If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ESPN)   ESPN's QBR scores have Philip Rivers behind such greats as Tannehill, Cutler, Dalton, Fitzpatrick, Palmer, Cassel, Freeman, Gabbert, Hasselbeck, and even Russel Wilson. At least he beat Mark Sanchez, if there's any consolation in that   (espn.go.com) divider line 108
    More: Amusing, QBR, Blaine Gabbert, Philip Rivers, Matt Cassel, Elisabeth Hasselbeck, ESPN, solace, NFL  
•       •       •

1332 clicks; posted to Sports » on 24 Oct 2012 at 10:02 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



108 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-24 09:27:43 AM  
So I'm seeing some problems here...

You have the EPA, which kinda makes sense. Then you have points above replacement and points above average...then you have rating reflecting totally different things. Like, for example, Aaron Rodgers vs Andrew Luck. Rodgers has a better PAR and PAA...but a worse QB rating? So I figure "maybe it has to do with the number of action plays - sure, Rodgers has a total EPA 8 points higher than Luck, but he's also played 28 more action plays. Maybe that has something to do with it. But I'm too lazy at math to try to figure out if they divide it by something or what...so let's look down the list and find somewhere that defies that idea."

Then I look down at Blaine Gabbert vs Josh Freeman. Gabbert has a higher EPA, fewer plays, a lower value over replacement, but is better compared to the average QB...and is worse in QBR.

Yeah, someone's gonna have to explain that formula a bit.
 
2012-10-24 10:05:53 AM  
I have a better QB rating system. There's Great, Good, and Bad.

Every QB falls into one of these three categories. Arguing placement within the category is useless because of how much of a team sport football is.
 
2012-10-24 10:06:21 AM  
Well Wilson did throw a last second "touchdown" which helps his QBR score a lot.
 
2012-10-24 10:06:25 AM  
RGIII is the best QB in the NFL at this point. Until the stat takes into account sacks avoided, WR'shiat right between the numbers and QB rushing yards when no other option existed then it is meaningless.
 
2012-10-24 10:07:15 AM  
Eli at number 2, while Rodgers is all the way down at number 7. The cracks in the armor are starting to show. Aaron is a good qb, but not the next Brady, or Eli.
 
2012-10-24 10:07:42 AM  

IAmRight: Like, for example, Aaron Rodgers vs Andrew Luck. Rodgers has a better PAR and PAA...but a worse QB rating?


Maybe it takes into account the fact that Luck has virtually no supporting cast. Just throwing that out there.
 
2012-10-24 10:07:46 AM  

Spike Lee's Favorite Farker: RGIII is the best QB in the NFL at this point. Until the stat takes into account sacks avoided, WR'shiat right between the numbers and QB rushing yards when no other option existed then it is meaningless.


That should have been WR'shiat, but WR Shiat also applies to Washington.
 
2012-10-24 10:10:30 AM  

Spike Lee's Favorite Farker: RGIII is the best QB in the NFL at this point. Until the stat takes into account sacks avoided, WR'shiat right between the numbers and QB rushing yards when no other option existed then it is meaningless.


What makes you think RGIII leads the league in sacks avoided? Hasn't Peyton Manning historically been the leader in the that? This year, RGIII has been sacked 15 times, Peyton 10, Eli 5.

Now, to get complete context you'd need to know how often they are threatened by sacks, but even that isn't too helpful, since the Manning may see the sack coming way in advance and just get rid of the ball.
 
2012-10-24 10:11:52 AM  

DamnYankees: Spike Lee's Favorite Farker: RGIII is the best QB in the NFL at this point. Until the stat takes into account sacks avoided, WR'shiat right between the numbers and QB rushing yards when no other option existed then it is meaningless.

What makes you think RGIII leads the league in sacks avoided? Hasn't Peyton Manning historically been the leader in the that? This year, RGIII has been sacked 15 times, Peyton 10, Eli 5.

