Tweet
M.Bulger
AT CP YDS T LG I RAT
53 35 448 2 56 1 97.1
B.Favre
AT CP YDS T LG I RAT
27 18 215 3 29 0 127.9
Your opinion:
Remember the QB rating is what is used as the “end all be all” in figuring how talented a QB is. Furthermore it is used to list a QB's greatness over history. Obviously you would agree that It doesn't take a whole hell of a lot of talent to throw passes that travel less then 10 yards at least not as much as a QB that is constantly throwing downfield 15, 20, 25 yards thus staying in the pocket longer taking more hits resulting in more interceptions and playing with more pain. As it is now, the dink passers are rating higher then players like Unitas, Starr Otto Graham, Van Brocklin, Stabauch, Bradshaw and others. Was Steve Bono really Better then these guys? Was Boomer? If you go by the QB rating system (which is what the NFL points to as a measurement of a quarterbacks greatness) then the answer is a resounding yes, Bono was better then those QB’s listed. Or is the QB rating system the single Biggest farce in the measure of a QB's talent there is. Why should the system so heavily favor the cowardly offensive system? If it were to favor any system (and I’m not saying it should) shouldn’t it favor the braver system?
I'd like to know who devised this system however nobody seems to know.
(read: rating without representation)
Your opinion:
Should the QB rating system be reformulated such as:
1. Stop giving QB's credit for the RAC (run after catch) and give them the yards the ball travels in the air? In other words do not credit a quarterback for yards he has nothing to do with? At least when rating their overall talent in the QB rating system?
2. Add into the formula how well QB's recognize blitzes?
3. before the formula spits out the results should it take into account the risk of the pass? In other words should a Hail Mary interception at the end of a half or end of a game have the same effect on the QB rating system as a pass thrown 5 yards downfield and is returned for a TD?
4. Should a minus two yard completion be positive points in the rating?
5. Noting that we are in the computer age and keep stats seemingly for everything do you believe it would be a logistical nightmare to take into account the “Run After Catch” (that is length of completion without the run) and perhaps putting less emphasis on completion percentage since any monkey can play catch standing 5 yards apart?
Here is a snippet from an article on the rating system
But what gives with the *****? Sure, Young and Montana were studs -- but come on. Here's what gives. It started in the late 1970s, when the NFL began bending the rules to favor passers.
The "illegal chuck" rule forced defenders to back off receivers, and refs lightened up on holding calls against offensive linemen. By 1979 the league completion average hit 54.1 percent, and it has never been below that since. Then came the "clearly in the grasp rule" to protect quarterbacks from brutality by would-be sackers. And receivers started wearing sticky gloves. And wind-free indoor stadiums with fast fake turf turned teams like the St. Louis Rams into passing factories. There's much more pass offense today, and that explains why the all-time top five looks like a list made by somebody born after John Belushi died.
But most influential of all was Bill Walsh, the QB-nurturing ***** coach. The West Coast Offense he pioneered in the 1980s turned precisely timed, high-percentage short passes into catch-and-run long gains. You couldn't invent a better scheme to juice QB rating numbers. Because, it turns out, the formula mathematically whacks guys who try to throw long.
Imagine two quarterbacks -- Super Joe and Broadway Joe -- who both drive their teams 30 yards to a touchdown in three plays. Super Joe does it with three 10-yard passes. His completion percentage is 100, and for the drive his rating is 147.9. Broadway Joe throws two incomplete passes, then on a clutch third and long he finds a receiver in the end zone -- touchdown! For the exact same result, his rating is 111.1.
Young and Montana -- and Griese last year -- surely benefited from quarterbacking in West Coast schemes. The authors of The Hidden Game of Football calculate that even complete passes that lose yardage can, in some weirdball situations, boost a quarterback's rating. "There's something wrong with that," says co-author and football historian Bob Carroll. His book proposes a New Improved Rating System, which ignores completion percentage but counts sacks. (Still, when the book applies this even more complicated formula to 1997 data, Young comes out number one anyway.)
"I guess I'm a little defensive when people talk that way about the West Coast offense," says Young, who, just for the record, happened to run the ball like hell too. "Because in the end the West Coast works. It wins games. The truth is, if you're playing decent football, your rating's high. I never got the sense that I could take a game and manipulate my ratings. I don't think you can go out and dink and dunk and beat the system."
Is there a perfect way to enumerate the performance of one man on the field with 21 others? What about perfectly thrown, dropped passes? What about John Elway, who ended his career with a saggy rating of 79.9, even though he had the most career wins by a quarterback and a record 41 fourth-quarter game-saving drives. What about Troy Aikman (81.6), who had Emmitt Smith running behind him, so he didn't throw a lot of four-yard touchdown passes, "even if he made the pass that got the ball to the four," says his agent, Leigh Steinberg.
Sonny Jurgensen said the real measure of a quarterback's greatness is how he does on third and long, when everybody and his bookie knows a pass is coming. Many consider Jurgensen the best pure passer of all time, but his rating of 82.6 would embarrass Jeff Garcia. What about Donovan McNabb and Michael Vick and the new generation of quarterbacks who use the threat of a pass to open up rushing lanes for themselves?
Football is a team game, a game of drives and momentum. Individual numbers struggle to describe it. Still, numbers are all we have. Statistics are what separate sports from just playing around in the yard. Coach Lombardi said it: if you're not keeping score, you're just practicing. So you calculate what you can. If you wanted to keep it really simple, you could just do what golf does and list who gets the most money (Warner, $11.8 million, Manning $11 million, Vick $10.3 million). Or you could be like boxing and figure skating, where unless somebody gets knocked out it's two guys in bow-ties and a lady from the New Jersey State Athletic Commission making up numbers for how you did.
