ESPN: QBR or RG3?

[darrelgreenie]

It's not that the metric says something we disagree with; it's that the metric seems fundamentally flawed. Like I said, take Robert completely out of the discussion; you could watch a game and honestly say Luck is playing better than Rodgers? Than Drew Brees? Than Matt Schaub? There's a more subjective element in ESPN's Total QBR, and no matter the strict criteria you give people, there's still a human element that's not present in other quarterback formulas. ESPN's Total QBR seems intentionally designed to spit out this kind of result that will be controversial and contradict other QBR's. That doesn't necessarily mean that's the expressed purpose, but with ESPN, ya just never friggin' know. I can't trust them to give me honest and fair coverage of football, lord knows why I should trust their methodology for creating a QBR.

Sure there are flaws and I've already given my opinion and pointed at some of its flaws, but which metric doesn't have flaws? In the 'normal' QB rating Alex Smith and Josh Freeman are rated above Eli Manning; you can take from that whatever you will, but I'm not going to say they're playing better or they're better QBs then Eli because of it nor am I going to outright dismiss the metric as useless.

For some reason you believe the QBR's assessment methods are 'subjective' in some sort of sneaky, duplicitous, back alley sort of way. Or at least that's the vibe I get.
I do not share that opinion. Strictly speaking any metric that requires evaluation and assessment is going have some degree of subjectivity. But it can be controlled for and mitigated to avoid capricious and arbitrary results. For example, I don't know MartinC except within the confines of this forum.
But, if he and I were to 'grade' not give an opinion but merely to grade/assign credit/fault I'm certain they would be only marginally different. Now if 2 strangers without any standardization can assess something and see the same thing you don't think a group of trained analysts with the aid of computer video, following a strict rubric created by smart football minds could create a useful and football metric?

I applaud the QBR for attempting to assess each pass and assign credit to the individual players for the outcome. It is precisley that effort that makes me respect the QBR. Are there flaws? Sure.
When I look at QBR I mainly care about the Pass EPA which ranks the QBs: Brady, Ben, Rodgers, Ryan, Brees, Eli, Griffin, Peyton, Vick, Romo. And I would say that's about right.

[TheDane]

This is "blinded by stats" at its worst.

Luck is great. No one disputes that fact. But Griffin is greater. Anyone who watches football objectively would agree.

Also, anyone who watches football objectively would agree that we can't tell who will be the better QB yet.

[RedskinParadigm]

I think true football enthusiasts watch the games and make their assessment from them. But short of watching every game savvy fans can look at the many stats to create a picture and not just rely on one stat which you do a good job of listing in your post. But all stats have flaws and as we should try to understanding the inherent limitations of each.

My only issue with this is that ESPN has been pimping QBR as THE statistic that can be used as a sole measure for QB effectiveness. No other statistic claims that; not even the original passer rating, which is just a weighted compliation of standalone passing stats.

I mean, Rick Reilly based his entire column off that single statistic. If he used it as only part of the equation, or if ESPN claimed that the stat was only part of the equation, I'd be more inclined to accept it.

[AsiaticSkinsFan]

I agree that the QBR has flaws. Which I mentioned here:



I think true football enthusiasts watch the games and make their assessment from them. But short of watching every game savvy fans can look at the many stats to create a picture and not just rely on one stat which you do a good job of listing in your post. But all stats have flaws and as we should try to understanding the inherent limitations of each.

I don't think any stat should be assasinated because its being used to 'prove' something we disgaree with. If I used QB rating to say that QB X is better then QB Y it doesn't mean the QB rating itself is worthless.

Any how here is a much smarter article and comparison: Luck vs. Griffin, a Statistical Comparison

http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2...al-comparison/

My thought was and remains that clearly there are tweaks that need to be made to how it accounts for running impact:





But, it should be noted that the QBR does rank Griffin ahead of Luck in terms of passing:

this is a really good read. Thanks man

[darrelgreenie]

Griffin is ahead of Luck in total QBR: Griff has the 6th highest QBR in the league at 71.3

BTW- Griff has been ahead of Luck in total QBR for the past several weeks just forgot to update

[BigMike21]

In tradition QB Rating Luck is #31. The turnovers are just destroying all his metrics.

[terpskins10]

In tradition QB Rating Luck is #31. The turnovers are just destroying all his metrics.

