(09-28-2015, 04:56 AM)Joelist Wrote: [ -> ]Yards per pass also has problems, namely that it punishes QBs in West Coast style offenses and rewards QBs in more Coryell style offenses.
Really Passer Rating is time tested and has proven the best barometer out there. It's incomplete but generally a QB with a high passer rating IS playing well. The same cannot be said in (for example) ESPNs total QBR abomination.
All I'm saying is, the way that they judge QBs in the media, yards per pass seems to be what they look for.
Rogers, Luck, Roethlisberger, all of these guys have huge YPP.... West Coast QBs typically don't, and they get labeled as game managers.
I agree with you passer rating is time tested, but just saying the average viewer judges QBs on their YPP.
(09-28-2015, 12:52 PM)GreenCornBengal Wrote: [ -> ]All I'm saying is, the way that they judge QBs in the media, yards per pass seems to be what they look for.
Rogers, Luck, Roethlisberger, all of these guys have huge YPP.... West Coast QBs typically don't, and they get labeled as game managers.
I agree with you passer rating is time tested, but just saying the average viewer judges QBs on their YPP.
Fitzpatrick, Sanchez and Hoyer were all in the top 9 in yards per attempt last year. :snark:
Passer rating is much better because it's comprehensive. It accounts for YPA in addition to several other categories including TD's and INT's.
(09-28-2015, 01:11 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: [ -> ]Fitzpatrick, Sanchez and Hoyer were all in the top 9 in yards per attempt last year. :snark:
Passer rating is much better because it's comprehensive. It accounts for YPA in addition to several other categories including TD's and INT's.
I don't disagree with you.
But if it makes my point resonate a little bit more, there is a pretty clear correlation between YPP and passer rating.
Just look at the stats so far this season.
http://espn.go.com/nfl/statistics/player/_/stat/passing/sort/yardsPerPassAttempt
here is 2014 for more reference
http://espn.go.com/nfl/statistics/player/_/stat/passing/sort/yardsPerPassAttempt/year/2014
I mean, its pretty intuitive that QBs with a longer YPP would have a higher rating, I just think when an offense is clicking the team has high YPP. It's less about the QB and more about the offense as a whole.
(09-28-2015, 01:11 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: [ -> ]Fitzpatrick, Sanchez and Hoyer were all in the top 9 in yards per attempt last year. :snark:
Passer rating is much better because it's comprehensive. It accounts for YPA in addition to several other categories including TD's and INT's.
P.S. Sanchez Fitzpatrick and Hoyer didn't play full seasons, which is why they are so high. Although this points out that Andy's numbers will probably drop as the season continues with a full body of work.
Sanchez and Fitz only have about 300 attempts compared to the 450 average of the other QBS atop the list.
Passer rating is still just efficiency. There can be scrubs with high passer rating (like there is almost EVERY year). How often do you see average QBs with high yards/TDs and low INTs? Very rarely. Passer rating is alright to look at, but it rewards QBs that have low attempts, and punishes QBs with higher attempts (You can still have a good passer rating with high attempts, it's just MUCH harder).
And I do understand passer rating. Stop acting like I don't. Just because it uses all the stats doesn't mean anything. If someone rarely throws the ball and has high YPA it screws the whole thing up, because it rewards more points for TDs and yards than it would with people with lower YPA.
(09-28-2015, 03:40 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: [ -> ]Passer rating is still just efficiency. There can be scrubs with high passer rating (like there is almost EVERY year). How often do you see average QBs with high yards/TDs and low INTs? Very rarely. Passer rating is alright to look at, but it rewards QBs that have low attempts, and punishes QBs with higher attempts (You can still have a good passer rating with high attempts, it's just MUCH harder).
And I do understand passer rating. Stop acting like I don't. Just because it uses all the stats doesn't mean anything. If someone rarely throws the ball and has high YPA it screws the whole thing up, because it rewards more points for TDs and yards than it would with people with lower YPA.
That's why when looking at passer rating you need a large minimum number of attempts to qualify. The passer rating formula was not designed to judge a QB on a game-by-game basis but rather by season's end.
That's why you never see punters or running backs top the QB rating leaderboards when discussed by the NFL or its analysts discuss even though every season multiple punters and running backs and receivers always top the QB rating when they throw 1 pass which is completed for 100 yards and a TD.
(09-28-2015, 03:40 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: [ -> ]Passer rating is still just efficiency. There can be scrubs with high passer rating (like there is almost EVERY year). How often do you see average QBs with high yards/TDs and low INTs? Very rarely. Passer rating is alright to look at, but it rewards QBs that have low attempts, and punishes QBs with higher attempts (You can still have a good passer rating with high attempts, it's just MUCH harder).
