Wilson just had the best game of his career

The Essential Online Seahawks Fan Forum Community. There simply is NO substitute. RATING: PG-13
  • http://m.espn.go.com/general/blogs/blog ... t&id=79981

    Wilson completed 71.4 percent of his passes, staked his team to an early lead and led his offense 87 yards to the go-ahead touchdown in the fourth quarter. Wilson took zero sacks. He made no errors in setting protections or changing plays at the line of scrimmage, according to coach Pete Carroll
    User avatar
    hawksfan515
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5236
    Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:52 pm
    Location: Battle Ground, Washington


  • bestfightstory wrote:He faced a very bad secondary.


    According to what metric? They are ninth in passing yards allowed. They are middle of the pack for passing TD's. They have allowed 250+ passing yards in only two games, one of them against a former Pro Bowl QB. They haven't given up more than two passing TD's in any game. None of those numbers are the numbers of a very bad secondary.
    FIRE CABLE! 7 Home Games 12 False Starts By Linemen Lack Of Discipline
    Image
    User avatar
    BASF
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1580
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 2:07 pm


  • He is progressing nicely and the game against Lions was his best game yet.
    Image
    User avatar
    MANUNITED23
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1877
    Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 5:27 pm
    Location: Bay Area, CA


  • pehawk wrote:
    All I can do is use the Eli comparison. Watching him, I just had a feeling he was greater than the sum of his stats. I even said, with confidence, he'd end up with more rings than his brother entering that draft. I got a lot of grief for that - but it ended up being right.

    There's a good chance I'm wrong on Wilson, but, I can't personally see how I am. Just my opnion though.


    I feel the strongest similarity in traits, when compared with Eli, is that both of them seem unflappable. Nothing seems to rattle Eli or Russ. Russ gets the edge because he has more of a laser-focused look rather than a stupid expression frozen on Eli's face that makes you want to slap him one. ;)

    I get the impression that Russ is the stronger leader though...and he's got more of a cannon for an arm and a 'pertier' deep ball.
    "I cannot believe this............ I am stunned right now. This is now a rebuilding year for us. Our offense is crap now"

    Blitzer88 regarding trading Percy to the Jets
    User avatar
    HawKnPeppa
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2856
    Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2009 8:01 pm


  • If the Lions do not commit huge penalties in the first half, we only score 14 points, and only 7 of those Wilson had anything to do with. I don't care what numbers he put up, that is unacceptable. He did not truly show up until the fourth quarter. No way can I call this his best performance, not even close.
    Vpk0718
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 314
    Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 3:42 pm


  • Vpk0718 wrote:If the Lions do not commit huge penalties in the first half, we only score 14 points, and only 7 of those Wilson had anything to do with. I don't care what numbers he put up, that is unacceptable. He did not truly show up until the fourth quarter. No way can I call this his best performance, not even close.

    Yeah, but if Breno doesn't tackle a dude, Wilson has a 50 plus completion to Tate. As long as you are being so fair, you know.
    SEAHAWKS.NET. We All We Got, We All We Need
    User avatar
    Scottemojo
    *Scott of Smacksville*
    *Scott of Smacksville*
     
    Posts: 11939
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:14 am


  • hawksfan515 wrote:http://m.espn.go.com/general/blogs/blogpost?blogname=nfcwest&id=79804

    At least according to the new QBR ( a rating i wholly agree with). He only trailed Peyton manning, Tom Brady, and Matt Ryan for best performance on the day. His QBR rating was 93.7 out of 100, well above all-pro level.

    This kid just keeps getting better and better folks.


    It's nice to see he's improving but IMO ESPN's QBR rating is so unreliable compared to the traditional passer rating.
    Here's what I mean: Matt Stafford not only won the game in the final seconds but he also threw for 1 more TD and ran for 1 more while averaging a higher yard per passing. Stafford's QBR was 84 while Wilson's was 93.7?
    Here's another example: Wilson's previous best QBR was against the Patriots when he threw 3 TD and 0 INT while thoroughly outplaying Brady for a win. His QBR was 91.4 against the Patriots. Are you seriously saying that he's played a better game in this loss than he did against the Patriots?

