erik2690":2avq573v said:
KiwiHawk":2avq573v said:
Sacks is not one of the components of passer rating. It couldn't be less relevant in a discussion about sacks.
I feel like you've missed something b/c your comment doesn't make sense. Tical is through this thread arguing Wilson doesn't do good against zone coverages. Someone posted a stat that Wilson had the highest passer rating against zone coverage of any QB in the league, seems pretty relevant to a disscussion about if he's good against zone. Instead Tical says the stats that prove he's bad against zone are TTT and sacks. I'm saying both of those things happen against zone and man coverage so aren't really direct links at all to his point about zone coverage. However the passer rating stat cited earlier was specifically about vs. Zone coverage therefore more relevant. I was in no way saying that sacks were part of passer rating. So yeah, the overarching discussion was about zone coverage reading not sacks as you said. Tical is just saying that sacks being high is a stat that proves his point about Russ vs. zone, that's were the sacks talk came from.
Ok, I'll explain.
Let's use a completely silly hypothetical model to highlight the point. Our fictional QB throws the ball 10 times for 10 completions for 120 yards and 2 touchdowns. He gets a perfect passer rating of 156.3. But let's say he did that on 67 passing attempts, where the remainder ended in sacks. 10 passes, 10 completions, but 57 sacks. What is his QB rating now? Still 156.3. As long as he doesn't throw the ball, the passer rating remains perfect.
Now, 10/10 for 120 and 2TD says the guy is effective against the zone, without any more information. However, if you include the sacks, you can't say he's an effective passer against the zone.
So because one of the points is that Wilson takes too many sacks vs zone coverage, you can't say that passer rating is a valid measure of effectiveness vs zone, because it ignores any plays resulting in sacks.
In fact, passer rating is really a measure of interceptions, since that is what it punishes hardest. Let's say our guy throws no TDs. Rating drops to 116.7. Still impressive. But let's say he does throw 2 TDs, but also throws an Int. 116.7 again. One INT negates 2 TDs. What about the yards? One INT negates ALL of the yards. Even with only 2 yards passing, both for 1-yard TDs, our QB has a rating of 118.8.
So yards are not important, and TDs are only half as good as INTs are bad, and sacks don't count at all.
If I said "this guys is good against the zone" while ignoring yards, discounting TDs, and not counting sacks, you'd laugh at me.
As long as Wilson doesn't throw picks, it doesn't matter if he holds the ball forever (TTT) and eventually take sacks, because those numbers don't show up on Passer Rating. Therefore, Passer Rating is not evidence against either of those claims, and is pretty much irrelevant to the conversation (in part because it's one of the NFL's most irrelevant stats to begin with).
You know why Wilson has a great passer rating over his career? Because his head coach hates turnovers and teaches him not to make them. That's it.