No announcement yet.

The more gutless the higher ranking

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The more gutless the higher ranking

    53 35 448 2 56 1 97.1

    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 QBs 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 Im not saying it should) shouldnt 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.
    Last edited by RamTime; -11-30-2004, 04:00 AM. Reason: added article

  • #2
    Re: The more gutless the higher ranking

    I understand what you're saying about the rating system being imperfect Ramtime but are you also saying that Favre is just a dink and dunk passer? I don't see that, myself. I think he's a smart qb who takes what is there. Driver and Walker are two of the top statistical wr's in the league and Favre consistantly makes a living outside the hash marks. I don't think this really compares to what Montana, Young and Bono did in SF.


    • #3
      Re: The more gutless the higher ranking

      Actually, Michael Irvin said it best last night. If you have a slow safety one on one on a WR, the S will get burned every time.

      What WR in the NFL is scared of these guys in coverage?

      Archuleta, Coady, and yes, Aeneas? No one.


      • #4
        Re: The more gutless the higher ranking

        Favre has been sheltered in the cozy west coast offense for so long now that who really knows? Has he shown you that he could go out game after game in a real offense like the rams run and be as effective. You don't but that doesn't stop the masses from crafting the mad bomber image. However this isn't about the gutless WCO in Green Bay it's about all the gutless WCO across the league and how history shows a phony image of the best QBs in history. The above numbers are very telling of a system that is thoroughly flawed and favors the more gutless system.


        • #5
          Re: The more gutless the higher ranking

          C'mon, you're being a bit of a homer now. I think the Rams offense, although complex, is qb friendly enough. I don't, and have never, knocked a qb for taking what was given. I wish the Rams would do it more. Favre isn't a dink and dunk passer and constantly utililizes everyone on the offense. RB's, FB's, WR's, TE's, they all get the ball every game. He spreads it around and he isn't running an offense that the league is unfamiliar with.

          What would Favre do in the Rams offense? I would LOVE to find out. I'll give you any qb the Rams have ever had for Favre. I'll give you all of them for Favre. He is by far, better than anything the Rams have ever seen. Can you substitute any Rams qb in the Packer offense and think they'll succeed?

          Okay, on a personal level I wouldn't ever give up Warner or Gabriel, etc. for Favre but logically? C'mon, now. Let's get real.


          • #6
            Re: The more gutless the higher ranking

            C'mon, you're being a bit of a homer now. I think the Rams offense, although complex, is qb friendly enough. I don't, and have never, knocked a qb for taking what was given. I wish the Rams would do it more. Favre isn't a dink and dunk passer and constantly utililizes everyone on the offense. RB's, FB's, WR's, TE's, they all get the ball every game. He spreads it around and he isn't running an offense that the league is unfamiliar with.

            What would Favre do in the Rams offense? I would LOVE to find out. I'll give you any qb the Rams have ever had for Favre. I'll give you all of them for Favre. He is by far, better than anything the Rams have ever seen. Can you substitute any Rams qb in the Packer offense and think they'll succeed?

            Okay, on a personal level I wouldn't ever give up Warner or Gabriel, etc. for Favre but logically? C'mon, now. Let's get real.
            AND ther you have it. Live for everyone to gaze at. (Don't stick your finger in the cage because its highly contagious.) a fan so punch drunk from media propaganda that he is hopelessly lost in propaganda land. Indeed if one were to take a mental image of this fans propaganda laden thoughts you would see Favre standing there with an "S" on his jersey. Ready to fly out the window and save the footall world. The next time a QB reaches a milestone and the media goes bananas over meaningless trivial stats watch the cage start rattling again.

            Sorry Mockleman I really do value your opinions. Really I do but I just could not help my sick sense of humor. Forgive me for I am hopelessly pissed off at the rams right now.


            Related Topics


            • Nick
              26 League Insiders Rank the 32 Starting QBs
              by Nick
              Ranking 32 NFL QBs by tier
              We had 26 anonymous league insiders grade every NFL starting QB
              Updated: July 3, 2014, 8:43 AM ET
              By Mike Sando | ESPN Insider

              You know you're onto something interesting when an NFL head coach requests a few additional moments with your laptop.

              "Let me see that one more time," one coach said, leaning forward in his chair.

              I asked 26 league insiders to grade every projected starting quarterback on a 1-5 scale, with "one" reserved for the best and "five" for the worst. Eight general managers, two former GMs, four pro personnel evaluators, seven coordinators, two head coaches, two position coaches and a top executive participated, attacking the project with gusto almost across the board.

              The result of the polling is a composite ranking of all 32 NFL starting quarterbacks, and an understanding of how some of the league's most important evaluators separate the best from the rest at the position. With their input, we were able to compile an average rating of each QB, to rank them in a 1-32 pecking order, and to divide the starters into general tiers. I've passed along insights from voters when applicable.