Now, to get complete context you'd need to know how often they are threatened by sacks, but even that isn't too helpful, since the Manning may see the sack coming way in advance and just get rid of the ball.


Also, avoiding the sack would have a loose definition. Is stepping up in the pocket avoiding a sack?
 
2012-10-24 10:12:52 AM  
Everyone knows the QBR is crap. *clicks link sees Peyton Manning at #1* Nevermind the QBR is by far the best system out there.

Rivers is rubbish, anyone with a haircut like that you just know he's an asshole. His full on Delhomme on National TV against my favorite team was one of the best things I've ever seen. I wish I had a gif of him repeatedly pulling his helmet up and down after he completely lost his shiat.

As far as the rankings go Luck and Locker look like great young qbs but to have them in the top 10 with Alex Smith at 11 makes the rankings seem more like a joke some stoners pulled on their boss rather than a quantitative analysis.
 
2012-10-24 10:14:17 AM  
I'm lost on that, even after reading the breakdown I'd really have to see what goes into it to say that Andrew Luck has a higher Run EPA than RG3. And RG3 has a higher pass EPA than Luck.

That's a head scratcher.
 
2012-10-24 10:14:19 AM  

hbk72777: Eli at number 2, while Rodgers is all the way down at number 7. The cracks in the armor are starting to show. Aaron is a good qb, but not the next Brady, or Eli.


You're a funny guy. And obviously not a fan of a team that has to play Rodgers twice a year.
 
2012-10-24 10:15:03 AM  

Orgasmatron138: DamnYankees: Spike Lee's Favorite Farker: RGIII is the best QB in the NFL at this point. Until the stat takes into account sacks avoided, WR'shiat right between the numbers and QB rushing yards when no other option existed then it is meaningless.

What makes you think RGIII leads the league in sacks avoided? Hasn't Peyton Manning historically been the leader in the that? This year, RGIII has been sacked 15 times, Peyton 10, Eli 5.

Now, to get complete context you'd need to know how often they are threatened by sacks, but even that isn't too helpful, since the Manning may see the sack coming way in advance and just get rid of the ball.

Also, avoiding the sack would have a loose definition. Is stepping up in the pocket avoiding a sack?


My points are:
1. Stats are stupid
2. RGIII is the best QB that ever lived.

I think we can all agree with that. And some of the Fark filters are just stupid.
 
2012-10-24 10:15:40 AM  

elguerodiablo: As far as the rankings go Luck and Locker look like great young qbs but to have them in the top 10 with Alex Smith at 11 makes the rankings seem more like a joke some stoners pulled on their boss rather than a quantitative analysis.


Really? I think its pretty clear Luck is already better than Alex Smith. I haven't watched Locker play enough yet to know.
 
2012-10-24 10:16:00 AM  

DamnYankees: Now, to get complete context you'd need to know how often they are threatened by sacks, but even that isn't too helpful, since the Manning may see the sack coming way in advance and just get rid of the ball.


Or audible pre-snap to change protection.
 
2012-10-24 10:17:47 AM  
The only stat that matters is Wins. Everything else is fap material for nerds.
 
2012-10-24 10:17:55 AM  

Spike Lee's Favorite Farker: Orgasmatron138: DamnYankees: Spike Lee's Favorite Farker: RGIII is the best QB in the NFL at this point. Until the stat takes into account sacks avoided, WR'shiat right between the numbers and QB rushing yards when no other option existed then it is meaningless.

What makes you think RGIII leads the league in sacks avoided? Hasn't Peyton Manning historically been the leader in the that? This year, RGIII has been sacked 15 times, Peyton 10, Eli 5.

Now, to get complete context you'd need to know how often they are threatened by sacks, but even that isn't too helpful, since the Manning may see the sack coming way in advance and just get rid of the ball.

Also, avoiding the sack would have a loose definition. Is stepping up in the pocket avoiding a sack?

