Dibs Posted January 30, 2013 Posted January 30, 2013 Nope your doing efficiency ratings (which are widely junk) while I was doing QBR which is newer and seemingly a better indicator though not perfect either. 50 is average and Russell had an 11 in his last season and a high of about 30. What we have here is a problem in communication For years "passer rating" was generally referred to as QBR (quarterback rating). When did the terminology change? Hurrumph.....how frustrating.
NoSaint Posted January 30, 2013 Posted January 30, 2013 (edited) Can't say I'm surprised with the character assassination obsession he has towards Russell. I'd like to see how NS would hold up under such intense scrutiny and mud slinging. But the bottom line is this , fudging numbers or not, with the amount of time and effort NS has used crapping on the guy, bills could have had him in, see if he's losing weight as a first sign of commitment, check out of his arm and mobility, and have a chat to get a sense where his head is at. Numbers are right. In his last season he twice went 4 games and 100+ passes without a td, had 6 games with a QBR under ten (including a .1) and peaked at 35. Again 3tds and 20 ints/fumbles Again, 50 is average and in 7 appearances his backup bruce gradkowski posted a 51 for the season. 3 of his 5 games with over 15 passes having a better QBR than Russell's best game of the season. You could add Russell's last 8 games of QBR together and not hit gradkowskis best start that season. Lets quit with the Brady, aikman, Warner and Russell Wilson comments. When posting his stats, weight and arrest record qualifies as character assassination - there's a major problem. Edited January 30, 2013 by NoSaint
Dibs Posted January 30, 2013 Posted January 30, 2013 Numbers are right. In his last season he twice went 4 games and 100+ passes without a td, had 6 games with a QBR under ten (including a .1) and peaked at 35. Again 3tds and 20 ints/fumbles Again, 50 is average and in 7 appearances his backup bruce gradkowski posted a 51 for the season. 3 of his 5 games with over 15 passes having a better QBR than Russell's best game of the season. You could add Russell's last 8 games of QBR together and not hit gradkowskis best start that season. Lets quit with the Brady, aikman, Warner and Russell Wilson comments. Hijacking the thread a little here..... I have to say that I'm not convinced with the "Total QBR". It is purely an ESPN invention(meaning it will not be adopted by the mass media).....it has not been quantified publicly.....and has obvious flaws in it. On top of that it has stolen the term "QBR" which annoys me. Check the wiki page on "Total QBR". It clearly lists the areas where the system can perhaps be considered deficient. Also.....since only ESPN use TQBR.....it's perhaps not the best system to be quoting on a forum. As....and I'm gonna type it as it is what it has been called ever since I first looked at a football stat.....QBR is the standard QB rating across all media and the NFL.....perhaps that should be the one to quote when making general points.
NoSaint Posted January 30, 2013 Posted January 30, 2013 (edited) Hijacking the thread a little here..... I have to say that I'm not convinced with the "Total QBR". It is purely an ESPN invention(meaning it will not be adopted by the mass media).....it has not been quantified publicly.....and has obvious flaws in it. On top of that it has stolen the term "QBR" which annoys me. Check the wiki page on "Total QBR". It clearly lists the areas where the system can perhaps be considered deficient. Also.....since only ESPN use TQBR.....it's perhaps not the best system to be quoting on a forum. As....and I'm gonna type it as it is what it has been called ever since I first looked at a football stat.....QBR is the standard QB rating across all media and the NFL.....perhaps that should be the one to quote when making general points. The qb efficiency has widely been abandoned for HUGE short comings. QBR isn't perfect, but is generally accepted as a better indicator and is regularly used on this forum. The bulk of the shortcomings in the link include Phillip rivers saying its too complicated for him, a reporter saying he doesn't get so he doesn't like it and deadspin (biggest espn bashers in Existence) saying it sucks cause its from a network, and pft saying its no good because it puts stuff in that fans can't access like how far a pass traveled in the air instead of counting a 5 yard slant and receiver breaking 3 tackles for a 50 yard td and a 50 yard bomb as the same... While Brian Burke of advanced nfl stats chimes in that obviously treating those two plays differently makes QBR better. But if you must, that same season gradkowski had a 30 point edge on efficiency too http://www.hotboxsports.com/NFL/article/47888 Connor Orr also now following up his report that there were discussions with one saying that there's no interest Edited January 30, 2013 by NoSaint
Bufcomments Posted January 30, 2013 Posted January 30, 2013 Should bills at least give him a work out? http://m.nfl.com/new...p1000000129925/ umm Hell No. dude needs to be 260 or less to even think about playing.
