Chiefs New QB Metric: Total QB Rating [Archive]

View Full Version : Chiefs New QB Metric: Total QB Rating

OnTheWarpath15

08-05-2011, 04:28 PM

Apparently there is going to be an hour-long show on ESPN tonight explaining this further.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/6833215/explaining-statistics-total-quarterback-rating

Early in a scoreless game, a quarterback throws a 20-yard pass just by the reaching arms of a defender and into the hands of his intended receiver, who holds on despite the distraction, then scampers the remaining 15 yards for a touchdown.

Another quarterback, down 30-10 with five minutes left in the fourth quarter, throws a 3-yard screen pass to a running back, who maneuvers another 32 yards through prevent defense to pick up a first down deep in opponent territory.

Both are called good plays, but labeling them as "good" isn't enough. Each play has a different level of contribution to winning, and each play illustrates a different level of quarterback contribution. What is the quarterback's contribution to winning in each situation? Coaches want to know this; players want to know this; and fans want to know this.

The Total Quarterback Rating is a statistical measure that incorporates the contexts and details of those throws and what they mean for wins. It's built from the team level down to the quarterback, where we understand first what each play means to the team, then give credit to the quarterback for what happened on that play based on what he contributed.

At the team level, identifying what wins games is not revolutionary: scoring points and not allowing points. Back in the 1980s, "The Hidden Game of Football" did some pioneering work on that topic and on how yardage relates to points. We went back and updated what that book did … then we went further. At the individual level, more detailed information about what quarterbacks do is really necessary. Brian Burke at AdvancedNFLStats.com has done very good work in advancing that effort, and FootballOutsiders.com has done some of this by charting data, but, for the past three years, ESPN has charted football games in immense detail. By putting all these ideas together and incorporating division of credit, we have built a metric of quarterback value, the Total Quarterback Rating, Total QBR or QBR for short.

What follows is a summary of what goes into QBR. It took several thousand lines of code to implement, but we'll keep this shorter.

Win Probability and Expected Points

The goal behind any player rating should be determining how much a player contributes to a win. We went back through 10 years of NFL play-by-play data to look at game situation (down, distance, yard line, clock time, timeouts, home field, field surface and score), along with the ultimate outcome of the game, to develop a win probability function.

This function treats every win the same, regardless of whether it was 45-3 or 24-23, though there is clearly a difference between such games. The first game represents total domination, whereas the other represents two fairly evenly matched teams. Because win probability treats every win the same, it misses some of what goes into the win, specifically many of the points that represent domination or the points that lead up to a last-second victory. So, although QBR uses win probability to assess how "clutch" a situation is, it uses expected points as the basis of evaluating quarterbacks. It has more of the details, and understands the difference between wins, but still strongly relates to wins in general.

The concept of expected points was discussed as early as the mid-1980s with Pete Palmer & Co. and "The Hidden Game of Football," in which they talk about "point potential." Their idea was that, as you move closer to the opponents' end zone, you are actually gaining points. Brian Burke took it further to note that third-and-10 from midfield, for instance, has fewer expected points than first-and-10 from midfield. In other words, down and distance also matter in terms of points. We took this even further to look at clock time, home field, timeouts and field surface to generate the expected points for any team given its situation in a drive. One particular situation to note is that, at the end of the half, a team is less likely to score any points than at most other times of the game, just because the half is going to expire.

It's useful to mention here that expected points are expected net points. It's possible that a team has expected points less than 0. This simply implies that the other team is generally more likely to score. This usually happens when a team is backed up deep in its own side of the field, especially if it is third or fourth down.

What then happens is an evaluation of expected points added. How does a team go from 1.1 expected points to 2.1? However it does it, that is 1.0 expected points to be distributed to the offensive players on the field. But how the team does it is what determines how credit is given to a quarterback.

Dividing Credit

Division of credit is the next step. Dividing credit among teammates is one of the most difficult but important aspects of sports. Teammates rely upon each other and, as the cliché goes, a team might not be the sum of its parts. By dividing credit, we are forcing the parts to sum up to the team, understanding the limitations but knowing that it is the best way statistically for the rating.

On a pass play, for instance, there are a few basic components:
• The pass protection
• The throw
• The catch
• The run after the catch

In the first segment, the blockers and the quarterback have responsibility for keeping the play alive, and the receivers have to get open for a QB to avoid a sack or having to throw the ball away. On the throw itself, a quarterback has to throw an accurate ball to the intended receiver. Certain receivers might run better or worse routes, so the ability of a QB to be on target also relates somewhat to the receivers. For the catch, it might be a very easy one where the QB laid it in right in stride and no defenders were there to distract the receiver. Or it could be that the QB threaded a needle and defenders absolutely hammered the receiver as he caught the ball, making it difficult to hold on. So even the catch is about both the receiver and the QB. Finally, the run after the catch depends on whether a QB hit the receiver in stride beyond the defense and on the ability of a receiver to be elusive. Whatever credit we give to the blockers, receivers and quarterback in these situations is designed to sum to the team expected points added.

The ESPN video tracking has been useful in helping to separate credit in plays like these. We track overthrows, underthrows, dropped passes, defended passes and yards after the catch. The big part was taking this information and analyzing how much of it was related to the QB, the receivers and the blockers. Not surprisingly, pass protection is related mostly to the QB and the offensive line, but yards after the catch is more about what the receiver does. Statistical analysis was able to show this, and we divided credit based on those things.

As a relevant side note, statistical analysis showed that what we call a dropped pass was not all a receiver's fault, either. A receiver might drop a ball because he wanted to run before catching it, because the defense distracted him, because it was a little bit behind him or because he was about to get hit by a defender. If the defender was there a half second before, the defender would have knocked the ball free and it would have been called a "defended pass," not a "dropped pass." There are shades of gray even on a dropped pass, and analysis showed that. Drops are less a QB's fault than defended passes or underthrows, but the QB does share some blame.

On most other plays, quarterbacks receive some portion of credit for the result of the play, including defensive pass interference, intentional grounding, scrambles, sacks, fumbles, fumble recoveries (Carson Palmer once recovered a teammate's fumble that saved the game for the Bengals) and throwaways.

On plays when the QB just hands off to a running back, we didn't assign any credit to the QB. Our NFL experts did suggest that some QBs are very good at interpreting defenses pre-snap and identifying better holes for their backs. However, they also told us it would be nearly impossible to incorporate. Because they suggested this, we built in the ability to give credit for QBs when they just handed off, but we couldn't find the right analysis to do it in 2011.

Clutch Index

The final major step is to look at how "clutch" the situation was when creating expected points. A normal play has a clutch index of 1.0. For instance, first-and-goal from the 10-yard line in a tie game at the start of the second quarter has a clutch index of almost exactly 1.0. A more clutch situation, one late in the game when the game is close -- the same situation as above but midway through the fourth quarter, for example -- has a clutch index of about 2.0. Maximum clutch indices are about 3.0, and minimum indices are about 0.3.

These clutch index values came from an analysis of how different situations affect a game's win probability on average. One way to think of it is in terms of pressure. A clutch play is defined before the play by how close the game appears to be. Down four points with three seconds to go and facing third-and-goal from the 3-yard line -- that is a high-pressure and high-clutch index situation because the play can realistically raise the odds of winning to almost 100 percent or bring them down from about 40 percent to almost zero percent. The same situation from midfield isn't as high pressure because it's very unlikely that the team will pull out the victory. Sure, a Hail Mary can pull the game out, but if it doesn't work, the team didn't fail on that play so much as it failed before then. On third-and-goal from the 3-yard line, failure means people will be talking about that final play and what went wrong.

The clutch indices are multiplied by the quarterback's expected points on plays when the QB had a significant contribution, then divided by the sum of the clutch indices and multiplied by 100 to get a clutch-valued expected points added per 100 plays.

A Rating from 0 to 100

The final step is transforming the clutch-valued expected points rate to a number from 0 to 100. This is just a mathematical formula with no significance other than to make it easier to communicate. A value of 90 and above sounds good whether you're talking about a season, a game or just third-and-long situations; a value of four or 14 doesn't sound very good; a value of 50 is average, and that is what QBR generates for an average performance.

That being said, the top values in a season tend to be about 75 and above, whereas the top values in a game are in the upper 90s. Aaron Rodgers might have gone 31-of-36 for 366 yards, with three passing TDs, another TD running, 19 first-down conversions, and eight conversions on third or fourth down in one game -- for a single-game Total QBR of 97.2 -- but he can't keep that up all year long. Pro Bowl-level performance for a season usually means a QBR of at least 65 or 70. We don't expect to see a season with a QBR in the 90s.

Defensive Adjustment

With this rating, we have intentionally not adjusted for opponents. This doesn't mean that we won't adjust for opponents as we use it but that we want QBR to be flexible for many purposes, and keeping opponents' strength out gives us that flexibility. As it stands, QBR can be broken down for all sorts of situations -- red zone, third-and-long, throwing to a certain receiver, in bad weather, against different defensive formations. We didn't want to muddy it up with opponent adjustments that aren't as useful for those situations. How to implement a defensive adjustment for third-and-long also might be different from one for the whole season. Beyond this, a defensive adjustment is often not a constant factor. A defense that looks good in Week 4 might not be as good after a few more weeks. Because it isn't a constant thing, it makes sense to leave that for analysis rather than constant incorporation into QBR.

