8. Drew Brees was the most prolific at 309.5, again followed by Ben Roethlisberger at 309.0. So all 3 of these guys must be better than Andrew Luck, Aaron Rodgers and Peyton Manning, right?

 

Your type of argument is a snooze fest and just not based anywhere in reality.

A) So, you're more convincing with your "Well, he had twice as many TD's to INT and passes my eye test" argument? You know who else had that argument? Derek Carr, and I'm not calling him elite.

 

B) It's not one statistic. Yours neglects that there are a lot of bad QBs, a decent crop on third tier guys (the Tannehill, Flacco, Daltons, alex Smith and Cutlers) who you can go far with but need a strong supporting cast, the guys who need help but put on a good show year after year (Big Ben, early Rivers, Romo) and the truly elite who can drag a limping franchise deep in the playoffs (Brady, Peyton and Rodgers)

 

It is the plurality of the stats that informs me. Despite passing far more than running, and with an at least decent group of receivers they didn't crack top ten in total yards. When you factor in that they passed far more than they ran, and the low YPA and the fact that they had players like Wallace, Hartline, Gibson and Ckay who get YAC plus a 66% accuracy rating, that sounds like overinflation of stats due to a West Coast offense using short high percentage throws.

 

If that sounds familiar, it's what the plan of attack is if Matt Cassel is our starter and what Roman did for Smith. And there is nothing wrong with doing that. But no one, and I mean no one, is mistaking either of those two for an elite QB, never mind someone you're paying more than Brady or Manning.