Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 31
Like Tree20Likes

Thread: Bradford, RGIII and the nonsense that is the ESPN "QBR"

  1. #1
    AvengerRam's Avatar
    AvengerRam is offline Moderator Emeritus
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Longwood, Florida, United States
    Age
    46
    Posts
    18,490
    Rep Power
    167

    Bradford, RGIII and the nonsense that is the ESPN "QBR"

    I don't know how many of you have read articles about the ESPN's "QBR" - a new rating system that they seem to be trying to advocate as a replacement for the standard QB rating that has been used for decades.

    While the old system is not perfect by any means, it is an entirely objective formula, factoring in attempts, completions, yards, touchdowns and interceptions.

    This new "QBR" is a mix of objective data and subjective analysis, using terms such as "expected points" and "clutch," which can only be determined from the subjective viewpoint of an analyst.

    While such a system could, in theory, have some value, the outcomes I've seen make this particular system seem highly questionable.

    Take, for example, this week's match-up of Sam Bradford and RGIII. Sam had more attempts, more completions, a higher completion percentage, more yards per attempt, more touchdowns and the same number of interceptions (lower interception percentage). He also was on the winning team.

    Nonetheless, the "QBR," using its subjective criteria (and also factoring in rushing stats, which, in my opinion, really should not be part of the analysis), gave RGIII a higher score.

    I'm sure there are many more examples like this.

    So, at this point, my conclusion is that ESPN should stop trying to reinvent the wheel and just accept that the traditional QB rating is superior.
    Slug, Judaxi and DE_Ramfan like this.


  2. #2
    Slug's Avatar
    Slug is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    137
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Bradford, RGIII and the nonsense that is the ESPN "QBR"

    I agree. You can't measure expectation. You can't quantify "clutchness". you can't have subjectivity in a system that is trying to tout itself as a hard statistical measuring stick. Bradford was clearly better yesterday.
    Quote Originally Posted by AvengerRam View Post
    more touchdowns
    FWIW they both had 3. Griffin also had the 2 rushing TDs on top of 82 yards on the ground. I'm not sure if that factors into the "QBR" rating or not. Still, Bradford was unquestionably better on Sunday and his actual passer rating reflects that.

  3. #3
    AvengerRam's Avatar
    AvengerRam is offline Moderator Emeritus
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Longwood, Florida, United States
    Age
    46
    Posts
    18,490
    Rep Power
    167

    Re: Bradford, RGIII and the nonsense that is the ESPN "QBR"

    I was, of course, referring to TD passes.

    RGIII's rushing stats do factor into the ESPN QBR. While I would have no problem with measuring a QB's "total offensive output" (i.e. passing yards + rushing yards) much in the same way RBs can be evaluated looking a their "yards from scrimmage," to me a quarterback rating system should focus on passing, as that is the primary role of an NFL quarterback.
    Last edited by AvengerRam; -09-17-2012 at 09:14 PM.

  4. #4
    Rambos's Avatar
    Rambos is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Cali
    Age
    50
    Posts
    8,953
    Rep Power
    74

    Re: Bradford, RGIII and the nonsense that is the ESPN "QBR"

    Thanks Av now I understand when ESPN shows the highlights of the game they always start with RG3 and show all his TDs then somewhere in the middle they show a Ram highlight followed by RG3 lost this game BUT he is a stud!

    I get it now thanks!
    RamDez, thoey and Truth like this.

  5. #5
    AvengerRam's Avatar
    AvengerRam is offline Moderator Emeritus
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Longwood, Florida, United States
    Age
    46
    Posts
    18,490
    Rep Power
    167

    Re: Bradford, RGIII and the nonsense that is the ESPN "QBR"

    Quote Originally Posted by Rambos View Post
    Thanks Av now I understand when ESPN shows the highlights of the game they always start with RG3 and show all his TDs then somewhere in the middle they show a Ram highlight followed by RG3 lost this game BUT he is a stud!

    I get it now thanks!
    LOL. This sort of thing is why I really like the commercial where the couple doesn't recognize Aaron Rogers or even believe he is an NFL QB. I hope Sam can one day do a similar commercial portraying the guy with a Super Bowl ring who is still not a national celebrity.

