San-O Posted September 26, 2014 Posted September 26, 2014 It's funny how some posters here just completely neglect or ignore any stats. It's easier to dismiss all stats that to understand and try to apply them. IMO.
FireChan Posted September 26, 2014 Posted September 26, 2014 (edited) Pretty much that... When you have to come out and explain your stat, like that, then imo it's not a stat, it's an opinion. If a QB and his team are dominant, that QB could end up with a lower QBR than a QB who's team sucks but has more "clutch plays". Sure, it could. The problem is what happens when a team has a dominant defense? The QB with the dominant team is able to put up points early and the defense holds, for the majority of the season. Very few "clutch plays", therefore a lower QBR. That QB could still have a great season, but have a low QBR. QBR would be lower and rightfully so. It attempts to quantify how much a QB contributed to the win. That's the point. What happens when you have a QB who makes a couple solid throws but his defense and RB's win the game? Lower QBR. Whereas your passer rating looks like you're the best QB in the league. That's sorta the whole point. I'll have you know, even with Wilson having a dominant defense, he still had a solid QBR. Was it better than Peyton's? No, and it shouldn't be. Even if their passing ratings are similar, Peyton contributed more to the wins more than Wilson. It's an imperfect stat, but aren't they all? To ignore it on isolated anomalies, and to use other stats like passer rating, where guys throw one complete pass and end up with a 112, is kinda dumb, don't you agree? QBR shouldn't and isn't supposed to be used to gauge which QB is "better" in terms of talent all by it's lonesome, because it doesn't account for situations where the QB doesn't need to throw. All offseason, we agreed that EJ just needs to make a couple good throws and play average to win football games. He had an above average day in Chicago and against the Dolphins, but he shouldn't have a higher QBR than Matt Ryan who threw for 4 TD's and was the entire offense. Or Peyton. See the correlation there? Edited September 26, 2014 by FireChan
A Dog Named Kelso Posted September 26, 2014 Posted September 26, 2014 (edited) QBR would be lower and rightfully so. It attempts to quantify how much a QB contributed to the win. That's the point. What happens when you have a QB who makes a couple solid throws but his defense and RB's win the game? Lower QBR. Whereas your passer rating looks like you're the best QB in the league. That's sorta the whole point. I'll have you know, even with Wilson having a dominant defense, he still had a solid QBR. Was it better than Peyton's? No, and it shouldn't be. Even if their passing ratings are similar, Peyton contributed more to the wins more than Wilson. It's an imperfect stat, but aren't they all? To ignore it on isolated anomalies, and to use other stats like passer rating, where guys throw one complete pass and end up with a 112, is kinda dumb, don't you agree? QBR shouldn't and isn't supposed to be used to gauge which QB is "better" in terms of talent all by it's lonesome, because it doesn't account for situations where the QB doesn't need to throw. All offseason, we agreed that EJ just needs to make a couple good throws and play average to win football games. He had an above average day in Chicago and against the Dolphins, but he shouldn't have a higher QBR than Matt Ryan who threw for 4 TD's and was the entire offense. Or Peyton. See the correlation there? And yet that is how it is marketed and protaryed by ESPN the ratings creator. Edited September 26, 2014 by A Dog Named Kelso
FireChan Posted September 26, 2014 Posted September 26, 2014 And yet that is how it is marketed and protaryed by ESPN the ratings creator. Isn't that how every stat is marketed and portrayed? Just because espn appeals to the lowest common denominator who don't understand statistics doesn't mean it's completely invalid.
Fadingpain Posted September 26, 2014 Posted September 26, 2014 Wow. 69 pages. Here are two great questions which must be answered: 1) How many licks does it take to get to the Tootsie Roll center of a Tootsie Pop? 2) How many pages will this thread reach before it loses steam and dies? Do I hear 100? 150? Any more? All done? Do I have 200?
