PDA

View Full Version : QB Passing ratings/QBR


J-Mike88
09-28-2011, 05:39 PM
I still think Dilfer's thing is silly.
Anyway, it's interesting to take a look at the differences between the 2 formulas.

Here is the top ten currently in the normal passer ratings, 3 games into this season:


Aaron Rodgers 120.9
Tom Brady 113.8
Matthew Stafford 110.7
Drew Brees 109.7
Eli Manning 104.3
Ryan Fitzpatrick 103.5
Matthew Hasselback 102.2
Matthew Schaub 101.9
Tony Romo 95.8
Jason Campbell 93.8


#15- Vick
#17- Big Ben
#22- Rivers
#23- Matthew Ryan
#26- McNabb
#27- Freeman
#28- Tarvarris Jackson
#29- Sam Bradford
#30- Kerry Collins
#31- Matthew Cassell
#32- Luke McCown

Very surprising to me, that there are only 8 QBs who's passer rating remains above 96.

The ESPN/Trent Dilfer sophisticated QBR


Brady 85.3
Fitzpatrick 83.7
Rodgers 79.1
Hasselback 77.8
Brees 75.8
Schaub 74.7
Romo 73.9
Stafford 70.9
Campbell 67.5
Eli 64.9


#13- Freeman
#14- Big Ben
#15- Rivers
#22- McNabb
#23- Vick
#24- Ryan
#27- Sanchez
#28- Cutler
#30- Cassell
#31- Collins

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/7020881/nfl-week-3-total-qbr-season-leaders

Here are some key numbers:
Rodgers completion percentage: 71.8% (8 TD, 1 Int), 103 passing attempts
Big Ben 108 passing attempts, 3 TDs
Freeman 106 passing attempts, 2 TDs
Bradford 108 passing attempts, 2 TDs
Brady 1,327 yards, or 442 yards per game (11 TDs, 5 Ints)
Brees 1,059 yards, 9 TDs
Fitzpatrick 9 TDs
Stafford 9 TDs
Note that Jason Campbell is in the top 10 in both formulas.

Which is more accurate for how they have performed this season in your opinion?

keylime_5
09-28-2011, 05:44 PM
one was invented by ESPN and a guy who was a ****** QB. The other is a real stat used by the NFL.

/thread

descendency
09-28-2011, 05:45 PM
My personal opinion is that this formula considers sacks too much and interceptions not enough.

descendency
09-28-2011, 05:47 PM
one was invented by ESPN and a guy who was a ****** QB. The other is a real stat used by the NFL.

/thread

I'm a mathematician. After reading how ESPN did their work, I can tell you that it is certainly not a concoction of Dilfer, in any imaginable way.

Denver Bronco56
09-28-2011, 06:01 PM
I think the new ESPN takes in account alot more of the game... rushing yards, making plays in clutch situations


The old rating system can make a QB that throws for alot of yards in trash time still appear decent

Splat
09-28-2011, 06:18 PM
Cassel sucks by both formulas.

Giantsfan1080
09-28-2011, 06:27 PM
When ESPN QBR I actually thought it seemed like a much better way to measure QB's than the old rating system. I figired most people would discredit it because it's an ESPN invention but I'm curious to see how the numbers stack up as the year goes on. Both lists looks just about right as of now so we'll see as we get deeper into the season.

stephenson86
09-28-2011, 07:23 PM
Well judging by the fact that Brady threw 4 interceptions at the weekend and is still above a flawless Rodgers? I say the tradition rating.

descendency
09-28-2011, 07:29 PM
Well judging by the fact that Brady threw 4 interceptions at the weekend and is still above a flawless Rodgers? I say the tradition rating.

He also threw 4 TDs, wasn't sacked, and threw for 67% completions. Granted, he did throw a pick 6.

But the higher rating is from two weeks of nearly being all time great.

stephenson86
09-28-2011, 07:32 PM
He also threw 4 TDs, wasn't sacked, and threw for 67% completions. Granted, he did throw a pick 6.

But the higher rating is from two weeks of nearly being all time great.

I get that, but it's almost like the rating has overlooked the fact he really blew it on Sunday.

tjsunstein
09-28-2011, 07:33 PM
Well judging by the fact that Brady threw 4 interceptions at the weekend and is still above a flawless Rodgers? I say the tradition rating.
Do you not remember Brady's first two weeks?