There will be analyses that we do on ESPN that will suggest the use of an opponent adjustment, but we will do that when needed, not up front.

Concluding Thoughts

What underlies QBR is an understanding of how football works and a lot of detailed situational data. What it yields are results that should reflect that. It illustrates that converting on third-and-long is important to a quarterback. It shows that a pass that is in the air for 40 yards is more reflective of a quarterback than a pass that is in the air for 5 yards and the receiver has 35 yards of run after the catch. These premises should sound reasonable to football fans. They come out of a lot of statistical analysis, but they are also consistent with what coaches and players understand.

As we neared the end of the development of QBR, we talked to Ron Jaworski and Greg Cosell at NFL Films about its evolution. Cosell said at one point, "Football is not complex, but it is very detailed." I realized then that QBR is like that. It is very detailed, accounting for a lot of different situations, but it is not particularly complex. It really does try to see the game the way we have gotten used to seeing it in its elegant simplicity. We hope you, the fan, appreciate it, as well.

Dean Oliver is one of the pioneers in sports analytics. Author of "Basketball on Paper," the standard for doing analytics in basketball, Oliver applied his work to personnel and coaching matters for five successful years in the front office of the Denver Nuggets. Oliver is the director of analytics for ESPN. He joined the company in 2011 to build the analytics group, which works across a number of sports.

Hammock Parties

08-05-2011, 04:29 PM

OnTheWarpath15

08-05-2011, 04:30 PM

Another write-up. Glad someone finally realized the old QB rating was useless.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/6835090/nfl-total-quarterback-rating-shifts-way-see-position

Like body mass index, IQ and the gross national product, the NFL's passer rating roughly measures something important but yields deeply flawed results. It's always been a jury-rigged stat just waiting for the sabermetric revolution to kick out its struts and build something better in its place.

Well, ladies and gentlemen, the wrecking crew has arrived, and the extreme makeover has commenced. Welcome to Total Quarterback Rating (QBR), a new way of looking at QBs based on ESPN's analysis of nearly 60,000 NFL plays over the past three seasons. QBR looks at every facet of quarterback play, from passing and rushing to fumbling and taking sacks, and allocates credit or blame to QBs according to how each and every play they make contributes to their team's success.

Do we all really need another uber-stat? Well, yes, because there are two basic problems with traditional passer ratings: what they measure and what they don't measure. The official formula for passer rating is actually less complicated than its reputation. It takes completions, passing yards, touchdown passes and interceptions, all on a per-attempt basis, compares each to a league-average figure, and mashes them into one number. But passer rating doesn't attempt to weight its categories by their importance to winning football games. It just averages them together, which tends to bias scores heavily in favor of QBs who complete a lot of short passes, driving up completion percentage without necessarily generating more yards or points. It's even possible, absurdly enough, to improve your rating by throwing passes for negative yards.

Another issue: the league averages that passer rating uses to grade QBs come from the Paleozoic 1970s, when a special NFL committee put the stat together, and when football's rules and strategies were both far less friendly to passers than today. How much has the game changed since then? Well, in 1973, the year passer rating became an official stat, Roman Gabriel, then with the Eagles, led the league with 3,219 passing yards, a total that would have ranked 18th in the NFL last year. A QB's passer rating is partly, often largely, a product of the time in which he played, rendering era-to-era comparisons nearly useless.

And what good is a stat if it can't help settle who's-greatest brawls?

Let's look at what's left out of the official passer rating formula. Michael Vick led the NFL with 6.8 yards per rushing attempt last season, but the system the league uses to rate QBs gives him no credit for the 676 yards or nine TDs his legs generated. Conversely, Jay Cutler lost 352 yards on sacks, but Osi Umenyiora could still be planting Cutler near Jimmy Hoffa and passer rating wouldn't notice. It counts the four categories it cares about, and only those four. Just as important, passer rating doesn't consider how or when a QB racks up passing yards, TDs or INTs. Throw for 300 yards and a couple of scores as you're trying to avoid getting shut out in a hopeless loss, and you'll inflate your rating; heave a Hail Mary jump-ball INT as the clock runs out in the first half, and you'll drag your rating down.

We shouldn't bash the inventors of passer rating too harshly, though. Don Smith of the Pro Football Hall of Fame, Don Weiss of the NFL and Seymour Siwoff of the Elias Sports Bureau heeded a call of duty from then-commissioner Pete Rozelle and did their best with the stats they had. And their formula is probably better than any of the eight other systems the league tried between 1932 and 1972. But passer rating is a perfect example of everything that can go awry with kitchen-sink stats, where an inventor throws together a bunch of data that looks important, breaks out his calculator and sees what he can come up with. QBR takes a different tack; it measures the connection between plays and points on the field, between points and team wins, and then gives credit where credit is due.

QBR starts with this insight: Any possession in a football game has an expected value -- the average number of points the team with possession can expect to score, based on all the historical outcomes for teams facing the same down, distance, field position and time remaining. And that means we can evaluate any play by how much it increases or decreases a team's expected point total.

For instance, if your favorite team is playing at home and has a third-and-7 from its opponent's 45-yard line with 14:55 remaining in the fourth quarter, it will score, on average, 1.8 points. Suppose your team then gains 42 yards on its next play, giving it a first-and-goal at the 3-yard line with 14:30 left in the game. In that situation, teams average 5.6 points. So the value of that play is the difference between 5.6 and 1.8, or 3.8 expected points.

It doesn't matter whether the play was a bomb, a screen pass, a draw up the middle, a recovered double fumble or a pass-interference penalty. It's worth 3.8 points, and if you add up the expected values added by all of your team's plays in a game or a season, you will get something very close to the number of points it actually scored.

QBR allocates the points added by every play in an NFL season to each of the players involved, every play. On completed passes, for example, it splits credit among QBs, receivers and blockers, depending on factors such as whether the quarterback was under duress, where he threw the ball, how far it traveled and how many yards the receiver gained after the catch. QBR splits the blame for sacks on quarterbacks and offensive linemen and attributes QB fumbles to QBs. Further, QBR weights every play by its clutch value -- its contribution to a team's chances of winning, given the score of a game, not just to scoring points.

And if you care at all about stats, that's the key: QBR finally brings all the advantages of win probability to football. To determine who the most valuable player in the NFL is, compare the average value of, say, wide receivers and defensive backs, or figure out whether it's worth it to onside kick, you need a system that tells you how much various plays affect a team's probability of winning a game. QBR does just that for quarterbacks. A 5-yard completion on third-and-3 is much more valuable to QBR than a 5-yard completion on third-and-15 because, in real life, it gives the quarterback's team a much better chance of coming out ahead.

QBR is scaled from 0 to 100, with 50 representing league-average performance. For a single game, a rating in the 90s is terrific; last year, Vick's six-TD Monday night symphony against the Redskins topped the charts at 99.8. For a season, any QBR above 65 is Pro Bowl-caliber, and Tom Brady led all starters with a 76.0 QBR in 2010.

But those are just the top-line numbers. Delve into the finer details of QBR, and we can quantify the true greatness of Peyton Manning, who has added 107.5 clutch-weighted points a year to the Colts' offense since 2008, significantly more than any other QB in the NFL. We can see who has killed his team worst over the past three seasons with sacks (Cutler, minus-55.5 clutch-weighted points in 2010), interceptions (Cutler, minus-44.1 in 2009) and fumbles (that's right, Cutler again, minus-15.6 in 2010). Vick helped his team the most with his legs last season (22.1 clutch-weighted points). Matt Ryan adds more than a touchdown a year to the Falcons' offense just by inducing opponent penalties. We can also start to appreciate players and skills that used to go unrecognized.

In fact, we can … well, you get the point. Now that the lockout is finally over, we've got all season to play in this shiny new house. And the difference between QBR and all the ramshackle metrics that have come before is that this rating isn't just convenient, it's also comprehensive and meaningful. We're moving on up.

Peter Keating is a senior writer for ESPN The Magazine and contributor to ESPN Insider.

keg in kc

08-05-2011, 04:33 PM

I don't think I'm going to read all that right now, unless there's a quiz I don't know about tomorrow.

Either way, quarterback rating was one of the most worthless stats that was most oft tossed around, so it's probably a good thing to change it up.

OnTheWarpath15

08-05-2011, 04:34 PM

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcwest/post/_/id/41811/how-to-identify-nfls-best-quarterbacks

The late Don Smith never claimed his passer-rating formula was perfect.

Quite the opposite, in fact.

I've actually defended Smith's rating system because the quarterbacks with the highest ratings -- Tom Brady, Philip Rivers and Aaron Rodgers led the way last season -- usually are the best quarterbacks. But there's so much more to quarterbacking than passing stats for touchdowns, interceptions, attempts, completions and yardage.

Game situations should count for something, and now they do.

With input from football people, including ESPN analyst Trent Dilfer, our statistical analysts have developed a 100-point ratings scale for quarterbacks taking into account advanced stats, game situations and relevant non-passing stats, including fumbles and sacks, to evaluate quarterbacks far more thoroughly. The methodology is complex -- one of the formula's key algorithms spans some 10,000 lines -- but the resulting "Total Quarterback Rating" (QBR for short) beats the old passer rating in every conceivable fashion. The ratings scale will debut this season.