              Five QBs cracked Tier 1, including one surprise. Ten other QBs fell into Tier 2 and nine landed in Tier 3. The remaining eight starters fell into Tier 4. Five of them received nearly as many Tier 5 votes, but not enough to drop any of them into that bottom level.

              "That is a pretty good consensus of where we are at in the league," one of the GMs said upon surveying the overall results.

              The head coach referenced earlier has finished staring at the results. Now, it's your turn.

              Tier 1 (5)
              T-1. Tom Brady, New England Patriots (1.04 average rating)

              I was deep into this project when ESPN Insider published Sam Monson's piece highlighting Brady's diminished production while under pressure. Monson questioned Brady's status as one of the top five QBs. Still, none of the people I spoke with thought Brady had slipped to a significant degree. Twenty-five of the 26 voters put him in the first tier. The lone exception, a pro personnel evaluator, saved his only Tier 1 vote for Peyton Manning. He was an unusually tough grader at the top, focused more intently than others on the 2013 season, when Manning performed at a historic level.

              "Brady did a lot of good things with limited resources, but I saw holes when they put the onus on him to carry it all, as you saw when Denver beat him," this evaluator said. "Brady has to have more of a running game at this stage. He cannot line up with five wides and win it as consistently as before. I still think Brady is a top-five quarterback, but I would not say he is the best right now."

              That was a minority opinion. A veteran offensive assistant who listed Manning,...
              -07-03-2014, 10:34 AM
            • MauiRam
              Memo To the St. Louis Rams: How Enemy DCs Will Destroy Your WCO In 2010
              by MauiRam
              By David Leon

              The West Coast Offense is not my favorite offensive scheme, not by a long shot. I greatly prefer the Gilman-Coryell-Martz approach. I would also prefer the Spread, and the K-Gun, two very similar offenses. The WCO would rank just above the Erhardt-Perkins and Lombardi-Shula schemes. That's pretty low on my list of favorites.

              So why do I dislike the WCO? It's pretty easy to beat these days, that's why. Nobody plays it in the pure form that Walsh did back in 1981. The reason is simple: They can't. The pure system doesn't really work anymore. Let me give you a little history lesson about it.

              Back in the year 1981, everyone was deathly afraid of the bomb. Not the atomic bomb, the long pass. The 1978 rule changes had been in effect for three full years prior to the 49er eruption.

              Teams like the Steelers and Raiders had used the bomb with devastating effect on route to Super Bowl championships. The Cowboys were playing bombs-away also. Even the Rams, with Vince Ferragamo, were throwing the football deep.

              In those days, most defenses would concede a four yard pass and think nothing of it. They would not contest those short routes much at all.

              If you added some sophistication to your short passing game, running combination routes to produce rub-offs and so forth, you could really move the chains. You could sustain a drive for 9-12 plays, keep your defense off the field, build your QB's passer rating, and score touchdowns.

              Bill Walsh knew and understood this. He organized his entire offense around the precept that defensive coordinators would give him his short yardage, practically for free. This was especially true in the final two minutes of the game when everybody (and I mean everybody) played the prevent defense.

              The 49er offense was revolutionary for the time. Frankly, I always knew it could be stopped. I used to chastise our Ram defensive coordinators, like Fritz Shurmur, for ordering our corners to cover the 49er WRs as they ran endlessly down the field on eight and nine routes to no avail. Joe would seldom throw the football deep. Truth be told, he had a 40 yard arm. He couldn't fling it that deep with any consistency of accuracy.

              Well, it took awhile, but a defensive coordinator arose who had the nuts to play a realistic defense against the WCO. I regret to say this, but the man's name is Bill Belichick. At the time, he was the defensive coordinator for the New York Giants under Bill Parcells.

              If you will check the historical record, you will find the New York Giants were the team that most consistently vexed the 49er dynasty. They laid a devastating 49-3 route on ***** on route to their first Super Bowl victory in 1986-87.

              Jim Burk sent Joe Montana out on a stretcher in that game. They terminated the ***** shot at a three-pete in 1990-91....
              -05-14-2010, 08:20 AM
            • berg8309
              Quarterback Qualities
              by berg8309
              With the recent thread on Walterfootball's assessment of Bradford vs. Clausen, I thought it would be a good time to ask what everyone values in a QB. Obviously different people have different qualities they rate higher than others, for instance Walterfootball values arm strength, and I value accuracy. I have put together a list of what I deem important traits in a QB. Note that not all of these are things I believe you can measure from an armchair, and it is not exhaustive, just a top 8.

              1. Decision Making - No matter what your physical tool set is, accurate, gun for an arm, speed demon, all of the above, if you make poor decisions, you will be a poor QB, end of story. This includes everything from not throwing into too much coverage, to knowing when to cut losses and throw the ball away.

              2. Accuracy - The most important physical attribute to me. Not to take away from others which are still important, but if you can't get the ball on target, then what good is everything else? This does not mean you need elite accuracy, but enough to hit your targets. If your throws are always high or wide by too much, you'll never be a success.