ElectricEye
09-28-2011, 07:38 PM
...I kind of like QBR. The thing it takes into account absolutely matter in today's game. Trent Dilfer's involvement seems to be fairly minimal to. ESPN is using him to push it, but I doubt he was the architect of it.

one was invented by ESPN and a guy who was a ****** QB. The other is a real stat used by the NFL.

/thread

It's not like QB rating is an infallible stat at all. Don Weiss has said directly that it really doesn't measure everything a quarterback can do.

stephenson86
09-28-2011, 07:38 PM
Do you not remember Brady's first two weeks?

I do, but I don't see how he should be rated over Rodgers who has taken his team to a 3-0 record and played brilliantly.

Caulibflower
09-28-2011, 07:39 PM
I literally do not care about quarterback rating. No other position has a "rating" beyond their stats. Running backs are not "rated," receivers are not "rated," linebackers aren't "rated," cornerbacks aren't "rated." Just another prime example of how the NFL and the media has such a persistent, perpetual orgasm about the forward pass that QBs need a unique stat for "how good" they are. I Say **** rating them either way. Lead the league in TDs if you want to have your name next to the number everyone cares about. Or completion percentage. Or whatever. It's just another thing for stats geeks and fantasy football players to moan about and throw in anyone-who-doesn't-think-their-favorite-quarterback-is-the-bestest's faces. LOOKEE!!! HE HAS THE BEST NFL QB RATING AND THE BEST ESPN RATING TOO! ZOMGZ HE'S GOING TO THE HALL OF FAME.

Yeah. We know. I guess my question really is, are we surprised by the rankings here? The best QBs tend to be near the top. If they weren't, I'd be a little more intrigued. But I really do not care about how their supposed "overall ratings as QBs" stack up, as if any purely statistical amalgamation of information can concretely rank their play.

descendency
09-28-2011, 07:49 PM
I get that, but it's almost like the rating has overlooked the fact he really blew it on Sunday.

You're not considering the game that "Brady blew" was a game that Brady also carried the Patriots. No run game. No defense. The only good special teams plays were some kicks.

descendency
09-28-2011, 07:51 PM
linebackers aren't "rated," cornerbacks aren't "rated."

Yeah, I agree with the point you are making, but I want to point out how hard it is to do defensive statistics. No one really has come up with a decent way to decouple the impacts of a LB vs DL vs CB on a play. The stats that ultimately could be used are "unofficial" and require actual film to be watched.

The point of these "sabermetrics" is to avoid having to do that and still arrive at good analysis.

stephenson86
09-28-2011, 07:52 PM
You're not considering the game that "Brady blew" was a game that Brady also carried the Patriots. No run game. No defense. The only good special teams plays were some kicks.

Blew was a strong word, I just don't see the justification for having Brady rated over Rodgers so far this season. Speaking of no run game, you guys seem to have all but abandoned the run?

keylime_5
09-28-2011, 07:54 PM
100 times out of 100, taking a sack is better than throwing an interception. Lots of times sacks and interceptions aren't the QB's fault, with sacks not being their fault way more than interceptions not being their fault. The most important things are YPA, INTs, and completion pct. When people are voting for the hall of fame 20 years from now, I can pretty much guarantee you that zero of the voters will give second's thought to ESPN's little QBR crap. What a QB does with his feet shouldn't matter. If a guy has negative rushing yards b/c he took sacks instead of committing turnovers it punishes you.

D-Unit
09-28-2011, 08:00 PM
Why is there a need to always want to rank NFL players? College prospects? Fine... But NFL guys??? Who cares? They are measured by wins. If you are the quarterback of a team that has been able to establish a winning dynasty (with or without a SB ring), then you get respect.

Caulibflower
09-28-2011, 08:05 PM
Yeah, I agree with the point you are making, but I want to point out how hard it is to do defensive statistics. No one really has come up with a decent way to decouple the impacts of a LB vs DL vs CB on a play. The stats that ultimately could be used are "unofficial" and require actual film to be watched.

The point of these "sabermetrics" is to avoid having to do that and still arrive at good analysis.

