I don't think QBR is all that telling of how good a QB is to be honest
his first four games were very poor and put him in Deshaun Watson land, but his last two were stellar and he's now on the rise and about to pass the biggest waste of 60 million the world has ever seen
@perkdog said:
Jayden Daniels is making me wish the Pats took him lol
I was hoping the same.
Let's hope that Maye can start to shine soon.
I'm getting tired of the pre 2000 win-loses
Hopefully Maye stays on the bench this year until they can get more help with another draft
He looked halfway decent last Sunday. IMHO.
Tough to be a QB w/o an OL or a DL that gives up nearly 200 rushing yards.
Thak God Brisset is finally gone.
I'm not worried about his performance, he has the talent to be good for sure. I just dont want to see him get hurt because they cant block.
@Basebal21 said:
His Sophomore year was his best year at Clemson. His Junior year probably would have been if it wasnt the covid year
Nah. He had more TDs his sophomore year but played poorly in the national title game and mediocre the game before. And was pretty terrible the first third of the season.
@Basebal21 said:
His Sophomore year was his best year at Clemson. His Junior year probably would have been if it wasnt the covid year
Nah. He had more TDs his sophomore year but played poorly in the national title game and mediocre the game before. And was pretty terrible the first third of the season.
He was pretty decent in the LSU 2019 title game, LSU was just an absolute juggernaut. Every player on their offense signed and NFL contract which is unheard of. The loss in the title game with LSU wasnt on Trevor. Burrow and LSU were just that much better
@Basebal21 said:
His Sophomore year was his best year at Clemson. His Junior year probably would have been if it wasnt the covid year
Nah. He had more TDs his sophomore year but played poorly in the national title game and mediocre the game before. And was pretty terrible the first third of the season.
He was pretty decent in the LSU 2019 title game, LSU was just an absolute juggernaut. Every player on their offense signed and NFL contract which is unheard of. The loss in the title game with LSU wasnt on Trevor. Burrow and LSU were just that much better
Didn't say the loss was his fault. And the quality of the LSU offense has nothing to do with Lawrence being not-great in that game.
@Basebal21 said:
His Sophomore year was his best year at Clemson. His Junior year probably would have been if it wasnt the covid year
Nah. He had more TDs his sophomore year but played poorly in the national title game and mediocre the game before. And was pretty terrible the first third of the season.
He was pretty decent in the LSU 2019 title game, LSU was just an absolute juggernaut. Every player on their offense signed and NFL contract which is unheard of. The loss in the title game with LSU wasnt on Trevor. Burrow and LSU were just that much better
Didn't say the loss was his fault. And the quality of the LSU offense has nothing to do with Lawrence being not-great in that game.
It does because Lawrence had to be throwing the ball for most of the game and LSU knew it. LSU had the ball for 35 minutes compared to 25 for Clemson and Etienne was basically neutralized with only 15 carries because they had to try and play catch up. The LSU defense was also extremely good it just gets overshadowed by the offense that had Burrow Jefferson and Chase among others. Their defense had 3 guys taken before the end of the second round that year
I have been surprised that Lawrence has regressed this season. After the first half of his 2023 season I thought for sure he had figured things out. Injuries really hurt his game the second half of last season and with the offseason to heal, I expected him to be a top 10 QB with designs of getting into the top 5 this year. Unfortunately for the Jags, that hasn't happened.
Lawrence was a stud in college though I expected to see more scrambling from him in the NFL.
@Basebal21 said:
His Sophomore year was his best year at Clemson. His Junior year probably would have been if it wasnt the covid year
Nah. He had more TDs his sophomore year but played poorly in the national title game and mediocre the game before. And was pretty terrible the first third of the season.
A few guys were talking about Lawrence at the cigar bar this evening.. " said he lost his desire to play football "
@Basebal21 said:
His Sophomore year was his best year at Clemson. His Junior year probably would have been if it wasnt the covid year
Nah. He had more TDs his sophomore year but played poorly in the national title game and mediocre the game before. And was pretty terrible the first third of the season.
A few guys were talking about Lawrence at the cigar bar this evening.. " said he lost his desire to play football "
I think you could probably say that about the entire Jacksonville team right now
it incorporates all of a QB's contributions to winning, including how he impacts the game on passes, rushes, turnovers and penalties. it takes into account scenarios that a traditional passer rating overlooks and considers "a team's level of success or failure on every play to provide the proper context and then allocates credit to the quarterback and his teammate to produce a clearer measure of quarterback efficiency."
basically it's far more comprehensive than a traditional passer rating, which i personally like
it incorporates all of a QB's contributions to winning, including how he impacts the game on passes, rushes, turnovers and penalties. it takes into account scenarios that a traditional passer rating overlooks and considers "a team's level of success or failure on every play to provide the proper context and then allocates credit to the quarterback and his teammate to produce a clearer measure of quarterback efficiency."
basically it's far more comprehensive than a traditional passer rating, which i personally like
>
>
>
The problem I have with most (all?) of the new made up statistics. Some math genius decides what's important and what isn't.
If a QB's rating is penalized by a receiver dropping a perfectly thrown, uncontested pass, it certainly shouldn't reduce the QB's rating.
Maybe mathboy should factor in the offensive lines ability, or lack thereof, of pass blocking?
For 2-3 seasons while in Minnesota, Kirk Cousins had an offensive line with 1 excellent pass blocker, maybe 1 more average to above average, and 3 horrible. Yet Kirk got all the blame. It's hard to succeed in obvious passing situations when there are 2 defensive tackles in the backfield 1/2 a second after the ball is snapped.
Should an "outdoor" QB be graded the same as a guy who plays indoors?
People seem to forget these are team sports and football is probably the "ultimate" team sport.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
it incorporates all of a QB's contributions to winning, including how he impacts the game on passes, rushes, turnovers and penalties. it takes into account scenarios that a traditional passer rating overlooks and considers "a team's level of success or failure on every play to provide the proper context and then allocates credit to the quarterback and his teammate to produce a clearer measure of quarterback efficiency."
basically it's far more comprehensive than a traditional passer rating, which i personally like
>
>
>
The problem I have with most (all?) of the new made up statistics. Some math genius decides what's important and what isn't.
If a QB's rating is penalized by a receiver dropping a perfectly thrown, uncontested pass, it certainly shouldn't reduce the QB's rating.
Maybe mathboy should factor in the offensive lines ability, or lack thereof, of pass blocking?
For 2-3 seasons while in Minnesota, Kirk Cousins had an offensive line with 1 excellent pass blocker, maybe 1 more average to above average, and 3 horrible. Yet Kirk got all the blame. It's hard to succeed in obvious passing situations when there are 2 defensive tackles in the backfield 1/2 a second after the ball is snapped.
Should an "outdoor" QB be graded the same as a guy who plays indoors?
People seem to forget these are team sports and football is probably the "ultimate" team sport.
I love your point about outdoor vs. dome qbs. I had never thought about it in relation to QBR or quarterback rating. That is a big factor.
it incorporates all of a QB's contributions to winning, including how he impacts the game on passes, rushes, turnovers and penalties. it takes into account scenarios that a traditional passer rating overlooks and considers "a team's level of success or failure on every play to provide the proper context and then allocates credit to the quarterback and his teammate to produce a clearer measure of quarterback efficiency."
basically it's far more comprehensive than a traditional passer rating, which i personally like
>
>
>
The problem I have with most (all?) of the new made up statistics. Some math genius decides what's important and what isn't.
If a QB's rating is penalized by a receiver dropping a perfectly thrown, uncontested pass, it certainly shouldn't reduce the QB's rating.
Maybe mathboy should factor in the offensive lines ability, or lack thereof, of pass blocking?
