Birdlives Posted June 16, 2007 Share Posted June 16, 2007 Because a QB rating gages a player's passing ability. A running back can/will fumble the exact same as a QB, so fumbles aren't something that only a QB can commit...INTs, however, will only be a stat connected to QBs and passing. The QB rating isn't an overall player evaluation, it's a passer evaluation. In other words it's flawed. I can have a QB that throws 20TD's and 5ints but loses 15 fumbles and he gets a better rating than a guy with more average 20TD's and 10Int's with no fumbles. QB #1 has 10 more turnovers than QB #2. That would be a problem. I understand it's a "passer" rating, but passing the ball requires handling the ball. Mishandling the ball should be counted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RIDETHEWALRUS Posted June 16, 2007 Share Posted June 16, 2007 Guys the stat is not the end all for judging a players performance, it is however a valuable tool. Lets step outside of football real quick to see how a stat can be useful even if it is not all encompassing. The unemployment rate. Now it does not calculate under-employment (those earning less than what they are worth). However you can see that low unemployment rates are a sign of a wealthy nation. It doesn't tell the whole story but you can look at it among other things and know alot of what is going on and make fairly accurate generaliztions that will hold true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted June 16, 2007 Share Posted June 16, 2007 In other words it's flawed. I can have a QB that throws 20TD's and 5ints but loses 15 fumbles and he gets a better rating than a guy with more average 20TD's and 10Int's with no fumbles. No different than a running back who gets 2,000 yards and 25 TDs but loses 20 fumbles and constantly blows blocking assignments, will be ranked higher than a running back who gets 1,200 yards and 10 TDS but only loses 3 fumbles and is a great blocker. I understand it's a "passer" rating, but passing the ball requires handling the ball. Mishandling the ball should be counted. Fumbles don't figure into the ranking of receivers, nor in the ranking of running backs. Why single out QBs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted June 16, 2007 Share Posted June 16, 2007 can't be too wrong, it says Romo sits to pee has a 95.1 rating :excited: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted June 16, 2007 Share Posted June 16, 2007 Guys the stat is not the end all for judging a players performance, it is however a valuable tool. Exactly... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted June 16, 2007 Share Posted June 16, 2007 can't be too wrong, it says Romo sits to pee has a 95.1 rating :excited: :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siven Posted June 16, 2007 Share Posted June 16, 2007 It is a big difference, but really all it does is further illustrate how complicated football is.You can win game with a mid-70s career rating. A lot of 'em. Ken Stabler was a 75, Bob Griese and Joe Theisman were at 77. Defense, rushing attack, great special teams and coaching can do the rest. But of course there are a ton of big-time losers with ratings in the mid-70s too. However, once you get into the mid-80s and above, all you see are guys who have won a ton of games in the NFL. 1 Steve Young * 96.8 2 KURT WARNER 94.1 3 PEYTON MANNING 93.5 4 Joe Montana * 92.3 5 DAUNTE CULPEPPER 91.5 6 MARC BULGER + 90.6 7 TOM BRADY 88.5 8 TRENT GREEN 88.3 9 MATT HASSELBECK 86.64 10 Otto Graham * # 86.63 11 Dan Marino * 86.4 12 BRETT FAVRE 86.0 13 JEFF GARCIA 85.8 Those are the ONLY guys above 85 for their careers with a minimum of 1500 pass attempts. Not too shabby. Pretty good company right there. Hopefully Campbell is going to be someone up there:cheers: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
desioreo87 Posted June 16, 2007 Share Posted June 16, 2007 Why do people put so much stock into this number? The math is ridiculously arbitrary, and way over analyzed. Its like, someone proposed this QB rating, and everyone was too dumb to realize what a crock of sheit it is. I remember that the QB rating was one of the few chips that the pro-brunell crowd had during his horrid 06 season. Brunell was in the low 90s or high 80s in qb rating i think but our team was tanking it big time. QB rating is one of the standards to measure a QB by but i think it holds more weight over the course of a career rather than during a season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdlives Posted June 16, 2007 Share Posted June 16, 2007 No different than a running back who gets 2,000 yards and 25 TDs but loses 20 fumbles and constantly blows blocking assignments, will be ranked higher than a running back who gets 1,200 yards and 10 TDS but only loses 3 fumbles and is a great blocker. Fumbles don't figure into the ranking of receivers, nor in the ranking of running backs. Why single out QBs? Because QB's are the only ones to which we apply a formula that determines their rating. Also because QB's are necessarily the only player on the offense that touches the ball every single play. Either way it's still a flawed system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.