    So the QBR is supposed to mean that Russell gave us a 93.7 percent chance of winning based on his play against the Lions? The interception was clearly a poor play so I don't understand what ESPN sees that makes this performance better than his performance in the Patriot's game. I think I'll stick to passer rating which is less subjective and less convoluted AND clearly has a better correlation to winning record.
    Russ Willstrong
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 852
    Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2012 5:31 am


  • Russ Willstrong wrote:
    hawksfan515 wrote:http://m.espn.go.com/general/blogs/blogpost?blogname=nfcwest&id=79804

    At least according to the new QBR ( a rating i wholly agree with). He only trailed Peyton manning, Tom Brady, and Matt Ryan for best performance on the day. His QBR rating was 93.7 out of 100, well above all-pro level.

    This kid just keeps getting better and better folks.


    It's nice to see he's improving but IMO ESPN's QBR rating is so unreliable compared to the traditional passer rating.
    Here's what I mean: Matt Stafford not only won the game in the final seconds but he also threw for 1 more TD and ran for 1 more while averaging a higher yard per passing. Stafford's QBR was 84 while Wilson's was 93.7?
    Here's another example: Wilson's previous best QBR was against the Patriots when he threw 3 TD and 0 INT while thoroughly outplaying Brady for a win. His QBR was 91.4 against the Patriots. Are you seriously saying that he's played a better game in this loss than he did against the Patriots?

    So the QBR is supposed to mean that Russell gave us a 93.7 percent chance of winning based on his play against the Lions? The interception was clearly a poor play so I don't understand what ESPN sees that makes this performance better than his performance in the Patriot's game. I think I'll stick to passer rating which is less subjective and less convoluted AND clearly has a better correlation to winning record.

    Maybe you could read up on why the QBR is like that.
    http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/6833215/explaining-statistics-total-quarterback-rating
    SEAHAWKS.NET. We All We Got, We All We Need
    User avatar
    Scottemojo
    *Scott of Smacksville*
    *Scott of Smacksville*
     
    Posts: 11939
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:14 am


  • No thanks. I've read enough about the darn thing.
    How about you tell me your thoughts as to why his performance was better than Staffords?
    What about this game also makes it better than his game against the Pats?
    Russ Willstrong
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 852
    Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2012 5:31 am


  • Russ Willstrong wrote:No thanks. I've read enough about the darn thing.
    How about you tell me your thoughts as to why his performance was better than Staffords?
    What about this game also makes it better than his game against the Pats?

    I never said any of those things. But I do know that Stafford took several sacks, and benefitted from a lot of yac. Both go into the QBR rating system.
    SEAHAWKS.NET. We All We Got, We All We Need
    User avatar
    Scottemojo
    *Scott of Smacksville*
    *Scott of Smacksville*
     
    Posts: 11939
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:14 am


  • Scottemojo wrote:
    Russ Willstrong wrote:No thanks. I've read enough about the darn thing.
    How about you tell me your thoughts as to why his performance was better than Staffords?
    What about this game also makes it better than his game against the Pats?

    I never said any of those things. But I do know that Stafford took several sacks, and benefitted from a lot of yac. Both go into the QBR rating system.


    No you didn't because those were my points of contention when you say you endorse the QBR rating. Based on Wilson's QBR rating he outperformed Stafford and Wilson's prior performance against a similar defense in the Patriots.
    Russ Willstrong
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 852
    Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2012 5:31 am


  • Saying that you whole-heartedly agree with the QBR over the traditional passer rating assumes that you have some understanding as to why Wilson's performance would grant us a 93.7% chance of winning--and yet we still lost.
    Russ Willstrong
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 852
    Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2012 5:31 am


  • Russ Willstrong wrote:
    Scottemojo wrote:
    Russ Willstrong wrote:No thanks. I've read enough about the darn thing.
    How about you tell me your thoughts as to why his performance was better than Staffords?
    What about this game also makes it better than his game against the Pats?

    I never said any of those things. But I do know that Stafford took several sacks, and benefitted from a lot of yac. Both go into the QBR rating system.


    No you didn't because those were my points of contention when you say you endorse the QBR rating. Based on Wilson's QBR rating he outperformed Stafford and Wilson's prior performance against a similar defense in the Patriots.


