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  
•       •       •

1330 clicks; posted to Sports » on 24 Oct 2012 at 10:02 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
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.
 
2012-10-24 11:08:53 AM

roc6783: Aaron Rodgers is the best QB in the NFL, now, and ever. It's not even close anymore.


Rodgers is definitely sniffing my top 10 list all time. Best now and ever? Not yet.
 
2012-10-24 11:11:03 AM

thecpt: oh so Wilson equals even with Karma. Wisconsin equals owed 2 by Karma.

Unless those two equal the Antonio Freeman catch for whatever reason.


I love that one, but I still think the catch where he broke his arm was better, but I can't find video on it.
 
2012-10-24 11:11:30 AM

Dr Dreidel: Football stats don't even out over a season the same way baseball stats do.


Yeah, but if ESPN hadn't invented QBR last year, what would Merrill Hoge and Ron Jaworski argue about on Monday mornings?
 
2012-10-24 11:14:31 AM

This Looks Fun: roc6783: Aaron Rodgers is the best QB in the NFL, now, and ever. It's not even close anymore.

Rodgers is definitely sniffing my top 10 list all time. Best now and ever? Not yet.


Then your list is wrong. The only QB that you could argue tops him is Steve Young, but he is a lefty and Mormon, therefore, disqualified.

///Ya, not really. Rodgers and Young are 1a and 1b right now, once Rodgers surpasses Young in years played, he will be the unequivocal #1.
 
2012-10-24 11:15:38 AM

thecpt: oh so Wilson equals even with Karma. Wisconsin equals owed 2 by Karma.

Unless those two equal the Antonio Freeman catch for whatever reason.


That clip didnt show my favorite part, where the vikings defender was running down the field doing the raise the roof arm pump and then turned at the last second to see Freeman score. I wish there was a close up of his face at the moment of realization.
 
2012-10-24 11:15:48 AM

roc6783: Rodgers and Young are 1a and 1b right now, once Rodgers surpasses Young in years played, he will be the unequivocal #1.


Steve Young isn't even the best QB in the history of the 49ers.
 
2012-10-24 11:17:31 AM
Didn't we just have a thread saying that the QBR is dead?
 
2012-10-24 11:17:39 AM

roc6783: thecpt: oh so Wilson equals even with Karma. Wisconsin equals owed 2 by Karma.

Unless those two equal the Antonio Freeman catch for whatever reason.

I love that one, but I still think the catch where he broke his arm was better, but I can't find video on it.


I don't remember that one, Then again I was 8. Found a better video of the aforementioned catch including a driver hug. Link
 
2012-10-24 11:19:23 AM

roc6783: ///Ya, not really. Rodgers and Young are 1a and 1b right now, once Rodgers surpasses Young in years played, he will be the unequivocal #1.


Quit getting him jinxed!

/he's a great QB and, provided that he continues to play at his current level of production, he will hopefully have at least another SB to his credit, and we'll compare people after their careers are over
//it's as annoying as when people say that the '92 Dream Team is more accomplished than the current team...no sh*t, we've seen everything they were capable of.
///FWIW, I said he was going to be the best prior to the SB season and MVP season, so I suppose you can take my criticism with a grain of salt
 
2012-10-24 11:19:32 AM

Dr Dreidel: 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).


There's also more variables with HOW exactly other teams play each other in football as compared to baseball.

Sure, in baseball you can focus on pitching certain guys a certain way, align your infield/outfield depending on the opposition, and various other tactics. However, the difference between man-to-man and zone coverages, zone-blocking vs power-blocking, etc are SO large, that the closest baseball equivalent I could think of would be changing your defensive alignment to only a shortstop and 1B in the infield, 4 outfielders, and two catchers behind the plate for one game, and radically doing something else the next.
 
2012-10-24 11:22:57 AM

Yanks_RSJ: roc6783: Rodgers and Young are 1a and 1b right now, once Rodgers surpasses Young in years played, he will be the unequivocal #1.

Steve Young isn't even the best QB in the history of the 49ers.