  6. #6
    Curly Horns's Avatar
    Curly Horns is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    1st & Goal
    Posts
    2,573
    Rep Power
    58

    Re: Bradford, RGIII and the nonsense that is the ESPN "QBR"

    As usual with Espn or NFL network it sounds like it's all about the bling.

    Rarely, at these big media outlets, do you find any real insight or analysis that is void of some sort of bias.





  7. #7
    r8rh8rmike's Avatar
    r8rh8rmike is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    29 Palms, Ca.
    Age
    55
    Posts
    11,233
    Rep Power
    127

    Re: Bradford, RGIII and the nonsense that is the ESPN "QBR"

    Quote Originally Posted by Ferter View Post
    As usual with Espn or NFL network it sounds like it's all about the bling.

    Rarely, at these big media outlets, do you find any real insight or analysis that is void of some sort of bias.
    There is no doubt that RGlll is the darling of the NFL, and everybody from the league to the media are going to do everything they can to put him on a pedestal.

    Nearly every national article I saw today on the Rams/Redskins game had RGlll in the headline.

    As far as the QBR, it's not a true QB rating tool IMO. And as a rating tool, anything with subjective parameters is going to have problems and inconsistencies.

  8. #8
    Goldenfleece's Avatar
    Goldenfleece is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Age
    32
    Posts
    3,586
    Rep Power
    59

    Re: Bradford, RGIII and the nonsense that is the ESPN "QBR"

    In theory, you could come up with some proxies for "clutchness". For example, weighting efficiency in the two minute drill and in the redzone, for example, but if it's not quantitative, then you might as well just call the numbers your quarterback power rankings or something like that. Likewise, with expectations, you could maybe adjust ratings based on the performance of the secondary against other quarterbacks, but those calculations could get very complicated very quickly.

  9. #9
    macrammer's Avatar
    macrammer is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Cal
    Age
    55
    Posts
    1,948
    Rep Power
    27

    Re: Bradford, RGIII and the nonsense that is the ESPN "QBR"

    Quote Originally Posted by r8rh8rmike View Post
    There is no doubt that RGlll is the darling of the NFL, and everybody from the league to the media are going to do everything they can to put him on a pedestal.

    Nearly every national article I saw today on the Rams/Redskins game had RGlll in the headline.

    As far as the QBR, it's not a true QB rating tool IMO. And as a rating tool, anything with subjective parameters is going to have problems and inconsistencies.
    Funny....in a Ram fan sad way...I am small business owner and I was in one of my shops today. The team had it on ESPN and they were giving a Redskin / Ram update......errr, RG III update....no Ram highlights. Afterwards one the kids said to me, "Why no Ram highlites, didn't they win the game" Ha.
    Fargo Ram Fan likes this.

  10. #10
    Alpha_Male is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    111
    Rep Power
    3

    Re: Bradford, RGIII and the nonsense that is the ESPN "QBR"

    I agree, the whole total QBR thing is not needed and very flawed.

    Best example: Andrew luck earned the highest QBR for week 2 in the NFL.

    Luck's statline was 20/31 for 224 yds and 2 TD.

    Bradford did not make the top 5 in QBR and his stats were 26/35 for 310 yards, 3TDs and 1 INT.

    Obviously Bradford had the better game statistically but QBR rates Luck as the #1 passer of week 2 but Bradford not in the top 5. I'm guessing the computers loved how Luck drove his team into field goal range to win it. I dont like a system that punishes or awards quarterbacks passing efficiency depending on certain situations in a game. Should a 80 yard TD pass be worth more if it happens in the 4th quarter when the team is down then if it happened in the 1st quarter in a tied game? I dont think so. Such a system would crown QBs like Eli Manning who stink it up for most of the game but have good 4th quarters.
    berg8309 likes this.

  11. #11
    AvengerRam's Avatar
    AvengerRam is offline Moderator Emeritus
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Longwood, Florida, United States
    Age
    46
    Posts
    18,490
    Rep Power
    167

    Re: Bradford, RGIII and the nonsense that is the ESPN "QBR"

    I think we now know how Von Miller must have felt last year.