Dibs Posted January 30, 2013 Posted January 30, 2013 The qb efficiency has widely been abandoned for HUGE short comings. QBR isn't perfect, but is generally accepted as a better indicator and is regularly used on this forum. The bulk of the shortcomings in the link include Phillip rivers saying its too complicated for him, a reporter saying he doesn't get so he doesn't like it and deadspin (biggest espn bashers in Existence) saying it sucks cause its from a network, and pft saying its no good because it puts stuff in that fans can't access like how far a pass traveled in the air instead of counting a 5 yard slant and receiver breaking 3 tackles for a 50 yard td and a 50 yard bomb as the same... While Brian Burke of advanced nfl stats chimes in that obviously treating those two plays differently makes QBR better. But if you must, that same season gradkowski had a 30 point edge on efficiency too http://www.hotboxspo...L/article/47888 Connor Orr also now following up his report that there were discussions with one saying that there's no interest Hmmm....I need to ruminate on it for a while. The one thing that really bothers me though.....How the hell did they manage to steal the term QBR away from all of the stat sites?
Meathead Posted January 31, 2013 Posted January 31, 2013 Who was the last QB taken in the 6th round that's appeared in 5 super bowls, winning 3? but none when he wasnt cheating
Jim in Anchorage Posted January 31, 2013 Posted January 31, 2013 but none when he wasnt cheating Clever. Never read that on here before.
truth on hold Posted January 31, 2013 Author Posted January 31, 2013 (edited) Clever. Never read that on here before. Marshall faulk in on it now too ... "Am I over the loss? Yeah, I'm over the loss," Faulk, now an NFL Network analyst, told Tom Curran of Comcast SportsNet New England. "But I'll never be over being cheated out of the Super Bowl . That's a different story. I can understand losing a Super Bowl , that's fine ... "But how things happened and what took place. Obviously, the commissioner gets to handle things how he wants to handle them, but if they wanted us to shut up about what happened, show us the tapes. Don't burn 'em." ------- Geez folks give it a rest. Wasnt jimmy Johnson almost bragging about sending a spy to bills super bowl practise facility to see what plays theyre working on? Edited January 31, 2013 by Joe_the_6_pack
Jim in Anchorage Posted January 31, 2013 Posted January 31, 2013 Marshall faulk in on it now too ... "Am I over the loss? Yeah, I'm over the loss," Faulk, now an NFL Network analyst, told Tom Curran of Comcast SportsNet New England. "But I'll never be over being cheated out of the Super Bowl . That's a different story. I can understand losing a Super Bowl , that's fine ... "But how things happened and what took place. Obviously, the commissioner gets to handle things how he wants to handle them, but if they wanted us to shut up about what happened, show us the tapes. Don't burn 'em." ------- Geez folks give it a rest. Wasnt jimmy Johnson almost bragging about sending a spy to bills super bowl practise facility to see what plays theyre working on? It's never going to change here. Given the shear volume of Patriots are cheaters threads/posts put on this forum daily[hourly?] I think many posters have a deep rooted unfounded anger that the Patriots are the only reason the Bills are so miserable.