    As opposed to the conventional rating system where if a guy throws 5 yard completions all damn day he has a great number? I like QBR because it gives more weight to clutch situations and divides the credit for touchdowns between the receiver and thrower. It isn't perfect, but the regular rating is pure results based analysis, and the QBR system at least includes the process to an extent. I hate results based analysis.
    SEAHAWKS.NET. We All We Got, We All We Need
    User avatar
    Scottemojo
    *Scott of Smacksville*
    *Scott of Smacksville*
     
    Posts: 11939
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:14 am


  • Scottemojo wrote:
    Russ Willstrong wrote:No thanks. I've read enough about the darn thing.
    How about you tell me your thoughts as to why his performance was better than Staffords?
    What about this game also makes it better than his game against the Pats?

    I never said any of those things. But I do know that Stafford took several sacks, and benefitted from a lot of yac. Both go into the QBR rating system.



    Thank you Scotte. I can't stay here all day to defend my ideas.

    Weird that someone with the username Russ Willstrong is bashing Wilson? :?:

    But that's a moot point. Here's one quick reason why I hate normal QB rating....

    Final 2 minutes. Opposing QB takes snap at his own 10 yard line, and gets sacked for a safety. Loses the game. Does that have any effect on his QB rating? No..... But on QBR it destroys his rating.

    And the reason Wilson's performance was better than Stafford's was for the reasons Scotte highlighted, and while Stafford didn't take too many sacks, Wilson took none, while also suffering drops. Then, Stafford got tons of YAC, while Wilson got almost none. Take the Tate catch on 1st and 10, which led to 2nd and 1 because Tate tried to make something happen. Then we ran a running play and lost 4 yards. Then a 5 yard penalty made it 3rd and 10. In a shrinking pocket, Wilson rifles it to Rice for a 15 yard gain.

    Conversely, on a crucial 3rd and 10 for Stafford in the red zone, he had a much easier job. He sat in the pocket, and his RB was wide open on a angle (what's the name again? It was on chalk talk) route. He was wide open. WIDE OPEN. Stafford throws the easy ball for a big conversion. QB rating has no idea what just happened, and it's a normal 10 yard completion. QBR factors in the clutch situation (if he doesn't make this, then a field goal must be attempted), and how easy it was to checkdown to the RB.

    I honestly have no idea how you can defend the old QB rating compared to new QBR.

    And BTW, when you said it means that you have a 93.7% chance of winning, I don't think so (maybe I read it wrong?) because football is still a TEAM SPORT. Even a normal special teamer can ruin your chances of winning the game (hello Kyle Williams!). And even if it is a 93.7% chance of winning, did you factor in the 6.4% chance of losing?

    And still, football is a team sport. That's just how good Wilson was in the game. Not how good his WR's played, or the defense.

    Game, set, and match.
    User avatar
    hawksfan515
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5236
    Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:52 pm
    Location: Battle Ground, Washington


  • Sorry Scott,

    I was distracted by the trick-or-treaters here in the midwest and didn't realize I wasn't addressing the OP.
    But yeah, I get the intent of this advanced rating system. I just find there's potentially too much subjectivity in the calculation of QBR. No rating system is perfect when evaluating the value of a QB's performance so I prefer to use the 'eye test' most of the time. In defense of the passer rating has much better correlation to winning records and true passer statistics which is really important for any tool.
    Russ Willstrong
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 852
    Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2012 5:31 am


  • hawksfan515 wrote:
    Scottemojo wrote:
    Russ Willstrong wrote:No thanks. I've read enough about the darn thing.
    How about you tell me your thoughts as to why his performance was better than Staffords?
    What about this game also makes it better than his game against the Pats?

    I never said any of those things. But I do know that Stafford took several sacks, and benefitted from a lot of yac. Both go into the QBR rating system.



    Thank you Scotte. I can't stay here all day to defend my ideas.

    Weird that someone with the username Russ Willstrong is bashing Wilson? :?:

    But that's a moot point. Here's one quick reason why I hate normal QB rating....

    Final 2 minutes. Opposing QB takes snap at his own 10 yard line, and gets sacked for a safety. Loses the game. Does that have any effect on his QB rating? No..... But on QBR it destroys his rating.

