Wilson just had the best game of his career

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":3mgthpcq said:

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.

Click to expand...

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).

hawksfan515":2kh0lavz said:

Russ Willstrong":2kh0lavz said:

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.

Click to expand...

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).

Click to expand...

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.

Russ Willstrong":24z633e0 said:

hawksfan515":24z633e0 said:

Russ Willstrong":24z633e0 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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).

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Russ Willstrong":342cm84i said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

hawksfan515":169edjpv said:

Russ Willstrong":169edjpv said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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?