quarterback rating???
BigRedMachine
Posts: 2,563 ✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
Officially the most unimportant stat in my mind now.
Manning is 26 of 29 with 4 touchdowns and 0 interceptions so far tonight.
Let me repeat..........26 of 29 with 4 TOUCHDOWNS AND ZERO INTERCEPTIONS...........
and he has a QB rating of 141.
Not near the 158 perfect rating.
What's a guy gotta do??
Go Colts!!!!
Manning is 26 of 29 with 4 touchdowns and 0 interceptions so far tonight.
Let me repeat..........26 of 29 with 4 TOUCHDOWNS AND ZERO INTERCEPTIONS...........
and he has a QB rating of 141.
Not near the 158 perfect rating.
What's a guy gotta do??
Go Colts!!!!
0
Comments
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>He still hasn't won a Super Bowl, though... >>
He still is one of the best QB's though...
He still is one of the best QB's though...
Regular season, I agree 100%/
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Football is the ultimate team sport. Manning's defense sucks, and there is NOTHING he can do about it. One guy can't win a Super Bowl.
It's why guys like Doug Williams and Trent Dilfer have a ring, and guys like Dan Marino and Dan Fouts do not. If you can't see past that, I won't waste my time argueing. It's absurd.
shawn
<< <i>I don't want to let my man-crush for Manning show but............
Football is the ultimate team sport. Manning's defense sucks, and there is NOTHING he can do about it. One guy can't win a Super Bowl.
It's why guys like Doug Williams and Trent Dilfer have a ring, and guys like Dan Marino and Dan Fouts do not. If you can't see past that, I won't waste my time argueing. It's absurd.
shawn >>
Agreed 100 PERCENT. Thank You
I'm not saying it's fair, but that's the way it is, and any QB who claims otherwise is lying.
Edit: Indy also had the #2 ranked Defense in the NFL last season.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>26 of 29 with 4 TOUCHDOWNS AND ZERO INTERCEPTIONS...........
and he has a QB rating of 141.
Not near the 158 perfect rating.
What's a guy gotta do?? >>
It's because 90 % of his passes were of the little dink variety.
Nothing wrong with a 141 rating. Most QB's would kill for one that high.
It was very effective and that's what's important,
but to get a perfect rating you have to throw some completions down the field once in a while.
Here's the QB rating link page.
It's kind of fun to punch in different numbers and see how the rating changes.
"How about a little fire Scarecrow ?"
js
<< <i>by my calculations, you have to have at least 300 yards passing and 4 TD's to get the 158?
js >>
If you throw one pass for 100 yards and a touchdown, you get 158.333333333
The thing I don't like about these stats is that it might have nothing to do with the QB. If the QB tosses one to the WR one yard past the line of scrimmage and he then runs the ball 99 yards for a touchdown, the QB gets credit for 100 yards passing and a TD when he may have had very little to do with it.
In general, I don't like individual stats in football. I wonder how things would work if every player on the field at the time of a play got credit.
Robert
Any high grade OPC Jim Palmer
High grade Redskins (pre 1980)
Completions/Attempt greater than or equal to 0.775
Touchdowns/Attempt greater than or equal to 0.119
Zero interceptions
Yards/Attempt greater than or equal to 12.5
Robert
Any high grade OPC Jim Palmer
High grade Redskins (pre 1980)
shawn
Which of these two passing lines do you think would tend to score more points, and ultimately win you more games?
1 for 2 with 20 yards ....0 INT 0 TD
or
1 for 3 with 95 yards....0 INT 0 TD
The first one comes up with an 85.4 passer rating.
The second one comes up with an 81.9 passer rating.
Common sense says that the guy with 95 yards has guaranteed a field goal attempt, or given a superb opportunity for a TD. Any way you look at it, the second guy is doing more for scoring and winning.
I don't know. Either the site is messed up, or the formula isn't very accurate.
4 for 7 80 yds = 97.3
????What?
<< <i>3 for 7 299 yds = 89.8
4 for 7 80 yds = 97.3
????What? >>
You got me?
<< <i>Which of these two passing lines do you think would tend to score more points, and ultimately win you more games?
1 for 2 with 20 yards ....0 INT 0 TD
or
1 for 3 with 95 yards....0 INT 0 TD
The first one comes up with an 85.4 passer rating.
The second one comes up with an 81.9 passer rating.
Common sense says that the guy with 95 yards has guaranteed a field goal attempt, or given a superb opportunity for a TD. Any way you look at it, the second guy is doing more for scoring and winning.
I don't know. Either the site is messed up, or the formula isn't very accurate. >>
True. Sounds like they are weighting completion percentage more than yardage. Seems to me that you could combine the two in one measure -- "yards per attempt" -- and all else being equal (i.e. same number of TDs and picks), the higher yards per attempt would be a higher rating.
Of course, considering TDs and INTs has its own set of problems, too. A guy who throws a Hail Mary in the last play of the first half and gets it picked off -- basically a harmless interception -- is penalized as much as the guy who throws a bad pick in the end zone while driving for a potential game-winning score.
Check your stats, how many 15+ yard attempts? Not 15 yard pass play(dump & run).
Most long pass attempts are @ the end of half or game.
Football has become more about stats and high percentage plays.
Team has 3rd & 1,most throw 1 yard out to WR. Take away all those dump passes and you'll see the actual STAR QB"s.
IMHO