The point that I'm making goes all the way into the point you're still making: is a QB not playing against a defense? There's so many variables for any given play, you can't just compile any one players stats and tout the result as a accurate assessment of his play. It helps to be on a good team. To play bad defenses. To be on an offense that's easy to throw in. To have a good line. To have receivers who will out-jump and out-battle DBs. But the ratings don't take that into account, they only count things which can be recorded as a specifically QB stat.

ElectricEye
09-28-2011, 08:19 PM
100 times out of 100, taking a sack is better than throwing an interception. Lots of times sacks and interceptions aren't the QB's fault, with sacks not being their fault way more than interceptions not being their fault. The most important things are YPA, INTs, and completion pct. When people are voting for the hall of fame 20 years from now, I can pretty much guarantee you that zero of the voters will give second's thought to ESPN's little QBR crap. What a QB does with his feet shouldn't matter. If a guy has negative rushing yards b/c he took sacks instead of committing turnovers it punishes you.

You are making so many assumptions there it's not even funny. Chiefly; the system weights it so interceptions are far worse than sacks. No one is even arguing that. Then you go on to paint this picture taking a sack or throwing an interception is a black and white thing. If I'm looking to evaluate who's the best quarterback, I would prefer a guy who didn't do either. Certain guys have a tendency to take more sacks. There's not a perfect way to quantify it, but players like Peyton Manning and Tom Brady have the ability to not take negative plays at all with their ability to evade the rush within the pocket. Factoring in sacks unfairly punishes guys with flat out garbage offensive lines(See the Bears), but rewards guy with good footwork and who make good decisions quickly...which are two of the more important things a quarterback should have the ability to do.

descendency
09-28-2011, 08:25 PM
There are numerous people that defend the heavy weighting of a sack in this system as "QBs are mostly responsible."

phlysac
09-28-2011, 08:42 PM
As Alex Smith is being sacked at a rate of 1.9 seconds after snap for his 11 sacks this season, I absolutely agree (not really) that his QBR gets knocked ridiculously because of it.

stephenson86
09-28-2011, 08:43 PM
There are numerous people that defend the heavy weighting of a sack in this system as "QBs are mostly responsible."

They are responsible to an extent, when you look at the ability of the likes of Marino, Mannin, Brady etc. who can evade a sack with simple steps in the pocket, some QB's just don't do their OL any favours.

Bucs_Rule
09-28-2011, 09:33 PM
Quick sacks are mostly the fault of the pass protection. Not picking up a blizter or a blocker getting beat right away. Longer is usually the QB. Should know he needs to get it out by then.

keylime_5
09-28-2011, 09:39 PM
You are making so many assumptions there it's not even funny. Chiefly; the system weights it so interceptions are far worse than sacks. No one is even arguing that. Then you go on to paint this picture taking a sack or throwing an interception is a black and white thing. If I'm looking to evaluate who's the best quarterback, I would prefer a guy who didn't do either. Certain guys have a tendency to take more sacks. There's not a perfect way to quantify it, but players like Peyton Manning and Tom Brady have the ability to not take negative plays at all with their ability to evade the rush within the pocket. Factoring in sacks unfairly punishes guys with flat out garbage offensive lines(See the Bears), but rewards guy with good footwork and who make good decisions quickly...which are two of the more important things a quarterback should have the ability to do.


my point being that taking sacks shouldn't go into factor against a QB in a rating system, b/c either they are not his fault, or in some cases they are the alternative to taking an INT. The QBR system doesn't weight the most important things as heavily as the real QB rating, which is just one reason why it's not as good.

niel89
09-28-2011, 09:41 PM
Lets wait a little longer to see how this really works out. Its only been 3 games. Lets get a bigger sample size to work with to really see how it finally works out. I think that it probably is a better stat then passer rating but we need more numbers to see how it works out.

ElectricEye
09-28-2011, 10:03 PM
my point being that taking sacks shouldn't go into factor against a QB in a rating system, b/c either they are not his fault, or in some cases they are the alternative to taking an INT. The QBR system doesn't weight the most important things as heavily as the real QB rating, which is just one reason why it's not as good.

This just isn't the reality of the quarterback position. You're implying sacks are are either not the quarterbacks fault or are the alternative to interceptions. The ability to not get sacked is a valuable asset and that's something that certain guys do FAR better than others. That's a fact and something that's crucial in evaluating a quarterback. Assuming everything else is created equally, I'll take the guy who has a tendency to NOT get sacked over the guy who is sacked frequently every single time....and you absolutely will see those kind of clear divisions. Both Peyton Manning and Tom Brady have played with less than ideal line play the past few years and those numbers don't show up in the stat sheet. You put someone like David Carr or Alex Smith behind the same line and they would.

