I NEVER WANT TO SEE THE QBR STAT EVER AGAIN!!!!

[Ridgewaycynic2013]

QBR is the 'Randolph Scott' of thinking persons' statistics.

*
🎵Ran-dolf Scott! 🎶

[hondo in seattle]

7 hours ago, QCity said:

There are far worse discrepancies.

 

“Rodgers, whose Packers won at the Georgia Dome, completed 26 of 39 passes for 396 yards and two touchdowns. His Total QBR was 82.1.

 

Tebow, whose Broncos lost at home to the Chargers, completed four of 10 passes for 79 yards and a touchdown. And he ran the ball six times for 38 yards and a touchdown. And his Total QBR was 83.2”

 

I never liked QBR.   But this was the day (Rodgers v. Tebow) that I realized how completely and utterly useless it was.

 

I'm not sure who at ESPN invented QBR.  But you would think they would have evaluated hundreds of historical games to validate it.  If they had, they would have found these problems.

 

No doubt 'passer rating' has shortcomings.   But QBR is even worse when it was supposed to be better.  

 

Edited December 28, 2021 by hondo in seattle

[MAJBobby]

6 hours ago, Protocal69 said:

Do you guys know that Zach Wilson who was 14/22 64% for 102 yards 4.6 yards per completion 101 yards passing  1 TD and 0 int with 91 yards rushing on 4 att had a higher QBR (92.4) than Joe Burrow who was 37/46 80%  and threw for 525 yards 11.4 yards per completion 4TD and no ints and had a QBR (89.3)

 

Can someone please explain how this is remotely possible. Remember I think a perfect QBR is 100. ESPN should take that metric and throw it out of the window if that is the case. Crazy. 

QBR likes QB runs. Very heavily weighted in the system. That was why TT was a QBR master. 

[Son of a K-Gun]

3 hours ago, BobbyC81 said:

We learn most things based out of 100.  Normal percent calculations are based out of 100.  Test scores are out of 100.  Our monetary system is based out of 100.   How can anyone relate to 158.3?!  Eventually we learned that anything over 90 is very good.  If it was based out of 100, it would be easier to understand.

 

Stepping off of soapbox now.  🙂

Hmm, almost sounds like an argument for the metric system 🤔 

[Sammy Watkins' Rib]

5 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

QBR likes QB runs. It is a bogus stat and always has been.

Passer rating can be just as misleading just as often though. Wide-open receivers dropping touchdowns that  hit them right in the hands. Quarterbacks getting picked off on Hail Marys at the end of half’s. Balls going off of receivers hands and being picked. In completions thrown when it’s actually the right play.

 

Take Allen for example in this last game. We watched it with our own eyes and we know it was possibly one of Allen’s best games of his career. His QBR of 85 is significantly higher than a 104 passer rating. 
 

Neither metric is perfect and both certainly have their flaws. And for this reason I’ve just never understood the crusade against QBR but people being perfectly fine with miss leading passer ratings.

 

There was also a week earlier this year where Allen’s QBR was slightly higher than Mahomes QBR despite Mahomes having I think 5 TDs and O INTs that week compared to Allen’s 3 TDs to 1INT. Mahomes had the much higher passer rating that week. But before they released Mahomes QBR for that game I had already correctly predicted that Allen’s QBR would likely be higher. And that was the Jets game where I don’t believe Allen ran much. My point with this example is that QBR can be predictable at times. Even without significant running value added.
 

My guess to why Mahomes QBR was so much lower than his passer rating for the game was that at least three of those TD’s were of the variety that a back up QB could have thrown. You don’t get as much value for making a pass that basically every QB in the league could make.

 

Last season QBR seemed to get the top three quarterbacks correct more so than passer rating. Unless one thought Deshaun Watson on a losing team had a better year than Josh Allen and Patrick Mahomes.

 

/rant

 

lol

 

 

[chongli]

4 hours ago, BobbyC81 said:

 

 We learn most things based out of 100.  Normal percent calculations are based out of 100.  Test scores are out of 100.  Our monetary system is based out of 100.   How can anyone relate to 158.3?!  Eventually we learned that anything over 90 is very good.  If it was based out of 100, it would be easier to understand.