    And the reason Wilson's performance was better than Stafford's was for the reasons Scotte highlighted, and while Stafford didn't take too many sacks, Wilson took none, while also suffering drops. Then, Stafford got tons of YAC, while Wilson got almost none. Take the Tate catch on 1st and 10, which led to 2nd and 1 because Tate tried to make something happen. Then we ran a running play and lost 4 yards. Then a 5 yard penalty made it 3rd and 10. In a shrinking pocket, Wilson rifles it to Rice for a 15 yard gain.

    Conversely, on a crucial 3rd and 10 for Stafford in the red zone, he had a much easier job. He sat in the pocket, and his RB was wide open on a angle (what's the name again? It was on chalk talk) route. He was wide open. WIDE OPEN. Stafford throws the easy ball for a big conversion. QB rating has no idea what just happened, and it's a normal 10 yard completion. QBR factors in the clutch situation (if he doesn't make this, then a field goal must be attempted), and how easy it was to checkdown to the RB.

    I honestly have no idea how you can defend the old QB rating compared to new QBR.

    And BTW, when you said it means that you have a 93.7% chance of winning, I don't think so (maybe I read it wrong?) because football is still a TEAM SPORT. Even a normal special teamer can ruin your chances of winning the game (hello Kyle Williams!). And even if it is a 93.7% chance of winning, did you factor in the 6.4% chance of losing?

    And still, football is a team sport. That's just how good Wilson was in the game. Not how good his WR's played, or the defense.

    Game, set, and match.


    I'm not bashing Russ. In fact I agree with most your posts. Just that we have differing opinions of the QBR. I just want to have better insight as to why QBR is so much better than the qb passer rating from those who may know. I've seen all of Wilson's games and although this one game was good it clearly was not superior in my eyes. If you disagree based on your opinions of the passer rating then tell me what I'm missing please.
    Russ Willstrong
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 852
    Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2012 5:31 am


  • Russ Willstrong wrote:Sorry Scott,

    I was distracted by the trick-or-treaters here in the midwest and didn't realize I wasn't addressing the OP.
    But yeah, I get the intent of this advanced rating system. I just find there's potentially too much subjectivity in the calculation of QBR. No rating system is perfect when evaluating the value of a QB's performance so I prefer to use the 'eye test' most of the time. In defense of the passer rating has much better correlation to winning records and true passer statistics which is really important for any tool.


    Ummm...both could potentially be rife with subjectivity. No offense, but the "eye tests" for QBs around here have been a bit...inconsistent.
    SEAHAWKS.NET. We All We Got, We All We Need
    User avatar
    Scottemojo
    *Scott of Smacksville*
    *Scott of Smacksville*
     
    Posts: 11939
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:14 am


  • Oh, and this point is not to keep the argument going, but doesn't this get you really psyched for Wilson?

    "He made no errors in setting protections or changing plays at the line of scrimmage, according to coach Pete Carroll"

    (this is big!)

    That is so great! I don't think T-Jack would have done as well (no offense meant to him). He is SUCH a fast learner! lol
    User avatar
    hawksfan515
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5236
    Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:52 pm
    Location: Battle Ground, Washington


  • Scottemojo wrote:
    Russ Willstrong wrote:Sorry Scott,

    I was distracted by the trick-or-treaters here in the midwest and didn't realize I wasn't addressing the OP.
    But yeah, I get the intent of this advanced rating system. I just find there's potentially too much subjectivity in the calculation of QBR. No rating system is perfect when evaluating the value of a QB's performance so I prefer to use the 'eye test' most of the time. In defense of the passer rating has much better correlation to winning records and true passer statistics which is really important for any tool.


    Ummm...both could potentially be rife with subjectivity. No offense, but the "eye tests" for QBs around here have been a bit...inconsistent.


    You are right Scott but QBR introduces much more subjectivity and offers less correlation with actual game statistics including W/L records.
    I prefer to use my own 'eye test' because the QBR is in essence ESPN's 'eye-test' version of the qb rating. By placing value to scenarios and various minutiae inherently lends to more subjectivity and worse correlation with actual game data. My 'eye test' says he had a worse game than Stafford. The traditional passer rating says Wilson had a poorer game than Stafford. The actual game data and most important the game outcome supports that Stafford had a better game than Wilson.