For 2-3 seasons while in Minnesota, Kirk Cousins had an offensive line with 1 excellent pass blocker, maybe 1 more average to above average, and 3 horrible. Yet Kirk got all the blame. It's hard to succeed in obvious passing situations when there are 2 defensive tackles in the backfield 1/2 a second after the ball is snapped.
Should an "outdoor" QB be graded the same as a guy who plays indoors?
People seem to forget these are team sports and football is probably the "ultimate" team sport.
I love your point about outdoor vs. dome qbs. I had never thought about it in relation to QBR or quarterback rating. That is a big factor.
Brady playing out doors for so many games makes his accomplishments all the better
it incorporates all of a QB's contributions to winning, including how he impacts the game on passes, rushes, turnovers and penalties. it takes into account scenarios that a traditional passer rating overlooks and considers "a team's level of success or failure on every play to provide the proper context and then allocates credit to the quarterback and his teammate to produce a clearer measure of quarterback efficiency."
basically it's far more comprehensive than a traditional passer rating, which i personally like
>
>
>
The problem I have with most (all?) of the new made up statistics. Some math genius decides what's important and what isn't.
If a QB's rating is penalized by a receiver dropping a perfectly thrown, uncontested pass, it certainly shouldn't reduce the QB's rating.
Maybe mathboy should factor in the offensive lines ability, or lack thereof, of pass blocking?
For 2-3 seasons while in Minnesota, Kirk Cousins had an offensive line with 1 excellent pass blocker, maybe 1 more average to above average, and 3 horrible. Yet Kirk got all the blame. It's hard to succeed in obvious passing situations when there are 2 defensive tackles in the backfield 1/2 a second after the ball is snapped.
Should an "outdoor" QB be graded the same as a guy who plays indoors?
People seem to forget these are team sports and football is probably the "ultimate" team sport.
I love your point about outdoor vs. dome qbs. I had never thought about it in relation to QBR or quarterback rating. That is a big factor.
Brady playing out doors for so many games makes his accomplishments all the better
true. makes me wonder about guys like Drew Brees and him playing in the dome all those years. I wonder how he would have fared had he played in Chicago, NE, Green Bay etc.?
it incorporates all of a QB's contributions to winning, including how he impacts the game on passes, rushes, turnovers and penalties. it takes into account scenarios that a traditional passer rating overlooks and considers "a team's level of success or failure on every play to provide the proper context and then allocates credit to the quarterback and his teammate to produce a clearer measure of quarterback efficiency."
basically it's far more comprehensive than a traditional passer rating, which i personally like
>
>
>
The problem I have with most (all?) of the new made up statistics. Some math genius decides what's important and what isn't.
If a QB's rating is penalized by a receiver dropping a perfectly thrown, uncontested pass, it certainly shouldn't reduce the QB's rating.
Maybe mathboy should factor in the offensive lines ability, or lack thereof, of pass blocking?
For 2-3 seasons while in Minnesota, Kirk Cousins had an offensive line with 1 excellent pass blocker, maybe 1 more average to above average, and 3 horrible. Yet Kirk got all the blame. It's hard to succeed in obvious passing situations when there are 2 defensive tackles in the backfield 1/2 a second after the ball is snapped.
Should an "outdoor" QB be graded the same as a guy who plays indoors?
People seem to forget these are team sports and football is probably the "ultimate" team sport.
I love your point about outdoor vs. dome qbs. I had never thought about it in relation to QBR or quarterback rating. That is a big factor.
Brady playing out doors for so many games makes his accomplishments all the better
true. makes me wonder about guys like Drew Brees and him playing in the dome all those years. I wonder how he would have fared had he played in Chicago, NE, Green Bay etc.?
Patriot haters would brush it off since it wouldn't fit in their narrative.
it incorporates all of a QB's contributions to winning, including how he impacts the game on passes, rushes, turnovers and penalties. it takes into account scenarios that a traditional passer rating overlooks and considers "a team's level of success or failure on every play to provide the proper context and then allocates credit to the quarterback and his teammate to produce a clearer measure of quarterback efficiency."
basically it's far more comprehensive than a traditional passer rating, which i personally like
>
>
>
The problem I have with most (all?) of the new made up statistics. Some math genius decides what's important and what isn't.
If a QB's rating is penalized by a receiver dropping a perfectly thrown, uncontested pass, it certainly shouldn't reduce the QB's rating.
Maybe mathboy should factor in the offensive lines ability, or lack thereof, of pass blocking?
For 2-3 seasons while in Minnesota, Kirk Cousins had an offensive line with 1 excellent pass blocker, maybe 1 more average to above average, and 3 horrible. Yet Kirk got all the blame. It's hard to succeed in obvious passing situations when there are 2 defensive tackles in the backfield 1/2 a second after the ball is snapped.
Should an "outdoor" QB be graded the same as a guy who plays indoors?
People seem to forget these are team sports and football is probably the "ultimate" team sport.
I love your point about outdoor vs. dome qbs. I had never thought about it in relation to QBR or quarterback rating. That is a big factor.
Brady playing out doors for so many games makes his accomplishments all the better
Absolutely makes a difference toward Brady's favor.
it incorporates all of a QB's contributions to winning, including how he impacts the game on passes, rushes, turnovers and penalties. it takes into account scenarios that a traditional passer rating overlooks and considers "a team's level of success or failure on every play to provide the proper context and then allocates credit to the quarterback and his teammate to produce a clearer measure of quarterback efficiency."
basically it's far more comprehensive than a traditional passer rating, which i personally like
>
>
>
The problem I have with most (all?) of the new made up statistics. Some math genius decides what's important and what isn't.
If a QB's rating is penalized by a receiver dropping a perfectly thrown, uncontested pass, it certainly shouldn't reduce the QB's rating.
Maybe mathboy should factor in the offensive lines ability, or lack thereof, of pass blocking?
For 2-3 seasons while in Minnesota, Kirk Cousins had an offensive line with 1 excellent pass blocker, maybe 1 more average to above average, and 3 horrible. Yet Kirk got all the blame. It's hard to succeed in obvious passing situations when there are 2 defensive tackles in the backfield 1/2 a second after the ball is snapped.
Should an "outdoor" QB be graded the same as a guy who plays indoors?
People seem to forget these are team sports and football is probably the "ultimate" team sport.
Joe, the best part of QBR is giving lesser value to passing yds/td's in garbage time. We all know how some QB's pad their stats in these times against prevent defenses, so QBR accounts for that and that is a good thing I think most anyone would agree on.
Regular QB rating doesn't care if it is garbage time, whether there is wind, cold, or what the offensive passing system is, and that is how you can have a Tony Romo have the same QB rating as Brady, when Romo wasn't nearly as good.
QBR doesn't get all of that either, but does get a little more.
When the formula starts trying to assign percentages to other teammates then that is where it gets hairy...kind of like WAR in baseball. Unfortunately, it will never be known exactly how much or little a QB was a product of their teammates/coaches/system unless they had ample opportunities in other situations to help shine some light on it.
it incorporates all of a QB's contributions to winning, including how he impacts the game on passes, rushes, turnovers and penalties. it takes into account scenarios that a traditional passer rating overlooks and considers "a team's level of success or failure on every play to provide the proper context and then allocates credit to the quarterback and his teammate to produce a clearer measure of quarterback efficiency."
basically it's far more comprehensive than a traditional passer rating, which i personally like
>
>
>
The problem I have with most (all?) of the new made up statistics. Some math genius decides what's important and what isn't.
If a QB's rating is penalized by a receiver dropping a perfectly thrown, uncontested pass, it certainly shouldn't reduce the QB's rating.
Maybe mathboy should factor in the offensive lines ability, or lack thereof, of pass blocking?
For 2-3 seasons while in Minnesota, Kirk Cousins had an offensive line with 1 excellent pass blocker, maybe 1 more average to above average, and 3 horrible. Yet Kirk got all the blame. It's hard to succeed in obvious passing situations when there are 2 defensive tackles in the backfield 1/2 a second after the ball is snapped.