Ok, who is better? Montana? Not nearly as accurate or mobile. Anyone who played before Montana? No way any of them can take their skill set and insert it into today's game. I love Bart Starr as much as the next Packer fan who never saw him play, but he would get absolutely shredded in the league today, if he was even drafted. There is no way to effectively compare pre-80's QBs to post-90's QBs, the game is too different. Era comparisons work in baseball, not football.
 
2012-10-24 11:23:10 AM

IAmRight: FWIW, I said he was going to be the best prior to the SB season and MVP season, so I suppose you can take my criticism with a grain of salt


The moment I saw his real debut in a competitive game (the Dallas game where he lead a comeback until that other guy felt threatened) I knew we were better off with him instead of ol man favre. Call it relative deprivation, but I thought it was against the rules for a QB to run for a first down and be an accurate deep passer.
 
2012-10-24 11:24:32 AM

Yanks_RSJ: Dr Dreidel: Football stats don't even out over a season the same way baseball stats do.

Yeah, but if ESPN hadn't invented QBR last year, what would Merrill Hoge and Ron Jaworski argue about on Monday mornings?


Hopefully, it would mean Jaws replaces Chucky in the MNF booth. Either that, or they assign Jaws to be his wrangler - every time Groods starts in with one of his useless time-fillers, Jaws bashes him over the head with a life-size Tim McCarver bobblehead* and wraps a Cris Collinsworth Fathead around his face.

Merril Hoge would be shown Jeremy Schapp footage until he goes crazy. Then they take him, Lou Holtz, Dick Vitale, Schapp, Bob Ley, and the rest of the useless chuckleheads who contribute nothing (I'm thinking we'd be left with Trey Wingo and Scott van Pelt - maybe whatsherface also - on Prime/2, with Dari Nowkah all alone at ESPNews) and make them into a low-cost, high-nutrition sports drink sold by ESPN.

*in a pinch, you can use Actual Tim McCarver (it's tough to tell him apart from the bobblehead...)
 
2012-10-24 11:26:02 AM

IAmRight: roc6783: ///Ya, not really. Rodgers and Young are 1a and 1b right now, once Rodgers surpasses Young in years played, he will be the unequivocal #1.

Quit getting him jinxed!

/he's a great QB and, provided that he continues to play at his current level of production, he will hopefully have at least another SB to his credit, and we'll compare people after their careers are over
***snip***


:) I get what you are saying, but the fact is right now at this current point in his career, Rodgers is maybe slightly barely below Young only due to the fact that he hasn't played as many games. He is still better than every other NFL QB.
 
2012-10-24 11:26:48 AM

FriarReb98: Didn't we just have a thread saying that the QBR is dead?


Yep. But as soon as they QB Rating numbers shake out to "Two Mannings and a Brady" (the holy Trinity of sportscenter spooge-mining) we're supposed to care again.

This system has, and always will be, total shiat.
 
2012-10-24 11:27:49 AM

roc6783: This Looks Fun: roc6783: Aaron Rodgers is the best QB in the NFL, now, and ever. It's not even close anymore.

Rodgers is definitely sniffing my top 10 list all time. Best now and ever? Not yet.

Then your list is wrong.


I stand corrected. That settles it then.
 
2012-10-24 11:31:49 AM

Orgasmatron138: Also, avoiding the sack would have a loose definition. Is stepping up in the pocket avoiding a sack?


Not passing out at parties.
 
2012-10-24 11:32:14 AM

Dr Dreidel: Yanks_RSJ: Dr Dreidel: ***snip***
Hopefully, it would mean Jaws replaces Chucky in the MNF booth. ***snip***


Oh man, that would be sweet. I can't stand Gruden, and when Jws isn't trying to overhype terrible games, he actually seems like he says worthwhile, intelligent things.
 
2012-10-24 11:34:20 AM
All-time best game QBR scores? C. Palmer and M. Vick.

/facepalm.
 
2012-10-24 11:37:22 AM

This Looks Fun: roc6783: This Looks Fun: roc6783: Aaron Rodgers is the best QB in the NFL, now, and ever. It's not even close anymore.

Rodgers is definitely sniffing my top 10 list all time. Best now and ever? Not yet.

Then your list is wrong.

I stand corrected. That settles it then.


