OT- Why QBR sucks

[airtime143]

So I was looking at pro football reference, and noticed a rare error- they had Cutlers QBR listed as 58.4... ABOVE Hoyer.
I could have sworn Jay had a 43.
So I visit his ESPN page. They have him listed as having a 30 for 2016.
So I visit the season leaders page... and there was the 43 I remembered.

Just wanted to get this out there for anyone who uses QBR as a stat.
QBR should be taken out behind a barn and shot.

 

[james sanders]

Either way he sucks

 

[Monster]

So he is shit on right and wrong charts.

 

[Jailbreak]

Raw data doesn't work much with football - it can be somewhat useful in baseball. Most of these writers are copying and pasting instead of earning their paycheck.

 

[Bearly]

This just in. ESPN has unveiled their supercomputer.

 

[jsu34]

Jay is bad. Hoyer is too.

 

[sevvy]

Jay is bad. Hoyer is too.

Jay bad. Hoyer worse. ESPN WORST!



But seriously, anything NFL related with ESPN is fucking trash. Their QBR shit is Special person. Their commentators suck. Their analysts are dumber than half of the meatballs here. 80% of what they talk about is quarterbacks, the other 20% is J.J. Watt. They are so bad.

But hey, at least it's easy to spot a dummy that gets all their football "knowledge" from ESPN.

 

[policeman]

I only like stats that make Cutler out to be good. Stats like....and...I got nothing.

 

[airtime143]

But hey, at least it's easy to spot a dummy that gets all their football "knowledge" from ESPN.

based on the scattershot rating, you have a good chance of spewing out any number and being able to find it on espn.

"so and so has a great QBR! you just are not looking at the right page!"

 

[JDB_219]

They posted a whole article about how they recently started adjusting for opponent, that caused some scores to change. 50 is considered an average QB game.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/17653521/how-total-qbr-calculated-explain-our-improved-qb-rating

 

[airtime143]

They posted a whole article about how they recently started adjusting for opponent, that caused some scores to change. 50 is considered an average QB game.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/17653521/how-total-qbr-calculated-explain-our-improved-qb-rating

That is all fine and good- but at least get the numbers right between your own pages.

Beyond that- It is a losing battle to compensate for everything.
"lets compensate for defense"- but what about when star players are out of the game? What about teams (like the bears) that have artificially inflated defensive rankings by facing 3 consecutive rookies or new starters?

What is next? if you compensate for defensive power faced, what compensation do you give to QB's with bad running backs? What points do you deduct from teams with spectacular running backs where the QB faces 8 in the box?
What about teams with knockout WRs and an all pro TE?

If you take all that in to account, what about teams that play indoors vs. guys playing in the rain or snow?


Bottom line is that there is no way in the world you can account for all variables that impact the passing game. Everyone in the world understands that passer rating is a really decent start, a really decent benchmark to look at- and you take that rating and look at the supporting cast and make an evaluation from there.

Personally, I think passer rating could use an additional couple variables like rushing first downs, rushing tds, and fumbles- both recovered and lost. That would be as close to a great measurement that one can get without muddying the waters too much.