My points are:
1. Stats are stupid
2. RGIII is the best QB that ever lived.

I think we can all agree with that. And some of the Fark filters are just stupid.


angling for that espn job arent ya?
 
2012-10-24 10:17:58 AM  

elguerodiablo: As far as the rankings go Luck and Locker look like great young qbs but to have them in the top 10 with Alex Smith at 11 makes the rankings seem more like a joke some stoners pulled on their boss rather than a quantitative analysis.


Not that I want to defend it, but most of Smith's stats came from the garbage Bills game. To say that he is large factor in SF wins is a bit of a stretch. His main job is to not turn the ball over and thats it. In other wins he's not making huge contributions like Luck has been forced to do.

SF is a complete team with a great defense is what I'm saying.
 
2012-10-24 10:20:54 AM  

Arkanaut: IAmRight: Like, for example, Aaron Rodgers vs Andrew Luck. Rodgers has a better PAR and PAA...but a worse QB rating?

Maybe it takes into account the fact that Luck has virtually no supporting cast. Just throwing that out there.


That's a really good point but apparently it is weighted a little too heavily. I dont think anyone would take Luck over Rogers in a pick up game.
 
2012-10-24 10:21:25 AM  
What is puzzling about the formula is that it appears to remove YAC toward consideration of a QBs total yards. Yes, there are times when the receiver makes a phenomenal play in the open, but I would argue there are more times when the QB hits the receiver perfectly in stride, which keeps him going toward the score (see Manning's toss to Cruz). The QB should get credit for those yards as well.
 
2012-10-24 10:23:16 AM  

DamnYankees: elguerodiablo: As far as the rankings go Luck and Locker look like great young qbs but to have them in the top 10 with Alex Smith at 11 makes the rankings seem more like a joke some stoners pulled on their boss rather than a quantitative analysis.

Really? I think its pretty clear Luck is already better than Alex Smith. I haven't watched Locker play enough yet to know.


I didn't state that very well my point was those 3 guys shouldnt be sniffing the top ten.
 
2012-10-24 10:24:13 AM  

hbk72777: Eli at number 2, while Rodgers is all the way down at number 7. The cracks in the armor are starting to show. Aaron is a good qb, but not the next Brady, or Eli.


I'm not sure what's dumber, that opinion or actually thinking ESPN's QBR can be used to determine anything.
 
2012-10-24 10:24:54 AM  

whizbangthedirtfarmer: What is puzzling about the formula is that it appears to remove YAC toward consideration of a QBs total yards. Yes, there are times when the receiver makes a phenomenal play in the open, but I would argue there are more times when the QB hits the receiver perfectly in stride, which keeps him going toward the score (see Manning's toss to Cruz). The QB should get credit for those yards as well.


Yeah, it's fairly silly to eliminate YAC on downfield passing plays, like Tom Brady's 99-yarder to Wes Welker last year, a perfectly thrown ball that Welker took another 60 yards or so. If they took away YAC from WR screens and the like, it would have a little more value.
 
2012-10-24 10:27:24 AM  

whizbangthedirtfarmer: What is puzzling about the formula is that it appears to remove YAC toward consideration of a QBs total yards. Yes, there are times when the receiver makes a phenomenal play in the open, but I would argue there are more times when the QB hits the receiver perfectly in stride, which keeps him going toward the score (see Manning's toss to Cruz). The QB should get credit for those yards as well.


That's a really great point. There was a play in the Jets-Pats game that instantly sprang to mind where Sanchez hit Keller on the sidelines and Keller made a great play to get the ball and stay inbounds. Sanchez puts that ball in a better spot and Keller runs for 15-20 more yards.
 
2012-10-24 10:30:02 AM  
To be fair, Rivers has been pretty terrible this year. I have a guy in my fantasy league who's starting him over Dalton, which is a 55 point difference in favor of Dalton right now.
 
