Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: New QB Rating system
Eagles Forum > Philadelphia Eagles Message Board > Philadelphia Eagles or Football Related Discussion
mcnabbulous
Really glad to see that ESPN has done the diligence on this.

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcwest/post/_/id/...st-quarterbacks

The old QB rating system was such garbage. I hope they retroactively apply this to seasons past so we can truly use it as a reference point moving forward.
Sandor
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Aug 1 2011, 04:18 PM) *
Really glad to see that ESPN has done the diligence on this.

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcwest/post/_/id/...st-quarterbacks

The old QB rating system was such garbage. I hope they retroactively apply this to seasons past so we can truly use it as a reference point moving forward.


You really want to start the Rodney Peete/Ty Detmer debate anew? tongue.gif
GQSmooth
QUOTE (Sandor @ Aug 1 2011, 05:34 PM) *
You really want to start the Rodney Peete/Ty Detmer debate anew? tongue.gif

I love that includes rushing and accounts for situational passing.
koolaidluke
Including rushing is a whole new level of retard. It is not a quarterback rating, it is a passer rating. The point is to gage how efficient a passer a QB is. Not how much of a "playmaker" he is and not how "clutch" he is.

What a bunch of bullshit from a bunch of losers who obviously have an agenda.
eugol55
QUOTE (koolaidluke @ Aug 1 2011, 05:53 PM) *
Including rushing is a whole new level of retard. It is not a quarterback rating, it is a passer rating. The point is to gage how efficient a passer a QB is. Not how much of a "playmaker" he is and not how "clutch" he is.

Umm...if they (whoever they are) developed the metric, its a rating of whatever the hell they want it to be..

zed2k
How far each pass travels in the air? Who the fuck cares unless you're trying to impress some cheerleader?

Rushing? Yeah it's great for Vick, but that's horseshit.

Dropped balls? How the fuck is that the QB's fault?

When I'm in agreement with kool-aid-luke I usually have to double check my logic, but yeah, what a crock of shit.

The worst part is people go to college to do shit like this, god only knows what the assholes who created this got paid.....

GQSmooth
Can we pin this thread for new members?
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (koolaidluke @ Aug 1 2011, 04:53 PM) *
Including rushing is a whole new level of retard. It is not a quarterback rating, it is a passer rating. The point is to gage how efficient a passer a QB is. Not how much of a "playmaker" he is and not how "clutch" he is.

What a bunch of bullshit from a bunch of losers who obviously have an agenda.


I'm not sure I understand your point. They are definitively saying that the current system only accounts for passing, which doesn't necessarily reflect the contributions of the actual player.

Of course rushing should be considered when evaluating the play of a QB. As should fumbles, sacks taken, etc.

If you want to gauge their efficiency as a passer, then you can reference the old system (which oddly goes to scales out at an odd number.)

This concept can help dispel such absurdity that a QB who throws at a 60% clip simply because he dumps off 70 passes a year to his running back is somehow accurate.
Phits
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Aug 1 2011, 10:05 PM) *
This concept can help dispel such absurdity that a QB who throws at a 60% clip simply because he dumps off 70 passes a year to his running back is somehow accurate.

I am sure some egg head can come up with an obscure rating system to contradict your point.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Phits @ Aug 1 2011, 10:01 PM) *
I am sure some egg head can come up with an obscure rating system to contradict your point.


Yeah, it's called QB Passer rating
zed2k
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Aug 1 2011, 10:05 PM) *
This concept can help dispel such absurdity that a QB who throws at a 60% clip simply because he dumps off 70 passes a year to his running back is somehow accurate.


If said QB ends up throwing for 3,500 yards and 25 td's, then I guess it is pretty accurate, eh Lombardi?

What, Football Outsiders didn't cover this?
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (zed2k @ Aug 2 2011, 07:49 AM) *
If said QB ends up throwing for 3,500 yards and 25 td's, then I guess it is pretty accurate, eh Lombardi?

What, Football Outsiders didn't cover this?