I've been bugging the Stats & Information team for a sneak peak ever since learning former NBA statistical analyst Dean Oliver had joined our production analytics unit and was playing a prominent role in QBR development. Oliver, a Caltech grad with a Ph.D. in statistical applications, revolutionized how NBA teams use advanced statistics. Menlo College professor Ben Alamar, who has consulted with the San Francisco 49ers, is also part of the team.

The old formula Smith created treated stats the same regardless of circumstance. A touchdown pass thrown against a prevent defense during a blowout defeat equals one thrown against pressure to win the game. A 5-yard completion on third-and-4 counts the same as a 5-yarder on third-and-15. A critical quarterback scramble, sack or fumble doesn't even factor.

"There is no way to statistically say how effective a guy is under fire," Smith lamented during our 2002 conversation. "None of that can be put into something like this."

Now it can, along with a whole lot more.

The QBR formula takes into account down, distance, field position, time remaining, rushing, passing sacks, fumbles, interceptions, how far each pass travels in the air, from where on the field the ball was thrown, yards after the catch, dropped balls, defensed balls, whether the quarterback was hit, whether he threw away the ball to avoid a sack, whether the pass was thrown accurately, etc. Each play carries "clutch weight" based on its importance to game outcome, as determined by analyzing those 60,000 plays since 2008. The stats adjust for quarterbacks facing an unusually high number of these situations.

"If it is a running clock late in the game, maybe you only get a few yards here or there, that is the right football play to make," Jeff Bennett, senior director of ESPN's production analytics team, said Sunday. "We spent a month learning about ratings to make sure quarterbacks couldn’t game the system, so they're not afraid to throw that deep pass at the end of the first half and risk an interception."

I've seen an outline for the rating system breaking down 2010 quarterbacks into six general categories, from top tier to poor. Precise rating numbers were not yet available. The quarterbacks under consideration broke down as follows:

Top tier: Brady, Peyton Manning, Matt Ryan, Michael Vick, Rodgers and Drew Brees.

Well above average: Josh Freeman, Eli Manning and Philip Rivers.

Above average: Ben Roethlisberger, Tony Romo, Joe Flacco, Matt Schaub, David Garrard and Kerry Collins.

Around average: Matt Cassel, Ryan Fitzpatrick, Mark Sanchez, Carson Palmer, Colt McCoy, Kyle Orton and Jon Kitna.

Below average: Shaun Hill, Jason Campbell, Jay Cutler, Matt Hasselbeck, Chad Henne, Donovan McNabb, Sam Bradford and Alex Smith.

Poor: Derek Anderson, Brett Favre and Jimmy Clausen.

ESPN plans to enlist several quarterbacks when introducing the stat during an hour-long "SportsCenter" special Friday at 8 p.m. ET. We'll be referencing the stat on the blogs and elsewhere. Bennett said he's allocating enough manpower to produce ratings on game days, a huge help for those of us analyzing player performances shortly after games.

"We want to reward a good football play," Bennett said.

OnTheWarpath15

08-05-2011, 04:34 PM

Total QBR Basics

A quick primer on the fundamentals of Total Quarterback Rating:

Scoring: 0-100, from low to high. An average QB would be at 50.

Win Probability: All QB plays are scored based on how much they contribute to a win. By determining expected point totals for almost any situation,
Total QBR is able to apply points to a quarterback based on every type of play he would be involved in.

Dividing Credit: Total QBR factors in such things as overthrows, underthrows, yards after the catch and more to accurately determine how much a QB contributes to each play.

Clutch Index: How critical a certain play is based on when it happens in a game is factored into the score.

Our stats team has been using game video to track stats relating to pressure, personnel, formation, game situation and more since 2008. The QBR stat represents a significant leap in harnessing those statistics for something more.

OnTheWarpath15

08-05-2011, 04:35 PM

-King-

08-05-2011, 04:35 PM

Anyone bored enough to calculate all that and do a full ranking?

Pasta Little Brioni

08-05-2011, 04:39 PM

OnTheWarpath15

08-05-2011, 04:41 PM

Anyone bored enough to calculate all that and do a full ranking?

Here's 2010:

http://i54.tinypic.com/29oh0l0.jpg

Hammock Parties

08-05-2011, 04:44 PM

I'd love to see this done on a year-by-year breakdown for the past 30 years.

Pasta Little Brioni

08-05-2011, 04:44 PM

Freeman really had a hell of a year. ROFL at Favre and "Meepers" 11.7

OnTheWarpath15

08-05-2011, 04:52 PM

Just set the DVR for this. Hoping they go into a little more detail.

Marcellus

08-05-2011, 05:12 PM

So Cassel is better than Sanchez. Glad we finally settled that.

LMAO

cdcox

08-05-2011, 05:13 PM

Just set the DVR for this. Hoping they go into a little more detail.

Reading AdvancedNFLStats columns over the last few years will give you a good idea.

keg in kc

08-05-2011, 07:34 PM

Finally read through that. Sort of. It sounds like a decent starting point.

notorious

08-05-2011, 07:42 PM

Finally read through that. Sort of. It sounds like a decent starting point.

They are going to need a crew working every single game.

Things like tipped passes, dropped passes for INT, QB sacks, QB fumbles, runs, 3rd down conversions, Passing yards before RAC, etc.

It is very complex, but if they can pull it off it will be a LOT more accurate in determining a Gamer vs. a Cassel.

cdcox

08-05-2011, 07:47 PM

I'm wondering if their analysts/experts are the PFF crowd. The time frame (3 years) and analysis of individual plays matches up.

The Bad Guy

08-05-2011, 07:53 PM

Any metric that puts David Garrard and Kerry Collins as above average is insanely flawed.

4th and Long

08-05-2011, 09:55 PM

Cassel throws a (insert yardage here) pass to (insert receiver here) for a touchdown. That's all I give a crap about. Most QB statistics are worthless anyway.
Posted via Mobile Device

BigRock

08-05-2011, 10:12 PM

A lot of people have said this is a not-as-good, more-subjective version of what Football Outsiders already does. The head FO guy posted this about it:

The rating is based in part on a lot of FO theories -- remember, we were the first people to ever rate football players based on play-by-play analysis compared to a baseline for each play -- but takes things to the next level. In many cases, it is what we would do if I was able to pay 30 game charters every Sunday instead of relying on volunteers who have things like "school" and "work" and "families" to deal with.

The analysis of how much to attribute YAC to the quarterback as opposed to the receiver is very similar to the study we did on how to attribute rushing yards to a back vs. the offensive line for Adjusted Line Yards. It's something I've always wanted to do and just never had the time. It's not just subjective.

I have two problems with the rating.

1) The lack of opponent adjustments, although I understand why they aren't including them. Remember, they are trying to produce ratings on the fly, whereas I produce ratings after all the games of a certain week are over. And you know even we don't include opponent adjustments early in the season, and we slowly ramp up the strength of those adjustments. So I understand their arguments against including them.

2) The "clutch" thing. I still think this gives a bonus to quarterbacks who happen to play with bad defenses. But they say they have worked it out so that no quarterback gets a bonus for BEING in more "clutch" situations. They only get a bonus for playing well in those high-leverage situations. Still, we've found that offensive DVOA in first quarter correlates best with winning, not other quarters. There is an advantage to getting off to an early lead, dictating the pace of the game, and an even bigger advantage to blowing your opponent away out of the gate.

To answer Jeff's question in comment 31, yes, quarterback B will have the higher Total QBR. I actually asked Dean Oliver this specific question.

The question he's referring to at the end was if QB #1 blows out the opposing team and puts up most of his stats early, and QB #2 puts up the exact same stats but does so in a close game where most of his stats are posted in the 4th quarter, would QB #2 end up with the better QBR? Yes, he would.

milkman

08-05-2011, 10:27 PM

I haven't read the way that this rating system works, but I just don't think you can ever devise a completely non-subjective way to evaluate a QB's performance and value to his team.

Hammock Parties

08-05-2011, 10:28 PM

Any metric that puts David Garrard and Kerry Collins as above average is insanely flawed.

Garrard is a lot better than people give him credit for. Last year he threw 1 TD every 15 passing attempts which equates to 30+ TDs for a lot of QBs.

He's been saddled with awful WR corps and awful coaches in Jacksonville.

keg in kc

08-05-2011, 10:40 PM

He's been saddled with awful WR corps and awful coaches in Jacksonville.Excuses!

keg in kc

08-05-2011, 10:42 PM

I haven't read the way that this rating system works, but I just don't think you can ever devise a completely non-subjective way to evaluate a QB's performance and value to his team.Objectivity really is the hard part. If you go into a situation trying to prove a guy (or a specific type of player) is good/bad statistically, you can certainly weigh a system to make it come out the way you want.

BryanBusby

08-05-2011, 11:34 PM

The standard QB rating system is flawed, but this sounds fucking retarded.

Clutch Index

The final major step is to look at how "clutch" the situation was when creating expected points. A normal play has a clutch index of 1.0. For instance, first-and-goal from the 10-yard line in a tie game at the start of the second quarter has a clutch index of almost exactly 1.0. A more clutch situation, one late in the game when the game is close -- the same situation as above but midway through the fourth quarter, for example -- has a clutch index of about 2.0. Maximum clutch indices are about 3.0, and minimum indices are about 0.3.