2012-10-24 10:31:01 AM  
Just running a quick scan over the numbers, it seems to me that turnovers aren't weighted highly enough in the process. That's a big flaw in the system, because even a three-and-out is preferable to a pick or a lost fumble. In fact, I think you could make the argument--considering that year in, year out turnover margin is one of the most significant factors in team success--that turnovers should be the most important factor in any rating.
 
2012-10-24 10:36:04 AM  

The Third Man: Just running a quick scan over the numbers, it seems to me that turnovers aren't weighted highly enough in the process. That's a big flaw in the system, because even a three-and-out is preferable to a pick or a lost fumble. In fact, I think you could make the argument--considering that year in, year out turnover margin is one of the most significant factors in team success--that turnovers should be the most important factor in any rating.


That depends though, is a pick 50 yards down field on 3rd and long any different than a punt? I'd say it's BETTER because all sorts of things could go wrong on the next play (bad snap, fumble, blocked punt). So in that case the TO might be the best of the potential outcomes of the drive.
 
2012-10-24 10:36:49 AM  

Spike Lee's Favorite Farker: RGIII is the best QB in the NFL at this point. Until the stat takes into account sacks avoided, WR'shiat right between the numbers and QB rushing yards when no other option existed then it is meaningless.


We get it. He's black.
 
2012-10-24 10:38:43 AM  

DoBeDoBeDo: The Third Man: Just running a quick scan over the numbers, it seems to me that turnovers aren't weighted highly enough in the process. That's a big flaw in the system, because even a three-and-out is preferable to a pick or a lost fumble. In fact, I think you could make the argument--considering that year in, year out turnover margin is one of the most significant factors in team success--that turnovers should be the most important factor in any rating.

That depends though, is a pick 50 yards down field on 3rd and long any different than a punt? I'd say it's BETTER because all sorts of things could go wrong on the next play (bad snap, fumble, blocked punt). So in that case the TO might be the best of the potential outcomes of the drive.


Agreed. Turnovers are so incredibly hard to determine fault on. Tipped pass? Receiver run the wrong route. Huge bomb on 3rd and long which is no worse than a punt? Then there's the opposite - horrible passes the defenders just drop, stupid picks overturned because of an unrelated holding penalty.

All else being equal, unless you want to really closely analyze every play, I think turnovers are more properly attributed to teams rather than individual players when you do an aggregate analysis.
 
2012-10-24 10:38:51 AM  
I hate when people try to apply baseball-type stats to football. It never works out right.
 
2012-10-24 10:40:10 AM  

DoBeDoBeDo: The Third Man: Just running a quick scan over the numbers, it seems to me that turnovers aren't weighted highly enough in the process. That's a big flaw in the system, because even a three-and-out is preferable to a pick or a lost fumble. In fact, I think you could make the argument--considering that year in, year out turnover margin is one of the most significant factors in team success--that turnovers should be the most important factor in any rating.

That depends though, is a pick 50 yards down field on 3rd and long any different than a punt? I'd say it's BETTER because all sorts of things could go wrong on the next play (bad snap, fumble, blocked punt). So in that case the TO might be the best of the potential outcomes of the drive.


In that case, sure, but those sorts of picks are the exception, not the rule. Most turnovers are going to either give the opposing team a short field or snuff out a promising drive.
 
2012-10-24 10:41:25 AM  

elguerodiablo: whizbangthedirtfarmer: What is puzzling about the formula is that it appears to remove YAC toward consideration of a QBs total yards. Yes, there are times when the receiver makes a phenomenal play in the open, but I would argue there are more times when the QB hits the receiver perfectly in stride, which keeps him going toward the score (see Manning's toss to Cruz). The QB should get credit for those yards as well.

That's a really great point. There was a play in the Jets-Pats game that instantly sprang to mind where Sanchez hit Keller on the sidelines and Keller made a great play to get the ball and stay inbounds. Sanchez puts that ball in a better spot and Keller runs for 15-20 more yards.


