Joe Burrow has been terrible...

[*rfaulk34*]

(09-27-2021, 04:51 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: Not really. It operates on a scale of 0-100, 50 being average. It's a below average score, but not abysmal. The actual average of QBR this season is 53. The main reason his score is below average is because of the sacks and his INT rate (sample size as well, the season is very young. He hasn't even thrown 100 passes yet). His INT rate is particularly bad and I expect that to improve substantially. Overall, I agree that he hasn't been that bad but he also hasn't been that great either. I suspect that as the season goes on and the sample size improves, so will he. I don't anticipate him having these issues all season long. 

Things like QBR and PFF try and gauge what an individual player does on a snap by snap basis, on their own merit. It tries to take out how other players affect their performance. QBR, for example, tries to grade a QB on what he and he alone did on each play, leaving out if a WR or RB takes a short/intermediate pass and runs 50+ yards for a TD. Also, how effective they are on the more "important" downs--3rd+distance, 4th QTR, leading/losing, etc. 

They're not terrible or useless things, they're just not as easily understood as raw stats. Subjectivity is always going to be the single biggest argument against. 

[Shake n Blake]

(09-27-2021, 05:55 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: Abysmal means terrible. A 41.5 rating on a 0-100 scale isn't terrible, it is below average. That's the scale that they have set. Abysmal is going to be Lawrence, Wilson and Fields. It's a matter of perspective. Truthfully, you rarely see an 'abysmal' QB get significant playtime in the NFL. I don't think any of those guys are going to stay THAT bad all season long. If they do, then those teams have major concerns. This leads into my answer for your question...

No, I don't. The problem with QBR, my QB rating and any of the others is sample size. It's week three and Burrow hasn't even attempted 100 passes yet. In fact, you missed one of his best stats in your list, and that is TD% (he's third). I think he was dynamite in week one, awful in week two and really good this weekend against the Steelers. I really think this weekend could be Joe's turning point for the season. He looked incredibly confident and poised after throwing that early pick, and I love it. If he follows that up with a big performance on Thursday, then this team could really be looking at a promising season.

At the end of the day, what QBR is trying to measure is QBs who give their teams the best chance of winning via their passing abilities. If you look at 2020, the combined W/L record of the Top 10 QBs is 118-42 (73%). The W/L record of the normal passer rating Top 10 is 102-58 (63%). Passing offense and passing defense rule today's game and that is why the stat even exists. It isn't perfect, but it does paint an arguably better picture than the standard passer rating due to the different weights it places on various metrics. 

I don't think any one stat is perfect by any stretch, but I prefer passer rating over QBR. Even though it's simpler, sometimes simpler is better. You don't see as many laughable rankings with passer rating as you do with QBR.

Such as Fitzpatrick being ranked ahead of Brees, Jackson, Wilson, Brady, Watson, etc last year.

Or Fitz being ranked 8th (with an 85.5 passer rating) in 2019, while Aaron Rodgers (95.4 passer rating) ranked 20th that same year.

Or how about Jay Cutler in 2013? He ranked 3rd with a 70.1 QBR, only 2 spots behind Peyton Manning, who threw for 36 more TDs and 2 fewer INTs...and yes, both played full seasons. I don't even want to list all the great QBs Cutler was supposedly better than that year, with his typical mediocre stats of 19 TDs to 12 picks.

That's the issue I have with QBR. You could pick any year and find something to laugh about.

That's really not the case as much with Passer Rating. If a guy posts a great (or terrible) rating, it almost always makes sense.

[*psychdoctor*]

Burrow is still getting his mind together and his feet under him. I think by the bye week, he will be slinging the rock like his former self.

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(09-27-2021, 02:38 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: ...according to ESPN's amazing QBR stat. He ranks 25th among starters behind Tyler Heineke with a dreadful 41.5 rating.

For comparison, Andy Dalton has a 54.3.

Just a little something to keep in mind for those few that still take this fake stat seriously...and yes some still use this stat when it suits their narrative.

Btw, kinda funny to see Justin Fields with a 7.

Espn be spittin'...

[KillerGoose]

(09-27-2021, 06:52 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: I don't think any one stat is perfect by any stretch, but I prefer passer rating over QBR. Even though it's simpler, sometimes simpler is better. You don't see as many laughable rankings with passer rating as you do with QBR.

Such as Fitzpatrick being ranked ahead of Brees, Jackson, Wilson, Brady, Watson, etc last year.

Or Fitz being ranked 8th (with an 85.5 passer rating) in 2019, while Aaron Rodgers (95.4 passer rating) ranked 20th that same year.

Or how about Jay Cutler in 2013? He ranked 3rd with a 70.1 QBR, only 2 spots behind Peyton Manning, who threw for 36 more TDs and 2 fewer INTs...and yes, both played full seasons. I don't even want to list all the great QBs Cutler was supposedly better than that year, with his typical mediocre stats of 19 TDs to 12 picks.

That's the issue I have with QBR. You could pick any year and find something to laugh about.

That's really not the case as much with Passer Rating. If a guy posts a great (or terrible) rating, it almost always makes sense.

And all of those are fair critiques. As a matter of fact, I 100% agree with you on the Cutler/Manning point particularly. That’s an absolute joke. As someone who is interested in the analytics community, if I had developed a metric that had Cutler even near Manning that season, I would seriously question what I had just developed. Data will certainly spit out unexpected results sometimes, but that’s just egregious.

As far as I know, they have never released the formula for QBR which certainly doesn’t help move past some of its dubious rankings.

[Joelist]

I always liked how QBR ranked Terrelle Pryor higher than Drew Brees and also how the highest QBR ever assigned was (for a LONG time) Charlie Batch. Oh, and of course everyone knows that Tim Tebow was better than Aaron Rodgers right?

[JaggedJimmyJay]

PFF is far from perfect, but I have a lot more respect for it than I do for ESPN QBR. They (for QBR) try to implement game situations into the value to remove garbage time and give greater weight to "comeback situations" e.g. the 4th quarter. It's exactly the kind of trash you'd expect from an organization that uses the word "clutch" in every other sentence of every other conversation on air, and they try to make mathematical sense of "clutch". It's embarrassing and terrible.

Traditional passer rating is flawed too, but it's still a much better metric for how well a QB played. PFF's QB grades are still infected with some subjective assessments of isolated single-play details, but at least they try to make subjective sense of objective values. ESPN QBR goes the opposite direction and tries to make objective sense of subjective values.

I will rip on this statistic every time I am given the opportunity. It's horrendous, and I wish it would die.

[KillerGoose]

(09-27-2021, 07:58 PM)Joelist Wrote: I always liked how QBR ranked Terrelle Pryor higher than Drew Brees and also how the highest QBR ever assigned was (for a LONG time) Charlie Batch. Oh, and of course everyone knows that Tim Tebow was better than Aaron Rodgers right?

What year was Pryor over Brees? Because Pryor only ever played in 2013, and he’s ranked 26th.

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(09-27-2021, 07:40 PM)psychdoctor Wrote: Burrow is still getting his mind together and his feet under him.  I think by the bye week, he will be slinging the rock like his former self.

He sure looked much more elusive against the Stool yesterday, damn.

Loved it.