Well, I think point is that it will identify what level of play resulted in achieving those numbers. Like I said, dumping 70 balls off to a running back who makes tons of plays out of the backfield is a lot different than throwing the ball to wide receivers...in stride.

You're probably one of those people that doesn't quite understand advanced statistics as they relate to baseball either. It's no big deal. "But, but, but Ryan Howard has more RBI's than Prince Fielder"
zed2k
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Aug 2 2011, 09:33 AM) *
Well, I think point is that it will identify what level of play resulted in achieving those numbers. Like I said, dumping 70 balls off to a running back who makes tons of plays out of the backfield is a lot different than throwing the ball to wide receivers...in stride.

You're probably one of those people that doesn't quite understand advanced statistics as they relate to baseball either. It's no big deal. "But, but, but Ryan Howard has more RBI's than Prince Fielder"


No, it's really no different - your job is to sustain drives, and thus score td's, and thus win football games - end of story. If you can accomplish this by doing 10 screen passes every drive, that's just dandy.

Yes, Howard has 5 more RBIs than Fielder - Fielder has a handful more home runs, not much relevance there. Yet he bats almost half a point better, has walked 20 more times, struck out 40 less times, and gets on base almost a full point more on average - obviously, Fielder is much more valuable this season.....this is what you call 'advanced' baseball analysis? Who the hell do you watch sports with, Forrest Gump?
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (zed2k @ Aug 2 2011, 09:17 AM) *
No, it's really no different - your job is to sustain drives, and thus score td's, and thus win football games - end of story. If you can accomplish this by doing 10 screen passes every drive, that's just dandy.

Yes, Howard has 5 more RBIs than Fielder - Fielder has a handful more home runs, not much relevance there. Yet he bats almost half a point better, has walked 20 more times, struck out 40 less times, and gets on base almost a full point more on average - obviously, Fielder is much more valuable this season.....this is what you call 'advanced' baseball analysis? Who the hell do you watch sports with, Forrest Gump?


But he has more RBI's. Isn't the goal to score runs? How is that any different from scoring TD's?

zed2k
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Aug 2 2011, 10:20 AM) *
But he has more RBI's. Isn't the goal to score runs? How is that any different from scoring TD's?


Hahahahaha.....

Well yes, the goal is to score runs. And when you get a base hit (higher average), you are much more likely to score than if you're sitting in the dugout. When you walk (on-base pct.), you are much more likely to score. And when men are on base and you get a hit, or put the ball in play as opposed to striking out, you are much more likely to be a part of producing runs. As opposed to football, which is pretty simple - sustain drives, and score td's. As long as those chains keep moving, it doesn't matter what you do, your job is clear.

Please tell me you're screwing around.....
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (zed2k @ Aug 2 2011, 09:24 AM) *
Please tell me you're screwing around.....


Got it. So you think that a QB who throws passes in stride to a wide receiver is as skilled as someone who dumps off passes to a running back...and the running back does all the work.

Noted.
zed2k
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Aug 2 2011, 11:05 AM) *
Got it.


No, you don't - as usual.

Every QB in the NFL has the ability to hit receivers in stride. You do what gives you the best chance of winning - if you have Brian Westbrook (in his prime anyways) open behind Jon Runyan and Chad Lewis with 10 yards of open space, or James Thrash running down the sideline with Roy Williams zeroing in on him, who do you pass to? If you chose option #1, congrats - you aren't stupid.

Drew Brees dumps the ball a LOT, and so will Aaron Rodgers once Ryan Grant is back in action. It's the same concept as getting walked 200 times a year in baseball, and 'letting someone else do the work' by actually driving you in. You have a job to do, and moving the chains does it.
Dreagon
A system is only as good as its results. So how do last years QBs rank in this system? That would be the most useful knowledge in determining the utility of this new way of doing it.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Dreagon @ Aug 2 2011, 11:11 AM) *
A system is only as good as its results. So how do last years QBs rank in this system? That would be the most useful knowledge in determining the utility of this new way of doing it.