The QBR assumes perfect accuracy, it seems, and that the WR does all of the legwork (harhar) after the catch. When Manning threw to Cruz to finish off the Redskins, he threw the ball in such a way that Cruz barely had to break stride. Manning should get those yards, too. I can see a bubble screen or something of that nature awarding the yards to the WR, but for all of ESPN's talk about this rating, it is massively flawed.

On the other hand, what about WRs who make exceptional plays to grab a craptacular ball? In the Sanchez example, Sanchez threw the ball generally in the direction of Keller, and Keller made an acrobatic catch to bring it in (this holds true for almost every Fitzgerald reception). Why does Sanchez get those yards? Because he managed to coax the ball to within three yards of the receiver?

Finally, why doesn't the QB get more points for stupidly accurate throws? Andy Dalton's TD to Green against Pittsburgh awarded a few yards and the TD, but it was a throw that few QBs can make. Russel Wilson's bombs at the end of the Pats game, too, were thrown almost perfectly. Shouldn't he get extra credit for that?

The problem is that when the decision makers decide to quantify formulas with stuff like "the WR is the only one responsible for YAC," then it opens up all sorts of problems.
 
2012-10-24 10:43:45 AM  
Im sorry ESPN but the Jake is 10X as much fun as your QBR and Im only in this for the fun.
 
2012-10-24 10:45:25 AM  

Arkanaut: IAmRight: Like, for example, Aaron Rodgers vs Andrew Luck. Rodgers has a better PAR and PAA...but a worse QB rating?

Maybe it takes into account the fact that Luck has virtually no supporting cast. Just throwing that out there.


Exactly. I think Reggie Wayne is slow, old, and over-rated... an "OK" possession receiver at best...and he is the only help Luck has.

I wonder how good he could be if he had a big, fast, athletic wide out, a decent running back, and a good TE like Dallas Clark at his peak.

I have a bad feeling the Colts are gonna hang out just below .500 for a number of years and never get those high enough draft picks to get a couple more impact players.

...but I digress
 
2012-10-24 10:45:50 AM  

thecpt: Well Wilson did throw a last second "touchdown" which helps his QBR score a lot.


The football gods owed that to Wilson after how his season went last year at Wisconsin.

I assume the residents of Wisconsin are now owed even more than that. (unless that was karma evening out for something I don't know about in the past).

DoBeDoBeDo: That depends though, is a pick 50 yards down field on 3rd and long any different than a punt? I'd say it's BETTER because all sorts of things could go wrong on the next play (bad snap, fumble, blocked punt). So in that case the TO might be the best of the potential outcomes of the drive.


And, of course, there are TOs that are irrelevant, like when someone intercepts a Hail Mary.
 
2012-10-24 10:47:31 AM  
Velocity, Accuracy, and Ability to read coverages. Figure out a way to quantify them, and then you can start rating Quarterbacks numerically
 
2012-10-24 10:50:08 AM  

Arkanaut: Maybe it takes into account the fact that Luck has virtually no supporting cast. Just throwing that out there.


Here's a weirder one: Ben Roethlisberger and Matt Ryan have the same number of Action Plays. Roethlisberger has 3 more wins added...yet is ranked lower on YAR and YAA, not to mention QBR. And I'd much rather have Atlanta's team than Pittsburgh's, not to mention getting to play in a dome. Is it just the clutchiness of beating sh*tty teams?
 
2012-10-24 10:50:51 AM  
Finally convinced my friend to trade

I give up
Rivers
McCoy
Dez Bryant

I get back
Brady
Sproles
Lloyd

I needed a more consistant QB, Dez bryant wasnt doing much this year and i have A Johnson to replace him . McCoy hurts but I also have Mathews, Bush, Jones and sproles for RB

Overall i think i gave up a bit too much for brady but the consistency of a good performance each week is what i need on my team.
 