We penalize position players who plays with negative yardage statistically, regardless of whether it's their fault or not. We value runningbacks who don't generate negative yardage. We actively look for guys who don't dance around and are quick and deceive as opposed to ones who like to bounce around. We take yardage off a receivers YPC even if the quarterback put him in a crappy position to make a run after it. I don't see why quarterbacks should be above being penalized for making plays for negative yardage. You can argue blame percentage fairly, sure...but it is something that's real and it's something that's fairly tangible and easy to discern either way as well.

As far as QB rating being more accurate, as I mentioned, the creator of it says it's imperfect. We weight completions against prevent defense and completions against heavy pressure and tight coverage the same way in that system. It rewards guys like Kyle Orton who can't drive the ball down the field and make easy throws. But yeah, that stuff it totally important.



Just to be clear; I'm not some QBR fanboy. It just bothers me when people react negatively to different ways of examining the game through statistics. For what it's worth, in a team sport like football, statistics will always be secondary to the eyeball test. Too many variables and interlocking pieces to have precise metrics like we do in baseball. That doesn't mean we should stop trying, however. There's a lot we can potentially learn, or at the very least confirm, with things like this.

phlysac
09-29-2011, 09:20 AM
Both Peyton Manning and Tom Brady have played with less than ideal line play the past few years and those numbers don't show up in the stat sheet. You put someone like David Carr or Alex Smith behind the same line and they would.

The 49ers QBs would absolutely KILL to have the same kind of pass protection the Colts and Patriots lines provide.

Rosebud
09-29-2011, 09:22 AM
my point being that taking sacks shouldn't go into factor against a QB in a rating system, b/c either they are not his fault, or in some cases they are the alternative to taking an INT. The QBR system doesn't weight the most important things as heavily as the real QB rating, which is just one reason why it's not as good.

Well what about QBs who hold onto the ball too long and are sacked because of that, or because they didn't slide in the pocket to avoid pressure. Plenty of sacks are the QBs fault, see Big Ben.

Jughead10
09-29-2011, 09:50 AM
Well what about QBs who hold onto the ball too long and are sacked because of that, or because they didn't slide in the pocket to avoid pressure. Plenty of sacks are the QBs fault, see Big Ben.

Agreed. Also QB rating isn't a QB rating. It is just a passing rating. More goes into being a QB than just passing. This new rating attempts to add many of those aspects. We'll see what it looks like at the end of the year.

Sloopy
09-29-2011, 10:10 AM
The 49ers QBs would absolutely KILL to have the same kind of pass protection the Colts and Patriots lines provide.

cant tell if serious?

LT: Anthony Castonzo- servicable rookie starter (got abused at the end of last game)
LG:Joe Reitz - former practice squad player who didnt play football in college
C: Jeff Saturday - not in the same pro bowl form he used to be
RG: Mike Pollack - drafted as a center but has been switched around so many times due to being beat out of a starting spot multiple times, infact winning the RG spot over former RT Ryan Diem
RT: Jeff Linkenbach - had to wikipedia him to know who the F he was, apparently UDFA out of Cincinnati and is from Sandusky, Ohio.

keylime_5
09-29-2011, 10:20 AM
Well what about QBs who hold onto the ball too long and are sacked because of that, or because they didn't slide in the pocket to avoid pressure. Plenty of sacks are the QBs fault, see Big Ben.

yes, there is no way to differentiate between the two. that's why sacks shouldn't be in the equation.


guys like alex smith and david carr getting sacked b/c they hold onto the ball too long end up with low QB ratings as it is. Adding sacks to the equation just punishes guys who have lousy offensive lines like Tony Romo for instance.

Nalej
09-29-2011, 10:26 AM
You can't differentiate from an INT occurring due to a bad read or if the WR ran the wrong route.
Should we take INTs out of the equation as well?

Iamcanadian
09-29-2011, 10:31 AM
ESPN's formula obviously stinks, any formula that finds a way to downgrade Rodgers and Stafford is absolutely absurd. The NFL formula may not be perfect but its rankings clearly are superior to ESPN's.