    And yet ESPN says his QBR was his best game thus far and much better than the actual hero of this game.
    Russ Willstrong
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 852
    Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2012 5:31 am


  • Russ Willstrong wrote:
    Scottemojo wrote:
    Russ Willstrong wrote:Sorry Scott,

    I was distracted by the trick-or-treaters here in the midwest and didn't realize I wasn't addressing the OP.
    But yeah, I get the intent of this advanced rating system. I just find there's potentially too much subjectivity in the calculation of QBR. No rating system is perfect when evaluating the value of a QB's performance so I prefer to use the 'eye test' most of the time. In defense of the passer rating has much better correlation to winning records and true passer statistics which is really important for any tool.


    Ummm...both could potentially be rife with subjectivity. No offense, but the "eye tests" for QBs around here have been a bit...inconsistent.


    You are right Scott but QBR introduces much more subjectivity and offers less correlation with actual game statistics including W/L records.
    I prefer to use my own 'eye test' because the QBR is in essence ESPN's 'eye-test' version of the qb rating. By placing value to scenarios and various minutiae inherently lends to more subjectivity and worse correlation with actual game data. My 'eye test' says he had a worse game than Stafford. The traditional passer rating says Wilson had a poorer game than Stafford. The actual game data and most important the game outcome supports that Stafford had a better game than Wilson.

    And yet ESPN says his QBR was his best game thus far and much better than the actual hero of this game.



    You realize Stafford most of the time, all he had to do was throw it in the middle of the field to convert a long down?

    And yes, Stafford probably benefited a lot from converting long 3rd's. He also probably did not benefit from not doing shit on 1st and 2nd, which contributed to a long 3rd. The Lions made their living on 3rd down, while Russ did it everywhere. That might be another reason.
    User avatar
    hawksfan515
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5236
    Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:52 pm
    Location: Battle Ground, Washington


  • Funny thing is that Wilson's very good QBR ratings doesn't produce much more respect on ESPN where he is mentioned to be overrated and a much lesser talent than 3 other rookie QB's.
    Russ Willstrong
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 852
    Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2012 5:31 am


  • Russ Willstrong wrote:Funny thing is that Wilson's very good QBR ratings doesn't produce much more respect on ESPN where he is mentioned to be overrated and a much lesser talent than 3 other rookie QB's.


    That's for a few reasons:

    1. His traditional stats were very BAD for today's standards in the first few games. It's not really his fault, we didn't pass a lot, and he faced good defenses.

    2. They are probably basing off earlier in the season. Their tune's shall be changed if Wilson does this against the Vikes.

    3. He still has to prove his height is not a problem. Hawk fans are past it, but other NFL fans in general are not.

    BTW not just QBR loves Wilson, so does PFF :) (but they did give Stafford a very good grade, as did Football Outsiders. BUT, they both gave Wilson good grades too, So I'll take it. I still like QBR though).
    User avatar
    hawksfan515
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5236
    Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:52 pm
    Location: Battle Ground, Washington


  • hawksfan515 wrote:
    Russ Willstrong wrote:Funny thing is that Wilson's very good QBR ratings doesn't produce much more respect on ESPN where he is mentioned to be overrated and a much lesser talent than 3 other rookie QB's.


    That's for a few reasons:

    1. His traditional stats were very BAD for today's standards in the first few games. It's not really his fault, we didn't pass a lot, and he faced good defenses.

    2. They are probably basing off earlier in the season. Their tune's shall be changed if Wilson does this against the Vikes.

    3. He still has to prove his height is not a problem. Hawk fans are past it, but other NFL fans in general are not.

    BTW not just QBR loves Wilson, so does PFF :) (but they did give Stafford a very good grade, as did Football Outsiders. BUT, they both gave Wilson good grades too, So I'll take it. I still like QBR though).


    Hell, we lost in the final minutes so why wasn't that scenario not most important in calculate QBR in favor for Stafford? Wilson had no chance to win in the final 20 seconds so why wasn't that factored in as well? What do I tell my fantasy football friends that QBR ratings mean Wilson outplayed Stafford?

    Poor process IMO.