And I do understand passer rating. Stop acting like I don't. Just because it uses all the stats doesn't mean anything. If someone rarely throws the ball and has high YPA it screws the whole thing up, because it rewards more points for TDs and yards than it would with people with lower YPA.
"Just" efficiency? How many inefficient QBs are considered to be good/great? It's sad how you write it off as "just" efficiency whenever that tells us quite a bit about a QB. Efficiency is a big deal whether you admit that or not.
You're completely missing the point because of your crusade against the passer rating formula. It doesn't "reward QBs that have low attempts", it rewards QBs that are efficient with their passes regardless of their attempts. You aren't magically awarded with a higher passer rating just because you don't throw as much as somebody else.
Over the course of a full season, how many times have you seen a guy with an 80 passer rating that you would say "man, that QB looked great this season!" and how many times do you see a guy with a 100+ passer rating over 16 games that played like shit?
(09-28-2015, 04:06 PM)djs7685 Wrote: [ -> ]"Just" efficiency? How many inefficient QBs are considered to be good/great? It's sad how you write it off as "just" efficiency whenever that tells us quite a bit about a QB. Efficiency is a big deal whether you admit that or not.
You're completely missing the point because of your crusade against the passer rating formula. It doesn't "reward QBs that have low attempts", it rewards QBs that are efficient with their passes regardless of their attempts. You aren't magically awarded with a higher passer rating just because you don't throw as much as somebody else.
Over the course of a full season, how many times have you seen a guy with an 80 passer rating that you would say "man, that QB looked great this season!" and how many times do you see a guy with a 100+ passer rating over 16 games that played like shit?
There's been multiple times when people like Tom Brady, and Andrew Luck has had a passer rating in the 80s and still played a great season. There's been multiple times where QBs played a lot of games in a season where they had 100+ passer rating and didn't play so well (Nick Foles, 13 games #1 in passer rating, and Ryan Fitzpatrick in 2014 and had top 10 passer rating).
I guess you just don't get that when you have lower pass attempts and higher rush attempts people are going to load the box and make it a easier throw for more yards. Meaning a higher passer rating because you have lower attempts.
Not sure if anyone else noticed this but Andy Dalton has lead three straight game winning drives against the Ravens. Talk about straight owning a team.
(09-28-2015, 05:30 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: [ -> ]There's been multiple times when people like Tom Brady, and Andrew Luck has had a passer rating in the 80s and still played a great season. There's been multiple times where QBs played a lot of games in a season where they had 100+ passer rating and didn't play so well (Nick Foles, 13 games #1 in passer rating, and Ryan Fitzpatrick in 2014 and had top 10 passer rating).
I guess you just don't get that when you have lower pass attempts and higher rush attempts people are going to load the box and make it a easier throw for more yards. Meaning a higher passer rating because you have lower attempts.
You lose credibility when you say that Brady was "great" in 2013 and that Foles didn't play so well.
Like I've said plenty of times, being #1 in passer rating doesn't mean you're automatically the best in the league, but it certainly means you had a good year.
(09-28-2015, 03:40 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: [ -> ]Passer rating is still just efficiency. There can be scrubs with high passer rating (like there is almost EVERY year). How often do you see average QBs with high yards/TDs and low INTs? Very rarely. Passer rating is alright to look at, but it rewards QBs that have low attempts, and punishes QBs with higher attempts (You can still have a good passer rating with high attempts, it's just MUCH harder).
And I do understand passer rating. Stop acting like I don't. Just because it uses all the stats doesn't mean anything. If someone rarely throws the ball and has high YPA it screws the whole thing up, because it rewards more points for TDs and yards than it would with people with lower YPA.
The only QBs passer rating punishes, are QBs that don't complete passes or throw the ball to the other team. Good QBs throw more passes and are higher rated because they complete more passes. Average QBs are rated in the middle because they don't complete as many passes as the good QBs. Bad QBs are rated low because they're bad. QBs who throw less are only rewarded if they complete the passes.
Averages are always a better statistical analysis than raw numbers.
It's not hard to have a high rating if you throw more passes unless you don't complete the passes or you throw the ball to the other team.
If you understood the formula for passer rating, you wouldn't be arguing against it because you would realize that rating a QB on 4 areas of their responsibility is way better than rating them on 1 area.
