ESPN: QBR or RG3?

[Zazzaro703]

Is this satire? I stopped at *less mistake prone*. 16 interceptions is less mistake prone?

[PigskinRedskin]

Imagine if we'd started Beck all 16 games...

So...you're saying...we'd be 16-0 and wouldn't have drafted a QB!?

Yeah, then everyone would still make some other excuse, like we brought in Garcon and got Morris for a steal, RG3 wouldn't stand a chance because Luck has been discussed longer and harder then RG3 for about a year before RG3 came about thanks to the Heisman.

[repo_4]

Who's Mr. Hubble?

Thats Rod Hubble...

[JoeSkins]

Wait, people actually take this "ESPN QBR!" crap seriously? Didn't Tebow have a great QBR last year?

Anyways, the fact that people are now using dink and dunk/YAC to downplay Griffin's success should probably take a look around the league. A lot of QB's in those pass heavy offenses do that. How is it all of a sudden a negative when Griffin does it? The guy just sounds annoyed that RG3 is getting so much attention. He should probably take that up with the company he works for.

I love how he calls quarterback rating the most useless statistic in football and then heavily relies on QBR, the formula for which isn't even published.

Quarterback rating is a good tool that people can look at for a blanket observation, kind of like a team's record. Sure it's not dispositive but it has value. QBR is made-up, brand-name BS that I suspect ESPN adopted and legitimized to justify talking about Tim Tebow for ratings.

[klanko]

QBR is awful. You should just ignore it. It's just ESPN's way of forcing their special little statistic into our heads. I actively try to get all fans to ignore QBR in the hopes that it just dies.

[SAli457180]

Is this satire? I stopped at *less mistake prone*. 16 interceptions is less mistake prone?

It's actually 18, but who's counting. Compare that RG3's 4 on the season. There's no question about who's the better QB and QBR means nothing.

[Mark The Homer]

I get the ESPN print mag sent to me every other week or so.

Here is what was in the one that came yesterday:

Andrew Luck is a more valuable runner than RG III.

The stats confirm -- Andrew Luck is indeed No. 1.

Robert Griffin III rushed for 815 yards in 2012, joining Michael Vick, Bobby Douglass and Randall Cunningham as the only quarterbacks to break the 800-yard barrier in a season since the NFL/AFL merger in 1970. Andrew Luck, on the other hand, ran for just 255 yards, ranking eighth among QBs.

Seems like a blowout, but here’s the thing: Luck’s yards went a lot further than RG III’s did. The Colts rookie gained a first down on 55 percent of his carries, while Griffin moved the sticks just 35 percent of the time. Turnovers? Another win for Luck. Zero fumbles on rushes for the former Cardinal, seven for the Baylor product. Third-down conversions? Luck 15, RG3 14. Yes, officially Griffin averaged 6.8 yards per rush, 2.7 yards per carry more than Luck. But take away meaningless kneel-downs and Luck’s average climbs to 6.4, nearly matching Griffin’s 7.4.

Advanced metrics tell a similar story. According to ESPN’s QBR system, Luck added 21.1 expected points via the rush, versus 12.7 for Griffin. Luck also beats Griffin in Football Outsiders’ Defense-adjusted Value Over Average (DVOA); Luck rated 41.1 percent above average (third among QBs). RG III? Just 7.9 percent above average (19th).

All of which goes to show that when it comes to being an effective rusher, it’s not about flash or speed but timing. And last season, Luck’s timing was about as good as it gets. -- Vince Verhei

http://espn.go.com/blog/playbook/tre...tics-can-prove

[Henry]

Er, when it's pointed out how many INTs Luck throws, or how much higher Griffin's passer rating is, the same Luck worshippers at ESPN fall all over themselves to explain that because Luck was asked to do so much more with his arm we should just ignore every single passing stat except for total passing yards.

Now, suddenly, the subtle nuances of the QBR must be taken into account even though Griffin rushed for more yards, more TDs and averaged more ypc than Luck?

Riiiiiiight.

[Momma There Goes That Man]

I dont know how they put stuff out like this with a straight face. They literally take any chance they can to prop up their golden boy Andrew Luck.

[LD0506]

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
~ Benjamin Disraeli~

[Henry]

Ok, I just followed the link and the headline is Crazy crap analytics can prove

I don't think they actually believe what they are writing about. They're just trying to show how you can 'prove' nonsense with stats. Whatever.

[grhqofb5]

Ok, I just followed the link and the headline is Crazy crap analytics can prove

I don't think they actually believe what they are writing about. They're just trying to show how you can 'prove' nonsense with stats. Whatever.

Yes, its meant as a joke. Attempting to cherry pick stats to make absurd arguments seem legit. Article refers to "annoying your friends" with these arguments.

[Dirt]

They're not really do that thing with Luck again are they. Really. Yea it's gotta be tongue-in-cheek.

[Burgold]

I like it. For me, it works like this. Sure, RGIII nearly tripled Luck's rushing numbers and scored more touchdowns, but let's get serious... most athletes like golf and the point of golf is to get the lowest score possible. Thus, every athlete wants to have a lower yards per carry average, lower number of scores, and fewer carries because clearly that would give them a bigger handicap.

Thus, Luck is proven to be the better golfer based on QBR.

[ejay183]

Turnovers? Another win for Luck.

Griffin had 7 turnovers the enitre season, while Luck turns the ball over 7 times in two games. Why is ESPN still writing articles about this? Griffin won ROY, move on back to their typical Cowboys are Superbowl favorites hype.