Hapless Bills Fan Posted January 31, 2013 Posted January 31, 2013 (edited) The qb efficiency has widely been abandoned for HUGE short comings. QBR isn't perfect, but is generally accepted as a better indicator and is regularly used on this forum. I see it used regularly on this forum, but would you be able to point us at evidence supporting that "total QBR" has, in fact, become "generally accepted as a better indicator", outside ESPN pundits?As Head Made of Meat would say "link or it didn't happen". If it is, indeed, so generally accepted, such stuff should be easy to find. Yet I did a couple of quick google searches and was completely unable to come up with laudatory articles - the best I could do was a NYTimes article comparing AY/A, total QBR, and conventional QBR, pointing out some QB who don't pass the "eyeball test" rank high in total QBR, and that both it and conventional QBR are "explanatory statistics" that correlate well to teams that win a lot, but don't do a good job of predicting which teams will win. Highly lukewarm, and not very convincing as evidence of its general acceptance OTOH, the results of a quick google search towards the "null hypothesis" that it is NOT generally accepted. Here is an article authored by a Football Outsiders stats geek highlighting a case where total QBR doesn't seem to make a lot of sense and linking some ESPN explanation that reveal flaws. Here is a reasonably well written fan opinion that clearly makes some of the points that trouble me about QBR (Emphasis mine). As you can see, objections are far more than a few people saying it's too complicated or they don't understand it. They include the fundamental objection that human error is obviously part of the scoring equation because it involves humans grading every play, but we can't know how much because the scoring systems and metrics not publically available; in addition, some of the things we do know (such as run EPA and the differential weighting of late game passes) do not pass my "common sense" or "eyeball" tests. [begin quote from link above] "I want to assess total QBR as a QB metric now that nearly 5 years of data have been compiled. Many will laugh and say that it is a bogus metric used by ESPN for publicity. I agree, but they have shoved this stat so far down our throats, that it is impossible not to think about when evaluating stats. I love stats, and I love thinking about what they mean and what they don't. Overall, I think total QBR is a poorly constructed publicity stunt and has very little credibility. This season has solidified my opinion, and I here are the reasons why. 1) ESPN weights different situations differently. A 4th quarter completion in a close game is more important than a 1st quarter completion. I kind of get this, but how much more important? ESPN apparently assigns a number to this, but their metric is proprietary, so we don't know how much more. 2) A QB who is stellar for 2 quarters, gets his team a huge lead, then only throws a couple of passes in the second half will get penalized greatly for not having to throw meaningful passes in the second half. This is patently ridiculous, as getting out to a huge lead is certainly as valuable as sucking for 3 quarters, then suddenly getting it back together for a 4th quarter comeback. This is the Matty Ice effect, and this metric has certainly been skewed toward some of the qualities that make him a good, not great quarterback, such as making 4th quarter comebacks after playing so-so for the whole game. 3) The run EPA metric is a good idea, but clearly flawed. It doesn't even pass the eye test. this is not an attempt to bash Matt Ryan, so I will add Aaron Rodgers to this discussion. Both Ryan and Rodgers have a much higher run EPA than Robert Griffin III. This is ridiculous. I don't care what the percentage of runs are converted into first downs. Neither Ryan or Rodgers is going 80 yards for a TD. RGIII changes game plans with his running abiilty far more than other QBs who can run. 4) Sack EPA is another flawed aspect of total QBR. The metric seems to take into account only how much a QB is sacked and in what situations. This kills Rodgers and Ben Roethlisberger, who play behind terrible lines, but still make plays. The plays that get lost are not the ones where they make people miss, then hit a nice pass, but the ones where they evade pressure and gain one yard, or throw the ball away, or turn a sure 7 yard sack into a 1 yard sack by being pocket aware. With all of that said, I'm pretty sure ESPN used this metric as a publicity grab. However, the people who designed it likely took it very seriously and thought it would be more useful than it is. Unfortunately, the metric involves people sitting an watching every play and assigning each play a grade. There is a ton of human error in that, and the scoring system is not publicly available, so we will never know if a Colts fan is unwittingly giving Andrew Luck extra points while grading him based on some deep-seated fan bias. Those are my views of this metric after 5 years of stats. Opinions? " [End quote from link above] OK, NoSaint, your turn. Edited January 31, 2013 by Hopeful
Hapless Bills Fan Posted February 1, 2013 Posted February 1, 2013 You need to lay off the hallucinogens
Hapless Bills Fan Posted February 1, 2013 Posted February 1, 2013 (edited) No one is lusting over the scraps here, the question was asked by the OP of "Would you bring him in for a tryout?" For those that are a little slow, they can bring him in for a tryout like they do with many players not under a contract and take a look at them without having to offer them a contract or pay them. If you don't like what you see, you say thanks for coming, have a nice flight home. Well, maybe things are different where you work. Maybe y'all so mellow and laid back about your workload that you take time to try out interview every Joe who sends in a job app if you're hiring. Around here, we cut the resume' pile down to people we think we would realistically want to hire and then limit to 2-3 interviews. Why? Because each interview, even for a starting position, takes time and effort from a lot of people. So we can't give our time to "maybe" and "someday", we have to focus on "yesyesyes" and "now". You can think a guy who is currently >40 lbs over his playing weight (after a diet) , has a history of drug abuse, lacks a history of mastering the game at the pro level, and hasn't held a job in his profession for 3 years sounds like an ideal candidate for an organization to devote the time and effort of a F2F interview. Others of us understand that a tryout doesn't mean a signing, but think that overlooking all those negatives while lobbying for our coaches to devote precious time, amounts to "lusting after scraps". Sure, anyone can change - but the way to prove you've seriously developed new habits is to prove it. Lose the weight, wow people with workouts, compete for the QB job in the CFL or wherever and show you've still got the fire in your belly. Otherwise you just look broke. Edited February 1, 2013 by Hopeful