QB rating is only skewed in a small sample size. Over a 16 game season, it's always right on the money on who the good, average and bad QBs are. Unless you can give me an example of a top 10 rated QB that is actually average, or a 15-25 rated QB that is actually a good (top 10) QB.
Take your time. I'm in no hurry.
The word efficiency should be added to a list to create a drinking game. Good Lord.
(09-29-2015, 12:12 AM)rfaulk34 Wrote: [ -> ]The only QBs passer rating punishes, are QBs that don't complete passes or throw the ball to the other team. Good QBs throw more passes and are higher rated because they complete more passes. Average QBs are rated in the middle because they don't complete as many passes as the good QBs. Bad QBs are rated low because they're bad. QBs who throw less are only rewarded if they complete the passes.
Averages are always a better statistical analysis than raw numbers.
It's not hard to have a high rating if you throw more passes unless you don't complete the passes or you throw the ball to the other team.
If you understood the formula for passer rating, you wouldn't be arguing against it because you would realize that rating a QB on 4 areas of their responsibility is way better than rating them on 1 area.
QB rating is only skewed in a small sample size. Over a 16 game season, it's always right on the money on who the good, average and bad QBs are. Unless you can give me an example of a top 10 rated QB that is actually average, or a 15-25 rated QB that is actually a good (top 10) QB.
Take your time. I'm in no hurry.
Philip Rivers was 12th in 2014 with 4200 yards 66.5% completion 31 TDs and 18 INTs. (Alex Smith only had .4 worse passer rating than Rivers and these were Smiths stats - 3200 yards 65.3% completion 18 TD 6 INTs)
Tom Brady was 17th in 2013 with 4300 yards 60.5% completion 25 TDs and 11 INTs.
Kaepernick was 10th in 2013 with 3100 yards 58.4% completion 21 TDs and 8 INTs.
There are a lot more examples if I could use QBs that didn't play a full 16 games, and I don't feel like going back further than a few years.
(09-29-2015, 01:54 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: [ -> ]Philip Rivers was 12th in 2014 with 4200 yards 66.5% completion 31 TDs and 18 INTs. (Alex Smith only had .4 worse passer rating than Rivers and these were Smiths stats - 3200 yards 65.3% completion 18 TD 6 INTs)
Tom Brady was 17th in 2013 with 4300 yards 60.5% completion 25 TDs and 11 INTs.
Kaepernick was 10th in 2013 with 3100 yards 58.4% completion 21 TDs and 8 INTs.
There are a lot more examples if I could use QBs that didn't play a full 16 games, and I don't feel like going back further than a few years.
Eli Manning was 15th in 2014 with 4400 yards 63.1% completion 30 TDs and 14 INTs
Flacco was 16th in 2014 with 3986 yards 62.1% completion 27 TDs and 12 INTs
This thread could have turned into everybody discussing how great Andy has been this year, but all it takes is 1 or 2 people to start the "I told you so!!!" prematurely and to go batshit crazy over a time tested, proven, statistical formula.
This is why we can't have nice things.
You have to be careful listening to the National media when it comes to Dalton. First they swore Dalton in all his passing yards/td's etc had never thrown anything like the three balls McCarron threw in game three of the preseason. Then all yesterday they swore when Dalton fumbled on the sack/strip the Dalton of prior year would have folded up. The team would have lost, and the Bungles would have returned. Um last game (last year) against the Ravens Ngata strip sacked Dalton in the 4th quarter for a potential game changer. What Dalton do? Drove the team down for the winning TD (with only Sanu as a weapon). It's funny how the hate for Dalton is so mainstream that logic and facts blind the narrative. Even crazier how Bengal fans tend to fall for it as well.
One poor outing and watch how quick these good qb qualities everyone is pointing out now is forgotten and he's back to raggedy Andy no better than McCrarron.
(09-29-2015, 02:01 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: [ -> ]Flacco was 16th in 2014 with 3986 yards 62.1% completion 27 TDs and 12 INTs
Flacco had 280 more passing yards than Tony Romo but Romo completed 69.9% of his passes for 34 tds and only 9 ints.
So which of these two would you have rather had as your QB last year?
(09-29-2015, 08:47 PM)fredtoast Wrote: [ -> ]Flacco had 280 more passing yards than Tony Romo but Romo completed 69.9% of his passes for 34 tds and only 9 ints.
So which of these two would you have rather had as your QB last year?
Who would you rather have
QB1:
3118 yards, 64.1% completion, 26 TDs, 10 INTs
or
QB2:
4827 yards, 63% completion, 34 TDs, 8 INTs