ElectricEye
09-29-2011, 11:03 AM
yes, there is no way to differentiate between the two. that's why sacks shouldn't be in the equation.


guys like alex smith and david carr getting sacked b/c they hold onto the ball too long end up with low QB ratings as it is. Adding sacks to the equation just punishes guys who have lousy offensive lines like Tony Romo for instance.

Those guys deserve to get punished. They're inferior players in that aspect of quarterbacking. Aaron Rodgers has about as bad as an offensive line as it comes and he copes with it just fine. That's a large part of what makes him a better player than a guy like Tony Romo(using your example, which isn't the greatest one anyway).

keylime_5
09-29-2011, 11:12 AM
Rodgers got sacked like ten times in a game once, but still had a QB rating of over 100. Do you think he should've been rated much lower b/c his OLine was stinky in 2009? Sacks shouldn't be factored in at all. Alex Smith gets sacked a bunch, but his QB rating stinks anyhow, not a big deal. It's not like his QB rating is lying b/c it doesn't tell you how much he gets sacked.

keylime_5
09-29-2011, 11:17 AM
You can't differentiate from an INT occurring due to a bad read or if the WR ran the wrong route.
Should we take INTs out of the equation as well?

interceptions can be a team stat just like sacks. Sacks are not nearly as much of the QB's responsibility even though sometimes it is their fault. Like I said, a QB who gets sacked a ton is gonna suffer in their QB rating otherwise, while a QB who occassionaly throws an INT that was his WR's fault won't be hurt by it b/c if a QB throws 15 to 20 interceptions, there's no way that any more than a few of those were b/c of WRs running wrong routes or miscommunications. That happens maybe once every few games and isn't detrimental.

bigbluedefense
09-29-2011, 11:30 AM
neither system is perfect. neither system is absolutely horrible either.

you're never going to have a system that is flawless. football isn't baseball. you can't look at it through the black and white glasses of statistics.

it is what it is. just another stat to look at and draw conclusions from. it can be a valuable tool if used with the understanding that it is not an be all end all statistic for quarterbacks.

Jughead10
09-29-2011, 11:34 AM
neither system is perfect. neither system is absolutely horrible either.

you're never going to have a system that is flawless. football isn't baseball. you can't look at it through the black and white glasses of statistics.

it is what it is. just another stat to look at and draw conclusions from. it can be a valuable tool if used with the understanding that it is not an be all end all statistic for quarterbacks.

I think looking at a combination of the two will you give you an idea who the most complete QBs in the NFL are. If you are at the top of both lists you are obviously doing something right. But then again, the same observation can be made by just watching these guys play for a little.

jrdrylie
09-29-2011, 12:13 PM
I think looking at a combination of the two will you give you an idea who the most complete QBs in the NFL are. If you are at the top of both lists you are obviously doing something right. But then again, the same observation can be made by just watching these guys play for a little.

You hit the nail on the head right here. Neither of these rating systems are better than our own eyes. Matt Hasselbeck is 7th in one and 4th in the other. But watching him, there is no way he is a top-seven QB. Even McNabb at 22. I'm not sure there are 10 QBs worse than he is. Tarvaris Jackson better than Jay Cutler despite having worse numbers across the board?

Jughead10
09-29-2011, 12:18 PM
You hit the nail on the head right here. Neither of these rating systems are better than our own eyes. Matt Hasselbeck is 7th in one and 4th in the other. But watching him, there is no way he is a top-seven QB. Even McNabb at 22. I'm not sure there are 10 QBs worse than he is. Tarvaris Jackson better than Jay Cutler despite having worse numbers across the board?

For or against these stats, it's still way too early. So see how they look after a full season, or at least the halfway point.

keylime_5
09-29-2011, 01:54 PM
I don't think the QB Rating system is perfect. I don't like ESPN and their stupid agendas, specifically trying to create the news instead of report it as in this case. And in this case their system isn't a better one, it's not much different, it just imperfect in different ways and really takes away from guys who are actually good passers and rewards guys who get rushing touchdowns and rushing yards. If they're gonna try and make it so every play matters into the QB rating system, then they should make Jason Campbell's hailmary desperation interception with no time left count less but they don't. Aaron Rodgers throwing for nearly 400 yards and having a rating of 110 but taking 10 sacks behind his **** O-Line makes it much worse in ESPN's system unjustly. The fact that ESPN is trying to push this thing so hard is annoying as well for a fake stat.