Should an "outdoor" QB be graded the same as a guy who plays indoors?
People seem to forget these are team sports and football is probably the "ultimate" team sport.
Joe, the best part of QBR is giving lesser value to passing yds/td's in garbage time. We all know how some QB's pad their stats in these times against prevent defenses, so QBR accounts for that and that is a good thing I think most anyone would agree on.
Regular QB rating doesn't care if it is garbage time, whether there is wind, cold, or what the offensive passing system is, and that is how you can have a Tony Romo have the same QB rating as Brady, when Romo wasn't nearly as good.
QBR doesn't get all of that either, but does get a little more.
When the formula starts trying to assign percentages to other teammates then that is where it gets hairy...kind of like WAR in baseball. Unfortunately, it will never be known exactly how much or little a QB was a product of their teammates/coaches/system unless they had ample opportunities in other situations to help shine some light on it.
Both Manning and Brady got a chance to play multiple seasons on "other" teams. Both did very well which should lead people to believe neither was a system QB, but could and did run multiple systems at high levels.
Joe, the best part of QBR is giving lesser value to passing yds/td's in garbage time. We all know how some QB's pad their stats in these times against prevent defenses, so QBR accounts for that and that is a good thing I think most anyone would agree on.
the 60 million dollar man does this all the time. only Carolina falls behind 2+ scores more often than the Cowboys do. then here come the empty calories. by the time the game is over, Dak's numbers often times appear acceptable at face value. but he can't fool QBR, and that's why he's near the bottom of the rankings.
it incorporates all of a QB's contributions to winning, including how he impacts the game on passes, rushes, turnovers and penalties. it takes into account scenarios that a traditional passer rating overlooks and considers "a team's level of success or failure on every play to provide the proper context and then allocates credit to the quarterback and his teammate to produce a clearer measure of quarterback efficiency."
basically it's far more comprehensive than a traditional passer rating, which i personally like
>
>
>
The problem I have with most (all?) of the new made up statistics. Some math genius decides what's important and what isn't.
If a QB's rating is penalized by a receiver dropping a perfectly thrown, uncontested pass, it certainly shouldn't reduce the QB's rating.
Maybe mathboy should factor in the offensive lines ability, or lack thereof, of pass blocking?
For 2-3 seasons while in Minnesota, Kirk Cousins had an offensive line with 1 excellent pass blocker, maybe 1 more average to above average, and 3 horrible. Yet Kirk got all the blame. It's hard to succeed in obvious passing situations when there are 2 defensive tackles in the backfield 1/2 a second after the ball is snapped.
Should an "outdoor" QB be graded the same as a guy who plays indoors?
People seem to forget these are team sports and football is probably the "ultimate" team sport.
Joe, the best part of QBR is giving lesser value to passing yds/td's in garbage time. We all know how some QB's pad their stats in these times against prevent defenses, so QBR accounts for that and that is a good thing I think most anyone would agree on.
Regular QB rating doesn't care if it is garbage time, whether there is wind, cold, or what the offensive passing system is, and that is how you can have a Tony Romo have the same QB rating as Brady, when Romo wasn't nearly as good.
QBR doesn't get all of that either, but does get a little more.
When the formula starts trying to assign percentages to other teammates then that is where it gets hairy...kind of like WAR in baseball. Unfortunately, it will never be known exactly how much or little a QB was a product of their teammates/coaches/system unless they had ample opportunities in other situations to help shine some light on it.
If QBR's main contribution is negating the "padding" of numbers in "garbage time", I'm not interested.
Garbage time rarely happens.
To come up with a formula that eliminates something that happens only once in a while is a waste of time.
If you want to come up with a formula that includes things like dropped passes, O line pass blocking, indoor/outdoor performance and strength of schedule or how good the defenses faced were, I'll look at it.> @perkdog said:
it incorporates all of a QB's contributions to winning, including how he impacts the game on passes, rushes, turnovers and penalties. it takes into account scenarios that a traditional passer rating overlooks and considers "a team's level of success or failure on every play to provide the proper context and then allocates credit to the quarterback and his teammate to produce a clearer measure of quarterback efficiency."
basically it's far more comprehensive than a traditional passer rating, which i personally like
>
>
>
The problem I have with most (all?) of the new made up statistics. Some math genius decides what's important and what isn't.
If a QB's rating is penalized by a receiver dropping a perfectly thrown, uncontested pass, it certainly shouldn't reduce the QB's rating.
Maybe mathboy should factor in the offensive lines ability, or lack thereof, of pass blocking?
For 2-3 seasons while in Minnesota, Kirk Cousins had an offensive line with 1 excellent pass blocker, maybe 1 more average to above average, and 3 horrible. Yet Kirk got all the blame. It's hard to succeed in obvious passing situations when there are 2 defensive tackles in the backfield 1/2 a second after the ball is snapped.
Should an "outdoor" QB be graded the same as a guy who plays indoors?
People seem to forget these are team sports and football is probably the "ultimate" team sport.
I love your point about outdoor vs. dome qbs. I had never thought about it in relation to QBR or quarterback rating. That is a big factor.
Brady playing out doors for so many games makes his accomplishments all the better
true. makes me wonder about guys like Drew Brees and him playing in the dome all those years. I wonder how he would have fared had he played in Chicago, NE, Green Bay etc.?
Patriot haters would brush it off since it wouldn't fit in their narrative.
Not a hater, but the Patriots played in one of the worst divisions in football for YEARS. That prolly helped Tom a bit.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
it incorporates all of a QB's contributions to winning, including how he impacts the game on passes, rushes, turnovers and penalties. it takes into account scenarios that a traditional passer rating overlooks and considers "a team's level of success or failure on every play to provide the proper context and then allocates credit to the quarterback and his teammate to produce a clearer measure of quarterback efficiency."
basically it's far more comprehensive than a traditional passer rating, which i personally like
>
>
>
The problem I have with most (all?) of the new made up statistics. Some math genius decides what's important and what isn't.
If a QB's rating is penalized by a receiver dropping a perfectly thrown, uncontested pass, it certainly shouldn't reduce the QB's rating.
Maybe mathboy should factor in the offensive lines ability, or lack thereof, of pass blocking?
For 2-3 seasons while in Minnesota, Kirk Cousins had an offensive line with 1 excellent pass blocker, maybe 1 more average to above average, and 3 horrible. Yet Kirk got all the blame. It's hard to succeed in obvious passing situations when there are 2 defensive tackles in the backfield 1/2 a second after the ball is snapped.
Should an "outdoor" QB be graded the same as a guy who plays indoors?
People seem to forget these are team sports and football is probably the "ultimate" team sport.
Joe, the best part of QBR is giving lesser value to passing yds/td's in garbage time. We all know how some QB's pad their stats in these times against prevent defenses, so QBR accounts for that and that is a good thing I think most anyone would agree on.
Regular QB rating doesn't care if it is garbage time, whether there is wind, cold, or what the offensive passing system is, and that is how you can have a Tony Romo have the same QB rating as Brady, when Romo wasn't nearly as good.
QBR doesn't get all of that either, but does get a little more.
When the formula starts trying to assign percentages to other teammates then that is where it gets hairy...kind of like WAR in baseball. Unfortunately, it will never be known exactly how much or little a QB was a product of their teammates/coaches/system unless they had ample opportunities in other situations to help shine some light on it.
If QBR's main contribution is negating the "padding" of numbers in "garbage time", I'm not interested.
Garbage time rarely happens.
To come up with a formula that eliminates something that happens only once in a while is a waste of time.
