This new rating system is complete BS, all it is doing is rewarding the phillip rivers, peytons, etc of the league who push the ball downfield on every pass play. IMHO I believe this system unfairly judges a QB's performance on what ESPN believes is "exciting" to the fans. Specifically the system completely lowballs a QB that plays in a west coast system. With little dinks and dunks the offense takes advantage of timing and YAC, with ESPN QBR the -2 yard screen pass or the 5 yard slant isnt worth anything for the QB. Meanwhile the QB is contributing to the success of the team beyond their measure. A. Time of possesion- west coast offenses keep the ball in play with high percentage throws that keep the other teams offense off the field. B. Accuracy- A QB who makes high percentage throws makes less turnovers and gains positive yardage most of the time. C. Intelligence- In a west coast system the QB is required to quickly read defenses and alter plays accordingly to get positive yardage. for example: Christmas Night 2006: Jets are down by 7 in the 2nd half in Miami, Pennington holds the ball until he is just about sacked, takes a monster shot from the LB (for the success of the team), and delievers a -2 yard screen pass to Leon Washington who takes it 75 yards to the house. Jets win the game, make the playoffs, etc -Since ESPN wants to guage how much the QB "contributes to the outcome of the game", it is counter intuitive to give Pennington a lower rating because of when the pass was completed, how far the pass was, and where they were on the field. Im no expert, but im pretty sure ESPN's new system doesnt take into account when a QB eludes a sack to throw a perfect screen pass on time to his playmaker. In any case, I would think a QB would have contributed more, especially if he audibled to a Hotroute after reading the D and seeing the blitz coming, not to mention the fact that he sacrafices his body to "sell" the screen. In any case the rating system is flawed, like others have said it is impossible to take into account every variable that goes into winning a football game, that is why it is best to stay with the current system which measures based on real life statistics.
I read somewhere that ESPN QBR succumbed to Tom Brady's maestro-like performance. Apparently, the data read, "Unable to compute."
I don't think the system is shit. The basis of the system seems to be pretty well thought out. What I want to know is where the human error comes in or how is it computated. You can't tell me that McNabb throwing for 50 yards at a higher completion percentage than Sanchez should be rated higher. No fucking way. I also can't believe that based on how ESPN worded thier "clutch-ness indexes" that Fitzpatrick could be top rated when the game was a complete blowout the whole time. I understand that 4 TDs and a good completion percentage should be highly rated. However, its not like Fitzpatrick was on the run for 3 quarters of the game avoiding pressure heavy defense and managing a close game. Sanchez, Brees, Rodgers, & Newton, should all be rated higher based on how close the games were and how well they performed.
And just to throw gas on the fire, based on the existing QBR, Andy Dalton of Cincy went 10 for 15, for 81 yards and 1 TD/0 INT. He's ranked 11th over Sanchez' 17th QBR ranking (26 for 44, 335 yards and 2 TD/1 INT.
TD percentage is a silly stat that really shouldn't bear on it. It is entirely subject to a team's play calling in the red zone. I feel like ESPN was kowtowing to mongos who like unquantifiable things like clutchitude and grission, who want to deify the Eli Mannings of the world. -X-
ESPN is a tool of a network and I dont put much stock into anything they say. Its all about the shock factor and ratings with them. They created the system to start " controversy and thats what its doing.
McNabb is an anomaly in that formula. i think people fail to understand Sanchez had alot of dumpoffs and the fumble and INT killed his rating. someone made the point earlier. the rating system is still better than the Qb Rating thats been in place. i think people want to freak out cause sanchez threw for 300. well so did about at least 10 other guys. and most of em did it without INT's and fumbles. hence his ranking. the same people who declare it "utter bullshit" are the same people getting hung up over another way for BSPN to advertise itself.
I agree with this. When I read the explanation of the system I liked the idea of it. Obviously it isn't perfect, especially looking at one week in a bubble. I will be curious to see how it ranks the qb's after a few weeks of play and even more at the end of the year.
So last week Aaron Rodgers went 26 of 39 for 396 yards and two touchdowns in a win. Tim Tebow went 4 of 10 for 79 yards and a touchdown, and rushed for 38 yards in a loss. Tim Tebow's QBR: 83.2 Aaron Rodger's QBR: 82.1 Good job, ESPN.
What is not to understand, Rodgers had more than double the amount of incompletions than Tebow....... freaking homer.
I loved the idea of a new rating system for QB's that would eventually replace the QB Rating that has become so outmoded over the years as the things it measured became more commonplace. I have to say that I'm not at all impressed by it at this point, mainly because I think it does not do an acceptable job of taking into account things like offensive line play and quality of opposition. It could be that they'll work out the kinks in the system and have it turn into something useful but at this point it is at least as misleading as QB Rating is. I also think the scaling is off some. No QB with 20 attempts should be able to beat a QB with 40 attempts and similar stats. The two of them just did not do the same job and to suggest that the guy who went 12-20 with a TD did a better job than the guy who went 24-40 with a couple of TD's and an Int is just silly. One of the guys did a lot of watching his team mates perform and the other guy actually was under the gun on a lot of plays. You can't look at the film of those two performances and say the first one was more valuable and not be blowing smoke up our asses in the process.
That's like saying a hitter who is 2-5, hitting .400, is better than a guy who goes 200/600 hitting .333. It's true average wise, but since the other guy has so many more plays, you have to use some common sense. It's basically a per-play average rating. If a guy who goes 6-10 for 100 yards and a TD and a guy who goes 24-40 for 400 yards and 4 TDs, and they end up with the same QBR, the guy who throws 40 passes will have that weighed more in the season because he has more plays. The system definitely has a few flaws, but I definitely like it more than QBR. If you treat it like a PFF stat, it's a lot easier to digest. Look at it as a piece of the puzzle, not the whole thing.
Yet with few exceptions the winning team will be the one with the 20 attempts rather than the 40 attempts. Rewarding stats without context is just silly.