These clutch index values came from an analysis of how different situations affect a game's win probability on average. One way to think of it is in terms of pressure. A clutch play is defined before the play by how close the game appears to be. Down four points with three seconds to go and facing third-and-goal from the 3-yard line -- that is a high-pressure and high-clutch index situation because the play can realistically raise the odds of winning to almost 100 percent or bring them down from about 40 percent to almost zero percent. The same situation from midfield isn't as high pressure because it's very unlikely that the team will pull out the victory. Sure, a Hail Mary can pull the game out, but if it doesn't work, the team didn't fail on that play so much as it failed before then. On third-and-goal from the 3-yard line, failure means people will be talking about that final play and what went wrong.

The clutch indices are multiplied by the quarterback's expected points on plays when the QB had a significant contribution, then divided by the sum of the clutch indices and multiplied by 100 to get a clutch-valued expected points added per 100 plays.

No wonder Trent Dilfer didn't want his name associated with it.

whoman69

08-05-2011, 11:41 PM

I think they're just trying to justify the fact that ESPN salivated over Michael Vick even before he learned how to throw touchdown passes last year. It's going to penalize the classic pocket passer unless they're uber-efficient and reward QB's who do it with their feet. Sounds like it will be impossible for anyone that isn't a computer to figure out. Despite the fact they believe the old system is antiquated, it doesn't fail to recognize how great/mediocre/poor a QB is.

cdcox

08-06-2011, 12:30 AM

This trend toward more advanced analysis of profootball is at least seven years in the making. Football Outsiders have been doing advanced statistics for years. The problem with their analysis is that it is almost completely opaque. Most of their analysis remains behind the curtain. Fox Sports deserves some credit for picking up on the FO analysis as an early example of advanced statistics before any other major sports outlet.

Doug Drinen also deserves a ton of credit. He is the force behind ProFootballReference.com which made all of the conventional stats available to the average fan. Just a tremendous contribution to lifting statistical analysis to the next level. His blog, beginning in 2006, laid a lot of the groundwork for advanced statistical analysis and figuring out exactly what contributes to winning an NFL game. High marks for transparency.

Brian Burke was next on the scene with AdvancedNFLStats.com. His work goes back to 2007 and is also mostly transparent. I credit Brian with getting more mileage out of the conventional stats than anyone else. Much of the ESPN QB ratings are based on the work done by Brian.

Most recently are the contributions from ProFootballFocus.com. These guys are insane, breaking down every player on every play. They compile yards after contact for running backs -- how dedicated is that? The new ESPN rating have their fingerprints all over them. Maybe PFF doesn't have anything to do with the new ESPN ratings, but they were at least a major inspiration.

I like the ESPN analysis a lot, only because I've been following the underpinnings for many years. Hopefully they make their analysis as transparent as possible. This is a step in the right direction and I applaud it very much. Believe me when I say this is only the beginning. If they can portion out credit to QBs, they can do the same to OL, WR, TE, RB and defense. Hold on to your hat, statistics in football are going to explode and more than ever they are going to start strongly correlating with the W-L column. Jump on the bus or get left behind.

This isn't your father's box score. These advanced analysis are scientifically based and pass the smell test by and large. This is a grassroots movement, where statistical analysis began with the fans and infiltrated into the main-stream media and pro coaching staffs.

Hammock Parties

08-06-2011, 12:35 AM

Hold on to your hat, statistics in football are going to explode and more than ever they are going to start strongly correlating with the W-L column. Jump on the bus or get left behind.

Do you think it will impact front offices?

ChiefsCountry

08-06-2011, 12:37 AM

Any metric that puts David Garrard and Kerry Collins as above average is insanely flawed.

Judging by the guys below them I would only take 4 to 5 them over Garrard.

ChiefsCountry

08-06-2011, 12:38 AM

Do you think it will impact front offices?

Money Ball for football. I'm sure one or two it might affect but football is the hardest sport to judge off stats.

cdcox

08-06-2011, 12:56 AM

Do you think it will impact front offices?

PFF already claims to be on the payroll of some NFL teams. I haven't researched the academic backgrounds of the Quality Control staff of NFL teams, but if they don't have an MS in Statistics, I doubt they have the training to pull this kind of thing off, and it would definitely give them an advantage. Five years from now, yes, I think the QC guys will have a statistics/programming background.

Pasta Little Brioni

08-06-2011, 07:02 AM

When they measured the "heart" rating Tebow's was so off the chart he doesn't even show on the list :)/Blowmo

Quesadilla Joe

08-06-2011, 09:49 AM

When they measured the "heart" rating Tebow's was so off the chart he doesn't even show on the list :)/Blowmo

No but ESPN compared Tebow to Orton with their new QB Rating and Tebow was higher, Tebow was higher than Matt Cassel by 3 points actually.

Rausch

08-06-2011, 09:51 AM

No but ESPN compared Tebow to Orton with their new QB Rating and Tebow was higher, Tebow was actually higher than Matt Cassel by 3 points actually.

This should tell you something.

Something NOT good...

Deberg_1990

08-06-2011, 09:52 AM

What did Thigpen and Croyle get?

Quesadilla Joe

08-06-2011, 09:57 AM

This should tell you something.

Something NOT good...

I think it's pretty good. For a QB who was known to be a two year project to show he is better than a "Pro Bowl" QB in just his first season.

FringeNC

08-06-2011, 10:22 AM

cdcox

08-06-2011, 10:29 AM

I'm sure this would be a good metric for comparing two quarterbacks on the same team, both of whom received significant snaps. Using it to compare quarterbacks across the league is questionable (as is ANY QB rating) because football involves team production. It's really a measure of a TEAM'S passing efficiency rather than the play of the quarterback.

Baseball is unique. It's essentially one on one, and stats like OPS are golden.

They are attempting to separate the contribution of the passer, from that of the receiver, to that of the OL by breakdown of game tapes of individual plays. Sure there is some subjective bias when reviewing the tape, but I think they got a lot of it right.

Ultra Peanut

08-06-2011, 08:17 PM

According to this new metric:

Top tier: Brady, Peyton Manning, Matt Ryan, Michael Vick, Rodgers and Drew Brees.

Well above average: Josh Freeman, Eli Manning and Philip Rivers.

Above average: Ben Roethlisberger, Tony Romo, Joe Flacco, Matt Schaub, David Garrard and Kerry Collins.

Around average: Matt Cassel, Ryan Fitzpatrick, Mark Sanchez, Carson Palmer, Colt McCoy, Kyle Orton and Jon Kitna.

Below average: Shaun Hill, Jason Campbell, Jay Cutler, Matt Hasselbeck, Chad Henne, Donovan McNabb, Sam Bradford and Alex Smith.

Poor: Derek Anderson, Brett Favre and Jimmy Clausen.Those results look pretty agreeable, in general.

Baseball is unique. It's essentially one on one, and stats like OPS are golden.It benefits from being an extremely linear game, but that doesn't mean stats can't tell you important things or provide helpful guidelines about player performance in other sports.

Marcellus

08-06-2011, 08:23 PM

No but ESPN compared Tebow to Orton with their new QB Rating and Tebow was higher, Tebow was higher than Matt Cassel by 3 points actually.

ROFL:thumb: Run with it.

listopencil

08-06-2011, 11:05 PM

Well they got one thing right. Orton>Cutler. LMAO.

listopencil

08-06-2011, 11:06 PM

Those results look pretty agreeable, in general.

It benefits from being an extremely linear game, but that doesn't mean stats can't tell you important things or provide helpful guidelines about player performance in other sports.

That's what I was thinking. It passes on a quick look.

listopencil

08-06-2011, 11:09 PM

No but ESPN compared Tebow to Orton with their new QB Rating and Tebow was higher, Tebow was higher than Matt Cassel by 3 points actually.

It was fairly obvious that the Broncos played better with Tebow in the last three games than they had with Orton in there for several weeks. Offense, Defense and Special Teams. Could be several reasons for that though.

MagicHef

08-07-2011, 04:03 AM

It was fairly obvious that the Broncos played better with Tebow in the last three games than they had with Orton in there for several weeks. Offense, Defense and Special Teams. Could be several reasons for that though.

I don't know if you saw this thread: http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=247810

I decided to compare Orton's games to Tebow's games, and I found that the Broncos on average improved by 3.6 points offensively and 0.7 points defensively when Tebow started. I don't really have a way to compare special teams.

Pasta Little Brioni

08-07-2011, 09:52 AM

Tebow makes the running game better, the passing game better, the Defense better and even the special teams better. I'm sure he'll make VONDOM(thanks Boss) into run stuffing maniacs as well :)

Hammock Parties

08-15-2011, 08:36 AM

PFF has a new passer rating...that anyone can calc.

http://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2011/08/15/introducing-the-pff-passer-rating/

The Old Formula

While the NFL’s passer rating is a set of complex formulas with upper and lower bounds, in most cases you can ignore them, and the formula simplifies to this.

The goal in creating the new formula was to maintain a similar structure but introduce values that make more sense. If you interested in why we’re changing parts of the rating, the Stat Sheet Misconception article on passer rating will help. Here we’ll stick with focusing on the changes being made .

Changing the Inputs

The first Stat Sheet Misconceptions article dealt with completion percentage, and offered a better alternative we called “Accuracy Percentage”. The first step in fixing the Passer Rating formula was to upgrade the Completion Percentage component to PFF’s Accuracy Percentage. With this move, dropped passes, throw aways, and spikes are now accounted for.

The second alteration was replacing Yards with “Yards in Air” to reflect the distance that completed passes travel from passer to target. While a quarterback has some effect on yards after the catch, this is difficult to quantify, so we’ve opted to boil it down to the point at which they surely have control.

Changing the Constants

We eliminated the “+2.083”, because it was simply not needed. To fix the issue of overvaluing touchdowns and interceptions in the old formula, the constants for each were lowered, to 20x for touchdowns and 45x for interceptions. Those values are more consistent with what others have found, and they worked well in this formula too. The last constant-related change was moving the multiplier from 4.16667 to 4.6667; a slight difference, but it adjusts the numbers to be more in line with the look of the old rating.

The New Formula

Applying it all, here is what we end up with:

http://www.profootballfocus.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/pffqbratingformula2.png

Hammock Parties

09-20-2011, 07:53 PM

Through 2 weeks...
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/6990396/nfl-week-2-total-qbr-season-leaders

1 Tom Brady
2 Ryan Fitzpatrick
3 Matt Hasselbeck
4 Tony Romo
5 Matthew Stafford
6 Aaron Rodgers
7 Matt Schaub
8 Drew Brees
9 Jason Campbell
10 Rex Grossman
11 Philip Rivers
12 Josh Freeman
13 Eli Manning
14 Chad Henne
15 Michael Vick
16 Cam Newton
17 Alex Smith
18 Kevin Kolb
19 Matt Ryan
20 Joe Flacco
21 Ben Roethlisberger
22 Sam Bradford
23 Colt McCoy
24 Donovan McNabb
25 Andy Dalton
26 Kyle Orton
27 Jay Cutler
28 Mark Sanchez
29 Tarvaris Jackson
30 Matt Cassel
31 Kerry Collins
32 Luke McCown

As with all such measurements it will get more accurate over time.

Okie_Apparition

09-20-2011, 07:58 PM

REXY IS SEXY

bowener

09-20-2011, 08:15 PM

kc rush

09-21-2011, 08:03 AM

Through 2 weeks...
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/6990396/nfl-week-2-total-qbr-season-leaders

2 Ryan Fitzpatrick
5 Matthew Stafford

As with all such measurements it will get more accurate over time.

Good to see that our D can help push these guys into a top 5 position. Not saying that either has no talent, we just seem to find a way to help them out.

milkman

09-21-2011, 08:32 AM

Good to see that our D can help push these guys into a top 5 position. Not saying that either has no talent, we just seem to find a way to help them out.

You do realize that Fitzpatrick had a hell of a game against the Raiders on Sunday, even with the Raiders applying pressure.

And Stafford has the talent to be an elite QB if he stays healthy.

talastan

09-21-2011, 08:40 AM

Good to see that our D can help push these guys into a top 5 position. Not saying that either has no talent, we just seem to find a way to help them out.

Fitzpatrick is a very talented QB. It has only been recently that he has had the opportunity to really show it.

kc rush

09-21-2011, 11:04 AM

You do realize that Fitzpatrick had a hell of a game against the Raiders on Sunday, even with the Raiders applying pressure.

And Stafford has the talent to be an elite QB if he stays healthy.

I do realize that. In fact I was arguing a Bills fan (right after last year's game) that I'd rather have Fitzpatrick than Cassel. The guy is obviously smart, and he is with a coach who will tailor an offense to maximize his talents.

I'm just commenting that with the return of the career day defense, these guys are now up there in the rankings.

I also realize that our offense is doing the defense no favors by leaving them on the field so long and giving the opponents a short field.

With this being such a suck season so far, I'm trying to find the humor in anything.

Pasta Little Brioni

09-21-2011, 11:54 AM

Sanchez continues to fail along while the team wins.

Okie_Apparition

09-21-2011, 11:58 AM

Racist

Rudy tossed tigger's salad

09-21-2011, 11:58 AM

Fitzpatrick is a very talented QB. It has only been recently that he has had the opportunity to really show it.

:spock:

Fitzpatrick started 23 games... before last year.

FAX

09-21-2011, 12:21 PM

I do realize that. In fact I was arguing a Bills fan (right after last year's game) that I'd rather have Fitzpatrick than Cassel. The guy is obviously smart, and he is with a coach who will tailor an offense to maximize his talents.

I'm just commenting that with the return of the career day defense, these guys are now up there in the rankings.

I also realize that our offense is doing the defense no favors by leaving them on the field so long and giving the opponents a short field.

With this being such a suck season so far, I'm trying to find the humor in anything.

Speaking of defense ...

What the hell is going on in that department? Losing Berry hurts, sure. And, the O isn't helping by keeping TOP in favor of the enemy, of course. Then, there are the turnovers providing beneficial field position for the opposing bastards.

Still, 80 points? 80?

Wherefore art thou, Romeo?

FAX

whoman69

09-21-2011, 12:32 PM

:spock:

Fitzpatrick started 23 games... before last year.

This is the first time he's been given the talent and the scheme to make it all work.

Molitoth

09-21-2011, 02:15 PM

New QB Metric: EYE TEST

1. Brady
....
....
....
....
143. Cassel

loochy

09-21-2011, 02:18 PM

New QB Metric: Wobble Launcher Rating
1. Cassel
...
...
...
...
...
75. Huard
...
...
...
...
1,053,123. Brady

HemiEd

09-21-2011, 02:20 PM

ThaVirus

09-21-2011, 03:28 PM

:spock:

Fitzpatrick started 23 games... before last year.

This is the first season he's been given the starting job from the beginning. He was taking over for someone else all those other starts. Now the position is his to lose and he's shining..

Rooster

09-21-2011, 03:29 PM

If the new one really rates Cassel as average, I am going to dismiss it as BS already.

What can you say? They guy usually grades out perfectly. :D

whoman69

09-21-2011, 06:10 PM

If the new one really rates Cassel as average, I am going to dismiss it as BS already.

Don't worry, it doesn't. He's ranked 30th after week 2.

alnorth

09-21-2011, 06:22 PM

yep, the new god stat for QB's says that Cassel sucks.

After 2 weeks (50=average)

1. Tom Brady: 89.7
2. Ryan Fitzpatrick: 84.8
3. Matt Hasselbeck: 83.3
4. Tony Romo: 81.6
5. Matthew Stafford: 79.6
...
17. Alex Smith: 50.4
18. Kevin Kolb: 48.5
...
30. Matt Cassel: 16.4
31. Kerry Collins: 9.8
32. Luke McCown: 8.7

BossChief

09-21-2011, 06:27 PM

Speaking of defense ...

What the hell is going on in that department? Losing Berry hurts, sure. And, the O isn't helping by keeping TOP in favor of the enemy, of course. Then, there are the turnovers providing beneficial field position for the opposing bastards.

Still, 80 points? 80?

Wherefore art thou, Romeo?

FAXIn yardage defense we are 23rd.

In scoring defense, we are set to break records.

Matt Cassel fucks this defense just as much as his offense.

Other than that, I think we have the horses to run an attacking scheme and don't and having slow safeties that cant tackle or cover effectively makes it to where every bodies job has that much more responsibility to it to make up and its hurting us.

Defense is only as good as your weakest link and right now, there are multiple contenders for that title.

If I had to chose the biggest factor, I would probably say the fact that we aren't using our pass rushers enough to disrupt opposing passing games.

In starting two games, Justin Houston has rushed the passer 5 times. He should be rushing the passer 15-20 times IMO. Part of that is surely that Crennel doesnt trust Jackson to hold his ground if he does bring Houston on blitzes.

Pablo

09-21-2011, 07:26 PM

Hammock Parties

09-21-2011, 07:39 PM

Cassel's EPA is dead last. -7.3. Cassel takes our offense and reduces it by a TD.

EPA: Expected points added (could be positive or negative) that occur as a result of an action play.

FAX

09-21-2011, 11:56 PM

If only we'd have drafted Sanchez we'd have the 28th best QB instead of the 30th.

....

Quite true, Mr. PostRockPablo.

However, we'd be talking about upside as opposed to suicide.

FAX

Pioli Zombie

09-22-2011, 01:17 AM

Does it take into account number of rapes, dogs killed, or penis photos Texted?

bowener

09-22-2011, 01:46 AM

Cassel's EPA is dead last. -7.3. Cassel takes our offense and reduces it by a TD.

EPA: Expected points added (could be positive or negative) that occur as a result of an action play.

Oh. Good. God!

Just what we need to get Andrew Luck!!!

007

09-22-2011, 02:06 AM

New QB Metric: Wobble Launcher Rating
1. Cassel
...
...
...
...
...
75. Huard
...
...
...
...
1,053,123. Brady
holy crap, there are 74 people better at the wobble launcher than Huard? That is SHOCKING.

</post>

09-26-2011, 11:22 AM

Week 3:

20 Cam Newton 36.2
21 Matt Ryan 33.4
22 Mark Sanchez 33.3
23 Matt Cassel 32.6
24 Philip Rivers 27
25 Michael Vick 24.6
26 Jay Cutler 22.8
27 Kerry Collins 22.4
28 Blaine Gabbert 20.6
29 Andy Dalton 14
30 Sam Bradford 12

Pretty big difference from the 102.1 the regular QBR gave him. I wonder what his rating was before that last pass.

The Franchise

09-26-2011, 11:28 AM

Funny. I would rather have everyone on that list except Matt Cassel.

</post>

09-26-2011, 11:44 AM

Funny. I would rather have everyone on that list except Matt Cassel.

I don't think either is that great a measurement of performance, but TQBR is looking better at judging smaller sample sizes.

A lot of people, not seeing the game, might have looked at the stat sheet and thought Cassel played well. Regular QBR would've supported that. At least for this game, the TQBR seemed to do a good job of measuring his real performance... which was shit.

BigRichard

09-26-2011, 11:46 AM

I don't think either is that great a measurement of performance, but TQBR is looking better at judging smaller sample sizes.

A lot of people, not seeing the game, might have looked at the stat sheet and thought Cassel played well. Regular QBR would've supported that. At least for this game, the TQBR seemed to do a good job of measuring his real performance... which was shit.

Yeah but it is measuring him higher then Rivers. Don't get me wrong, River had a shitty game but I would have taken his performance over Matt's anyday.

</post>

09-26-2011, 11:59 AM

Yeah but it is measuring him higher then Rivers. Don't get me wrong, River had a shitty game but I would have taken his performance over Matt's anyday.

Its better than regular QBR where Rivers was in the 60's and Cassel was in the 100's. When you consider just the raw stats, TQBR did a great job measuring a real performance.

notorious

09-26-2011, 12:01 PM

Rivers had a shitty day. I would say that Matt rated slightly higher because he never took a risk downfield and that is exactly what Rivers does.

Rivers had an off day, and our Defense actually had something to do with it.

Hammock Parties

10-11-2011, 01:39 AM

Cassel now 14th.

Mediocrity forever!

http://i56.tinypic.com/mn0snq.jpg

-King-

10-11-2011, 02:16 AM

Tebow had a better QBR than Aaron Rodgers last week LMAO

crazycoffey

10-11-2011, 02:33 AM

According to this new metric:

Top tier: Brady, Peyton Manning, Matt Ryan, Michael Vick, Rodgers and Drew Brees.

Well above average: Josh Freeman, Eli Manning and Philip Rivers.

Above average: Ben Roethlisberger, Tony Romo, Joe Flacco, Matt Schaub, David Garrard and Kerry Collins.

Around average: Matt Cassel, Ryan Fitzpatrick, Mark Sanchez, Carson Palmer, Colt McCoy, Kyle Orton and Jon Kitna.

Below average: Shaun Hill, Jason Campbell, Jay Cutler, Matt Hasselbeck, Chad Henne, Donovan McNabb, Sam Bradford and Alex Smith.

Poor: Derek Anderson, Brett Favre and Jimmy Clausen.

but but, tony romo will never be a good QB, Matt Ryan is average at best, Mark Sanchez/Carson Palmer/Alex Smith/Sam Bradford/and Jimmy Clausen are all elite draft prospects. Oh, and Brett Favre is one of the best all time QBs in the history of the game!!

There is never going to be, nor was there ever, a way to accurately gauge a collegiate player's ability in the pro's.

That being said, the old QB rating sucks goatboy's balls and this one seems a much more accurate depiction than previous versions. But we still don't know......

veist

10-11-2011, 02:56 AM

but but, tony romo will never be a good QB, Matt Ryan is average at best, Mark Sanchez/Carson Palmer/Alex Smith/Sam Bradford/and Jimmy Clausen are all elite draft prospects. Oh, and Brett Favre is one of the best all time QBs in the history of the game!!

There is never going to be, nor was there ever, a way to accurately gauge a collegiate player's ability in the pro's.

That being said, the old QB rating sucks goatboy's balls and this one seems a much more accurate depiction than previous versions. But we still don't know......

More accurate? Its basically ESPN's blackbox of "rate a QB" at least anyone with a modicum of a math education can calculate a QB rating. And everything ESPN has said about QBR basically screams from the mountain tops "this is a system prone to overfitting and we're going to totally chase data to overfit it even more!"

MagicHef

10-11-2011, 03:23 AM

Tebow had a better QBR than Aaron Rodgers last week LMAO

It's not too hard to see why. Tebow threw for a TD once every 10 attempts. Rodgers threw for one every 19.5 attempts. Tebow also ran a TD in once every 6 carries.

SenselessChiefsFan

10-11-2011, 05:41 AM

Cassel now 14th.

Mediocrity forever!

http://i56.tinypic.com/mn0snq.jpg

And, he is 11th overall in the old passer rating.

Both numbers are in the top half of the league. Which, basically supports the position that he is an average to above average QB in the league.

While I don't think he is a premier franchise QB, like Luck would be, I don't really understand the hate.

The other option that Chiefsplanet wanted was Sanchez. Sanchez is also 2-3. Sanchez is 19th in the old QB rating and WAY down at the bottom in this one.

And, after Sanchez, Josh Freeman was available. And, he is well above Josh Freeman.

So, he is basically outperforming the other two options that the Chiefs had that year. And, that is behind a crappy o-line and very little running game. If JC were still on the team, you could argue that teams were gearing to stop the run. You can't make that argument right now.

Matt Ryan is rated way below him as well. (Caveat, I would actually rather have Matt Ryan, but just making a point) And, there were many on here, from what I understand that loved him coming out of the draft.

So, time will tell. I am okay with Cassel, but I wish the Chiefs would find a franchise QB. It is clear that they won't have a shot at drafting Luck.

But, he isn't the problem that guys on this board make him out to be. He isn't an all american stud either..... don't get me wrong. He is what he is.... an average to above average QB in the NFL.

Hammock Parties

10-11-2011, 05:56 AM

If you think Cassel is better than Freeman you need your head examined.

180 yards = very little running game? GTFO

SenselessChiefsFan

10-11-2011, 06:19 AM

If you think Cassel is better than Freeman you need your head examined.

180 yards = very little running game? GTFO

First, I don't think that Cassel is better than Freeman. I actually wanted Freeman coming out of that draft. I didn't want Sanchez. But, I like Stafford a ton and thought that Freeman had the tools to be great.

So, I would much rather have Freeman.

Oh, and way to cherry pick THAT game. Of course, ignore the fact that the Colts were not gearing up to stop the run, that they were actually worried more about the passing game.

Lets see, against Minny, they ONLY broke 100 yards because Matt Cassel had 20 yards.

Again, the point stands.... if JC wasn't hurt, you could argue teams were gearing up to stop him and focusing on him... but he IS hurt and TJ and Battle aren't scaring anyone.

Pablo

10-11-2011, 06:23 AM

First, I don't think that Cassel is better than Freeman. I actually wanted Freeman coming out of that draft. I didn't want Sanchez. But, I like Stafford a ton and thought that Freeman had the tools to be great.

So, I would much rather have Freeman.

Oh, and way to cherry pick THAT game. Of course, ignore the fact that the Colts were not gearing up to stop the run, that they were actually worried more about the passing game.

Lets see, against Minny, they ONLY broke 100 yards because Matt Cassel had 20 yards.

Again, the point stands.... if JC wasn't hurt, you could argue teams were gearing up to stop him and focusing on him... but he IS hurt and TJ and Battle aren't scaring anyone.But, but...he's clutch. He just wins when it matters.

It's not like he rides his defense and running game into the playoffs and then flip a switch for some reason. He's really a Franchise guy. Could have had him. Fuck you Scott!!

Chiefnj2

10-11-2011, 07:20 AM

As far as the new QB metric is concerned, QB's 1-8 were not taken with first round picks 1-3.

Pasta Little Brioni

10-11-2011, 08:40 AM

Sanchez is garbage.

-King-

10-11-2011, 08:54 AM

Didn't even notice Sanchez was 31st LMAO

notorious

10-11-2011, 08:55 AM

Didn't even notice Sanchez was 31st LMAO

New York will just draft another QB next year.

Pasta Little Brioni

10-11-2011, 09:02 AM

The guy walked into a perfect situation too. He's had a defense, running game, recievers, O-line and still looks like shit. Yeah, yeah 2 AFC Champ. game appearances.

notorious

10-11-2011, 09:05 AM

The guy walked into a perfect situation too. He's had a defense, running game, recievers, O-line and still looks like shit. Yeah, yeah 2 AFC Champ. game appearances.

Yep. If anyone was set up for success it was Sanchez.

But, in the drafterbators defense, I think their desperation for a QB clouded their judgement on him.

He sucks.

jd1020

10-11-2011, 09:27 AM

Cassel now 14th.

Mediocrity forever!

I'd still take 8+ of the QB's rated below Cassel before I took Cassel.

milkman

10-11-2011, 10:01 PM

First, I don't think that Cassel is better than Freeman. I actually wanted Freeman coming out of that draft. I didn't want Sanchez. But, I like Stafford a ton and thought that Freeman had the tools to be great.

So, I would much rather have Freeman.

Oh, and way to cherry pick THAT game. Of course, ignore the fact that the Colts were not gearing up to stop the run, that they were actually worried more about the passing game.

Lets see, against Minny, they ONLY broke 100 yards because Matt Cassel had 20 yards.

Again, the point stands.... if JC wasn't hurt, you could argue teams were gearing up to stop him and focusing on him... but he IS hurt and TJ and Battle aren't scaring anyone.

He's put up decent numbers against crappy secondaries, and this "crappy" O-Line has done a damn good job of protecting him.

Dave Lane

10-11-2011, 10:13 PM

Sanchez is garbage.

Gabbert's even worse...

Thats somewhat surprising

Chiefshrink

10-11-2011, 10:19 PM

QB metrics or not, I just want wins!!! Who cares whether they win ugly like Jim Plunkett or look pretty boy like Tom Brady. Just F'N WIN!!!

ClevelandBronco

10-11-2011, 10:21 PM

http://i56.tinypic.com/mn0snq.jpg

Jay Cutler is who we said he was.

aturnis

10-11-2011, 10:22 PM

Dude has NO Oline. None whatsoever. Did you watch the Monday night game? He did quite a bit with the time he was given.

milkman

10-11-2011, 10:25 PM

Dude has NO Oline. None whatsoever. Did you watch the Monday night game? He did quite a bit with the time he was given.

And no receivers.

That team is Jay Cutler and Matt Forte.

Their defense isn't even any good.

George Halas is rolling over in his grave.

'Hamas' Jenkins

10-11-2011, 10:25 PM

That's an awfully small sample size. I wouldn't put much credence in it. Does it really pass the eye test?

aturnis

10-11-2011, 10:26 PM

If he and Marshall were still in Denver he'd still be giving us fits.

Gadzooks

10-11-2011, 10:42 PM

I miss hating Cutler...

Chiefnj2

10-12-2011, 06:06 AM

Gabbert's even worse...

Thats somewhat surprising

His first year without the benefit of an all star OL and good team around him.

whoman69

10-12-2011, 11:19 PM

I don't understand this rank system. Check Down has one excellent game after one atrocious and two bad games and suddenly he's above average. If you just average together his weekly rankings it would come out 10 points less than what he has. According to the scale it says he's playing at nearly a pro bowl ranking. He's not even averaging 200 yards a game.

007

10-12-2011, 11:24 PM

Cassel now 14th.

Mediocrity forever!

http://i56.tinypic.com/mn0snq.jpg

14th? Way too high. This system is just as crappy as the previous. Receivers made the Duke of Dink look good on paper this week.

Hammock Parties

10-27-2011, 01:07 PM

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/7141925/nfl-week-7-total-qbr-season-leaders

16th

whoman69

10-27-2011, 01:48 PM

I still don't get this system and how its rated. He has a 53 rating and yet only two of his six games have been above that number. He's been as low as a 12.1 in that abortion clinic of a football game he put up in week one. His weekly numbers are 12.1, 27.1, 32.6, 68.1, 86.5, 41.6. He has one atrocious game, 2 bad games, one mediocre game, one good game and on excellent game and that's average? Is he getting extra points for puppy dog eyes?

whoman69

10-27-2011, 01:51 PM

Assuming each game is weighted about equally, he should be around a 45, which would be slighly below average. That's where I see Check Down.

SenselessChiefsFan

10-27-2011, 02:15 PM

If you didn't figure this out, the Raiders QB's were the last two from week 7. Though, Palmer was one spot ahead.... so the trade was worth it:)

Rausch

10-27-2011, 02:18 PM

Honestly, despite the Anit-Homers, I see no way in hell Ca$$#ole is back next year.

I just don't see Pioli as a guy willing to piss on his own shoes on purpose...

notorious

10-27-2011, 02:19 PM

Honestly, despite the Anit-Homers, I see no way in hell Ca$$#ole is back next year.

I just don't see Pioli as a guy willing to piss on his own shoes on purpose...

Thus raises the question of "Who"?

Who is going to replace him?

Ming the Merciless

10-27-2011, 02:21 PM

Thus raises the question of "Who"?

Who is going to replace him?

Exactly. That's what makes arguments such as his so insanely stupid.

notorious

10-27-2011, 02:22 PM

Exactly. That's what makes arguments such as his so insanely stupid.

You don't beat around the bush, do you? ROFL

Rausch

10-27-2011, 02:22 PM

Thus raises the question of "Who"?

Who is going to replace him?

If, as an organization, we're willing to move on and look for ANYONE else that's a huge step foreward...

Rausch

10-27-2011, 02:23 PM

Exactly. That's what makes arguments such as his so insanely stupid.

Because we shouldn't be looking for a new QB?...

notorious

10-27-2011, 02:25 PM

If, as an organization, we're willing to move on and look for ANYONE else that's a huge step foreward...

I believe we should draft a QB every year until we find the guy.

the Talking Can

10-27-2011, 02:26 PM

Honestly, despite the Anit-Homers, I see no way in hell Ca$$#ole is back next year.

I just don't see Pioli as a guy willing to piss on his own shoes on purpose...

pioli loves him, there is no evidence to the contrary

Cassel isn't going anywhere...pawnsmoker gets his guy for a couple more years as we waste the prime years of hali, bowe, DJ, flowers and charles

beach tribe

10-27-2011, 02:40 PM

Look at Cassel's Pass EPA.
Shameful.

beach tribe

10-27-2011, 02:43 PM

Exactly. That's what makes arguments such as his so insanely stupid.

Dude, seriously. Unless Cassel, by some miracle, can become a play maker real Fn soon, Pioli needs to be evaluating every possible scenario.
This WR group could make a lot of QBs look all pro.
Cassel's just not making the reads he needs to make.

Rausch

10-27-2011, 02:46 PM

I believe we should draft a QB every year until we find the guy.

That's almost word for word what Pioli said...

Ming the Merciless

10-27-2011, 02:53 PM

Pioli needs to be evaluating every possible scenario.

Absolutely agreed. Thats why WHO is the biggest question..It isn't enough to keep regurgitating stats and arguments about exactly how much Cassel sucks and is dragging the team down.....it reminds me of the 99%ers....all protest but no solutions.

Let's hear about who can step in fast enough to take advantage of our WR corps...IE. 2012.

Who will be FA QB's? Who can we draft that can actually challenge Matty and win in camp?

I'm just tired of all the bitching and would rather focus on the solutions than listen to cry babies whine over and over and over and over and over and over.

Rausch

10-27-2011, 02:55 PM

Ming the Merciless

10-27-2011, 02:57 PM

**** 2012.

WHO can win NOW...

Ok then genius, answer your own pathetically stupid question:

Who can step in RIGHT now and do better than Cassel?

Rausch

10-27-2011, 03:02 PM

Ok then genius, answer your own pathetically stupid question:

Who can step in RIGHT now and do better than Cassel?

You can't find out if you don't start looking...

Ming the Merciless

10-27-2011, 03:04 PM

You can't find out if you don't start looking...

Ok then take your head out of your ass, look around at the extremely limited options and get back to me when you figure it out.

BossChief

10-27-2011, 03:08 PM

Thus raises the question of "Who"?

Who is going to replace him?Stanzi is better in every way a quarterback is judged by except pro experience.

He may or may not be the long term answer as the teams starter, but if the light switch doesnt come on for Matt...Ricky Stanzi will be the next up to bat.

Fuck 2012.

WHO can win NOW...

Well, we are currently on a 3 game winning streak.

Chiefnj2

10-27-2011, 03:09 PM

Absolutely agreed. Thats why WHO is the biggest question..It isn't enough to keep regurgitating stats and arguments about exactly how much Cassel sucks and is dragging the team down.....it reminds me of the 99%ers....all protest but no solutions.

Let's hear about who can step in fast enough to take advantage of our WR corps...IE. 2012.

Who will be FA QB's? Who can we draft that can actually challenge Matty and win in camp?

I'm just tired of all the bitching and would rather focus on the solutions than listen to cry babies whine over and over and over and over and over and over.

NO! No! no! No free agents. No retreads. Draft your own QB and play the kid.

Ming the Merciless

10-27-2011, 03:10 PM

NO! No! no! No free agents. No retreads. Draft your own QB and play the kid.

I am in 100% agreement...I know (think) you are just joking but my questions were rhetorical in nature.

notorious

10-27-2011, 03:35 PM

Stanzi is better in every way a quarterback is judged by except pro experience.

OK, I'm in!

Start him by week 12-13. Twice.

Ming the Merciless

10-27-2011, 03:38 PM

OK, I'm in!

Start him by week 12-13. Twice.

LOL stanzi is in every way a better QB except THE WAY THAT YOU MEASURE PRO QB'S

hahahahahaha...Is that supposed to be a joke because it was really funny.

notorious

10-27-2011, 03:39 PM

hahahahahaha...Is that supposed to be a joke because it was really funny.

Desperation breeds stupidity, especially when it's my own.

Ming the Merciless

10-27-2011, 03:40 PM

Desperation breeds stupidity, epecially when it's my own.

I kinda like that saying, i might steal it...

notorious

10-27-2011, 03:42 PM

I kinda like that saying, i might steal it...

It's yours, corrected spelling or not.

Rausch

10-27-2011, 03:46 PM

Ok then take your head out of your ass, look around at the extremely limited options and get back to me when you figure it out.

The guy we have starting clearly isn't the answer. Matt hasn't, isn't, and won't get it done. Ever

Over and out.

We need, deserve, and want better.

You go to your depth and see what that can do (and no, I don't mean Palko.)

If that doesn't provide a spark you now know 1) the answer probably isn't on the roster and
2) QB is the most pressing need this team has.

I know that living up to a 38 or 52 QB rating is asking a lot but there's a chance, a gleam, that FUCKING ANYONE ELSE can do better than what we have...

BossChief

10-27-2011, 03:46 PM

hahahahahaha...Is that supposed to be a joke because it was really funny.

Stronger arm
More accurate
Better poise
Keeps his eyes down field under pressure
Isn't afraid to throw down the field
Is a winner
Plays his best in big games

In what ways IYO was my statement incorrect?

Rausch

10-27-2011, 03:48 PM

QUESTION: Name one QB who's started 16 games for his current team that you WOULDN'T take over Ca$$#ole...

Ugly Duck

10-27-2011, 03:49 PM

Thus raises the question of "Who"? Who is going to replace him?

http://ftrsports.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Russel.jpg

Ming the Merciless

10-27-2011, 03:50 PM

QUESTION: Name one QB who's started 16 games for his current team that you WOULDN'T take over Ca$$#ole...

This isn't relevant...

As I stated before the REAL question is what are our options. You repeatedly ignore this question and revert back to playing with your Casshole.

Your fingers stink.

Rausch

10-27-2011, 03:52 PM

hahahahahaha...Is that supposed to be a joke because it was really funny.

Not really.

Stanzi is a more polished player coming out and seems like a much more reasonable QBOTF in year 2 than a 3rd year 30 year old QB.

Just let some common fucking sense settle in for a moment...

keg in kc

10-27-2011, 03:53 PM

Stronger arm
More accurate
Better poise
Keeps his eyes down field under pressure
Isn't afraid to throw down the field
Is a winner
Plays his best in big gamesYeah, but Brodie Croyle's not on the roster right now, so why bring him up.

HemiEd

10-27-2011, 03:53 PM

I believe we should draft a QB every year until we find the guy.

It doesn't do any good if you don't let them play. Or if you bring in a five time loser with ZERO fucking talent, ahead of your pick on the depth charts.

Ming the Merciless

10-27-2011, 03:55 PM

Not really.

Stanzi is a more polished player coming out and seems like a much more reasonable QBOTF in year 2 than a 3rd year 30 year old QB.

Just let some common ****ing sense settle in for a moment...

Well I'm glad that the decision makers in the front office don't have as much 'common sense' as you.

Were you on the Start Croyle bandwagon as well? Draft Sanchez wagon?

'Common sense' my ass.

Rausch

10-27-2011, 03:57 PM

This isn't relevant...

As I stated before the REAL question is what are our options. You repeatedly ignore this question and revert back to playing with your Casshole.

So your argument is that since there is no consensus on what to do we should do nothing.

I'll admit, it's the dominating opinion of the times.

I disagree that it's logical.

We look.

We take a proactive stance. We play what we have and see if that works.

If it doesn't we do everything we can to move up and get the best QB this ORG thinks is the next QBOTF.

And we don't stop there. We sign a vet backup to start/groom our young guy until he's ready.

Your fingers stink.

I've showered since then.

There's no way...

Ming the Merciless

10-27-2011, 04:03 PM

So your argument is that since there is no consensus on what to do we should do nothing.

No consensus? There IS a consensus....the consensus is that Matt Cassel is the best QB on our roster that gives us the best chance to win games...

The consensus is that bringing in a Garrard or something like that wouldnt have been any better.

The consensus is that Stanzi wouldnt be a better QB than Matt right NOW.

There is plenty of consensus...

The 'proactive' things you are talking about are the things that do not have consensus....

I mean , ok you are not happy with the QB. We get it....

Point taken...we all fucking understand the situation.

So why don't you focus on the alternatives....if you think Stanzi should be the starter, then cool, I respect your opinion.....just say so. Then we can have something to argue about...

Continually bitching about Cassel and providing no fucking plan of how to replace him is the part that makes you look stupid IMO.

Extra Point

10-27-2011, 04:08 PM

Ok then genius, answer your own pathetically stupid question:

Who can step in RIGHT now and do better than Cassel?

NOONE. Pioli has selected his golden boy, and Haley's job is to get him into a functional system. There is no panic horn-in-the-helmet after the snap.

The reads and timing, are a function of the system. Zorn is the guy responsible for adapting Cassel into the "system."

I'm not defending Cassel, but, we all have to "just get along." By the same token, I support Zorn as the QB coach.

Rausch

10-27-2011, 04:11 PM

No consensus? There IS a consensus....the consensus is that Matt Cassel is the best QB on our roster that gives us the best chance to win games...

No.

He's the only QB the coaching staff will let play.

Stanzi/Palko could be 200x worse or better. We won't know.

All we do know is that the team is willing to run with a QB that can't thrown accurately down field, can't handle minimal pressure, and can't even manage 150 passing yards vs. playoff teams.

The consensus is that bringing in a Garrard or something like that wouldnt have been any better.

I don't think it would have been in the short term.

The consensus is that Stanzi wouldnt be a better QB than Matt right NOW.

No, the question is if we start Stanzi RIGHT NOW would he be a better option than Ca$$#ole come next year?

I mean , ok you are not happy with the QB. We get it....

Point taken...we all ****ing understand the situation.

So why don't you focus on the alternatives...

I am. That's my point.

I say start looking NOW.

C@$$#ole isn't it. We all know that. Look behind him and see what's there.

If, and this is probable, there's no one better we now KNOW we need to completely overhaul the position. Draft AND sign someone.

Don't tapdance on thin ice and hope it lasts...

Ming the Merciless

10-27-2011, 04:14 PM

NOONE.

This is what I am getting at exactly. I haven't heard of any better options yet. Someone please point it out if it is there.....that is all I am saying.

Ming the Merciless

10-27-2011, 04:15 PM

No.

He's the only QB the coaching staff will let play.

Thats called a consensus.

BossChief

10-27-2011, 04:15 PM

Arguing with Pawn about replacing Cassel is like arguing with Sac that we dont need to draft a left tackle.

Ming the Merciless

10-27-2011, 04:17 PM

I say start looking NOW.

Oh cool, water is wet?

You are an absolute moron if you don't think the Chiefs are CONSTANTLY looking at options for every position..be it FA's or draft possibilities...

You think they aren't looking?

I fail to see any point in any of your posts..

You need someone to explain how magnets work, bruh?

BossChief

10-27-2011, 04:17 PM

Thats called a consensus.

That's called Pioli force-feeding the HC his quarterback...just like he did so with his assistant coaches.

Rausch

10-27-2011, 04:17 PM

Thats called a consensus.

....:harumph:

BossChief

10-27-2011, 04:18 PM

....:facepalm:

FYP

keg in kc

10-27-2011, 04:18 PM

No, the question is if we start Stanzi RIGHT NOW would he be a better option than Ca$$#ole come next year?I'm gonna go with "no" on that one. We don't need to replace Matt Cassel with Ricky Cassel. It needs to be someone else.

Rausch

10-27-2011, 04:18 PM

Oh cool, water is wet?

You are an absolute moron if you don't think the Chiefs are CONSTANTLY looking at options for every position..

No, I think it's pretty fucking clear they're not...

Ming the Merciless

10-27-2011, 04:20 PM

Let me spell this out with crayon for you since you seem to need it:

If we find and sign a better QB than Cassel, I'd love to start him. I will root for that QB when we get him. Until then, I'll root for Cassel to do well and win games.

We don't have that magical , mystical other guy yet.

Simple enough?

Ming the Merciless

10-27-2011, 04:25 PM

No, I think it's pretty ****ing clear they're not...

So you think the FO sits around at a meeting and says..

"Ok guys, lets talk about the QB position"

"Actually sir we're looking good there, no need to talk about it"

"wait so you don't want to address any potential free agents that might add depth or competetion"

"Nahhh"

"ummm. Ok how about lets talk about some interesting QB's we might draft with our 1st pick"

"Nahh, no need...We're good bro."

"Uhh.....wow...ok...ummm how about we talk about some later sleepers we might be able to draft with some lower value picks"

"nah, **** that."

"Ok Um... you wanna talk about trades?"

"nah **** it, lets hit the gym and tan"

I mean what the **** do you think happens in a huge hundreds of millions of dollar type organization? Your view is so basic and so simple, I just can't imagine..do you have a job? Have you ever had to make serious decisions and do any planning? That shit just doesn't get done on a whim man...

BossChief

10-27-2011, 04:39 PM

So you think the FO sits around at a meeting and says..

"Ok guys, lets talk about the QB position"

"Actually sir we're looking good there, no need to talk about it"

"wait so you don't want to address any potential free agents that might add depth or competetion"

"Nahhh"

"ummm. Ok how about lets talk about some interesting QB's we might draft with our 1st pick"

"Nahh, no need...We're good bro."

"Uhh.....wow...ok...ummm how about we talk about some later sleepers we might be able to draft with some lower value picks"

"nah, **** that."

"Ok Um... you wanna talk about trades?"

"nah **** it, lets hit the gym and tan"

I mean what the **** do you think happens in a huge hundreds of millions of dollar type organization? Your view is so basic and so simple, I just can't imagine..do you have a job? Have you ever had to make serious decisions and do any planning? That shit just doesn't get done on a whim man...

Tyler Palko is the teams #2

Need we say more?

milkman

10-27-2011, 09:16 PM

This isn't relevant...

As I stated before the REAL question is what are our options. You repeatedly ignore this question and revert back to playing with your Casshole.

Your fingers stink.

He answered your question, you dumbfuck.

Pay the fuck attention.

MagicHef

10-28-2011, 12:20 AM

I don't know the circumstances around Orton's demotion, if fan pressure had anything to do with it or if it was just Orton's ineptitude, but I'm very glad it happened and I don't have to take part in discussions like this any more.