If you want to come up with a formula that includes things like dropped passes, O line pass blocking, indoor/outdoor performance and strength of schedule or how good the defenses faced were, I'll look at it.> @perkdog said:
it incorporates all of a QB's contributions to winning, including how he impacts the game on passes, rushes, turnovers and penalties. it takes into account scenarios that a traditional passer rating overlooks and considers "a team's level of success or failure on every play to provide the proper context and then allocates credit to the quarterback and his teammate to produce a clearer measure of quarterback efficiency."
basically it's far more comprehensive than a traditional passer rating, which i personally like
>
>
>
The problem I have with most (all?) of the new made up statistics. Some math genius decides what's important and what isn't.
If a QB's rating is penalized by a receiver dropping a perfectly thrown, uncontested pass, it certainly shouldn't reduce the QB's rating.
Maybe mathboy should factor in the offensive lines ability, or lack thereof, of pass blocking?
For 2-3 seasons while in Minnesota, Kirk Cousins had an offensive line with 1 excellent pass blocker, maybe 1 more average to above average, and 3 horrible. Yet Kirk got all the blame. It's hard to succeed in obvious passing situations when there are 2 defensive tackles in the backfield 1/2 a second after the ball is snapped.
Should an "outdoor" QB be graded the same as a guy who plays indoors?
People seem to forget these are team sports and football is probably the "ultimate" team sport.
I love your point about outdoor vs. dome qbs. I had never thought about it in relation to QBR or quarterback rating. That is a big factor.
Brady playing out doors for so many games makes his accomplishments all the better
true. makes me wonder about guys like Drew Brees and him playing in the dome all those years. I wonder how he would have fared had he played in Chicago, NE, Green Bay etc.?
Patriot haters would brush it off since it wouldn't fit in their narrative.
Not a hater, but the Patriots played in one of the worst divisions in football for YEARS. That prolly helped Tom a bit.
I wasn't referring to you personally
Yes you are correct that Brady benefited from a weak division
it incorporates all of a QB's contributions to winning, including how he impacts the game on passes, rushes, turnovers and penalties. it takes into account scenarios that a traditional passer rating overlooks and considers "a team's level of success or failure on every play to provide the proper context and then allocates credit to the quarterback and his teammate to produce a clearer measure of quarterback efficiency."
basically it's far more comprehensive than a traditional passer rating, which i personally like
>
>
>
The problem I have with most (all?) of the new made up statistics. Some math genius decides what's important and what isn't.
If a QB's rating is penalized by a receiver dropping a perfectly thrown, uncontested pass, it certainly shouldn't reduce the QB's rating.
Maybe mathboy should factor in the offensive lines ability, or lack thereof, of pass blocking?
For 2-3 seasons while in Minnesota, Kirk Cousins had an offensive line with 1 excellent pass blocker, maybe 1 more average to above average, and 3 horrible. Yet Kirk got all the blame. It's hard to succeed in obvious passing situations when there are 2 defensive tackles in the backfield 1/2 a second after the ball is snapped.
Should an "outdoor" QB be graded the same as a guy who plays indoors?
People seem to forget these are team sports and football is probably the "ultimate" team sport.
Joe, the best part of QBR is giving lesser value to passing yds/td's in garbage time. We all know how some QB's pad their stats in these times against prevent defenses, so QBR accounts for that and that is a good thing I think most anyone would agree on.
Regular QB rating doesn't care if it is garbage time, whether there is wind, cold, or what the offensive passing system is, and that is how you can have a Tony Romo have the same QB rating as Brady, when Romo wasn't nearly as good.
QBR doesn't get all of that either, but does get a little more.
When the formula starts trying to assign percentages to other teammates then that is where it gets hairy...kind of like WAR in baseball. Unfortunately, it will never be known exactly how much or little a QB was a product of their teammates/coaches/system unless they had ample opportunities in other situations to help shine some light on it.
If QBR's main contribution is negating the "padding" of numbers in "garbage time", I'm not interested.
Garbage time rarely happens.
To come up with a formula that eliminates something that happens only once in a while is a waste of time.
If you want to come up with a formula that includes things like dropped passes, O line pass blocking, indoor/outdoor performance and strength of schedule or how good the defenses faced were, I'll look at it.> @perkdog said:
it incorporates all of a QB's contributions to winning, including how he impacts the game on passes, rushes, turnovers and penalties. it takes into account scenarios that a traditional passer rating overlooks and considers "a team's level of success or failure on every play to provide the proper context and then allocates credit to the quarterback and his teammate to produce a clearer measure of quarterback efficiency."
basically it's far more comprehensive than a traditional passer rating, which i personally like
>
>
>
The problem I have with most (all?) of the new made up statistics. Some math genius decides what's important and what isn't.
If a QB's rating is penalized by a receiver dropping a perfectly thrown, uncontested pass, it certainly shouldn't reduce the QB's rating.
Maybe mathboy should factor in the offensive lines ability, or lack thereof, of pass blocking?
For 2-3 seasons while in Minnesota, Kirk Cousins had an offensive line with 1 excellent pass blocker, maybe 1 more average to above average, and 3 horrible. Yet Kirk got all the blame. It's hard to succeed in obvious passing situations when there are 2 defensive tackles in the backfield 1/2 a second after the ball is snapped.
Should an "outdoor" QB be graded the same as a guy who plays indoors?
People seem to forget these are team sports and football is probably the "ultimate" team sport.
I love your point about outdoor vs. dome qbs. I had never thought about it in relation to QBR or quarterback rating. That is a big factor.
Brady playing out doors for so many games makes his accomplishments all the better
true. makes me wonder about guys like Drew Brees and him playing in the dome all those years. I wonder how he would have fared had he played in Chicago, NE, Green Bay etc.?
Patriot haters would brush it off since it wouldn't fit in their narrative.
Not a hater, but the Patriots played in one of the worst divisions in football for YEARS. That prolly helped Tom a bit.
Never said you were or referred to you.
And if I was I would have put your name in my post.
Yes you are correct that Brady benefited from a weak division
No, I am not a hater, but there are several factors that influence every "skill position" players performances.
Many posters here love to jump on one factor, e.g. my guy played outdoors, or my guy had lousy receivers. Of course the tend to ignore anything that doesn't support their guy.
What I would like to see is a comprehensive rating that included (and explained) these factors.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
it incorporates all of a QB's contributions to winning, including how he impacts the game on passes, rushes, turnovers and penalties. it takes into account scenarios that a traditional passer rating overlooks and considers "a team's level of success or failure on every play to provide the proper context and then allocates credit to the quarterback and his teammate to produce a clearer measure of quarterback efficiency."
basically it's far more comprehensive than a traditional passer rating, which i personally like
>
>
>
The problem I have with most (all?) of the new made up statistics. Some math genius decides what's important and what isn't.
If a QB's rating is penalized by a receiver dropping a perfectly thrown, uncontested pass, it certainly shouldn't reduce the QB's rating.
Maybe mathboy should factor in the offensive lines ability, or lack thereof, of pass blocking?
For 2-3 seasons while in Minnesota, Kirk Cousins had an offensive line with 1 excellent pass blocker, maybe 1 more average to above average, and 3 horrible. Yet Kirk got all the blame. It's hard to succeed in obvious passing situations when there are 2 defensive tackles in the backfield 1/2 a second after the ball is snapped.
Should an "outdoor" QB be graded the same as a guy who plays indoors?
People seem to forget these are team sports and football is probably the "ultimate" team sport.
Joe, the best part of QBR is giving lesser value to passing yds/td's in garbage time. We all know how some QB's pad their stats in these times against prevent defenses, so QBR accounts for that and that is a good thing I think most anyone would agree on.
Regular QB rating doesn't care if it is garbage time, whether there is wind, cold, or what the offensive passing system is, and that is how you can have a Tony Romo have the same QB rating as Brady, when Romo wasn't nearly as good.
