C.Biscuit97 Posted October 28, 2014 Posted October 28, 2014 I think QBR is better than QB rating, which is out of date. QB rating does not account for garbage time and the opponent. I'd love this breakdown with QBR if you can get this.
Rockinon Posted October 28, 2014 Posted October 28, 2014 If he can get a bigger contract on a better team, there's no reason for him to stay. Technically he's not allowed contact with other teams until he opts out, but you know his agent will be talking to "sources". He's on a 2 yr contract. I think he likes winning.
C.Biscuit97 Posted October 28, 2014 Posted October 28, 2014 Does anyone see Orton choosing not to return next year? CBF He needs to finish the season first. He started a season 5-0 once and didn't make the playoffs. I also don't think the qb market goes crazy for 32 year olds. Long way to go before we make any rash Jauron like decisions.
norton20 Posted October 28, 2014 Posted October 28, 2014 I dont see why Orton wouldn't be back. My understanding is that he has a 2 yr deal @ a very reasonable $5 mil per. That is cheap for a #1 Qb. With no 1st round pick, I cant see them taking a Qb that would be an obvious #1. By paying their starting Qb only $5 mil, they can allocate monies for Dareus, Hughes or extending Glenn.
Orton's Arm Posted October 28, 2014 Posted October 28, 2014 Last week the Bills were 19th. Don't jump to conclusions. It's not like they piled up numbers against the Broncos. Remember it was the pathetic Jets! This is a good point. Between them, Geno Smith and Michael Vick produced one of the worst quarterbacking performances I've ever seen. Vick did a good job hurting us with his legs, but that's not something which shows up in quarterback rating. His throwing was really bad--albeit not as bad as Geno Smith's! I think that Smith had a quarterback rating of zero. When you average a number like that into the defense's ranking, it's obviously going to make it look better than it had a week ago. On the other hand, Orton's perfect passer rating for the game came at the expense of what is widely recognized as a very weak Jets secondary. Orton is a better player than his reputation would suggest. But it's not like he'll be facing the Jets secondary every week. On the other hand, the Bills would undoubtedly have had a better offensive ranking if Orton had been with the team the whole offseason, and had been made the starter from the very first game. The fact that we look worse than we should due to Manuel's games may partially balance out the fact we look better than we should due to that Jets game.
NoSaint Posted October 28, 2014 Posted October 28, 2014 (edited) I dont see why Orton wouldn't be back. My understanding is that he has a 2 yr deal @ a very reasonable $5 mil per. That is cheap for a #1 Qb. With no 1st round pick, I cant see them taking a Qb that would be an obvious #1. By paying their starting Qb only $5 mil, they can allocate monies for Dareus, Hughes or extending Glenn. the issue is orton can opt out. The fact that we look worse than we should due to Manuel's games may partially balance out the fact we look better than we should due to that Jets game. like i said, right in that mess of good but not GREAT teams, likely. without going back to the list say 7-8 through 16-18. teams that are wild card type contenders. talent levels pretty similar so a few lucky breaks and health being a big part of the differentiation. Edited October 28, 2014 by NoSaint
Orton's Arm Posted October 28, 2014 Posted October 28, 2014 For the last bunch of years it has shown a remarkable correlation to not only playoff teams but SB contenders as well. It is a little flippant to say "it's something we already knew" as there are many axioms in football that "everybody knows" that are not supported by statistical analysis. "Run & stop the run" is one such axiom that can't be backed up statistically in the modern NFL. > "Run & stop the run" is one such axiom that can't be backed up statistically in the modern NFL. Correct. The New York Times performed a multiple linear regression analysis. The dependent variable was teams' winning percentages. The independent variables were yards per pass attempt, yards per running attempt, INT percentage, and the defensive equivalents thereof. A one SD improvement in yards per pass attempt was three times as effective as a one SD improvement in yards per rush attempt, or a one SD improvement in INT percentage. Given that interceptions are part of the passing game, the authors concluded that the passing game is four times as important as the running game. Of course, there will be exceptions to that rule of thumb. If your opponent has a great running game, and if your run defense is chopped liver, that team's running game may play a much greater role in the game's outcome than the above-described 4:1 ratio would suggest. But that logic can also be true of any other aspect of football. For example, if the other team is tremendously good at returning punts, and if your punt coverage team is lousy, punt returns might end up having a significantly greater impact than you'd usually expect.
starrymessenger Posted October 28, 2014 Posted October 28, 2014 If Orton has a stellar year he will be in demand. He doesn't have to play for the Bills, though he may want to. The suggestion that he's some kind of deadbeat just looking for a chance to play QB anywhere is absurd. Idk what kind of contract he may be able to parlay a strong performance into but I can guarantee it will be more than 5 bucks per. Oh and by the way that's why he's here. He has a plan and a personal agenda. He knew perfectly well that the Bills were basically one player away from being able to compete. He thinks he's that player. He's not stupid and Kyle Orton is the last person on earth who would ever sell Kyle Orton short. Kyle wants money and as much of it that he can get. By year end if he leads the Bills to the playoffs he will have Whaley right where he wants him. Smooth.
billybrew1 Posted October 28, 2014 Posted October 28, 2014 id venture ill wait as the sample size grows before diving in on that projection. im guessing KO doesnt stick at 104 rating long term. his career is 81.3 and highest season is 87.5. if you go with that best season, it bumps us to 12. While i agree the sample size is small and we've had a couple easier matchups, the classic QB rating (which I think is what we're talking about; not QBR) is more of a function of an offense than a QB..... Perhaps Kyle has found a better team or is a late bloomer or both....
Rocky Landing Posted October 28, 2014 Posted October 28, 2014 Here is my problem with the Quarterback Rating Differential (and this is going to sound picky, and semantic because it is): The Quarterback Rating Differential should not be called the Quarterback Rating Differential. Hear me out. The Quarterback Rating (QBR) is a formula used to rate a quarterback’s performance based on completion percentage, yards per pass attempt, touchdowns, and interceptions. It is statistically meaningless because it doesn’t take into consideration the playing level of anyone else on the field other than the quarterback, and the null hypothesis is easy to prove. The Quarterback Rating Differential (QBRD), on the other hand, is a measure of team performance based on those four metrics. In other words, everyone’s performance on the field, including the offense and defense of the team being measured, and the opponents of that team factor into the equation. That is why the above list doesn’t state Aaron Rodgers’ QBRD, but the Packers’ QBRD. In fact, there could be several quarterbacks playing during any game that would be included into QBRD. Really, this stat should be called Team Rating Differential. And, with that being said, if someone (or some group) with a firm understanding of statistics, and a lot of time on their hands would calculate, and include corresponding values for running plays, rushing touchdowns, and field goals, the statistic would be even more useful.
Recommended Posts