http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcwest/post/_/ ... hlisberger

The first chart shows the five highest-rated red zone quarterbacks from Week 4 through Week 9, measured by Total QBR. Wilson trails only Tom Brady, Aaron Rodgers and Drew Brees. Peyton Manning is fifth. All five have scores in the 90s (100 is maximum). The rest of the league is at 37.3.

That is goood company. It is so great to have red zone struggles resolved (even if only temporarily).

Let's all just be glad he's not in the company of the QB's in the second chart (Sanchez only ranks second to worst to John Skelton in the red zone).

can anyone explain to me why Ryan Tannehill has a 4-11 completion ratio with 1 TD to 0 INTs and John Skelton has a 5-10 completion ratio with 1 TD to 0 INTs, but Tannehill has a better QBR??

themunn wrote:can anyone explain to me why Ryan Tannehill has a 4-11 completion ratio with 1 TD to 0 INTs and John Skelton has a 5-10 completion ratio with 1 TD to 0 INTs, but Tannehill has a better QBR??

Watch the tape. That is something that is required to determine QBR. It's entirely likely that Tannehill had a few passes dropped in the endzone that weren't his fault, like RW's pass to Braylon week 1 in AZ.

hawksfan515 wrote:

themunn wrote:can anyone explain to me why Ryan Tannehill has a 4-11 completion ratio with 1 TD to 0 INTs and John Skelton has a 5-10 completion ratio with 1 TD to 0 INTs, but Tannehill has a better QBR??

Watch the tape. That is something that is required to determine QBR. It's entirely likely that Tannehill had a few passes dropped in the endzone that weren't his fault, like RW's pass to Braylon week 1 in AZ.

Oh I see, do they take points off for a poor throw that the WR has had to adjust to, even if it goes for a TD?
Do they award anything for a hail mary pass which is essentially just a heave and hope?
I prefer the purely statistical approach

themunn wrote:

hawksfan515 wrote:

themunn wrote:can anyone explain to me why Ryan Tannehill has a 4-11 completion ratio with 1 TD to 0 INTs and John Skelton has a 5-10 completion ratio with 1 TD to 0 INTs, but Tannehill has a better QBR??

Watch the tape. That is something that is required to determine QBR. It's entirely likely that Tannehill had a few passes dropped in the endzone that weren't his fault, like RW's pass to Braylon week 1 in AZ.

Oh I see, do they take points off for a poor throw that the WR has had to adjust to, even if it goes for a TD?
Do they award anything for a hail mary pass which is essentially just a heave and hope?
I prefer the purely statistical approach

Yes, and no.

I don't really like the purely statistical approach due to the fact that a QB can chuck a screen that goes for 90 yards and a TD, really boosting his QB rating, but not his QBR. Then, another QB can go in and throw a perfect pass to a WR in the endzone, and the WR can bobble it and the ball will get intercepted, and while their QB rating drastically suffers, QBR mostly gives them the credit for the TD pass, putting the blame on the WR instead.

One problem with football is there are insufficient games/reps to get really good stats like you get in baseball. And, it being one of the ultimate team sports, one player's stats are often highly contingent on some other player/s doing their job right.

I kind of like the added subjectivity of the new QBR.

themunn wrote:can anyone explain to me why Ryan Tannehill has a 4-11 completion ratio with 1 TD to 0 INTs and John Skelton has a 5-10 completion ratio with 1 TD to 0 INTs, but Tannehill has a better QBR??

I'm thinking it has something to do with the fact that QBR is a bunch of hokum.

I also find it awesome that two of the three Wilson trails have lost to the Seahawks this season.

CANHawk wrote:

themunn wrote:can anyone explain to me why Ryan Tannehill has a 4-11 completion ratio with 1 TD to 0 INTs and John Skelton has a 5-10 completion ratio with 1 TD to 0 INTs, but Tannehill has a better QBR??

I'm thinking it has something to do with the fact that QBR is a bunch of hokum.

C'mon CAN, your better than that. Why is it bad? I honestly think it's a big step up from QB rating. They actually have to study film for this stuff, that automatically makes it better than most everything.

I thought you guys liked film breakdowns? This is essentially a film breakdown in form of a number rating.