QBR doesn't get all of that either, but does get a little more.
When the formula starts trying to assign percentages to other teammates then that is where it gets hairy...kind of like WAR in baseball. Unfortunately, it will never be known exactly how much or little a QB was a product of their teammates/coaches/system unless they had ample opportunities in other situations to help shine some light on it.
If QBR's main contribution is negating the "padding" of numbers in "garbage time", I'm not interested.
Garbage time rarely happens.
To come up with a formula that eliminates something that happens only once in a while is a waste of time.
If you want to come up with a formula that includes things like dropped passes, O line pass blocking, indoor/outdoor performance and strength of schedule or how good the defenses faced were, I'll look at it.> @perkdog said:
it incorporates all of a QB's contributions to winning, including how he impacts the game on passes, rushes, turnovers and penalties. it takes into account scenarios that a traditional passer rating overlooks and considers "a team's level of success or failure on every play to provide the proper context and then allocates credit to the quarterback and his teammate to produce a clearer measure of quarterback efficiency."
basically it's far more comprehensive than a traditional passer rating, which i personally like
>
>
>
The problem I have with most (all?) of the new made up statistics. Some math genius decides what's important and what isn't.
If a QB's rating is penalized by a receiver dropping a perfectly thrown, uncontested pass, it certainly shouldn't reduce the QB's rating.
Maybe mathboy should factor in the offensive lines ability, or lack thereof, of pass blocking?
For 2-3 seasons while in Minnesota, Kirk Cousins had an offensive line with 1 excellent pass blocker, maybe 1 more average to above average, and 3 horrible. Yet Kirk got all the blame. It's hard to succeed in obvious passing situations when there are 2 defensive tackles in the backfield 1/2 a second after the ball is snapped.
Should an "outdoor" QB be graded the same as a guy who plays indoors?
People seem to forget these are team sports and football is probably the "ultimate" team sport.
I love your point about outdoor vs. dome qbs. I had never thought about it in relation to QBR or quarterback rating. That is a big factor.
Brady playing out doors for so many games makes his accomplishments all the better
true. makes me wonder about guys like Drew Brees and him playing in the dome all those years. I wonder how he would have fared had he played in Chicago, NE, Green Bay etc.?
Patriot haters would brush it off since it wouldn't fit in their narrative.
Not a hater, but the Patriots played in one of the worst divisions in football for YEARS. That prolly helped Tom a bit.
Never said you were or referred to you.
And if I was I would have put your name in my post.
Yes you are correct that Brady benefited from a weak division
No, I am not a hater, but there are several factors that influence every "skill position" players performances.
Many posters here love to jump on one factor, e.g. my guy played outdoors, or my guy had lousy receivers. Of course the tend to ignore anything that doesn't support their guy.
What I would like to see is a comprehensive rating that included (and explained) these factors.
I edited my post because it sounded like I was being snippy so I edited it, sorry.
Brady is my guy as you know and he played outdoors and for the first part of his career he didn't have many household names for WR's yet he guided the team to 3 Super Bowl wins which was amazing in my opinion.
He definitely benefited from rule changes and a weak division I know all that
I think it's pretty hard to really lock down a true definition for QB rating because of the million variables so we are left with basic stats and rings but even I know rings don't tell the true story because it's a team game.
I'd say playing outside in the colder climates for at least half your games each season should count for something but even with that the variables are still there.
here's the explanation of how it's calculated, straight from ESPN in layman's terms. if this interests you, it's worth a read
is QBR perfect? of course not. no metric is. but sign me up for one that incorporates as many contributions to winning as it possibly can and contextualizes it along the way
it incorporates all of a QB's contributions to winning, including how he impacts the game on passes, rushes, turnovers and penalties. it takes into account scenarios that a traditional passer rating overlooks and considers "a team's level of success or failure on every play to provide the proper context and then allocates credit to the quarterback and his teammate to produce a clearer measure of quarterback efficiency."
basically it's far more comprehensive than a traditional passer rating, which i personally like
>
>
>
The problem I have with most (all?) of the new made up statistics. Some math genius decides what's important and what isn't.
If a QB's rating is penalized by a receiver dropping a perfectly thrown, uncontested pass, it certainly shouldn't reduce the QB's rating.
Maybe mathboy should factor in the offensive lines ability, or lack thereof, of pass blocking?
For 2-3 seasons while in Minnesota, Kirk Cousins had an offensive line with 1 excellent pass blocker, maybe 1 more average to above average, and 3 horrible. Yet Kirk got all the blame. It's hard to succeed in obvious passing situations when there are 2 defensive tackles in the backfield 1/2 a second after the ball is snapped.
Should an "outdoor" QB be graded the same as a guy who plays indoors?
People seem to forget these are team sports and football is probably the "ultimate" team sport.
Joe, the best part of QBR is giving lesser value to passing yds/td's in garbage time. We all know how some QB's pad their stats in these times against prevent defenses, so QBR accounts for that and that is a good thing I think most anyone would agree on.
Regular QB rating doesn't care if it is garbage time, whether there is wind, cold, or what the offensive passing system is, and that is how you can have a Tony Romo have the same QB rating as Brady, when Romo wasn't nearly as good.
QBR doesn't get all of that either, but does get a little more.
When the formula starts trying to assign percentages to other teammates then that is where it gets hairy...kind of like WAR in baseball. Unfortunately, it will never be known exactly how much or little a QB was a product of their teammates/coaches/system unless they had ample opportunities in other situations to help shine some light on it.
If QBR's main contribution is negating the "padding" of numbers in "garbage time", I'm not interested.
Garbage time rarely happens.
To come up with a formula that eliminates something that happens only once in a while is a waste of time.
If you want to come up with a formula that includes things like dropped passes, O line pass blocking, indoor/outdoor performance and strength of schedule or how good the defenses faced were, I'll look at it.> @perkdog said:
it incorporates all of a QB's contributions to winning, including how he impacts the game on passes, rushes, turnovers and penalties. it takes into account scenarios that a traditional passer rating overlooks and considers "a team's level of success or failure on every play to provide the proper context and then allocates credit to the quarterback and his teammate to produce a clearer measure of quarterback efficiency."
basically it's far more comprehensive than a traditional passer rating, which i personally like
>
>
>
The problem I have with most (all?) of the new made up statistics. Some math genius decides what's important and what isn't.
If a QB's rating is penalized by a receiver dropping a perfectly thrown, uncontested pass, it certainly shouldn't reduce the QB's rating.
Maybe mathboy should factor in the offensive lines ability, or lack thereof, of pass blocking?
For 2-3 seasons while in Minnesota, Kirk Cousins had an offensive line with 1 excellent pass blocker, maybe 1 more average to above average, and 3 horrible. Yet Kirk got all the blame. It's hard to succeed in obvious passing situations when there are 2 defensive tackles in the backfield 1/2 a second after the ball is snapped.
Should an "outdoor" QB be graded the same as a guy who plays indoors?
People seem to forget these are team sports and football is probably the "ultimate" team sport.
I love your point about outdoor vs. dome qbs. I had never thought about it in relation to QBR or quarterback rating. That is a big factor.
Brady playing out doors for so many games makes his accomplishments all the better
true. makes me wonder about guys like Drew Brees and him playing in the dome all those years. I wonder how he would have fared had he played in Chicago, NE, Green Bay etc.?
Patriot haters would brush it off since it wouldn't fit in their narrative.
Not a hater, but the Patriots played in one of the worst divisions in football for YEARS. That prolly helped Tom a bit.
Never said you were or referred to you.
And if I was I would have put your name in my post.
Yes you are correct that Brady benefited from a weak division
No, I am not a hater, but there are several factors that influence every "skill position" players performances.
Many posters here love to jump on one factor, e.g. my guy played outdoors, or my guy had lousy receivers. Of course the tend to ignore anything that doesn't support their guy.