I'm glad you have seen the error of your ways. Setting snark aside momentarily, you will not find a QB that has the same combination of throwing velocity, on field decision making, accuracy, and mobility anywhere else on your list, unless your list has Steve Young as #1, then you have an argument. Every other "top 10 QB of all time" has holes in one of those areas that Aaron Rodgers doesn't.
 
2012-10-24 11:46:35 AM

roc6783: This Looks Fun: roc6783: This Looks Fun: roc6783: Aaron Rodgers is the best QB in the NFL, now, and ever. It's not even close anymore.

Rodgers is definitely sniffing my top 10 list all time. Best now and ever? Not yet.

Then your list is wrong.

I stand corrected. That settles it then.

I'm glad you have seen the error of your ways. Setting snark aside momentarily, you will not find a QB that has the same combination of throwing velocity, on field decision making, accuracy, and mobility anywhere else on your list, unless your list has Steve Young as #1, then you have an argument. Every other "top 10 QB of all time" has holes in one of those areas that Aaron Rodgers doesn't.


Its amazing that you can still type with Rodgers Dong in your mouth.
 
2012-10-24 11:47:22 AM

roc6783: Ok, who is better? Montana?


Yes. He was an effective scrambler in his younger days (similar to Rodgers in that respect) and in an era when fewer QBs completed 60% of their passes, Montana was consistently in the mid-high 60s. He was also better in the playoffs than he was in the regular season, which you cannot say for Steve Young. In 15 playoff starts, Young threw 20 TDs and 13 INTs. In Montana's 23 playoff games, it was 45 TDs and 21 INTs.

And I'll grant you this, I farking HATE Steve Young, but this isn't even close.
 
2012-10-24 11:47:34 AM
Nobody uses or cares about QBR outside of Bristol, Connecticut. So QB ratings have weird minimums and maximums. Deal with it.
 
2012-10-24 11:50:42 AM
I think I read the other day that Rivers QB rating in the 4th quarter is 2.2. Yikes.

Still, what would you expect playing behind a starting undrafted rookie free agent left tackle? Rivers looked pretty good when Gaither was in there (with the obvious exception of when Gaither was so hurt he was 100% ineffective.) If Gaither can stay healthy, you'll see a much better Rivers.
 
2012-10-24 11:51:50 AM

roc6783: Setting snark aside momentarily, you will not find a QB that has the same combination of throwing velocity, on field decision making, accuracy, and mobility anywhere else on your list, unless your list has Steve Young as #1, then you have an argument. Every other "top 10 QB of all time" has holes in one of those areas that Aaron Rodgers doesn't.


Somewhat comedically, I judge past qbs on body of work more than skillset because I'm too young to have watched them play. So, what I was saying (specifically to how I would compare QBs of different eras) was that with a larger body of work, Rodgers will definitely be in the running, but if he dies tomorrow, he'll be Len Bias.

/Based on skillset alone, I couldn't really say and I'll be upfront about that.
 
2012-10-24 11:58:11 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.


hahahahahha 8/10, you almost got me.
 
2012-10-24 12:10:49 PM

Yanks_RSJ: roc6783: Ok, who is better? Montana?

Yes. He was an effective scrambler in his younger days (similar to Rodgers in that respect) and in an era when fewer QBs completed 60% of their passes, Montana was consistently in the mid-high 60s. He was also better in the playoffs than he was in the regular season, which you cannot say for Steve Young. In 15 playoff starts, Young threw 20 TDs and 13 INTs. In Montana's 23 playoff games, it was 45 TDs and 21 INTs.

And I'll grant you this, I farking HATE Steve Young, but this isn't even close.


And here's the hang up, should postseason numbers be separate from regular season, rolled into regular season, or discarded since not every QB goes every year?

//FWIW - Rodgers has 15 TDs and 4 INTs in 6 postseason starts.

If you put them into a per game stat -

Montana - 1.96 TDs and .91 INTs
Young - 1.33 TDs and .87 INTs
Rodgers - 2.5 TDs and .67 INTs
 
2012-10-24 12:28:10 PM

roc6783: And here's the hang up, should postseason numbers be separate from regular season, rolled into regular season, or discarded since not every QB goes every year?


They should surely be considered, particularly when you have sample sizes as large as Young and Montana and are making a head-to-head comparison. They DID go there every year.

