Just FYI - QBR is 100% bull shit

[JDM]

You keep saying "imaginary numbers" without expanding on the thought. What "imaginary numbers" are you refering to?

Completion percentage? Touchdowns? Interceptions? Yardage?

I already admitted that any stat can be misleading. Sure a completion percentage can be altered by how good/bad your WRs, OL, Coaching staff is, but I will state again that to totally disregard it is completely ridiculous. If so then you are saying that Peyton Manning's 65-70% completion percentage means absolutely nothing in comparision to, say, Tim Tebow's 45-50% completion percentage.

Once you have the actual stats (not these supposed "imaginary" ones you keep referring to), then it is a matter of using critical thinking to interpet the data and account for any factors that you feel are missing.

If you don't have any answer beyond "imaginary numbers" then I just have to assume that you are just doing this to try to get a rise out of people.

ESPN proudly talks about the fact that it uses it's analysts ratings of plays as an integral part of the QBR "stat".

I think you may be confusing QBR with passer rating, though. Passer rating is real and can be replicated by anyone. QBR is a number ESPN made up to pretend that they have an exclusive statistic.

 

[France_Steve]

For me, the best judge of a QB is watching him play. That generally gives me the best idea on how good he is.

 

[night]

QBR tries to put a metric on "clutchness" lol. It's pure garbage.

 

[cdumler7]

Because passer rating is a real stat. It's ESPN's QBR that is not.

Ahhh guess it would have helped if I read the whole topic. I apologize.

 

[mcro_rave_2001]

QBR tries to put a metric on "clutchness" lol. It's pure garbage.

yea, it's hard to measure clutchness, but i like a that takes intangibles into consideration when judging a QB. it's still a flawed stat and the best thing to do is to watch them play, but i can't find fault in taking intangibles into account when judging a QB.

 

[jakedog56]

Because passer rating is a real stat. It's ESPN's QBR that is not.

I finally figured out what a vast majority of the problem is here and I asked the question a few times and none of the posters making a big deal out of this bothered to answer.

The NFL for years has used the following:
Completion Percentage, Average Yards Per Attempt, Percentage of Touchdown Passes, and Percentage of Interceptions. If the result in any category is less than 0, the given result should be 0. If the result in any category is greater than 2.375, the given result should be 2.375. This makes the maximum possible quarterback rating for the NFL 158.3. A perfect rating requires at least a 77.5% completion rate, at least 12.5 yards per attempt, a touchdown on at least 11.875% of attempts, and no interceptions.
You plug this information into a formula, and you get your PASSER RATING, or what was often refered to in the past, the QUARTERBACK RATING.

Now, ESPN came out with the TOTAL QUARTERBACK RATING, which is more vague in it's requirements since they will not release the formula, but they claim that there is over 10,000 lines of code to perform this rating.

The TQBR is obviously taking in more information and analyzing it, but until they let everyone in on the analysis methods, it will be subject to the critic that it is bogus.

Back to the subject: If any of you fools who have been on here arguing and complaining about this had bothered to get off your lazy asses and differentiate between the the Passer Rating (or QBR) and the ESPN version (or TQBR) in the first place (like I asked a couple of times), then this discussion would have been very different!!!

 

[JDM]

QBR has never referred to passer rating.

 

[night]

yea, it's hard to measure clutchness, but i like a that takes intangibles into consideration when judging a QB. it's still a flawed stat and the best thing to do is to watch them play, but i can't find fault in taking intangibles into account when judging a QB.

Clutch and intangibles are basically just buzzwords without much meaning behind them. At the end of the day what you see in the stats and on the field are going to agree.

 

[jakedog56]

QBR has never referred to passer rating.

Bullshit.

The passer rating and quarterback rating terminology has been essentially interchangable for years in the sense that if you were talking to someone and you would say "What was John Elway's quarterback rating" just as easily as you would refer to it as passing rating.