NoSaint Posted February 1, 2013 Posted February 1, 2013 (edited) hopeful: i may have overstated it, as i dont know of an actual poll out there but show me one that argues passer rating is superior. The early linked wiki article in fact has someone comparing the the two directly and putting QBR ahead. I'm not even arguing it as a great stat, but that its seen as better than the completely out of date qb efficiency rating. The better of two flawed stats is hardly a bold claim in my opinion. Not one of the points posted disputes anything I said - both are flawed, nothing you posted said QBR was MORE flawed. In fact some of them were simply "I don't know so I don't like it" just like the wiki article. For those wishing to learn more and make your own judgement there's some good articles out there- I personally prefer the idea that QBR uses the distance the ball travels in the air instead of just the gain on the play, and that garbage stats are treated differently than stats on game deciding drives. If anything being created by espn has gotten it a lot of "hate on espn" backlash. Created by espn doesn't mean it's to be written off as "made for TV" Good article talking about each if people are reading and want to know more about the pros and cons. Neither tells the whole story but Russell was pathetic on each and far surpassed by his backup in each. http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/22/analyzing-espns-total-quarterback-rating/ Well, maybe things are different where you work. Maybe y'all so mellow and laid back about your workload that you take time to try out interview every Joe who sends in a job app if you're hiring. Around here, we cut the resume' pile down to people we think we would realistically want to hire and then limit to 2-3 interviews. Why? Because each interview, even for a starting position, takes time and effort from a lot of people. So we can't give our time to "maybe" and "someday", we have to focus on "yesyesyes" and "now". You can think a guy who is currently >40 lbs over his playing weight (after a diet) , has a history of drug abuse, lacks a history of mastering the game at the pro level, and hasn't held a job in his profession for 3 years sounds like an ideal candidate for an organization to devote the time and effort of a F2F interview. Others of us understand that a tryout doesn't mean a signing, but think that overlooking all those negatives while lobbying for our coaches to devote precious time, amounts to "lusting after scraps". Sure, anyone can change - but the way to prove you've seriously developed new habits is to prove it. Lose the weight, wow people with workouts, compete for the QB job in the CFL or wherever and show you've still got the fire in your belly. Otherwise you just look broke. Agreed. If they bring in Russell I don't get where you'd ever draw the line. Being 2 weeks into a workout program hardly seems like a good standard. It's in line with the guys that "haven't been arrested this year" turning their lives around. Ryan leaf had some great New Years resolutions too I bet. We've got guys that are better than russells ceiling already. We aren't desperate for anyone to where the uniform, there are 100 guys that would gladly do it and be better prospects. Edited February 1, 2013 by NoSaint
Hapless Bills Fan Posted February 1, 2013 Posted February 1, 2013 hopeful: i may have overstated it, as i dont know of an actual poll out there but show me one that argues passer rating is superior. The early linked wiki article in fact has someone comparing the the two directly and putting QBR ahead. I'm not even arguing it as a great stat, but that its seen as better than the completely out of date qb efficiency rating. The better of two flawed stats is hardly a bold claim in my opinion. Not one of the points posted disputes anything I said - both are flawed, nothing you posted said QBR was MORE flawed. Thanks for the thoughtful response, NoSaint. I don't think anyone argues passer rating as superior. They weight different things highly. The point of the NYTimes article to me, is that if you UNDERSTAND what a stat is measuring/rewarding, you can use it, but that very complex subjective stats such as total QBR aren't necessarily superior to straightforward stats such as NY/A. I thought the point was that QB such as Michael Vick and Matt Hasselbach - both highly rated at the time the article was written by total QBR - don't necessarily pass the "eyeball test" of good quarterbacking. So anyrate - my biggest beef with total QBR is the lack of transparency. People who complain they don't understand it aren't just whingers to me - they're stating a fact. Total QBR can't be completely understood, because the best you get is an explanation of what things are included, and what's rated highly or penalized. I don't have a problem with some of the ideas - I wish the statistic you cite (how far a ball travels in the air vs the total yardage on the play) were more commonly available. But for total QBR, the details of how the metric are implemented (really, even what the metrics actually are) and actual scoring are kept confidential, other than the information that to implement it involves someone watching and scoring every play. I have a fundamental problem with that lack of transparency and subjectivity, that I absolutely wouldn't have with a formula that used things like ANY/A, that included objective metrics such as QB rushing yards, or that applied a more straightforward situational weight to QB statistics. At my old job, we used to have a 7 or 8 variable equation we would fit to data, sometimes data that only included 14 points or so (that's poor statistical practice, because the number of degrees of freedom approach the number of points). My spouse, who is an engineer, used to tease and call it the "elephant fitting equation"- digitized the upper curve of an elephant sketch and tried to fit it. Didn't succeed, but came entirely close. That's what total QBR is to me because of the non-transparency - it's an elephant fitting equation, with room to subjectively adjust the scoring metrics to match the QB who are winning.