What I would like to see is a comprehensive rating that included (and explained) these factors.
I edited my post because it sounded like I was being snippy so I edited it, sorry.
Brady is my guy as you know and he played outdoors and for the first part of his career he didn't have many household names for WR's yet he guided the team to 3 Super Bowl wins which was amazing in my opinion.
He definitely benefited from rule changes and a weak division I know all that
I think it's pretty hard to really lock down a true definition for QB rating because of the million variables so we are left with basic stats and rings but even I know rings don't tell the true story because it's a team game.
I'd say playing outside in the colder climates for at least half your games each season should count for something but even with that the variables are still there.
Absolutely!
In the past, I have brought up Fran Tarkenton, who played (all?) his games outdoors, both teams he played for could be brutally cold and until he returned to Minnesota, two of the most horrible teams in the history of the NFL.
Add to this zero HOFers as receivers or runners for his entire career.
Probably the most under rated QB when the all time best are discussed.....at least here.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
it incorporates all of a QB's contributions to winning, including how he impacts the game on passes, rushes, turnovers and penalties. it takes into account scenarios that a traditional passer rating overlooks and considers "a team's level of success or failure on every play to provide the proper context and then allocates credit to the quarterback and his teammate to produce a clearer measure of quarterback efficiency."
basically it's far more comprehensive than a traditional passer rating, which i personally like
>
>
>
The problem I have with most (all?) of the new made up statistics. Some math genius decides what's important and what isn't.
If a QB's rating is penalized by a receiver dropping a perfectly thrown, uncontested pass, it certainly shouldn't reduce the QB's rating.
Maybe mathboy should factor in the offensive lines ability, or lack thereof, of pass blocking?
For 2-3 seasons while in Minnesota, Kirk Cousins had an offensive line with 1 excellent pass blocker, maybe 1 more average to above average, and 3 horrible. Yet Kirk got all the blame. It's hard to succeed in obvious passing situations when there are 2 defensive tackles in the backfield 1/2 a second after the ball is snapped.
Should an "outdoor" QB be graded the same as a guy who plays indoors?
People seem to forget these are team sports and football is probably the "ultimate" team sport.
Joe, the best part of QBR is giving lesser value to passing yds/td's in garbage time. We all know how some QB's pad their stats in these times against prevent defenses, so QBR accounts for that and that is a good thing I think most anyone would agree on.
Regular QB rating doesn't care if it is garbage time, whether there is wind, cold, or what the offensive passing system is, and that is how you can have a Tony Romo have the same QB rating as Brady, when Romo wasn't nearly as good.
QBR doesn't get all of that either, but does get a little more.
When the formula starts trying to assign percentages to other teammates then that is where it gets hairy...kind of like WAR in baseball. Unfortunately, it will never be known exactly how much or little a QB was a product of their teammates/coaches/system unless they had ample opportunities in other situations to help shine some light on it.
If QBR's main contribution is negating the "padding" of numbers in "garbage time", I'm not interested.
Garbage time rarely happens.
To come up with a formula that eliminates something that happens only once in a while is a waste of time.
If you want to come up with a formula that includes things like dropped passes, O line pass blocking, indoor/outdoor performance and strength of schedule or how good the defenses faced were, I'll look at it.> @perkdog said:
it incorporates all of a QB's contributions to winning, including how he impacts the game on passes, rushes, turnovers and penalties. it takes into account scenarios that a traditional passer rating overlooks and considers "a team's level of success or failure on every play to provide the proper context and then allocates credit to the quarterback and his teammate to produce a clearer measure of quarterback efficiency."
basically it's far more comprehensive than a traditional passer rating, which i personally like
>
>
>
The problem I have with most (all?) of the new made up statistics. Some math genius decides what's important and what isn't.
If a QB's rating is penalized by a receiver dropping a perfectly thrown, uncontested pass, it certainly shouldn't reduce the QB's rating.
Maybe mathboy should factor in the offensive lines ability, or lack thereof, of pass blocking?
For 2-3 seasons while in Minnesota, Kirk Cousins had an offensive line with 1 excellent pass blocker, maybe 1 more average to above average, and 3 horrible. Yet Kirk got all the blame. It's hard to succeed in obvious passing situations when there are 2 defensive tackles in the backfield 1/2 a second after the ball is snapped.
Should an "outdoor" QB be graded the same as a guy who plays indoors?
People seem to forget these are team sports and football is probably the "ultimate" team sport.
I love your point about outdoor vs. dome qbs. I had never thought about it in relation to QBR or quarterback rating. That is a big factor.
Brady playing out doors for so many games makes his accomplishments all the better
true. makes me wonder about guys like Drew Brees and him playing in the dome all those years. I wonder how he would have fared had he played in Chicago, NE, Green Bay etc.?
Patriot haters would brush it off since it wouldn't fit in their narrative.
Not a hater, but the Patriots played in one of the worst divisions in football for YEARS. That prolly helped Tom a bit.
Never said you were or referred to you.
And if I was I would have put your name in my post.
Yes you are correct that Brady benefited from a weak division
No, I am not a hater, but there are several factors that influence every "skill position" players performances.
Many posters here love to jump on one factor, e.g. my guy played outdoors, or my guy had lousy receivers. Of course the tend to ignore anything that doesn't support their guy.
What I would like to see is a comprehensive rating that included (and explained) these factors.
I edited my post because it sounded like I was being snippy so I edited it, sorry.
Brady is my guy as you know and he played outdoors and for the first part of his career he didn't have many household names for WR's yet he guided the team to 3 Super Bowl wins which was amazing in my opinion.
He definitely benefited from rule changes and a weak division I know all that
I think it's pretty hard to really lock down a true definition for QB rating because of the million variables so we are left with basic stats and rings but even I know rings don't tell the true story because it's a team game.
I'd say playing outside in the colder climates for at least half your games each season should count for something but even with that the variables are still there.
Absolutely!
In the past, I have brought up Fran Tarkenton, who played (all?) his games outdoors, both teams he played for could be brutally cold and until he returned to Minnesota, two of the most horrible teams in the history of the NFL.
Add to this zero HOFers as receivers or runners for his entire career.
Probably the most under rated QB when the all time best are discussed.....at least here.
Tarkenton was awesome but definitely doesn't get the air time like others have, probably because he has no rings and played in Minny unfortunately
@dallasactuary always brings up Ken Anderson and when I read up on his stats I can say he is another guy who doesn't get his just due for being a great QB.
I stand by Brady as the GOAT but I'm a New England guy
The best way to go about a true rating is still in my mind unclear but with analytics maybe someday someone can come up with a rating system everyone can agree on but I highly doubt it lol
I think the older qbs are completely left out of the equation though they were just as great as the modern guys. they did not have the advantage of the modern rules that protect qbs and the general lean towards the run game before the 2000s.
I am fully confident that guys like otto graham, johnny unitas, starr, staubach, tarkenton etc. would be just as great as modern players if they were to play today even though their stats pale in comparison
@craig44 said:
I think the older qbs are completely left out of the equation though they were just as great as the modern guys. they did not have the advantage of the modern rules that protect qbs and the general lean towards the run game before the 2000s.
I am fully confident that guys like otto graham, johnny unitas, starr, staubach, tarkenton etc. would be just as great as modern players if they were to play today even though their stats pale in comparison
All true. I think the correct way to think about it is that Otto Graham was playing a different game than Tarkenton, and Tarkenton was playing a different game than they play today. How would Graham do today is how the question is always asked, but how would Mahomes do if he played in the late 1940's is just as important. Could Mahomes, playing every game outdoors on grass/mud with the rules of the time, returning punts, and playing defensive back, put up numbers even remotely close to what he does today? Of course he couldn't.
