Jump to content

Espn Total Qbr


Falconsfan567

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 405
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Not to mention it's flawed. ****, I just watched a video the other day that showed a huge error in the algorithm that would completely ruin a QB's score if he had 1 extra completion or something.

The QB rating is incredibly simple. It's not a perfect measure by any means, but a perfect measure simply doesn't exists....except for winning.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will bookmark this post.

Go ahead, I've always said that. I didnt say unimportant just overrated. TDs and completions are more important. It's situational. Sometimes passing yards mean you are playing catchup because you are getting your asskicked.

How is that some kind of controversial thing to say? We had great field position and quick scores. We didn't rack up the yards we could've because the KC D and ST'a sucked.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't like either QB Rating system. For one, everything a QB does can never be measured and trying to do so is kind of futile. Two, a QB should never be able to earn a "perfect" score if there is even ONE incompletion much less multiple incompletions. That's not perfect. These are just systems to legitimize players when those who watch the games can tell who can play and who can't.

Matt Ryan doesn't need this system to justify his play. His play has spoken for itself so far this season and for his career for the most part.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't like either QB Rating system. For one, everything a QB does can never be measured and trying to do so is kind of futile. Two, a QB should never be able to earn a "perfect" score if there is even ONE incompletion much less multiple incompletions. That's not perfect. These are just systems to legitimize players when those who watch the games can tell who can play and who can't.

Matt Ryan doesn't need this system to justify his play. His play has spoken for itself so far this season and for his career for the most part.

Yes. I totally agree with the bolded line. That's why I think all of these different QB rating systems are silly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to mention it's flawed. ****, I just watched a video the other day that showed a huge error in the algorithm that would completely ruin a QB's score if he had 1 extra completion or something.

I like the fact that I myself could calculate a QB rating, but I couldn't begin to calculate the total QBR. I read most of that description and still have no idea exactly how it is calculated.

So because you (myself too) can calculate QB rating that makes it better? It is a very flawed stat. It puts way too much importance on completion percentage and yards per attempt and not nearly enough importance on touchdowns and interceptions.

That's why guys can have a stat line of 23-for-33, 316 YDS, 3 TD, 2 INT and still have a QB rating of 105.1. But a QB can have a stat line of 32-for-50, 316 YDS, 3 TD, 0 INT and have a QB Rating of 101.8. Which game is better? The first one or the second one? According to QB rating the first game is better. But I'd rather have my QB have the second game.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So because you (myself too) can calculate QB rating that makes it better? It is a very flawed stat. It puts way too much importance on completion percentage and yards per attempt and not nearly enough importance on touchdowns and interceptions.

That's why guys can have a stat line of 23-for-33, 316 YDS, 3 TD, 2 INT and still have a QB rating of 105.1. But a QB can have a stat line of 32-for-50, 316 YDS, 3 TD, 0 INT and have a QB Rating of 101.8. Which game is better? The first one or the second one? According to QB rating the first game is better. But I'd rather have my QB have the second game.

INTs count a full one quarter of the formula, I think that is enough. I mean.....there is an enormous difference between averaging 10 yards per attempt and 6 yards per attempt. I think it's silly to discount that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So because you (myself too) can calculate QB rating that makes it better? It is a very flawed stat. It puts way too much importance on completion percentage and yards per attempt and not nearly enough importance on touchdowns and interceptions.

That's why guys can have a stat line of 23-for-33, 316 YDS, 3 TD, 2 INT and still have a QB rating of 105.1. But a QB can have a stat line of 32-for-50, 316 YDS, 3 TD, 0 INT and have a QB Rating of 101.8. Which game is better? The first one or the second one? According to QB rating the first game is better. But I'd rather have my QB have the second game.

I want to follow up on this. Let's take 2 examples.

One QB plays 14 games in a season. He completes 190 or 327 passes (58.1%) for 3154 yards. 25 TDs 12 INTs.

Another QB plays 15 games in a season. He completes 262 of 450 passes (58.2%) for 3116 yards. 27 TDs 7 INTS.

Who had the better year?

Link to post
Share on other sites

INTs count a full one quarter of the formula, I think that is enough. I mean.....there is an enormous difference between averaging 10 yards per attempt and 6 yards per attempt. I think it's silly to discount that.

Well then maybe more credit needs to be placed on touchdowns. Here's one example of why I don't like how the QB Rating is calculated.

24-for-33 (72.7%), 299 YDS (9.1 avg), 3 TD, 1 INT - 118.1 QB Rating

21-for-27 (77.8%), 220 YDS (8.1 avg), 3 TD, 1 INT - 122.2 QB Rating

Don't look at the QB Rating. Just focus on the game lines. Which one is better? I would take the first one over the second one but according to QB Rating the second line is better.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well then maybe more credit needs to be placed on touchdowns. Here's one example of why I don't like how the QB Rating is calculated.

24-for-33 (72.7%), 299 YDS (9.1 avg), 3 TD, 1 INT - 118.1 QB Rating

21-for-27 (77.8%), 220 YDS (8.1 avg), 3 TD, 1 INT - 122.2 QB Rating

Don't look at the QB Rating. Just focus on the game lines. Which one is better? I would take the first one over the second one but according to QB Rating the second line is better.

They are really pretty close and the QB rating has them that way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to follow up on this. Let's take 2 examples.

One QB plays 14 games in a season. He completes 190 or 327 passes (58.1%) for 3154 yards. 25 TDs 12 INTs.

Another QB plays 15 games in a season. He completes 262 of 450 passes (58.2%) for 3116 yards. 27 TDs 7 INTS.

Who had the better year?

I would take the second one. But just because I know how QB rating works I know the first one equals a higher rating. Less turnovers and more touchdowns is better in my opinion especially if the completion percentage and yards are pretty much equal. I don't care about the ypa.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well then maybe more credit needs to be placed on touchdowns. Here's one example of why I don't like how the QB Rating is calculated.

24-for-33 (72.7%), 299 YDS (9.1 avg), 3 TD, 1 INT - 118.1 QB Rating

21-for-27 (77.8%), 220 YDS (8.1 avg), 3 TD, 1 INT - 122.2 QB Rating

Don't look at the QB Rating. Just focus on the game lines. Which one is better? I would take the first one over the second one but according to QB Rating the second line is better.

Hence why the rating systems shouldn't really be considered. They will always be flawed. It pretty much doesn't tell you anything more than what the stat sheet already says and sometimes it is misleading like the case you just showed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would take the second one. But just because I know how QB rating works I know the first one equals a higher rating. Less turnovers and more touchdowns is better in my opinion especially if the completion percentage and yards are pretty much equal. I don't care about the ypa.

OK.

You just took Matt Cassel's 2010 season over Chris Chandler's Super Bowl season.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...