ElectricEye
09-29-2011, 01:57 PM
Rodgers got sacked like ten times in a game once, but still had a QB rating of over 100. Do you think he should've been rated much lower b/c his OLine was stinky in 2009? Sacks shouldn't be factored in at all. Alex Smith gets sacked a bunch, but his QB rating stinks anyhow, not a big deal. It's not like his QB rating is lying b/c it doesn't tell you how much he gets sacked.

I absolutely think he should. One of the key improvements Rodgers has made over the past few years is getting the ball out of his hands quicker and making better decisions. That was a big storyline the past few years and a major part of why he's just one of the hardest guys to stop in the league. Rodgers has improved far more than his offensive line has and he's a more valuable player because of it.

keylime_5
09-29-2011, 02:06 PM
Eli Manning was 7th in QBR last year, but 18th in passer rating. Guy had 30 turnovers. Eli didn't take that many sacks though, I guess that makes up for throwing 25 INTs.

ElectricEye
09-29-2011, 02:27 PM
They both kill drives. I would prefer to have a guy who doesn't do either. Taking a sack in a critical situation usually leads to you turning the ball over anyway. Interceptions are far worse than sacks because you usually give up field position and sometimes points...but not being able to evade the rush and make a snap decision damages field position and more often than not takes the ball out of your offenses hands.


For what it's worth, Eli had a much better year than his passer rating indicated last year. Ask Giants fans about those turnovers. Not what they seemed to be on paper.

J-Mike88
09-29-2011, 03:43 PM
100 times out of 100, taking a sack is better than throwing an interception.
I thought that too.
But Raven fans, Joe Flacco might disagree. (See AFC playoff game sack=fumble=TD=loss)

Jughead10
09-29-2011, 03:47 PM
I thought that too.
But Raven fans, Joe Flacco might disagree. (See AFC playoff game sack=fumble=TD=loss)

Or how about Vick leaving his last 2 games because he took too many hits. Left both games with a lead but lost both games.

ElectricEye
09-29-2011, 03:52 PM
Or how about Vick leaving his last 2 games because he took too many hits. Left both games with a lead but lost both games.

You can't really do much of anything about hits. That's just the reality of the position. A good chunk of a sack can be placed on the shoulders of a quarterback, but there's not really a heck of a lot you can do to avoid being hit assuming everything else is equal with line play.

Jughead10
09-29-2011, 03:55 PM
You can't really do much of anything about hits. That's just the reality of the position. A good chunk of a sack can be placed on the shoulders of a quarterback, but there's not really a heck of a lot you can do to avoid being hit assuming everything else is equal with line play.

You can make your read and get rid of the ball. Vick's style of play leaves him prone to additional hits. Same with Big Ben. Can't help your team win if you aren't on the field.

JETS5128
09-29-2011, 04:04 PM
Bottom line is that the top 10 QBs in the NFL are the same according to both stats. Clearly they aren't that different. Be interesting to see a list taking into account both stats and see what the results would be (aka im too lazy to do it but someone should)

Denver Bronco56
09-29-2011, 04:12 PM
I think the espn system takes in account impact plays....

If you throw an INT in the 1st quarter but still come back to win the game that has less of an impact than an INT thrown in the last minute trying to tie or win the game.


Sacks also should have some impact on a QB rating... there are QB's like David Carr or Jay Cutler that have a tendency to get sacked alot.... also people like Big Ben should get credit for avoiding sacks...


Throwing 500 yards 1 TD and 300 of them coming in trash time of the game or having no impact in the outcome of a game should not boost a QB rating as opposed to throwing for 300 and 4 TD's and your QB winning the game


I guess i think the ESPN system takes in account the situation stats are coming in.

Also i think the ESPN system accounts for plays made from the QB's feet which should be accounted for... last time i checked making plays is why you play and if you can do that through the air or on the ground should have an impact

Rosebud
09-29-2011, 04:46 PM
interceptions can be a team stat just like sacks. Sacks are not nearly as much of the QB's responsibility even though sometimes it is their fault. Like I said, a QB who gets sacked a ton is gonna suffer in their QB rating otherwise, while a QB who occassionaly throws an INT that was his WR's fault won't be hurt by it b/c if a QB throws 15 to 20 interceptions, there's no way that any more than a few of those were b/c of WRs running wrong routes or miscommunications. That happens maybe once every few games and isn't detrimental.