 

 

Not really relevant to this thread, but this got me thinking of other systems beside QB rating, not based on 10, most likely for good reason. Things I thought of:

 

Wonderlic scores

GPA

many (all?) college entrance exams (SAT, ACT, GRE, LSAT, MCAT, etc.)

imperial units (English measuring system: length, area, mass, weight, volume)

Fahrenheit scale (temperature)

BMI

Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS)

Elo rating system (mostly used in chess)

time, including calendar systems

astronomical system of units (such as light years)

many medical systems, like cancer tumor stages

radio spectrum (AM, FM)??

 

Obviously, there are many more.

Edited December 28, 2021 by chongli

[Sammy Watkins' Rib]

1 hour ago, hondo in seattle said:

No doubt 'passer rating' has shortcomings.   But QBR is even worse when it was supposed to be better.  

do you have actual data to back that statement up? Other than just posting a couple stat lines like the OP? I’m not trying to be rude I’m just honestly asking the question.

 

I’ve posted examples where QBR has gotten it right and passer rating wrong. I’d be curious as to what the actual data is over a very large sample size.

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

I’ve been saying this for years and years and years 

 

Stats Lie!

 

Stats are easily manipulated

 

[Scott7975]

Lol people still look at QBR?

[chongli]

4 hours ago, BobbyC81 said:

At least it’s based out of 100.  The other QB Rating has a max of 158.3.  Where did they get that from?

 

Another thing that is weird: the NHL point standing system. Both regulation and overtime wins are 2 point each, but an overtime loss is 1 point. So, an overtime loss is worth more than a regulation loss, but a regulation win is worth no more than an overtime win? Is a complete game 2 or 3 points? Shouldn't it be something like 3 points for a regulation win, 2 points for an overtime win, and 1 point for an overtime loss? 

[Brandon]

Yes, QBR is total garbage and always has been.  

[djp14150]

8 hours ago, Protocal69 said:

Do you guys know that Zach Wilson who was 14/22 64% for 102 yards 4.6 yards per completion 101 yards passing  1 TD and 0 int with 91 yards rushing on 4 att had a higher QBR (92.4) than Joe Burrow who was 37/46 80%  and threw for 525 yards 11.4 yards per completion 4TD and no ints and had a QBR (89.3)

 

Can someone please explain how this is remotely possible. Remember I think a perfect QBR is 100. ESPN should take that metric and throw it out of the window if that is the case. Crazy. 

it was a failed attempt to try and adjust QB ratings to factor in things like mobility andQB runs. It factors out things like garbage time passing ststes and yards after the catch attributed to the receiver.  If Allen throws to digs in a zone cross for 10 yards. Givrn how D played there was an expectation he’d be tackled after gaining 3 yards.  He breaks a tackle and  gains 40 yards before getting tackled at the 5.  Allen just gets 13 yards for the pass.

 

Chargers were down by 3 scores late. Hebert made a TD drive throwing. Hebert threw 70+ yards. But that was discounted.

[2003Contenders]

I suppose we as Bills fans should be thankful for fool-hardy metrics like the QBR that allowed some "scouts" to over-evaluate NFL prospects using numerical analysis rather than the good old fashioned eyeball test.

 

Remember that the 2018 draft was a battle between the analytics crowd who favored Baker Mayfield versus the physical scouting crowd that favored Josh Allen. Let's all be thankful that the analytics goons in Cleveland and NY preferred Mayfield and Darnold over the infinitely more talented Josh Allen!

[Solomon Grundy]

8 hours ago, Protocal69 said:

Do you guys know that Zach Wilson who was 14/22 64% for 102 yards 4.6 yards per completion 101 yards passing  1 TD and 0 int with 91 yards rushing on 4 att had a higher QBR (92.4) than Joe Burrow who was 37/46 80%  and threw for 525 yards 11.4 yards per completion 4TD and no ints and had a QBR (89.3)

 

Can someone please explain how this is remotely possible. Remember I think a perfect QBR is 100. ESPN should take that metric and throw it out of the window if that is the case. Crazy. 