Fact is, the game Graham was playing was not only different than the game Mahomes is playing, it was a hell of a lot harder. And Graham was the GOAT at the game he played. And declaring Brady, or maybe Mahomes someday, as the GOAT of the game they played may be correct, but it has nothing to do with being "better" than Graham.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@craig44 said:
I think the older qbs are completely left out of the equation though they were just as great as the modern guys. they did not have the advantage of the modern rules that protect qbs and the general lean towards the run game before the 2000s.
I am fully confident that guys like otto graham, johnny unitas, starr, staubach, tarkenton etc. would be just as great as modern players if they were to play today even though their stats pale in comparison
All true. I think the correct way to think about it is that Otto Graham was playing a different game than Tarkenton, and Tarkenton was playing a different game than they play today. How would Graham do today is how the question is always asked, but how would Mahomes do if he played in the late 1940's is just as important. Could Mahomes, playing every game outdoors on grass/mud with the rules of the time, returning punts, and playing defensive back, put up numbers even remotely close to what he does today? Of course he couldn't.
Fact is, the game Graham was playing was not only different than the game Mahomes is playing, it was a hell of a lot harder. And Graham was the GOAT at the game he played. And declaring Brady, or maybe Mahomes someday, as the GOAT of the game they played may be correct, but it has nothing to do with being "better" than Graham.
As much as I LOVE Tommy, I agree that it is really impossible to choose a "goat" for all time. The game and the conditions were just too different, especially in football.
an example: Tommy had more pass attempts in his final 4 seasons (age 42-45 by the way) than Graham had in his entire career. 2675 to 2626. that is an entirely different game. Impossible to compare the 2.
Kyler had a monster QBR game against the jets. Congrats you’ve been telling us for a long time that he was going to be elite and he sure is this year. 👍
Kyler had a monster QBR game against the jets. Congrats you’ve been telling us for a long time that he was going to be elite and he sure is this year. 👍
he had more touchdowns than incompletions with no turnovers. that's the recipe for an outrageous QBR. granted it was against the Winnipeg Jets who give every QB they play a giant boost toward the Hall of Fame, but still.
Kyler's having the best season of his career, but -- and i mentioned this prior to the season -- he's got weapons. funny how those things seem to go hand in hand.
wiser than you might think. after engaging with wristpin and basebal a few times i decided that i was going to start talking to myself instead
feels like my life has turned the corner
You could go engage with Fred and his nicest set of female legs of all time thread. Perfectly normal thread for 1948. I’m undecided between Rita Hayworth and Betty Grable.
I’m having some doubts about QBR.
I know Bryce Young has had a difficult year but he played very well against the Chiefs today and only got a 46. KC just sacked him twice and he was getting off throws with pinpoint accuracy with pressure in his face. I watched the entire game and just don’t see why he wasn’t in the 65-70 area QBR.
Also Mahomes had a respectable 63 but that seemed low also. He was sacked 5 times but we have a left tackle who has been playing terrible and giving him no protection. You know with Mahomes scrambling ability if he gets sacked 5 times the protection is terrible. So those sacks aren’t on him. He also broke off an amazing 33 yard run and finished with 60 yards rushing. I just don’t see how he could have done much better and his QBR should have been closer to 75-80.
By the way Bryce’s passer rating was 92 and Patrick’s was 120 and at least for this game I think is more indicative of how they played. Both were very good….. and Young’s low QBR rating of 46 is a joke.
I didn’t watch the game. I don’t know the details of how QBR is calculated but I do understand it to be a normalized statistic. Would an average QB have done a little better than Young and a bit worse than Mahomes?
Comments
his first four games were very poor and put him in Deshaun Watson land, but his last two were stellar and he's now on the rise and about to pass the biggest waste of 60 million the world has ever seen
you'll never be able to outrun a bad diet
I'm not worried about his performance, he has the talent to be good for sure. I just dont want to see him get hurt because they cant block.
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
No. The reality is that he hasn't been great since his freshman year at Clemson.
His Sophomore year was his best year at Clemson. His Junior year probably would have been if it wasnt the covid year
His numbers have gotten worse since his second year in the NFL though and that coach will get fired sometime soon over it
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
Nah. He had more TDs his sophomore year but played poorly in the national title game and mediocre the game before. And was pretty terrible the first third of the season.
He was pretty decent in the LSU 2019 title game, LSU was just an absolute juggernaut. Every player on their offense signed and NFL contract which is unheard of. The loss in the title game with LSU wasnt on Trevor. Burrow and LSU were just that much better
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
Didn't say the loss was his fault. And the quality of the LSU offense has nothing to do with Lawrence being not-great in that game.
It does because Lawrence had to be throwing the ball for most of the game and LSU knew it. LSU had the ball for 35 minutes compared to 25 for Clemson and Etienne was basically neutralized with only 15 carries because they had to try and play catch up. The LSU defense was also extremely good it just gets overshadowed by the offense that had Burrow Jefferson and Chase among others. Their defense had 3 guys taken before the end of the second round that year
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
I have been surprised that Lawrence has regressed this season. After the first half of his 2023 season I thought for sure he had figured things out. Injuries really hurt his game the second half of last season and with the offseason to heal, I expected him to be a top 10 QB with designs of getting into the top 5 this year. Unfortunately for the Jags, that hasn't happened.
Lawrence was a stud in college though I expected to see more scrambling from him in the NFL.
Robb
Guess we'll never know what year in college was Trevor Lawrence's best...
Which year was his hair the best?
A few guys were talking about Lawrence at the cigar bar this evening.. " said he lost his desire to play football "
I think you could probably say that about the entire Jacksonville team right now
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
total QBR explained:
it incorporates all of a QB's contributions to winning, including how he impacts the game on passes, rushes, turnovers and penalties. it takes into account scenarios that a traditional passer rating overlooks and considers "a team's level of success or failure on every play to provide the proper context and then allocates credit to the quarterback and his teammate to produce a clearer measure of quarterback efficiency."
basically it's far more comprehensive than a traditional passer rating, which i personally like
you'll never be able to outrun a bad diet
updated
you'll never be able to outrun a bad diet
Was curious to see where Drake Maye would currently sit on this list after two starts/three games total and he'd be ranked 30th with a 29.6 QBR.
edit: Weird. ESPN has Maye with a QBR of 34.6 while PFR has him at 29.6
Eric
Erikthredd’s MJ Collection: https://www.psacard.com/psasetregistry/publishedset/395035
Erikthredd’s Nike Air Jordan Collection: https://www.psacard.com/psasetregistry/basketball/key-card-sets/nike-poster-cards-michael-jordan-1985-1992/alltimeset/408486
>
>
>
The problem I have with most (all?) of the new made up statistics. Some math genius decides what's important and what isn't.
If a QB's rating is penalized by a receiver dropping a perfectly thrown, uncontested pass, it certainly shouldn't reduce the QB's rating.
Maybe mathboy should factor in the offensive lines ability, or lack thereof, of pass blocking?
For 2-3 seasons while in Minnesota, Kirk Cousins had an offensive line with 1 excellent pass blocker, maybe 1 more average to above average, and 3 horrible. Yet Kirk got all the blame. It's hard to succeed in obvious passing situations when there are 2 defensive tackles in the backfield 1/2 a second after the ball is snapped.
Should an "outdoor" QB be graded the same as a guy who plays indoors?
People seem to forget these are team sports and football is probably the "ultimate" team sport.
updated
you'll never be able to outrun a bad diet
I love your point about outdoor vs. dome qbs. I had never thought about it in relation to QBR or quarterback rating. That is a big factor.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Brady playing out doors for so many games makes his accomplishments all the better
true. makes me wonder about guys like Drew Brees and him playing in the dome all those years. I wonder how he would have fared had he played in Chicago, NE, Green Bay etc.?