Not necessarily. If a QB holds onto the ball for a long time that could mean that on the plays where he's not sacked he gives his receivers an extra second or two to get open which could lead to inflated QB rating without the sacks being reflected in his stats at all. That's how big Ben takes so many sacks and still puts up big numbers. It's exactly like Favre and picks, he choses riskier plays and because of it is more successful than average when he's successful with just the one number to counter-act that. Why would Favre's picks which affect his quality of quarterbacking be considered and Big Ben and his equally quality of play affecting sacks not get a similar downgrade?

And as a fan of a team run by Kevin Killdrive that tries to utilize re-tards like Mario Manningham I can tell you that a QB can totally throw 6-9 picks that are 100% on receivers misreading the coverage and running the wrong route because of it. You can see it when a WR is running right into the overlap of zone coverage as the ball lands 10 yards to his right in the open field. But QB rating doesn't know that.

phlysac
09-29-2011, 09:19 PM
cant tell if serious?

LT: Anthony Castonzo- servicable rookie starter (got abused at the end of last game)
LG:Joe Reitz - former practice squad player who didnt play football in college
C: Jeff Saturday - not in the same pro bowl form he used to be
RG: Mike Pollack - drafted as a center but has been switched around so many times due to being beat out of a starting spot multiple times, infact winning the RG spot over former RT Ryan Diem
RT: Jeff Linkenbach - had to wikipedia him to know who the F he was, apparently UDFA out of Cincinnati and is from Sandusky, Ohio.

I don't care their names or their draft positions. On Smith 11 sacks this season, they have average from snap to 1st contact a whopping 1.9 seconds.

People see the "names" on the 49ers O-Line, and since they don't watch them play, assume they're ok. They've been straight up horrid.

Everyone remembers the Patriots vs. Lions preseason game in which Brady was crushed as soon as he finished his drop, all game.... That's damn near every game for the 49ers.

phlysac
09-29-2011, 09:28 PM
Rodgers got sacked like ten times in a game once, but still had a QB rating of over 100. Do you think he should've been rated much lower b/c his OLine was stinky in 2009? Sacks shouldn't be factored in at all. Alex Smith gets sacked a bunch, but his QB rating stinks anyhow, not a big deal. It's not like his QB rating is lying b/c it doesn't tell you how much he gets sacked.

Two things...

1. Aaron Rodgers got sacked a bunch in 2009. Mike Sando did an article about it. Rodgers was sacked , at an average of over 3 seconds from the snap... which was a full second longer than someone like Smith. Rodgers pass pro was poor but he held the ball quite long as well. He has turned that around and is sensational.

2. Your Alex Smith comment...

It's a stereotype of past performance. He's done quite well in 2011. Only 7 QBs have been sacked 10 or more times this season. Of them, Smith has the 2nd highest Rating at 91.3. (13th overall). The average number of sacks of those top 13 QBs is 5.6. Smith has been sacked 11 times.

Also... another thing that seems the majority of blame can be placed on the O-Line...

When teams blitz the 49ers (5 or more rushers) Smith's Rating is 115.0 and 80.1 QBR.

When teams rush a DB, Smith has a perfect Rating and QBR.

mellojello
09-29-2011, 09:29 PM
Well what about QBs who hold onto the ball too long and are sacked because of that, or because they didn't slide in the pocket to avoid pressure. Plenty of sacks are the QBs fault, see Big Ben.Drew Bledsoe.

jrdrylie
09-29-2011, 09:29 PM
Sacks also should have some impact on a QB rating... there are QB's like David Carr or Jay Cutler that have a tendency to get sacked alot.... also people like Big Ben should get credit for avoiding sacks...



I don't think they should penalize QBs for sacks. You mention that some QBs have a tendency to take sacks and one of those QBs you mentioned was Jay Cutler. However, in 2008, Cutler was sacked 12 times. How many times was he sacked his first year in Chicago? 35. It wasn't his fault. It was a lack of talented receivers getting open for him and a horrendous offensive line. QBs do have some impact on sacks, but as much as some fans seem to think.