              3. Intangibles - Successful QBs don't roll in at noon and leave at 2. First in, first out, or close to. You need a guy who not only loves the game and cares about being the best (Or trying to be) but who has his head on straight outside the game as well. You will crash and burn at QB with no work ethic. I initially had this lower, but then I thought about QBs like LeaF and Russell who just don't care. They had the skill sets, but their loafer attitude made them bad QBs.

              4. Release - I value this higher than arm strength because a quick release can make up for a certain amount of lack of arm strength on short and intermediate routes. A quick release gives D-linemen less time to put their hands up, and coverage backs less time to read and react. Angle of release is also important in terms of how well the ball travels, and how likely it is to get batted down at the line.

              5. Arm strength - Although I believe you can get away with just adequate arm strength, I will readily admit that if you have to float balls because you can't throw hard enough, you are going to have a bad time. Floating balls are easy to pick off, or at least get a hand on. You want to be accurate, but you don't want to give too much time for the defense to get in front of it. Also helpful for stretching the field when you need a desperation play, or have a speed receiver who finds himself with a mismatch.

              6. Footwork - I am not good at identifying good footwork, I admit that. However I will also admit that it is important. Bad footwork can lead to falling down, missed handoffs, failed play action, and an assortment of other problems with throwing a good ball and hiding it from the defense as long as possible.

              7. Football I.Q. - Good QBs can...
              -04-19-2010, 04:24 PM
            • EvilXenu
              QBs should be measured by "Situation Handling."
              by EvilXenu
              There are so many stats for QBs floating out there.

              You have the raw numbers (attempts, completions, yards, TDs, etc.).

              You have ratings (QB rating, total QBR, etc.).

              You can go by wins and losses.

              You can go by playoff performances.

              But, to me, it comes down to how a QB plays in key situations. The situations handling factor (which, I believe, is the best objective description of the "it factor") is what really sets apart the average from the good, and the good from the elite.

              So how do you measure the Situation Handling (SH) It factor?

              Well, when you're talking SH It factors, you really should just go on your observations. I think most of us know a QB with a good SH It factor when we see one. While you can certainly argue about the SH It factor of a particular player, even casual fans can point out a QB who has that SH It factor.

              So, forget the complicated stats.

              Its all about the SH It factor.
              -11-07-2012, 12:03 PM
            • AugustaRamFan
              More Rankings - RAMS QBs...
              by AugustaRamFan
              Here is a snippet from Fox News Hounds....

              ESPN had the Rams QB triumverate at #11....see where they ended up for FOX. Granted - it is a Fantasy Ranking, but still. Ya gotta like #3!!

              Nothing stirs up debate like a good set of rankings, and ranking all 32 NFL teams unit-by-unit is an annual tradition. This year, the debate comes with a little twist, as our rankings are grounded not in the conventional wisdom but in the advanced statistics of Football Outsiders.

              Fantasy Football Draft Guide

              Transform draft day into a title!

              Player rankings and projections
              Expert drafts
              Sleepers, flops
              Coaching styles
              Fantasy depth charts

              Any discussion of an NFL team usually starts with the quarterback, and our rankings are no exception. Rating quarterbacks as a unit means taking into account more than just the first-stringer on each team. However, quarterback is very different from other positions, because the bench players only see action if the starter is injured. So a lack of depth at quarterback is less of an issue than it is at other positions. (We're looking at you, Patriots.)

              Since we'll be rating each unit as it exists in 2006, we're taking into account performance over the last couple of years, but we're also considering age and injuries. All those teams whose starting quarterbacks are still iffy for the start of the 2006 season get penalized, as do teams whose quarterbacks are currently healthy but have a bad injury record. It's better for your backup to be a first-round rookie with potential than a mediocre journeyman, but Tennessee doesn't get to rank higher because Vince Young might be the best quarterback in football five years from now. Our judgment of inexperienced quarterbacks is guided in part by our new rookie quarterback projection system, the subject of a long essay in our upcoming book Pro Football Prospectus 2006. You can read an introduction to the system here.

              You'll see a lot of stats you recognize here, and one you may not: DPAR, or Defense-adjusted Points Above Replacement. DPAR takes every single play during the season and compares it to the league average based on situation and opponent, rewarding players for strong performance on third down and in the red zone and giving them less credit for meaningless gains like a six-yard scramble on third-and-12. For those interested, you can find all the 2005 DPAR numbers for quarterbacks on this page.

              Without further ado, here's a list of the NFL's quarterback units from best to worst.

              1. Indianapolis
              If you have been reading Football Outsiders over the past couple years, you know that there is no topic in football that we despise more than the never-ending, always irrational debate over who is the best quarterback in the NFL, Tom Brady or Peyton Manning. But since we're rating...
              -07-11-2006, 10:50 AM