Top tier: Brady, Peyton Manning, Matt Ryan, Michael Vick, Rodgers and Drew Brees.
Well above average: Josh Freeman, Eli Manning and Philip Rivers.
Above average: Ben Roethlisberger, Tony Romo, Joe Flacco, Matt Schaub, David Garrard and Kerry Collins.
Around average: Matt Cassel, Ryan Fitzpatrick, Mark Sanchez, Carson Palmer, Colt McCoy, Kyle Orton and Jon Kitna.
Below average: Shaun Hill, Jason Campbell, Jay Cutler, Matt Hasselbeck, Chad Henne, Donovan McNabb, Sam Bradford and Alex Smith.
Poor: Derek Anderson, Brett Favre and Jimmy Clausen.
Dreagon
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Aug 2 2011, 11:32 AM) *
Top tier: Brady, Peyton Manning, Matt Ryan, Michael Vick, Rodgers and Drew Brees.
Well above average: Josh Freeman, Eli Manning and Philip Rivers.
Above average: Ben Roethlisberger, Tony Romo, Joe Flacco, Matt Schaub, David Garrard and Kerry Collins.
Around average: Matt Cassel, Ryan Fitzpatrick, Mark Sanchez, Carson Palmer, Colt McCoy, Kyle Orton and Jon Kitna.
Below average: Shaun Hill, Jason Campbell, Jay Cutler, Matt Hasselbeck, Chad Henne, Donovan McNabb, Sam Bradford and Alex Smith.
Poor: Derek Anderson, Brett Favre and Jimmy Clausen.


I don't really have a lot of problems with those ranking. It will be interesting to see how this system has QBs ranked at midseason this year.
zed2k
QUOTE (Dreagon @ Aug 2 2011, 12:11 PM) *
A system is only as good as its results. So how do last years QBs rank in this system? That would be the most useful knowledge in determining the utility of this new way of doing it.


For most QB's there isn't a whole hell of a lot of difference, for some there are. The study doesn't explain how each category is weighed, but it's absolutely ludicrous to include some of these things - also, I didn't notice before but sacks are weighed. How in the blue FUCK do you count sacks in how good a QB is? Vick's legs kept him from getting planted in the ground last year, but he still took a lot of sacks because of our disgusting o-line. Brady has had an all-pro line for most of his career, is that because of how good he is?

Drew Brees is a great QB, but this bullshit study shows him in the top tier - I'm sorry, 33 td's, 22 int's, and getting embarassed by the first postseason team in history with a losing record? Sounds more like a Brett Favre season.....passer rating puts him at #12 in the league - obviously more accurate

Big Rapist? 17 td's, 5 int's, and yet another Super Bowl appearance after 12 wins? Passer rating puts him at #5 - this bullshit study puts him at #10 at best

Same with Matt Schaub - Houston gave up even more points than our abysmal defense last year, but Schaub still got 4370 yards with 24 td's, 12 int's for #9 - B.S. Study shows him at #13

Really, it's just a way for some dipshits at ESPN to try to remain relevant, and to have something else to talk about (like when they came up with OPS) - this will never catch on outside of ESPN methinks
mcnabbulous
For what it's worth, I don't think these are numerical rankings. For instance, I don't know that Schaub is 13th, rather he is in the third tier which could be anywhere from 10-15.

Your point about taking sacks is ridiculous. Of course a bad o-line can contribue to taking sacks, but QB's are often very guilty of holding the ball too long. Vick is a great example of that.

The rushing element (which relates specifically to Vick) can compensate for the value of his legs.
zed2k
When a ballplayer makes an error, if a run scores because of that it doesn't count against the pitcher's ERA - same concept when you have Winston Justice 'blocking' your blind side. It's ludicrous to factor in sacks, especially when there's no way to differentiate from a stastical standpoint when you hold on to the ball too long, or when you're simply pancaked from behind.

Tony Romo got blindsided because his FB completely blew his blocking assignment - he got driven into the ground, fractured a shoulder blade, and missed the rest of the year (I remember this vividly because I was cheering, I happened to be playing against Romo in my fantasy league and fuck the Cowboys anyway). According to this study, that would count against Romo - that is insanity.
mcnabbulous
And Peyton Manning consistently takes the fewest sacks in football cause he has the best line. huh.gif
zed2k
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Aug 2 2011, 03:30 PM) *
And Peyton Manning consistently takes the fewest sacks in football cause he has the best line. huh.gif


*sigh*

Another year of straw-man arguments.....