AT CP YDS T LG I RAT
53 35 448 2 56 1 97.1
B.Favre
AT CP YDS T LG I RAT
27 18 215 3 29 0 127.9
Your opinion:
Remember the QB rating is what is used as the “end all be all” in figuring how talented a QB is. Furthermore it is used to list a QB's greatness over history. Obviously you would agree that It doesn't take a whole hell of a lot of talent to throw passes that travel less then 10 yards at least not as much as a QB that is constantly throwing downfield 15, 20, 25 yards thus staying in the pocket longer taking more hits resulting in more interceptions and playing with more pain. As it is now, the dink passers are rating higher then players like Unitas, Starr Otto Graham, Van Brocklin, Stabauch, Bradshaw and others. Was Steve Bono really Better then these guys? Was Boomer? If you go by the QB rating system (which is what the NFL points to as a measurement of a quarterbacks greatness) then the answer is a resounding yes, Bono was better then those QB’s listed. Or is the QB rating system the single Biggest farce in the measure of a QB's talent there is. Why should the system so heavily favor the cowardly offensive system? If it were to favor any system (and I’m not saying it should) shouldn’t it favor the braver system?
I'd like to know who devised this system however nobody seems to know.
(read: rating without representation)
Your opinion:
Should the QB rating system be reformulated such as:
1. Stop giving QB's credit for the RAC (run after catch) and give them the yards the ball travels in the air? In other words do not credit a quarterback for yards he has nothing to do with? At least when rating their overall talent in the QB rating system?
2. Add into the formula how well QB's recognize blitzes?
3. before the formula spits out the results should it take into account the risk of the pass? In other words should a Hail Mary interception at the end of a half or end of a game have the same effect on the QB rating system as a pass thrown 5 yards downfield and is returned for a TD?
4. Should a minus two yard completion be positive points in the rating?
5. Noting that we are in the computer age and keep stats seemingly for everything do you believe it would be a logistical nightmare to take into account the “Run After Catch” (that is length of completion without the run) and perhaps putting less emphasis on completion percentage since any monkey can play catch standing 5 yards apart?
Here is a snippet from an article on the rating system
But what gives with the *****? Sure, Young and Montana were studs -- but come on. Here's what gives. It started in the late 1970s, when the NFL began bending the rules to favor passers.
The "illegal chuck" rule forced defenders to back off receivers, and refs lightened up on holding calls against offensive linemen. By 1979 the league completion average hit 54.1 percent, and it has never been below that since. Then came the "clearly in the grasp rule" to protect quarterbacks from brutality by would-be sackers. And receivers started wearing sticky gloves. And wind-free indoor stadiums with fast fake turf turned teams like the St. Louis Rams into passing factories. There's much more pass offense today, and that explains why the all-time top five looks like a list made by somebody born after John Belushi died.
But most influential of all was Bill Walsh, the QB-nurturing ***** coach. The West Coast Offense he pioneered in the 1980s turned precisely timed, high-percentage short passes into catch-and-run long gains. You couldn't invent a better scheme to juice QB rating numbers. Because, it turns out, the formula mathematically whacks guys who try to throw long.
Imagine two quarterbacks -- Super Joe and Broadway Joe -- who both drive their teams 30 yards to a touchdown in three plays. Super Joe does it with three 10-yard passes. His completion percentage is 100, and for the drive his rating is 147.9. Broadway Joe throws two incomplete passes, then on a clutch third and long he finds a receiver in the end zone -- touchdown! For the exact same result, his rating is 111.1.
Young and Montana -- and Griese last year -- surely benefited from quarterbacking in West Coast schemes. The authors of The Hidden Game of Football calculate that even complete passes that lose yardage can, in some weirdball situations, boost a quarterback's rating. "There's something wrong with that," says co-author and football historian Bob Carroll. His book proposes a New Improved Rating System, which ignores completion percentage but counts sacks. (Still, when the book applies this even more complicated formula to 1997 data, Young comes out number one anyway.)
"I guess I'm a little defensive when people talk that way about the West Coast offense," says Young, who, just for the record, happened to run the ball like hell too. "Because in the end the West Coast works. It wins games. The truth is, if you're playing decent football, your rating's high. I never got the sense that I could take a game and manipulate my ratings. I don't think you can go out and dink and dunk and beat the system."
Is there a perfect way to enumerate the performance of one man on the field with 21 others? What about perfectly thrown, dropped passes? What about John Elway, who ended his career with a saggy rating of 79.9, even though he had the most career wins by a quarterback and a record 41 fourth-quarter game-saving drives. What about Troy Aikman (81.6), who had Emmitt Smith running behind him, so he didn't throw a lot of four-yard touchdown passes, "even if he made the pass that got the ball to the four," says his agent, Leigh Steinberg.
Sonny Jurgensen said the real measure of a quarterback's greatness is how he does on third and long, when everybody and his bookie knows a pass is coming. Many consider Jurgensen the best pure passer of all time, but his rating of 82.6 would embarrass Jeff Garcia. What about Donovan McNabb and Michael Vick and the new generation of quarterbacks who use the threat of a pass to open up rushing lanes for themselves?
Football is a team game, a game of drives and momentum. Individual numbers struggle to describe it. Still, numbers are all we have. Statistics are what separate sports from just playing around in the yard. Coach Lombardi said it: if you're not keeping score, you're just practicing. So you calculate what you can. If you wanted to keep it really simple, you could just do what golf does and list who gets the most money (Warner, $11.8 million, Manning $11 million, Vick $10.3 million). Or you could be like boxing and figure skating, where unless somebody gets knocked out it's two guys in bow-ties and a lady from the New Jersey State Athletic Commission making up numbers for how you did.
Comment