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Patriot haters would brush it off since it wouldn't fit in their narrative.
Absolutely makes a difference toward Brady's favor.
Joe, the best part of QBR is giving lesser value to passing yds/td's in garbage time. We all know how some QB's pad their stats in these times against prevent defenses, so QBR accounts for that and that is a good thing I think most anyone would agree on.
Regular QB rating doesn't care if it is garbage time, whether there is wind, cold, or what the offensive passing system is, and that is how you can have a Tony Romo have the same QB rating as Brady, when Romo wasn't nearly as good.
QBR doesn't get all of that either, but does get a little more.
When the formula starts trying to assign percentages to other teammates then that is where it gets hairy...kind of like WAR in baseball. Unfortunately, it will never be known exactly how much or little a QB was a product of their teammates/coaches/system unless they had ample opportunities in other situations to help shine some light on it.
Both Manning and Brady got a chance to play multiple seasons on "other" teams. Both did very well which should lead people to believe neither was a system QB, but could and did run multiple systems at high levels.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
the 60 million dollar man does this all the time. only Carolina falls behind 2+ scores more often than the Cowboys do. then here come the empty calories. by the time the game is over, Dak's numbers often times appear acceptable at face value. but he can't fool QBR, and that's why he's near the bottom of the rankings.
you'll never be able to outrun a bad diet
If QBR's main contribution is negating the "padding" of numbers in "garbage time", I'm not interested.
Garbage time rarely happens.
To come up with a formula that eliminates something that happens only once in a while is a waste of time.
If you want to come up with a formula that includes things like dropped passes, O line pass blocking, indoor/outdoor performance and strength of schedule or how good the defenses faced were, I'll look at it.> @perkdog said:
Not a hater, but the Patriots played in one of the worst divisions in football for YEARS. That prolly helped Tom a bit.
I wasn't referring to you personally
Yes you are correct that Brady benefited from a weak division
No, I am not a hater, but there are several factors that influence every "skill position" players performances.
Many posters here love to jump on one factor, e.g. my guy played outdoors, or my guy had lousy receivers. Of course the tend to ignore anything that doesn't support their guy.
What I would like to see is a comprehensive rating that included (and explained) these factors.
I edited my post because it sounded like I was being snippy so I edited it, sorry.
Brady is my guy as you know and he played outdoors and for the first part of his career he didn't have many household names for WR's yet he guided the team to 3 Super Bowl wins which was amazing in my opinion.
He definitely benefited from rule changes and a weak division I know all that
I think it's pretty hard to really lock down a true definition for QB rating because of the million variables so we are left with basic stats and rings but even I know rings don't tell the true story because it's a team game.
I'd say playing outside in the colder climates for at least half your games each season should count for something but even with that the variables are still there.
here's the explanation of how it's calculated, straight from ESPN in layman's terms. if this interests you, it's worth a read
is QBR perfect? of course not. no metric is. but sign me up for one that incorporates as many contributions to winning as it possibly can and contextualizes it along the way
https://www.espn.com/blog/statsinfo/post/_/id/123701/how-is-total-qbr-calculated-we-explain-our-quarterback-rating
you'll never be able to outrun a bad diet
Absolutely!
In the past, I have brought up Fran Tarkenton, who played (all?) his games outdoors, both teams he played for could be brutally cold and until he returned to Minnesota, two of the most horrible teams in the history of the NFL.
Add to this zero HOFers as receivers or runners for his entire career.
Probably the most under rated QB when the all time best are discussed.....at least here.
Tarkenton was awesome but definitely doesn't get the air time like others have, probably because he has no rings and played in Minny unfortunately
@dallasactuary always brings up Ken Anderson and when I read up on his stats I can say he is another guy who doesn't get his just due for being a great QB.
I stand by Brady as the GOAT but I'm a New England guy
The best way to go about a true rating is still in my mind unclear but with analytics maybe someday someone can come up with a rating system everyone can agree on but I highly doubt it lol
I think the older qbs are completely left out of the equation though they were just as great as the modern guys. they did not have the advantage of the modern rules that protect qbs and the general lean towards the run game before the 2000s.
I am fully confident that guys like otto graham, johnny unitas, starr, staubach, tarkenton etc. would be just as great as modern players if they were to play today even though their stats pale in comparison
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
All true. I think the correct way to think about it is that Otto Graham was playing a different game than Tarkenton, and Tarkenton was playing a different game than they play today. How would Graham do today is how the question is always asked, but how would Mahomes do if he played in the late 1940's is just as important. Could Mahomes, playing every game outdoors on grass/mud with the rules of the time, returning punts, and playing defensive back, put up numbers even remotely close to what he does today? Of course he couldn't.
Fact is, the game Graham was playing was not only different than the game Mahomes is playing, it was a hell of a lot harder. And Graham was the GOAT at the game he played. And declaring Brady, or maybe Mahomes someday, as the GOAT of the game they played may be correct, but it has nothing to do with being "better" than Graham.
Football in Grahams day almost represented a mix between football and rugby, it was bizarre compared to. today's game.
As much as I LOVE Tommy, I agree that it is really impossible to choose a "goat" for all time. The game and the conditions were just too different, especially in football.
an example: Tommy had more pass attempts in his final 4 seasons (age 42-45 by the way) than Graham had in his entire career. 2675 to 2626. that is an entirely different game. Impossible to compare the 2.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
updated
you'll never be able to outrun a bad diet
updated
you'll never be able to outrun a bad diet
Kyler had a monster QBR game against the jets. Congrats you’ve been telling us for a long time that he was going to be elite and he sure is this year. 👍
he had more touchdowns than incompletions with no turnovers. that's the recipe for an outrageous QBR. granted it was against the Winnipeg Jets who give every QB they play a giant boost toward the Hall of Fame, but still.
Kyler's having the best season of his career, but -- and i mentioned this prior to the season -- he's got weapons. funny how those things seem to go hand in hand.
you'll never be able to outrun a bad diet
updated
you'll never be able to outrun a bad diet
You're not wrong about Love, but I can also tell that blocked FG really bothered you.
who are you talking to? lol
you'll never be able to outrun a bad diet
I only speak into the void.
wiser than you might think. after engaging with wristpin and basebal a few times i decided that i was going to start talking to myself instead
feels like my life has turned the corner
you'll never be able to outrun a bad diet
You could go engage with Fred and his nicest set of female legs of all time thread. Perfectly normal thread for 1948. I’m undecided between Rita Hayworth and Betty Grable.
I’m having some doubts about QBR.
I know Bryce Young has had a difficult year but he played very well against the Chiefs today and only got a 46. KC just sacked him twice and he was getting off throws with pinpoint accuracy with pressure in his face. I watched the entire game and just don’t see why he wasn’t in the 65-70 area QBR.
Also Mahomes had a respectable 63 but that seemed low also. He was sacked 5 times but we have a left tackle who has been playing terrible and giving him no protection. You know with Mahomes scrambling ability if he gets sacked 5 times the protection is terrible. So those sacks aren’t on him. He also broke off an amazing 33 yard run and finished with 60 yards rushing. I just don’t see how he could have done much better and his QBR should have been closer to 75-80.
By the way Bryce’s passer rating was 92 and Patrick’s was 120 and at least for this game I think is more indicative of how they played. Both were very good….. and Young’s low QBR rating of 46 is a joke.
@Darin
i concur
Mahomie connected on 73%, ran for 60, tossed 3 touches, and had no picks
screams 80-85 to me
you'll never be able to outrun a bad diet
Young's stats weren't quite as impressive but 46 certainly seems low
i wish i knew the deets
you'll never be able to outrun a bad diet
I didn’t watch the game. I don’t know the details of how QBR is calculated but I do understand it to be a normalized statistic. Would an average QB have done a little better than Young and a bit worse than Mahomes?