It's good to be back jumpclap.gif
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (zed2k @ Aug 2 2011, 02:36 PM) *
*sigh*

Another year of straw-man arguments.....

It's good to be back jumpclap.gif

Without knowing how these elements are weighed, it's pointless to get one's panties in wad over their inclusion.

The reality is that, while sacks aren't always a QB's fault, they often are. Under those circumstances, if they are weighed appropriately, than it is a relevant stat to judge the performance of the position.
Dreagon
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Aug 2 2011, 03:10 PM) *
Without knowing how these elements are weighed, it's pointless to get one's panties in wad over their inclusion.

The reality is that, while sacks aren't always a QB's fault, they often are. Under those circumstances, if they are weighed appropriately, than it is a relevant stat to judge the performance of the position.


I have to agree with this. When Drew Bledsoe was our QB, our offensive line was not highly regarded. When Tony Romo took over, the same line suddenly starts sending players to the Pro Bowl.

A QB's decision making and release definitely affect his sack count. But I think the best way to measure this would be sacks after three seconds.
zed2k
QUOTE (Dreagon @ Aug 2 2011, 04:32 PM) *
But I think the best way to measure this would be sacks after three seconds.


Or, you could simply analyze the play, and anyone with NFL experience can say whether or not the QB held onto it too long. Fine. Except this is generic.....I mentioned Romo's injury, and my point is that regardless of how it's being weighed, even less than 1%, isn't that unfair?

The beauty of baseball stats is baseball has been played for almost 150 years, so they've pretty much exhausted the 'pioneering' statisticians.
zed2k
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Aug 2 2011, 04:10 PM) *
Without knowing how these elements are weighed, it's pointless to get one's panties in wad over their inclusion.


Ok fine, I don't disagree - then isn't it also a little premature for you to completely throw out the passer rating until we see more of the dynamics of this, like exactly what each category is, and how they're weighed?
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (zed2k @ Aug 2 2011, 04:18 PM) *
Ok fine, I don't disagree - then isn't it also a little premature for you to completely throw out the passer rating until we see more of the dynamics of this, like exactly what each category is, and how they're weighed?


The QB Rating has been irrelevant to me for a while, so this new method has no bearing on that. I just posted it because I like the thought of reevaluating the approach on evaluating QB's.
_KAMELOT_
The old rating system is just old...shows mostly how good passer you are, since the most important clue is completed passes, attempted passes, TD passes and interception. I don't know if the new one is better, because SOMETHING IS BETTER THAN ANOTHER THING WHEN IT DOES IN A BETTER WAY THE JOB THAT BOTH WERE DESIGNED FOR.

If it is how much of passer you are, the old is ok. If they want to see how capable is QB to lead the team to victory, then maybe rushing yards, rushing tds, 3rd down efficiency and results must be put also in the equation.

But there is no way a system can show the true quality of a quarterback, because you can't measure how good he reads opponent's defense, how he adjust the play to that, what kind of leader he is (or isn't) in the locker room.
koolaidluke
QUOTE (Dreagon @ Aug 2 2011, 04:32 PM) *
I have to agree with this. When Drew Bledsoe was our QB, our offensive line was not highly regarded. When Tony Romo took over, the same line suddenly starts sending players to the Pro Bowl.


When we had piece of crap McThreeandout, our line gave up tons of sacks, we burned timouts, our receivers dropped passes and we ran practically every play. Whenever he got injured all facets of our team magically got better. Probably because the rest of the team tried harder because McNabb wasn't there to win the games by himself.

That is probably why the Cowboys seemed better with Romo than Bledsoe. It wasn't that Romo was better, it was just that the other guys knew that without Bledsoe to carry the team on his back they needed to pick their own games up.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2014 Invision Power Services, Inc.