NoSaint Posted February 1, 2013 Posted February 1, 2013 Thanks for the thoughtful response, NoSaint. I don't think anyone argues passer rating as superior. They weight different things highly. The point of the NYTimes article to me, is that if you UNDERSTAND what a stat is measuring/rewarding, you can use it, but that very complex subjective stats such as total QBR aren't necessarily superior to straightforward stats such as NY/A. I thought the point was that QB such as Michael Vick and Matt Hasselbach - both highly rated at the time the article was written by total QBR - don't necessarily pass the "eyeball test" of good quarterbacking. So anyrate - my biggest beef with total QBR is the lack of transparency. People who complain they don't understand it aren't just whingers to me - they're stating a fact. Total QBR can't be completely understood, because the best you get is an explanation of what things are included, and what's rated highly or penalized. I don't have a problem with some of the ideas - I wish the statistic you cite (how far a ball travels in the air vs the total yardage on the play) were more commonly available. But for total QBR, the details of how the metric are implemented (really, even what the metrics actually are) and actual scoring are kept confidential, other than the information that to implement it involves someone watching and scoring every play. I have a fundamental problem with that lack of transparency and subjectivity, that I absolutely wouldn't have with a formula that used things like ANY/A, that included objective metrics such as QB rushing yards, or that applied a more straightforward situational weight to QB statistics. At my old job, we used to have a 7 or 8 variable equation we would fit to data, sometimes data that only included 14 points or so (that's poor statistical practice, because the number of degrees of freedom approach the number of points). My spouse, who is an engineer, used to tease and call it the "elephant fitting equation"- digitized the upper curve of an elephant sketch and tried to fit it. Didn't succeed, but came entirely close. That's what total QBR is to me because of the non-transparency - it's an elephant fitting equation, with room to subjectively adjust the scoring metrics to match the QB who are winning. Fair enough - I definitely recognize those flaws. The NYT piece I chose because it kind of covered pros and cons of a few different systems of rating and wasnt so much a "look I'm right" as a "feel free to check out more of the debate" in case anyone out there was less familiar. Ultimately, no stat will tell us everything we need to know, but as long as the QBR folks are close to even handed in evaluations I think it should get us closer to the truth by going to the next level on some of it. I'm always cautious on the "advanced stats" as they come with a degree of who's evaluating and are they qualified but..... I think they are a little better than the basic even if still obviously lacking. As far as the "I don't get it crowd" I have mixed feelings. Your points are valid but I think many are the same people that say they don't get any stat that is compound and made up as a more complex equation. How many of them didnt get the original passer rating for instance? Some are giving thoughtful analysis, but I'm guessing many have never looked into it in the first place.
San Jose Bills Fan Posted February 12, 2013 Posted February 12, 2013 He took my suggestion (not from me personally) and enrolled at a QB Academy: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/02/12/jamarcus-russell-keeps-working-toward-getting-back-to-the-nfl/
Captain Hindsight Posted February 12, 2013 Posted February 12, 2013 He took my suggestion (not from me personally) and enrolled at a QB Academy: http://profootballta...ack-to-the-nfl/ The Barber is quoted? Thats their source? Dude is really desperate to get noticed again
mrags Posted February 18, 2013 Posted February 18, 2013 It's never going to change here. Given the shear volume of Patriots are cheaters threads/posts put on this forum daily[hourly?] I think many posters have a deep rooted unfounded anger that the Patriots are the only reason the Bills are so miserable. ever been to the NFL draft? Apparently not just Bills fans but the entire fan base of the NFL thinks they are cheaters. That's why whenever they are on the clock, Radio City erupts with "CHEATERS, CHEATERS, CHEATERS!!!" Chants.
Captain Hindsight Posted February 20, 2013 Posted February 20, 2013 http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/02/20/jamarcus-russells-comeback-effort-progressing-slowly/ Russel's current 40 time is slower than some guards last year at the combine http://m.nfl.com/combine/events/40-yard-dash/g/ Dude has some serious work to do
Recommended Posts