    He could have had 5 sacks in a game, and the lead story would have been "Tebow wins again!!!"

  12. #12
    swatter555's Avatar
    swatter555 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    MO
    Posts
    484
    Rep Power
    15

    Re: Bradford, RGIII and the nonsense that is the ESPN "QBR"

    I read a long article on it and it barely scratched the surface of what it really is. I read another long article and I am still in the dark. I think it is astoundingly complex and its results cannot be independently replicated, due to its subjective nature.

    Its so complex and so secret that it is rather pointless. When people want to read a stat sheet, they want something that speaks for itself. Attempts, completions, and touchdowns speak for themselves. QBR is a "trust us" type metric. If you can't look at a stat and understand why it is important and for what reasons; whats the point?

    I am not against it, though. If ESPN likes it as a gimmick, they can go hog wild. Now, if I were a heavy sports better, I might add it to my toolbox, just to cover my bases. For the average fan, it can be misleading and too complex to be of any use.

    As for Sam versus RGIII- Sam obviously had a better game. RGIII made some plays with his legs, but he was only average as a passer (and lucky that 21 made another boneheaded rookie play). When it came down to brass tacks and the game hung in the balance, Sam made big plays and RGIII looked like a rookie passer.

    Don't get me wrong, I think RGIII overall played a very good game. Its just that when the pressure started to mount, he started to look like the rookie he is. When the pressure was on Sam, he simply made another play.

    If QBR rated RGIII better than Sam on Sunday, it is a flawed metric.

  13. #13
    DE_Ramfan's Avatar
    DE_Ramfan is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Indianapolis, Indiana, United States
    Posts
    908
    Rep Power
    15

    Re: Bradford, RGIII and the nonsense that is the ESPN "QBR"

    This is the same QBR that has rated Tebow higher than Aaron Rogers. No thanks. If I want subjective analysis I'll just provide my own.
    Truth, berg8309, Jockelite and 1 others like this.

  14. #14
    Rambos's Avatar
    Rambos is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Cali
    Age
    50
    Posts
    8,953
    Rep Power
    74

    Re: Bradford, RGIII and the nonsense that is the ESPN "QBR"

    Quote Originally Posted by DE_Ramfan View Post
    This is the same QBR that has rated Tebow higher than Aaron Rogers. No thanks. If I want subjective analysis I'll just provide my own.
    Yep, that is how I feel about it.

  15. #15
    FestusRam's Avatar
    FestusRam is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Festus, Missouri
    Posts
    1,169
    Rep Power
    20

    Re: Bradford, RGIII and the nonsense that is the ESPN "QBR"

    How on Earth could RG3 of had a better QBR than Bradford?

    Even if you include RG3's rushing statistics, hes still not the better QB.

    Bradford had 38 total attempts(rushing&passing) for a total of 320 yards.
    Rg3 had 40 total attempts(rushing&passing) for a total of 288 yards.

    Bradford had more total yards WITH less attempts by a fairly wide margin.

    They both had 3 TD's and one INT, so that evens out.

    Not to mention Bradford was more efficent on third down.

    So, even if you calculate rushing stats, which is the only way I would imagine that RG3 would edge out Bradford, Bradford still had more total yards with less attempts. How RG3 had a better QBR is a funny question.

    My guess is one word: Hype.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 5
    Last Post: -02-27-2012, 09:13 PM
  2. Schefter: "Handful" of Scouts prefer RGIII
    By THOLTFAN81 in forum DRAFT & FA
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: -01-21-2012, 10:56 PM
  3. Browns "hoping" to land RGIII
    By THOLTFAN81 in forum DRAFT & FA
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: -01-20-2012, 09:51 PM
  4. ESPN writer reports Rams "Infatuated" with Gholston.
    By THOLTFAN81 in forum DRAFT & FA
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: -03-14-2008, 12:14 AM
  5. Replies: 2
    Last Post: -11-14-2005, 06:31 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •