Russel Wilson after a loss

[ringless]

I have to say, watching his post game interviews is something else.

He is composed, upbeat, and confident. You guys are so fortunate to have that type of leadership.....

Kap does not compare in anyway

 

[RolandDeschain]

I have to say, watching his post game interviews is something else.

He is composed, upbeat, and confident. You guys are so fortunate to have that type of leadership.....

Kap does not compare in anyway

Aye, we're very fortunate to have him. We jokingly call him a robot because nothing rattles him.

 

[Russ Willstrong]

RW had an ESPN total QBR=29. WTF?
In comparison Josh McCown had a total QBR=91 and his stats were 16 of 21 passing for 179 yds, 0 td and 1 int in a loss.
Is RW the reason we lost?

 

[FreshlySnipes]

RW had an ESPN total QBR=29. WTF?
In comparison Josh McCown had a total QBR=91 and his stats were 16 of 21 passing for 179 yds, 0 td and 1 int in a loss.
Is RW the reason we lost?

Typo maybe?

And we are hella lucky to have ruse

 

[themunn]

In fairness old man McCown also had 2 rushing tds

 

[Diezel Dawg]

ESPNs QBR Stat is a joke. It is a made up Stat. Passer rating seems to be the better of the two stats.

 

[hawksfansinceday1]

ESPNs QBR Stat is a joke. It is a made up Stat. Passer rating seems to be the better of the two stats.

This. PLEASE stop paying attention to their freaking stupid QBR.

 

[hawksfansinceday1]

I have to say, watching his post game interviews is something else.

He is composed, upbeat, and confident. You guys are so fortunate to have that type of leadership.....

Kap does not compare in anyway

I posted a blurb in the NFL forum last night I'll reiterate here...........you guys may be seeing the beginning of the end of Kraep as your QB. He simply does not see the field and makes poor decisions on top of it. His running is all he's got and it doesn't appear that he's going to ever "get it". As much as I despise Little Jimmy Tantrum Boy, he should be given a LOT of credit for getting Kraep to the point he is because the guy just doesn't do the things a good NL QB does.

And yes, we are very lucky to have Russ. His decision making process is amazing, rarely makes a bad choice. His arm isn't as good as your guy's, but that's true of pretty much everyone in the league. If your coach leaves at the end of the season as I expect he will, I think Kraep won't be far behind.

 

[SeatownJay]

I have to say, watching his post game interviews is something else.

He is composed, upbeat, and confident. You guys are so fortunate to have that type of leadership.....

Kap does not compare in anyway

I posted a blurb in the NFL forum last night I'll reiterate here...........you guys may be seeing the beginning of the end of Kraep as your QB. He simply does not see the field and makes poor decisions on top of it. His running is all he's got and it doesn't appear that he's going to ever "get it". As much as I despise Little Jimmy Tantrum Boy, he should be given a LOT of credit for getting Kraep to the point he is because the guy just doesn't do the things a good NL QB does.

And yes, we are very lucky to have Russ. His decision making process is amazing, rarely makes a bad choice. His arm isn't as good as your guy's, but that's true of pretty much everyone in the league. If your coach leaves at the end of the season as I expect he will, I think Kraep won't be far behind.

Psssst, ringless is a Cards fan, not a Niners fan.

 

[Threedee]

Damn that was entertaining watching Kaeperpick meltdown in the 2nd Half after a day of seeing the Seattle teams both lose.

 

[Anthony!]

RW had an ESPN total QBR=29. WTF?
In comparison Josh McCown had a total QBR=91 and his stats were 16 of 21 passing for 179 yds, 0 td and 1 int in a loss.
Is RW the reason we lost?

Typo maybe?

And we are hella lucky to have ruse

For one QBR takes into account sacks against the QB no matter why, they take into account drops against the QB no matter what, taking a sack hurts your QBR less than throwing it away, it is a very very faulty system that no one outside of ESPN takes any credence in. The QB rating is the only one that matters RW had a 119 QB rating of the last game and is #3 in the league an top 10 in Complt %. Also top 3 in TDs and #` in ints, and 32 in TD/Int what more do we need?

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

RW had an ESPN total QBR=29. WTF?
In comparison Josh McCown had a total QBR=91 and his stats were 16 of 21 passing for 179 yds, 0 td and 1 int in a loss.
Is RW the reason we lost?

Typo maybe?

And we are hella lucky to have ruse

For one QBR takes into account sacks against the QB no matter why, they take into account drops against the QB no matter what, taking a sack hurts your QBR less than throwing it away, it is a very very faulty system that no one outside of ESPN takes any credence in. The QB rating is the only one that matters RW had a 119 QB rating of the last game and is #3 in the league an top 10 in Complt %. Also top 3 in TDs and #` in ints, and 32 in TD/Int what more do we need?

Currently he is at 114.7 which is 3rd in the NFL for full time starting quarterbacks.

 

[Popeyejones]

For one QBR takes into account sacks against the QB no matter why, they take into account drops against the QB no matter what, taking a sack hurts your QBR less than throwing it away, it is a very very faulty system that no one outside of ESPN takes any credence in. The QB rating is the only one that matters RW had a 119 QB rating of the last game and is #3 in the league an top 10 in Complt %. Also top 3 in TDs and #` in ints, and 32 in TD/Int what more do we need?

FWIW I take credence in it for a very simple reason: it's more predictive of winning or losing than the traditional passer rating, which is all it was intended to do.

While we could quibble about a lot of stuff, the major problem with QBR is that it's proprietary and as such can't be improved by others and can't be dug into too much.*

It's better than the traditional passer rating (and performs better in predicting winning) because it 1) incorporates rushing performance by the QB (total performance, not just passing), 2) incorporates fumbles lost, 3) doesn't treat all stats as equal and is weighted toward performance when games are close rather than when games are out of reach** 4) doesn't favor completion percentage over average length of completion.

I also find it funy that without the existence of QBR people would still be complaining about how stupid the old passer rating is, rather than the renaissance it has had among fans.

*For instance, I think incorporating sacks into a metric of QB performance is smart, it should just be sacks adjusted for time to throw, or sacks after (say) 3 seconds after the snap, which are much more on the QB than those under 3 seconds after the snap. We don't know if it does this because it's proprietary.

*Just as one example, when it's the 4th quarter and you're down by multiple scoes you're BETTER OFF throwing risky chunk passes which may be intercepted than throwing over and over again to check down receivers in the center of the field. If you dink your way to a loss against prevent coverage the traditional passer rating treats you as being great, rather than guaranteeing a loss in deference to your own passing stats. That's idiotic.

 

[HawksSoc]

RW had an ESPN total QBR=29. WTF?
In comparison Josh McCown had a total QBR=91 and his stats were 16 of 21 passing for 179 yds, 0 td and 1 int in a loss.
Is RW the reason we lost?

No. 'Some days you just go 0 for 4. Some day you just swing and miss'.

 

[kpak76]

For one QBR takes into account sacks against the QB no matter why, they take into account drops against the QB no matter what, taking a sack hurts your QBR less than throwing it away, it is a very very faulty system that no one outside of ESPN takes any credence in. The QB rating is the only one that matters RW had a 119 QB rating of the last game and is #3 in the league an top 10 in Complt %. Also top 3 in TDs and #` in ints, and 32 in TD/Int what more do we need?

FWIW I take credence in it for a very simple reason: it's more predictive of winning or losing than the traditional passer rating, which is all it was intended to do.

While we could quibble about a lot of stuff, the major problem with QBR is that it's proprietary and as such can't be improved by others and can't be dug into too much.*

It's better than the traditional passer rating (and performs better in predicting winning) because it 1) incorporates rushing performance by the QB (total performance, not just passing), 2) incorporates fumbles lost, 3) doesn't treat all stats as equal and is weighted toward performance when games are close rather than when games are out of reach** 4) doesn't favor completion percentage over average length of completion.

I also find it funy that without the existence of QBR people would still be complaining about how stupid the old passer rating is, rather than the renaissance it has had among fans.

*For instance, I think incorporating sacks into a metric of QB performance is smart, it should just be sacks adjusted for time to throw, or sacks after (say) 3 seconds after the snap, which are much more on the QB than those under 3 seconds after the snap. We don't know if it does this because it's proprietary.

*Just as one example, when it's the 4th quarter and you're down by multiple scoes you're BETTER OFF throwing risky chunk passes which may be intercepted than throwing over and over again to check down receivers in the center of the field. If you dink your way to a loss against prevent coverage the traditional passer rating treats you as being great, rather than guaranteeing a loss in deference to your own passing stats. That's idiotic.

Ok so can you with a straight face actually say that Josh McCowen had a better game than Russell Wilson yesterday? Because that is what QBR is saying. QBR is flawed just like QB rating is flawed. At the moment, QB rating is a little less flawed than QBR.

It's on the right track imo, but like someone says ESPN refuses to let anyone else delve into it to allow it to get better.

 

[DavidSeven]

FWIW I take credence in it for a very simple reason: it's more predictive of winning or losing than the traditional passer rating, which is all it was intended to do.

Wait, it is? Russell Wilson, #13 in 2013 QBR, had the best record in the NFL that season and won the Super Bowl. Josh McCown (#1 2013 QBR!) and Jay Cutler were both in the top 10; Bears finished 8-8 and missed the playoffs. Matt Ryan, #10 in QBR, went 4-12. Am I missing the correlation between high QBR and actual wins?

I can make-up any stat and say it has predictive value on wins and losses. However, the results actually need to bear that out to legitimize the claim.

 

[Anthony!]

For one QBR takes into account sacks against the QB no matter why, they take into account drops against the QB no matter what, taking a sack hurts your QBR less than throwing it away, it is a very very faulty system that no one outside of ESPN takes any credence in. The QB rating is the only one that matters RW had a 119 QB rating of the last game and is #3 in the league an top 10 in Complt %. Also top 3 in TDs and #` in ints, and 32 in TD/Int what more do we need?

FWIW I take credence in it for a very simple reason: it's more predictive of winning or losing than the traditional passer rating, which is all it was intended to do.

While we could quibble about a lot of stuff, the major problem with QBR is that it's proprietary and as such can't be improved by others and can't be dug into too much.*

It's better than the traditional passer rating (and performs better in predicting winning) because it 1) incorporates rushing performance by the QB (total performance, not just passing), 2) incorporates fumbles lost, 3) doesn't treat all stats as equal and is weighted toward performance when games are close rather than when games are out of reach** 4) doesn't favor completion percentage over average length of completion.

I also find it funy that without the existence of QBR people would still be complaining about how stupid the old passer rating is, rather than the renaissance it has had among fans.

*For instance, I think incorporating sacks into a metric of QB performance is smart, it should just be sacks adjusted for time to throw, or sacks after (say) 3 seconds after the snap, which are much more on the QB than those under 3 seconds after the snap. We don't know if it does this because it's proprietary.

*Just as one example, when it's the 4th quarter and you're down by multiple scoes you're BETTER OFF throwing risky chunk passes which may be intercepted than throwing over and over again to check down receivers in the center of the field. If you dink your way to a loss against prevent coverage the traditional passer rating treats you as being great, rather than guaranteeing a loss in deference to your own passing stats. That's idiotic.

Good for you, the rest of us will use the real stat QB rating.

 

[Anthony!]

FWIW I take credence in it for a very simple reason: it's more predictive of winning or losing than the traditional passer rating, which is all it was intended to do.

Wait, it is? Russell Wilson, #13 in 2013 QBR, had the best record in the NFL that season and won the Super Bowl. Josh McCown (#1 2013 QBR!) and Jay Cutler were both in the top 10; Bears finished 8-8 and missed the playoffs. Matt Ryan, #10 in QBR, went 4-12. Am I missing the correlation between high QBR and actual wins?

I can make-up any stat and say it has predictive value on wins and losses. However, the results actually need to bear that out to legitimize the claim.

Exactly

 

[hawksfansinceday1]

I have to say, watching his post game interviews is something else.

He is composed, upbeat, and confident. You guys are so fortunate to have that type of leadership.....

Kap does not compare in anyway

I posted a blurb in the NFL forum last night I'll reiterate here...........you guys may be seeing the beginning of the end of Kraep as your QB. He simply does not see the field and makes poor decisions on top of it. His running is all he's got and it doesn't appear that he's going to ever "get it". As much as I despise Little Jimmy Tantrum Boy, he should be given a LOT of credit for getting Kraep to the point he is because the guy just doesn't do the things a good NL QB does.

And yes, we are very lucky to have Russ. His decision making process is amazing, rarely makes a bad choice. His arm isn't as good as your guy's, but that's true of pretty much everyone in the league. If your coach leaves at the end of the season as I expect he will, I think Kraep won't be far behind.

Psssst, ringless is a Cards fan, not a Niners fan.

, but I stand by my comments about Kraep.