I'd like to point something out. Those defending the old passer rating system seem to be relying on its efficacy in predicting winners. Fine, it predicts winners. That isn't the point of the statistic. The point is to specifically identify the role of the quarterback in his team's success relative to his running backs, receivers, tight ends, etc.
Team batting average is great at predicting winners in baseball too, but sabermetricians dismissed it long ago in the context of identifying individual achievement at the plate, because it isn't comprehensive. It's the same with passer rating. It isn't a fallacious statistic, but it is rather arbitrary. Taking 4 stats, weighing them, then smushing them together isn't comprehensive enough in an age when so much other information is available.
Take the following example. In passer rating, if the QB dumps the ball off to his running back, who jukes two defenders while using aggressive second-level blocking by a FB and OT and scores a 50 yard TD, the QB gets the exact same amount of credit as he would if he placed a perfect bomb to a streaking WR in single coverage for a TD. In my opinion, you simply can't defend a statistic that is so poor at accounting for context.