    Agree to disagree. I can live with the flaws of the traditional passer rating. I can't live with ESPN (media-whores motivated by money) telling me that Wilson's performance gave the hawks exactly 93.7% chance of winning. AND I hope ESPN will warm up to Wilson AND Seattle when they get into the playoffs.
    Last edited by Russ Willstrong on Wed Oct 31, 2012 5:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    Russ Willstrong
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 852
    Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2012 5:31 am


  • Russ Willstrong wrote:
    hawksfan515 wrote:
    Russ Willstrong wrote:Funny thing is that Wilson's very good QBR ratings doesn't produce much more respect on ESPN where he is mentioned to be overrated and a much lesser talent than 3 other rookie QB's.


    That's for a few reasons:

    1. His traditional stats were very BAD for today's standards in the first few games. It's not really his fault, we didn't pass a lot, and he faced good defenses.

    2. They are probably basing off earlier in the season. Their tune's shall be changed if Wilson does this against the Vikes.

    3. He still has to prove his height is not a problem. Hawk fans are past it, but other NFL fans in general are not.

    BTW not just QBR loves Wilson, so does PFF :) (but they did give Stafford a very good grade, as did Football Outsiders. BUT, they both gave Wilson good grades too, So I'll take it. I still like QBR though).


    Hell, we lost in the final minutes so why wasn't that scenario not most important in calculate QBR in favor for Stafford? Wilson had no chance to win in the final 20 seconds so why wasn't that factored in as well? What do I tell my fantasy football friends that QBR ratings mean Wilson outplayed Stafford?

    Poor process IMO.

    Agree to disagree. I can live with the flaws of the traditional passer rating. I can't live with ESPN (media-whores motivated by money) telling me that Wilson's performance gave the hawks exactly 93.7% chance of winning.


    Whoever said that is pretty clearly wrong though, because Stafford got an 84.0, which means his team would've had an 84% chance of winning, ect.

    But argument over, so I guess this thread shall now die.
    User avatar
    hawksfan515
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5236
    Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:52 pm
    Location: Battle Ground, Washington


  • hf515,
    The essence of the QBR is to quantify a passer's contribution--interpreted as percentage toward winning. Thus 93.7 QBR is interpreted as 93.7% chance of winning success for your team. Again this is not my interpretation. It is ESPN's interpretation based on it's questionable calculations.
    Anyway you are right in that this argument is over. QBR is still a work in progress is all I'm trying to say.
    Last edited by Russ Willstrong on Wed Oct 31, 2012 5:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    Russ Willstrong
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 852
    Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2012 5:31 am


  • Russ Willstrong wrote:hf515,
    The essence of the QBR is to quantify a passer's contribution--interpreted as percentage toward winning. Thus 93.7 QBR is interpreted as 93.7% chance of winning success for your team. Again this is not my interpretation. It is ESPN's interpretation based on it's questionable calculations.



    I'm pretty sure it means how much a QB contributed to his team's performance, so a higher rating means it's more likely that that team shall win.
    User avatar
    hawksfan515
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5236
    Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:52 pm
    Location: Battle Ground, Washington


  • hawksfan515 wrote:
    Russ Willstrong wrote:hf515,
    The essence of the QBR is to quantify a passer's contribution--interpreted as percentage toward winning. Thus 93.7 QBR is interpreted as 93.7% chance of winning success for your team. Again this is not my interpretation. It is ESPN's interpretation based on it's questionable calculations.



    I'm pretty sure it means how much a QB contributed to his team's performance, so a higher rating means it's more likely that that team shall win.

    I apologize, this will be my final post on this topic.

    But yes, obviously the team's success is based off more than just the QB play as we learned in the last game.
    I always get caught up in this discussion of the QBR when talking with those who back it. It is a measure of the QB contributions toward the team's performance but a numerical value with max=100. I've had many discussions about the flaws of QBR with other fans in the past and was told the best way of interpreting the number is as a chance of winning (percentage) based solely off quarterback performance which after many discussions always left me confused. If this rating system is supposed to be so much simpler then why isn't everyone on the same page when trying to interpret the actual number let alone the data being entered?
    Russ Willstrong
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 852
    Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2012 5:31 am




It is currently Thu Dec 18, 2014 2:42 am

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE OFFICIAL NET NATION FAN FORUM ]




Information
  • Who is online