It's undeniable that Joe Montana was a better QB in the postseason than he was in the regular season. It's also undeniable that Steve Young was worse in the postseason than he was in the regular season. And in many of Young's best seasons, the NFC West was the worst division in football, unlike Montana, who faced much better Rams and Saints teams during his era, plus was competing with the Redskins, Giants and Bears defenses to reach four Super Bowls.

The Cowboys and Packers (the best teams of the early/mid-90s) ate Young's lunch.
 
2012-10-24 12:34:53 PM
Sports journalists are morons. They only care about NOW, as in what's happening on the field right now. Did you just throw 3 interceptions? You're a piece of trash. Oh, now you lead your team to a comeback win? QUARTERBACK JESUS! We told you! Quick release! Fiery temperment! They'll flip opinions at the drop of a dime. You do get pity points if you've won a super bowl though, as Peyton got during the first half of the Chargers-Broncos game.
 
2012-10-24 12:37:06 PM

natmar_76: Did you just throw 3 interceptions? You're a piece of trash. Oh, now you lead your team to a comeback win? QUARTERBACK JESUS!


*cough*EliManning*cough*
 
2012-10-24 12:42:04 PM
And Treygreen enters and mentions Eli Manning for the millionth thread in a row. Get over it, already.
 
2012-10-24 12:53:55 PM

Yanks_RSJ: roc6783: ***snip***

It's undeniable that Joe Montana was a better QB in the postseason than he was in the regular season. It's also undeniable that Steve Young was worse in the postseason than he was in the regular season. And in many of Young's best seasons, the NFC West was the worst division in football, unlike Montana, who faced much better Rams and Saints teams during his era, plus was competing with the Redskins, Giants and Bears defenses to reach four Super Bowls.

The Cowboys and Packers (the best teams of the early/mid-90s) ate Young's lunch.


Again, you are holding things outside of Young's control against him. Wins, postseason, and which teams are good or not has nothing to do with how well a QB performs on the field. Those are all team-based things that you are applying to one guy.
 
2012-10-24 01:05:39 PM

roc6783: And here's the hang up, should postseason numbers be separate from regular season, rolled into regular season, or discarded since not every QB goes every year?

//FWIW - Rodgers has 15 TDs and 4 INTs in 6 postseason starts.

If you put them into a per game stat -

Montana - 1.96 TDs and .91 INTs
Young - 1.33 TDs and .87 INTs
Rodgers - 2.5 TDs and .67 INTs


And yet, with all that, it's laughable to think that Rodgers would ever be favored again in a playoff game against Eli Manning, even with a 15-1 team at home.
 
2012-10-24 01:09:18 PM

poughdrew: roc6783: And here's the hang up, should postseason numbers be separate from regular season, rolled into regular season, or discarded since not every QB goes every year?

//FWIW - Rodgers has 15 TDs and 4 INTs in 6 postseason starts.

If you put them into a per game stat -

Montana - 1.96 TDs and .91 INTs
Young - 1.33 TDs and .87 INTs
Rodgers - 2.5 TDs and .67 INTs

And yet, with all that, it's laughable to think that Rodgers would ever be favored again in a playoff game against Eli Manning, even with a 15-1 team at home.


MAXIMUM TROLLING

remember the year before when they played at lambeau.

Link


Its almost like every game is an independent occurrence involving a myriad of other factors!
 
2012-10-24 01:15:52 PM

poughdrew: roc6783:***snip***


When Eli Manning has several consecutive seasons of above average play, I will begin to think he is great. Until then, I will continue to credit the defense for making up for his inconsistent, turnover prone play.

//Eli is very good, and in fact is all but assured a spot in the HoF due to his team's success, but he will never appear on any all time great QB list not put together by a NYG fan.
 
2012-10-24 01:26:48 PM

Yanks_RSJ: roc6783: Rodgers and Young are 1a and 1b right now, once Rodgers surpasses Young in years played, he will be the unequivocal #1.

Steve Young isn't even the best QB in the history of the 49ers.