The Wiz Posted September 26, 2014 Posted September 26, 2014 (edited) Isn't that how every stat is marketed and portrayed? Just because espn appeals to the lowest common denominator who don't understand statistics doesn't mean it's completely invalid. Invalid no, but it does make it so they can give a hand up to who they feel like. Example, Tom Brady is 22nd on the list with a 2-1 record and brees is 7th with a 1-2 record. I know there are other factors but that's just going by qbr. Edited September 26, 2014 by The Wiz
dayman Posted September 27, 2014 Posted September 27, 2014 (edited) Any fan arguing in favor of QBR or the traditional QB rating is a plague on the fan base. Watch them play. If they look like they are in charge and consistently make good throws moving the ball and seem to understand the defense they are against...they are good. If not, they cannot be successful over time in this league (they suck). QBR means nothing. You can fall ass backwards into a good QBR here and there. Especially as a young QB with little tape on you. With a small sample size of games for young QBs...QBR means nothing. Watch them play. This statistics stuff is one reason so many people hang on to so many losers we've had at QB for two or three years when it's obvious almost immediately. Edited September 27, 2014 by MoreOffense
Beerball Posted September 27, 2014 Posted September 27, 2014 Another hour spent cleaning up today's posts. Y'all either play by the rules or expect some time away from TBD.
DirtDart Posted September 27, 2014 Author Posted September 27, 2014 Wow. 69 pages. Here are two great questions which must be answered: 1) How many licks does it take to get to the Tootsie Roll center of a Tootsie Pop? 2) How many pages will this thread reach before it loses steam and dies? Do I hear 100? 150? Any more? All done? Do I have 200? I can not believe this is still going. Figured the debate would have ended last week.
DC Tom Posted September 27, 2014 Posted September 27, 2014 Another hour spent cleaning up today's posts. Y'all either play by the rules or expect some time away from TBD. You really ought to just lock the thread. It's getting big enough to affect board performance, and unless I come up with a different way to phrase "you're an idiot," no one's going to say anything new here.
Augie Posted September 27, 2014 Posted September 27, 2014 You really ought to just lock the thread. It's getting big enough to affect board performance, and unless I come up with a different way to phrase "you're an idiot," no one's going to say anything new here. I don't know.... I think we're getting very close to resolving this. Somewhere between EJ being out of the league in 2 years or in the HOF in 20, we should have our answer. We could keep the thread open until it goes either way.
26CornerBlitz Posted September 27, 2014 Posted September 27, 2014 I don't know.... I think we're getting very close to resolving this. Somewhere between EJ being out of the league in 2 years or in the HOF in 20, we should have our answer. We could keep the thread open until it goes either way. I'm 100% certain no one has said anything close to that.
Augie Posted September 27, 2014 Posted September 27, 2014 I'm 100% certain no one has said anything close to that. Well, you heard it here first! (My guess is somewhere in between.)
DC Tom Posted September 27, 2014 Posted September 27, 2014 I'm 100% certain no one has said anything close to that. EJ's going to be in the Hall of Fame in 20 years. There, now everything that can be said about EJ Manuel has been said. So can we PLEASE all shut up?
26CornerBlitz Posted September 27, 2014 Posted September 27, 2014 EJ's going to be in the Hall of Fame in 20 years. There, now everything that can be said about EJ Manuel has been said. So can we PLEASE all shut up? Whether this thread is closed or not, you know the banter will not die and will be taken up in countless other threads.
DC Tom Posted September 27, 2014 Posted September 27, 2014 Whether this thread is closed or not, you know the banter will not die and will be taken up in countless other threads. Yes, I know...I'm having a moment of hopefulness. It'll pass in about 15 hours, at the latest.
Augie Posted September 27, 2014 Posted September 27, 2014 Whether this thread is closed or not, you know the banter will not die and will be taken up in countless other threads. If we keep it all here, there's only one place I have to avoid. Life should be simple...
26CornerBlitz Posted September 27, 2014 Posted September 27, 2014 Yes, I know...I'm having a moment of hopefulness. It'll pass in about 15 hours, at the latest. Well, pardon the interruption. Carry on.
Augie Posted September 27, 2014 Posted September 27, 2014 But it keeps leaking out and it's like a game of Pop-A-Mole!
GG Posted September 27, 2014 Posted September 27, 2014 You really ought to just lock the thread. It's getting big enough to affect board performance, and unless I come up with a different way to phrase "you're an idiot," no one's going to say anything new here. Well, that was one of the posts that was cleaned up.
Recommended Posts