Just FYI - QBR is 100% bull shit

[jakedog56]

LOL!

"100% useless"!!

Just because you don't want to interpret data does not make it useless.

Stats are what you make of them. The fact that they posted the top 5 QBs of the last 5 years according to QBR as follows should tell you that there is some relevance to the formula:
1. Peyton Manning
2. Tom Brady
3. Aaron Rodgers
4. Drew Brees
5. Matt Ryan

If you still think that it is 100% useless then you are just plain ignorant.

 

[JDM]

If you need imaginary numbers to make that claim you're less intelligent than I thought.

 

[Manning2Luck_uJelly]

I do not have a problem with a panel of former NFL QBs watch every snap a QB takes and designs a rating system to score them. It's a lot better ranking system than judging them of "rings"

 

[JDM]

How about how they performed for those Super Bowl wins/postseason losses?

Again, the point is that, as an imaginary number, it has no bearing on comparing two QBs. If your only argument is "my guy has a better QBR", you're wrong.

 

[Tacoma_canuck]

How about how they performed for those Super Bowl wins/postseason losses?

Again, the point is that, as an imaginary number, it has no bearing on comparing two QBs. If your only argument is "my guy has a better QBR", you're wrong.

I agree but it also can be said that using any singular thing and saying it proves player A over player B is wrong. You have to look at everything said players have done and make an analysis based on it all. Of course, we are all human and we will interpret things differently. Every rating in every sport is subjective.

 

[JDM]

Nothing is conclusive on it's own, but QBR doesn't strengthen your case even a fraction. If you show me two QBRs and ask me which QB is better, I will not even consider giving an answer. If you give YPA's, you can make at least somewhat of a guess.

 

[Tacoma_canuck]

Hey man, I wasn't trying to strengthen my case. I said earlier in the thread that I think this thing is bunk. I was agreeing with you here. I just was pointing out that everything in sports is subjective and even "hard numbers" can be interpreted differently by 2 different people.

 

[JDM]

I know you aren't. But that is my point on it. It doesn't mean anything. That and that imaginary numbers aren't statistics.

 

[jakedog56]

If you need imaginary numbers to make that claim you're less intelligent than I thought.

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.

 

[fastforward]

A QB is under pressure and rolls out of the pocket. He throws a pass, whilst he is off-balance, to a WR who is a yard clear of the CB. The pass hits the ground a yard or so ahead of the WR. For passer rating purposes it's an incomplete pass. For QBR purposes it's an average of the opinions of the ESPN group of analysts. 1 might see it as an incomplete pass and mark it down. Another will see it as the QB avoiding a sack and mark it up. A 3rd will give the QB credit for avoiding the sack but mark him down for missing the target by 2 yards. Someone else will blame the WR for not diving. The tea-lady points out that the QB missed an open WR on the other half of the field.The tea-lady's dog barks out that the WR was 2 yards short of the 1st down marker whilst there was another WR in the end-zone. QBR is undoubtedly based on some statistics. However, it also includes opinions and since ESPN won't say whose opinions are used, how they are calculated, and what effect they have on the 'mysterious - never to be revealed' statistical formula they start with, it becomes nothing more than a subjective point of view. QBR is a guide - nothing more. Without a basic formula and knowledge of whose opinions are involved I give it no credence.

 

[RobToxin]

Personally, I'll take the QB who won the game over the QB who won the passer rating stat.

But that's just me.

 

[mcro_rave_2001]

Personally, I'll take the QB who won the game over the QB who won the passer rating stat.

But that's just me.

what if the higher passer rating guy helped you win your FF game???? Huh huh huh?

 

[cwood]

Everyone arguing against JDM in this thread is 100% wrong. QBR is 100% subjective and not a real stat.

 

[RobToxin]

what if the higher passer rating guy helped you win your FF game???? Huh huh huh?

I wouldn't know nothing about fantasy football.

This is the closest I am getting to fantasy football.

 

[cdumler7]

If it is 100% BS then why does the team with the better passer rating in a game actually win 80% of the time in the NFL?

 

[mcro_rave_2001]

I wouldn't know nothing about fantasy football.

This is the closest I am getting to fantasy football.

hey we have something in common...

 

[mcro_rave_2001]

If it is 100% BS then why does the team with the better passer rating in a game actually win 80% of the time in the NFL?

because to have a good passer rating the team has to play well also? QB's not throwing passes to himself.

 

[cdumler7]

because to have a good passer rating the team has to play well also? QB's not throwing passes to himself.

I understand but to say it is 100% BS stat is to ignore the fact that it is pretty indicative of how successful a team actually is through the course of a season.

 

[cwood]

If it is 100% BS then why does the team with the better passer rating in a game actually win 80% of the time in the NFL?

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

 

[mcro_rave_2001]

I understand but to say it is 100% BS stat is to ignore the fact that it is pretty indicative of how successful a team actually is through the course of a season.

if that was true the team with that had the best passer rating would always win the SB and well we know that not to be the case.