I think Young's skillset outweighs Montana's. Montana also had slightly better teams, or at least slightly worse opponents. As mentioned in this thread, Young often lost to better teams in the postseason, whereas Montana often bean worse teams. Montana's rightly famed for leading 4th quarter / last possession drives, which is important. It's not the only important thing, despite how many people highly value success "when it counts."

It's a pretty tough comparison. To me, I don't think postseason play is THAT important, given how reliant on the players around you it is. I certainly don't remember watching Steve Young and thinking, "gee, this guy throws bad passes in the playoffs." Steve Young's numbers are a little better across the board, even adjusted for era (in my opinion. And by qb rating+, according to pro-football-reference).

But, Montana played a bunch more for the Niners. 4600 pass attempts to 3600. Does that mean something? If it means we bump up Montana's value by that proportion, he's obviously ahead.
 
2012-10-24 02:23:09 PM
What about Cave McNown?
 
2012-10-24 02:24:06 PM

Orgasmatron138: 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.


There's a few more categories than that. "Great", "Good", "Competent". "Bad", "Rex Grossman".

/Fark it! I'm goin' deep!
 
2012-10-24 02:27:09 PM

Jubeebee: 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.


Funny like a clown. Like he amuses us. And the Bears still suck.

Rodgers went first in our draft and that team is now 6-1. His numbers are nuts. Reminds me of Marshall Faulk in his heyday.
 
2012-10-24 02:32:33 PM
You know, it took me until this thread to realize that SLFF and roc are black and white versions of the exact same guy.
 
2012-10-24 02:34:02 PM

Incorrigible Astronaut: You know, it took me until this thread to realize that SLFF and roc are black and white versions of the exact same guy.


SLFF isn't even really black.
 
2012-10-24 02:37:26 PM

Dafatone: I think Young's skillset outweighs Montana's. Montana also had slightly better teams, or at least slightly worse opponents. As mentioned in this thread, Young often lost to better teams in the postseason, whereas Montana often bean worse teams.


That's wrong. The late 80s were really top heavy with good teams. Probably moreso than at any other time in league history. The Bears, Giants, Redskins and 49ers were all all-time great teams. Steve Young had Dallas and then the Packers to deal with and neither of those teams was really great at the same time. And at the skill positions, Young probably had better weapons overall. The 94 team had no weaknesses.
 
2012-10-24 02:51:15 PM

SuperChuck: Dafatone: I think Young's skillset outweighs Montana's. Montana also had slightly better teams, or at least slightly worse opponents. As mentioned in this thread, Young often lost to better teams in the postseason, whereas Montana often bean worse teams.

That's wrong. The late 80s were really top heavy with good teams. Probably moreso than at any other time in league history. The Bears, Giants, Redskins and 49ers were all all-time great teams. Steve Young had Dallas and then the Packers to deal with and neither of those teams was really great at the same time. And at the skill positions, Young probably had better weapons overall. The 94 team had no weaknesses.


That '94 team would have lost to the Cowboys in the NFC Championship if the football gods hadn't spotted the 49ers 21 points in the first 7 minutes.
 
2012-10-24 02:57:14 PM

Treygreen13: SuperChuck: Dafatone: I think Young's skillset outweighs Montana's. Montana also had slightly better teams, or at least slightly worse opponents. As mentioned in this thread, Young often lost to better teams in the postseason, whereas Montana often bean worse teams.

That's wrong. The late 80s were really top heavy with good teams. Probably moreso than at any other time in league history. The Bears, Giants, Redskins and 49ers were all all-time great teams. Steve Young had Dallas and then the Packers to deal with and neither of those teams was really great at the same time. And at the skill positions, Young probably had better weapons overall. The 94 team had no weaknesses.

That '94 team would have lost to the Cowboys in the NFC Championship if the football gods hadn't spotted the 49ers 21 points in the first 7 minutes.


It wasn't the football gods that threw interceptions and forced fumbles. That game was won on the field.
 
2012-10-24 03:04:11 PM

Incorrigible Astronaut: You know, it took me until this thread to realize that SLFF and roc are black and white versions of the exact same guy.


Who is SLFF? Am I the white guy? I hate typecasting.
 
2012-10-24 03:17:39 PM

Treygreen13: Incorrigible Astronaut: You know, it took me until this thread to realize that SLFF and roc are black and white versions of the exact same guy.