Besides, the ESPN ratings are officially referred to as TQBR, not QBR.

It is obvious that I was not the only one who were discussing this in an entirely different manner because people didn't bother to differentiate between the two systems.

 

[JDM]

QB rating and passer rating are interchangeable. QBR has never once been used to mean anything but ESPN's abomination of a "stat".

 

[jakedog56]

QB rating and passer rating are interchangeable. QBR has never once been used to mean anything but ESPN's abomination of a "stat".

Again, bullshit.

For many, many years when people would discuss quarterbacks, people would say "What is that quarterback's rating?", not what is that quarterback's passing rating?. The passing rating was essentially the only rating system defined and ergo when someone discussed a rating for a quarterback, this is what they were referring to.

The ESPN rating it TOTAL QBR, or TQBR, not QBR.

 

[JDM]

The acronym "QBR" was never once used by any legitimate source as passer rating. It does not mean that, and never has.

It is regularly used as "QBR" by espn to refer to their imaginary number.

 

[MrMoJoRisin63]

IMO Passing yards are complete BS.


Brady drops back, hits Welker at the 3 Wes takes it all the way and Brady gets 97 passing yards that's BS

 

[JDM]

Consistently getting receivers yards after the catch is a product of putting the ball to receivers who have enough space to get the yards. On one play, yes, the receiver can make a great play, but over time QBs who get more yards after the catch from their receivers do so as a result of giving it to the right guys.

 

[MrMoJoRisin63]

Consistently getting receivers yards after the catch is a product of putting the ball to receivers who have enough space to get the yards. On one play, yes, the receiver can make a great play, but over time QBs who get more yards after the catch from their receivers do so as a result of giving it to the right guys.

Disagree, QBs get the ball to the open receiver they don't have time in this league to say, " Okay got two guys open option one appears to have 17 yards available, option 2 has 43 yards" YAC ( Yards After Catch) are more a product of good running skills, WRs seeing the open field and reading blocks, WRs and TEs blocking downfield and ocassionally a linemen knocking someones dick in the dirt on a screen. Sure the QB gets the ball to the open guy but the yards there after have more to do with aforementioned activity then it does the QB.

 

[JDM]

Disagree, QBs get the ball to the open receiver they don't have time in this league to say, " Okay got two guys open option one appears to have 17 yards available, option 2 has 43 yards" YAC ( Yards After Catch) are more a product of good running skills, WRs seeing the open field and reading blocks, WRs and TEs blocking downfield and ocassionally a linemen knocking someones dick in the dirt on a screen. Sure the QB gets the ball to the open guy but the yards there after have more to do with aforementioned activity then it does the QB.

This simply isn't accurate. They don't verbalize it like that, clearly, but if you aren't aware of who is in better position to make plays you're not a very good QB.

 

[MrMoJoRisin63]

This simply isn't accurate. They don't verbalize it like that, clearly, but if you aren't aware of who is in better position to make plays you're not a very good QB.

It is accurate, Brady for example typically releases at 2.5 seconds, in 2.5 seconds he needs to asses the routes being run and where the receiver should be. He really doesn't have the time to determine how many yards after catch on guy might get. This about from snap he is likely looking at 3 people on three different routes.

 

[Manning2Luck_uJelly]

QBR is an opinion.....an opinion of former NFL QBs who translates it into numbers so that your typical ignorant message boarder who's never played a down as an NFL QB can understand. In other words, I don't think it's bullshit.

 

[fastforward]

QBR is an opinion.....an opinion of former NFL QBs who translates it into numbers so that your typical ignorant message boarder who's never played a down as an NFL QB can understand. In other words, I don't think it's bullshit.

The problem is not the opinion but the lack of a name next to the opinion. There's likely to be a credibility gap between Donovan McNabb's opinion of RG3 and Kurt Warner's opinion. Without a name it could be anyone's opinion.

 

[packerzrule]

didn't realize so many people actually give a shit about this


go figger