2012-10-24 10:51:09 AM  

DamnYankees: Spike Lee's Favorite Farker: RGIII is the best QB in the NFL at this point. Until the stat takes into account sacks avoided, WR'shiat right between the numbers and QB rushing yards when no other option existed then it is meaningless.

What makes you think RGIII leads the league in sacks avoided? Hasn't Peyton Manning historically been the leader in the that? This year, RGIII has been sacked 15 times, Peyton 10, Eli 5.

Now, to get complete context you'd need to know how often they are threatened by sacks, but even that isn't too helpful, since the Manning may see the sack coming way in advance and just get rid of the ball.


? I always thought Big Ben was the leader in sacks avoided
 
2012-10-24 10:51:43 AM  

runaway06: ? I always thought Big Ben was the leader in sacks avoided


Is "sacks avoided" a real stat?
 
2012-10-24 10:52:27 AM  

DamnYankees: Is "sacks avoided" a real stat?


No.
 
2012-10-24 10:52:59 AM  

IAmRight: DamnYankees: Is "sacks avoided" a real stat?

No.


I didn't think so.
 
2012-10-24 10:56:30 AM  

Spike Lee's Favorite Farker: RGIII is the best QB in the NFL at this point. Until the stat takes into account sacks avoided, WR'shiat right between the numbers and QB rushing yards when no other option existed then it is meaningless.


HAHAHAAHAHAHA, no. Aaron Rodgers is the best QB in the NFL, now, and ever. It's not even close anymore.
 
2012-10-24 10:59:58 AM  

IAmRight: The football gods owed that to Wilson after how his season went last year at Wisconsin.

I assume the residents of Wisconsin are now owed even more than that. (unless that was karma evening out for something I don't know about in the past).


Aren't they doubly screwed over then? Remarkable hail mary by MSU beats the Badgers and ruins them in the polls. Fail mary beats the Packers and now they are a game and a half behind the Bears.
 
2012-10-24 11:00:49 AM  

thecpt: Aren't they doubly screwed over then?


Hence the second sentence.
 
2012-10-24 11:01:33 AM  
This is an attempt to instroduce a bullshiat statistic into a sport where individual effort is really only one tiny part of any successful play. Hitting a baseball is a one on one contest. Hitting the ball often or over the fence is easily quantifiable - batting average, home runs and slugging percentage (over a season) are all very reasonable measures of someone doing bad-good-great.


QB play is one of those things I firmly believe is in the category of knowing greatness when you see it.

Mediocre QB's with great teammates will still do enough mediocre things to stand out.
Great QB's on shiatty teams will still do enough things to make you go "damn that was amazing" - and surprisingly enough the team is someone a lot less shiatty than it was before that QB got there - a QB that can read defenses, audible and get rid of the ball quickly can turn even a shiatty O-line into serviceable pros.
 
2012-10-24 11:04:37 AM  
oh so Wilson equals even with Karma. Wisconsin equals owed 2 by Karma.

Unless those two equal the Antonio Freeman catch for whatever reason.
 
2012-10-24 11:06:04 AM  
*somehow* a lot less shiatty - not someone.... sheesh
 
2012-10-24 11:07:05 AM  

blunto: I hate when people try to apply baseball-type stats to football. It never works out right.


This here is true to me.
 
2012-10-24 11:08:27 AM  

blunto: I hate when people try to apply baseball-type stats to football. It never works out right.


Because a baseball season has 10x the sample size and teams play everyone in the league at least 6-7 times. It'd be nice if we could do real meta-statistical analysis on football, but the limited sample size means we're abstracting from a wildly-variant set. Let's stick to the counting stats (QB rating is even a bit of a stretch).

A guy throws 4 balls that should have been caught but are instead tipped away, that cuts his season QBR a whole bunch more than a starting pitcher's bad 7-inning outing cuts his ERA, WHIP, KBB/9, RAA, etc. Football stats don't even out over a season the same way baseball stats do.
 
Displayed 50 of 108 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report