SLFF isn't even really black.


Oh, I know. He's an alt, but I thought the resemblance was funny.
 
2012-10-24 03:39:37 PM

Incorrigible Astronaut: Treygreen13: Incorrigible Astronaut: You know, it took me until this thread to realize that SLFF and roc are black and white versions of the exact same guy.

SLFF isn't even really black.

Oh, I know. He's an alt, but I thought the resemblance was funny.


I feel like I am being insulted, but not sure how...
 
2012-10-24 03:53:17 PM
I know Cutler is easy to mock/hate with his stoic face and dislike of all things jovial, but I was a bit surprised to see this:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/chi-suh-cutler-vo t ed-least-popular-in-fan-survey-20121024,0,6931186.story

Suh is the least liked NFL player with Cutler close behind, even behind Vick. Funny that Vick was one of the most reviled players after The Incident and now Cutler is more hated. I guess whining is more offensive than making dogs murder each other for some folks.

/hope those ribs hold up
 
2012-10-24 04:00:23 PM

roc6783: Incorrigible Astronaut: Treygreen13: Incorrigible Astronaut: You know, it took me until this thread to realize that SLFF and roc are black and white versions of the exact same guy.

SLFF isn't even really black.

Oh, I know. He's an alt, but I thought the resemblance was funny.

I feel like I am being insulted, but not sure how...


SLFF = Spike Lee's Favorite Farker. Rumors abound that he is actually white and playing a role but I've never seen proof. Incorrigible Astronaut is implying that your stance that A-Rodg is the GOAT is as ridiculous as SLFF's general stance that [some pretty good black athlete] is better than [any other comparable white athlete].

At least I think that's the gist.
 
2012-10-24 04:20:13 PM

This Looks Fun: roc6783: Incorrigible Astronaut: Treygreen13: Incorrigible Astronaut: ***snip***
SLFF = Spike Lee's Favorite Farker. Rumors abound that he is actually white and playing a role but I've never seen proof. Incorrigible Astronaut is implying that your stance that A-Rodg is the GOAT is as ridiculous as SLFF's general stance that [some pretty good black athlete] is better than [any other comparable white athlete].

At least I think that's the gist.


Gotcha, thanks for the clarification, I guess... The thing of it is, I'm not wrong though. There's actual facts that back me up and I am not just making up random crap. I get that many people disagree, and that's fine. I at least make an attempt at humor and snark when I disagree. Also, I really do think that by the end of his career, assuming it is at least 5 years away, there will be few who will disagree with me.

//That obviously excludes any fanbois that LOVE their guy no matter the evidence that he is not the best.
 
2012-10-24 04:46:28 PM

FriarReb98: Didn't we just have a thread saying that the QBR is dead?


I thought so, but then I saw otherwise and knew that for some reason I can mostly only get Sports greenlights if I mock the Chargers or Sanchez. The stars aligned for me.
 
2012-10-24 04:49:14 PM

roc6783: There's actual facts that back me up and I am not just making up random crap.


True. But for some, the facts that matter are different. Me, I like 2nd half INTs as a fact that backs up my claim that Brett Favre is a total asshole middle of the road QB who just happens to be tougher than 2 Brawny(TM) paper towels folded together.

I also like Super Bowl appearances that say Jim Kelly is as good as Bradshaw and almost as good as Tom Brady, the best ever. Snark aside (where it belongs), if you like a guy as the best, there's a reason. Clearly that fact is going to hold more weight. Unless you like Flutie for the cereal; that doesn't affect his all-time list ranking.

Seriously, I like completion percentage, turnover/pass attempt ratio, and the same in playoffs. For a running QB though, those stats aren't enough. You need to account for yards per play, etc. There are too many variables to say "these facts backup my claim that [some guy] is the best." I agree those facts get Rodgers in the conversation, but they paint an incomplete picture. With those numbers, Rodgers could fumble every other drive and look like the messiah. He doesn't, but like I said, it doesn't paint the whole picture.

Me, I like Rodgers, but I hope he gets a career ending injury (or moves to Minnesota) because he plays us twice a year and I hate that.

tl;dr:

Rodgers is good, but how people choose to compare QBs is a personal preference.
 