I always hated this metric and disregarded it since it’s inception 

2 hours ago, Ridgewaycynic2013 said:

QBR is the 'Randolph Scott' of thinking persons' statistics.

*
🎵Ran-dolf Scott! 🎶

Randolph Scott was the GREATEST cowboy hero ever!!

[LABILLBACKER]

4 hours ago, HOUSE said:

QB grading is like junk mail. The envelopes are impressive but there is nothing of value inside

Perfect analogy 

[1ManRaid]

2 hours ago, TheyCallMeAndy said:

Beat me to it!!

 

Hey it was the wee hours of the morning/late night and I have no life.

[Albany,n.y.]

Most QB stats are garbage.  Going into last night they said Tua was leading the league in completion %.  Among other things, that most likely tells me that Tua doesn't do a lot of throw aways when plays break down.  Rob Johnson had an inflated completion % & QB rating because he preferred to be sacked than throw it out of bounds when nobody was open. RJ also ended up with a higher completion % than Jim Kelly (61.3% [60.5 as a Bill]  to 60.1%).  As Buffalo Bills, Rob Johnson (85.5) had a better traditional QB rating than Jim Kelly (84.4).  For their total careers RJ's 83.6 was just 0.8 points lower tham Kelly's.  They weren't on the same planet on the field.  Also if a team has a top goal line RB and not a Kelse type TE, the QB will have fewer red zone TD passes than if he didn't have that RB, and had a guy like Kelse, inflating the QB's stats. 

 

I remember watching Josh early in his career when he looked like a future star on the field and a dud on the stat sheet.  Every time he threw it away to avoid a loss in yardage (with the Bills worst receivers & OL in recent memory), I was happy and cheered a wise decision but at the same time I knew it would hurt his stats and the stat boys would be there to criticize his numbers.  

 

The only way to properly evaluate QBs is to WATCH THE GAMES.  The problem is it's very difficult to watch a game, especially if you are watching it with other fans, due to socializing factors and pay proper attention to the game, so many fans revert back to stats to define players.  That's why the pros spend hours reviewing film & don't spend minutes looking at stats.  

[Albany,n.y.]

19 minutes ago, 2003Contenders said:

I suppose we as Bills fans should be thankful for fool-hardy metrics like the QBR that allowed some "scouts" to over-evaluate NFL prospects using numerical analysis rather than the good old fashioned eyeball test.

 

Remember that the 2018 draft was a battle between the analytics crowd who favored Baker Mayfield versus the physical scouting crowd that favored Josh Allen. Let's all be thankful that the analytics goons in Cleveland and NY preferred Mayfield and Darnold over the infinitely more talented Josh Allen!

I don't know what Cleveland & the Jets did when they were choosing their 2018 QBs, but I've read stories that the Bills watched and charted every throw Josh made in college on film, watched him on the sidelines to see how he interacted with his teammates & coaches, talked to his coaches and watched & interviewed him at the Senior Bowl & had visits including private workouts and interviews with him both in Wyoming & Orchard Park and even judged his character by how he treated the office staff in Orchard Park.  Beane always was able to explain why Josh's completion % in college was not indicative of an inaccurate QB who would struggle in the NFL. 

 

[JGMcD2]

1 hour ago, SlimShady'sSpaceForce said:

I’ve been saying this for years and years and years 

 

Stats Lie!

 

Stats are easily manipulated

 

That doesn’t mean stats lie. 
 

It just means people don’t understand them or understand how to use them. 

[NoSaint]

6 hours ago, MJS said:

Nobody worth their salt takes that metric seriously. It fails time and time again to actually quantify the performance of a quarterback.

 

The real thing to wonder is why ESPN didn't throw it out years ago. They still use it, and not even as a joke.

if you take it with a grain of salt as a broad strokes feedback it’s fine. 
 

it’s certainly not the end all be all unquestionable law of ranking performances