Not committing turnovers is a big part of being a good QB. You can argue that though he has some comeback wins, they never would have had to come back if he had made better decisions.

I'm a fan of Luck, but it boggles my mind how a QB who was touted as so NFL ready and able to read defenses like Peyton could look so inept at times. If it really is on the offensive coordinator, they need to get him out quickly.

[burg&gold4life]

I guess I dont get it, so Luck seeing double coverage and throwing and interception is better than RGIII pulling the ball down, throwing a dump off pass or running for 20 yeards is a worse choice than turning it over..... maybe anoher 12 pack and I willunderstand the QBR thing.....

Luck is their guy, they have talked him up and they will ty anythng to make him the best QB of the class, we all know here that RGIII is now and will be the best QB of this class and maybe if he learns to slide a bit early the best QB of all time....

Lets just sit back and enjoy the next 10-15 years of having the best QB in the league..... We all know it ,they will accept it eventually while we keep winning championships!

HTTR

[PigskinRedskin]

I guess I dont get it, so Luck seeing double coverage and throwing and interception is better than RGIII pulling the ball down, throwing a dump off pass or running for 20 yeards is a worse choice than turning it over..... maybe anoher 12 pack and I willunderstand the QBR thing.....

Luck is their guy, they have talked him up and they will ty anythng to make him the best QB of the class, we all know here that RGIII is now and will be the best QB of this class and maybe if he learns to slide a bit early the best QB of all time....

Lets just sit back and enjoy the next 10-15 years of having the best QB in the league..... We all know it ,they will accept it eventually while we keep winning championships!

HTTR

This. This x100! So because RG3 doesn't have open men down the field, he'd rather either A) scramble for a first down, or B) dump it off for a screen to get a first down; that make's him worst cause he's not trying to force the ball into such a small window where the chances of an interception are 50/50? I mean, yes Luck will be great and still has played some good ball, but seriously? Because he's risking it more and just throwing it down the field into double coverage? *Sigh* How sad.

Also, the biggest thing for Luck that's brought up by everyone (especially Mike & Mike) is because the Colts were 2-14 last year. They had CURTIS PAINTER as a QB, how is it RG3's fault for having Sexy Rexy throwing it before he came into the NFL and gave us a 5 win record? It's garbage.

[Enter Apotheosis]

The tables have turned as far as the public perception of Luck goes the last few weeks. He simply hasn't shown improvement this season while all of his contemporaries shy of Weeden have made notable strides forward. People are finally taking note of the fact that he has not played very well at all for several weeks now.

He's completely out of the running for rookie of the year unless he has two very big games and both RGIII and Wilson fail to impress, IMO.

[ouvan59]

I guess I dont get it, so Luck seeing double coverage and throwing and interception is better than RGIII pulling the ball down, throwing a dump off pass or running for 20 yeards is a worse choice than turning it over..... maybe anoher 12 pack and I willunderstand the QBR thing.....

Luck is their guy, they have talked him up and they will ty anythng to make him the best QB of the class, we all know here that RGIII is now and will be the best QB of this class and maybe if he learns to slide a bit early the best QB of all time....

Lets just sit back and enjoy the next 10-15 years of having the best QB in the league..... We all know it ,they will accept it eventually while we keep winning championships!

HTTR

The absurd thing is that Luck absolutely destroys RGIII in the running portion of the QBR. He has fewer yards, fewer TDs, a lower ypc, fewer first downs by rushing, and somehow his Run EPA is worth 21.5 compared to RGIII's 7.9. Sorry but any stat that says that Andrew Luck is three times better than RGIII in running is beyond wrong.

[ouvan59]

The Skins are competitive, but they are not contenders.

Ummm, really?

[Enter Apotheosis]

Ummm, really?

Check the date, man.

[ouvan59]

Check the date, man.

I knew what date it was. If we are contenders now that means he was wrong.

[terpskins10]

I knew what date it was. If we are contenders now that means he was wrong.

You can dig up 1000s of posts from so many posters on here and tell them they were wrong in hindsight. I'm sure people could do the same for you.

The fact is, we weren't contenders when ASF posted that. We just weren't. I'm glad we are now, and I did my best to stay optimistic, but I'm not going to call people out for not believing when we were 3-6, lol