2012-10-24 04:50:22 PM

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


Wrong.
It works fine when you're not ESPN trying to come up with a BS stat because your idiot pundits can't understand on the QB rating works.
The only stat that tells more about who won the game is points. Passer rating is awesome once understood. Combined with YPA & completion percentage you can compare QBs across generations.
Simply look at opposing QB's ratings to analyze a defense.

ESPN QBR the only system to put the winning superbowl QB's season behind a QB who's only 'highlight' was running out of his own endzone on accident.

A site that understands football stats
 
2012-10-24 07:26:20 PM

This Looks Fun: roc6783: Incorrigible Astronaut: Treygreen13: Incorrigible Astronaut: You know, it took me until this thread to realize that SLFF and roc are black and white versions of the exact same guy.

SLFF isn't even really black.

Oh, I know. He's an alt, but I thought the resemblance was funny.

I feel like I am being insulted, but not sure how...

SLFF = Spike Lee's Favorite Farker. Rumors abound that he is actually white and playing a role but I've never seen proof. Incorrigible Astronaut is implying that your stance that A-Rodg is the GOAT is as ridiculous as SLFF's general stance that [some pretty good black athlete] is better than [any other comparable white athlete].

At least I think that's the gist.


Something like that. I see it as two people who are so loyal and hyperbolic about their players that any dissenting view is dismissed as flat-out wrong. It's not a criticism so much as an observation.
 
2012-10-25 01:39:32 AM

Dafatone: Yanks_RSJ: roc6783: Rodgers and Young are 1a and 1b right now, once Rodgers surpasses Young in years played, he will be the unequivocal #1.

Steve Young isn't even the best QB in the history of the 49ers.

I think Young's skillset outweighs Montana's. Montana also had slightly better teams, or at least slightly worse opponents. As mentioned in this thread, Young often lost to better teams in the postseason, whereas Montana often bean worse teams. Montana's rightly famed for leading 4th quarter / last possession drives, which is important. It's not the only important thing, despite how many people highly value success "when it counts."

It's a pretty tough comparison. To me, I don't think postseason play is THAT important, given how reliant on the players around you it is. I certainly don't remember watching Steve Young and thinking, "gee, this guy throws bad passes in the playoffs." Steve Young's numbers are a little better across the board, even adjusted for era (in my opinion. And by qb rating+, according to pro-football-reference).

But, Montana played a bunch more for the Niners. 4600 pass attempts to 3600. Does that mean something? If it means we bump up Montana's value by that proportion, he's obviously ahead.


Montana was quick, before his injuries piled up, and he had to alter his style of play, becoming a more conventional, dropback passer. Young was quicker than even the youthful Montana though. Young's arm was a bit stronger. Montana's field awareness, touch, and ball placement were as good as anyone I ever saw play. Young sometimes struggled with that, especially early on. It wasn't Alex Smith's first 5 years bad, the balls did get completed an acceptable percentage of the time, and the interceptions didn't happen that often. It was just that sometimes he didn't spot guys that came open further downfield, or took off running before the play had a chance to develop, and receivers were a little more likely to get led into monster hits, or lost opportunities for yards after the catch because they were scraping the ball off their shoetops.
 
2012-10-25 06:55:15 AM

IAmRight: 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.


Let me try: its a bunch of hooey that ESPN thew together to have something to fill 7 networks and 10 radio shows a day with. Passer rating not convoluted enough for you, lets throw a bunch subjection into the mix and POOF! A stat that lets Cowherd spend 30 minutes talking about how Gabbert is better than Rivers.
 
2012-10-25 01:02:37 PM

Incorrigible Astronaut: Something like that. I see it as two people who are so loyal and hyperbolic about their players that any dissenting view is dismissed as flat-out wrong. It's not a criticism so much as an observation.


Ah, the difference I see is that SLFF doesn't try to use facts. But I guess I see your point. In other news, if the Packers end up with another great franchise QB after Rodgers, I'm going to cry.
 
2012-10-26 01:26:52 PM
Reasons why QBR is flawed

1. Chad Pennington had the 11th best QBR season of all time*.
2. See #1

*Since 2008
 
Displayed 108 of 108 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report