Not saying 'sack was talking about him, but honestly the love for Luck is getting a little out of hand. People are talking like he's going to be playing like Tom Brady starting his first game and he won't. He's a good prospect, but he's not a sure thing like Suh was. No QB is.
I'm guessing that was a sarcastic comment targeted at the level of play (i.e. trying to lose all of their games) rather than an actual interest in Luck. It was a good weekend to be a Bills fan. Killer second half.
[quote="Binary I'm guessing that was a sarcastic comment targeted at the level of play (i.e. trying to lose all of their games) rather than an actual interest in Luck. [/quote] We have a winner! (I also rhymed, missed bonus money.) Oh and I was a Bills fan for a week also, only guy out of 60 to bet on them in Dead Pool. Fitz got some good press last week, he was feeling good. Plus he went to HAH-vard. Now I can stop caring about the Bills until the Patriots crush them. "It's like a game of Madden out there to him!" Every announcer and analyst ever on Tom Brady Weeks 1 and 2. Also weird for him to say Branch is his favorite WR. You just shouldn't say that Tom. Especially since Welker has been saving your ass post injury more than any other player. I get the history, but...c'mon.
Yes, I know what you meant Parker. I'm just saying the Luck love is getting over the top. Alright, it's official. The new QBR is worthless. I present exhibits A and B. Quarterbacks Aaron Rodgers and Donovan Mcnabb. Let's take a look at how they performed in week two. Rodgers: 19/30 308 yards. 2 tds. 0 ints. 0 fumbles. 13 yards rushing. Sacked once. Clutch: Erased a 13 point deficit and threw the game sealing td near the end of the 4th quarter. QBR: 54.9 McNabb 18/30 228 yards. 0 tds. 0 ints. 0 fumbles. 12 yards rushing. Sacked twice. Clutch: Blew a 17 point lead. QBR: 58.3 You tell me who had the better game. Call me a homer all you want, but this isn't even close. Plus 50 is supposed to be average right? So the average QB throws 10+ yards per attempt and never gets picked now? Uh huh. Also, Eli Manning had the 7th highest QBR last season according to this new system. He did not have the 7th best year. The guy led the league in interceptions and they put him above Rivers and Freeman who had phenomenal seasons. The new QBR is a complete joke. When it first came out I liked the idea, but was a little skeptical. After seeing and knowing more on how this retarded system evaluates QBs I refuse to take it seriously. It was a nice idea espn, it just didn't work. I feel bad for the people who wasted so much time on this. Edit: Is anyone else perplexed by these Monday night game selections? Who gives a shit about the rams vs giants? I'll probably watch because there isn't much else to do on Monday nights, but what a bad selection. It gets better as the season goes on, but most of the games are pretty crappy. They were bad choices last week too. I thought these were supposed to be some of the best match ups of the week.
I still maintain it was more of a marketing ploy by ESPN. As for Vick, you can't blame the guy for getting injured on a play where he stayed in the pocket and it wasn't even the tackle itself that hurt him. Just one of those freak injuries. Compared to other guys who got concussions, he didn't seem that bad in terms of how he looked on the sidelines and after the game. I feel it was probably a precautionary measure by the Eagles, especially considering they had a 10 point lead at the time and their defense was a brick wall. We'll see how he compares to his pre-season base line tests today or tomorrow though. The Steelers looked much better, but still have to maintain expectations as it was against the Seahawks and I believe they didn't get one sack until the 3rd or 4th quarter when Seattle was forced to throw on almost every down.
Rodgers: The thing you fail to mention is that Rodgers's game sealing TD pass was that it was mostly YAC. QBR takes into account how far a ball has to travel. The ball traveled 15 yards. 20 at most. I looked at the play by play here, and Rodgers and the offense didn't do much of anything outside of 4 big plays. In fact, Green Bay's offense shit the bed almost every time they got near the red zone, as evidenced with 3 field goals shorter than 40 yards. On two of those field goal drives, Green Bay started in Carolina territory. Green Bay only had two sustained drives the entire game. One had a 39 yard pass and the other had a 40 yard run. Their other scoring drives were big plays. Nelson's big run after the catch, and a bomb to Jennings. Their other touchdown was a 1 yard run by a fullback. When his numbers are viewed in context, Rodgers had an average game, which points to his average QBR rating. In terms of raw numbers, Rodgers had a pretty good game. Over 60% completion rate, 2 TDs and 0 INTs. When you look at the why of those numbers, it's pretty clear his day wasn't as good as his numbers indicate.
None of this explains why Mcnabb has a higher QBR. If you actually are defending the QBR, I'd like to hear why you think Mcnabb had a better game, or why Eli Manning was ranked 7th last season. Secondly, big plays count too. The pass to Jennings traveled about 50 yards in the air, so you can't just explain that away with YAC. So what if the pass to Nelson had a lot of yards after the catch? Is it supposed to not count or something? Is it supposed to hurt his rating since his receiver played well? Also, it's hard to hit a receiver in perfect stride like that 15 yards down the field. A lesser throw and it would have just been a 15 yard gain. This is another reason I think the way the QBR approaches YAC is stupid. Rodgers had a better game than Mcnabb in EVERY statistical category. Even regarding the minor stuff like sacks taken Rodgers was superior. Any system that rates Mcnabb higher based on those games is fucking idiotic. I don't see anything in your post that explains otherwise, except the idea that big plays don't count as much, which is pretty ridiculous. Oh and that they kicked field goals. You knows what's worse than kicking field goals? Not scoring at all, like Minnesota did for most of the second half while Mcnabb blew a 3 score lead. If you're just talking about Rodgers being average and have nothing to say about Mcnabb I still think you're wrong, but the main point of my post is that the QBR doesn't accurately evaluate or rank QBs. I used the comparison between these two as an example.
If I understand this properly (which is not guaranteed), you get as many points for amassing a lead as you do for leading a "clutch" comeback; i.e., scoring 3 touchdowns in the first half to take a big lead is around as valuable as scoring three to tie a game in the second half. If McNabb gave up a lead, it's only because he has a lead to give up, which would inflate his QBR. Sort of like WPA.
Eli's INTs were hyper inflated last year. Also, I don't know what context those INTs occurred. They could have happened in garbage time, or on 4th down with zeroes on the clock. QBR is used to measure pure QB performance. A WR gaining 65 yards after a ball is in the air for 15 is not a good baseline for QB performance. Do you get a positive boost in your QBR with a play like that? Absolutely. But a play like that is weighted differently than that 49 yard bomb to Jennings. That pass to Jennings was mostly on Rodgers performance. He bought time, saw the coverage, and heaved it down the field for the score. That TD gave them a lead that they never relinquished. All of those things factor in how QBR is determined. If you look at the rest of the game, you'll see that other than a couple of big plays, Rodgers simply wasn't effective as his numbers indicate. Look at the numbers for Green Bay's offensive drives: (note: I am not counting scrambles, penalties, etc. Just pass attempts and completions) 3 plays, 14 yards, 2:20 elapsed (1/2 13 yds) 11 plays, 81 yards, 4:50 elapsed (39 yard pass to Finley 7/10 57 yds) 4 plays, 9 yards, 2:15 elapsed (1/3 12 yds) 6 plays, 17 yards, 1:40 elapsed (0/4 0 yds) 5 plays, 80 yards, 2:37 elapsed (Pass to Jennings 1/1 49 yds) 4 plays, 6 yards, 1:19 elapsed (field goal, start at Carolina's 20, 0/2 0 yds) 8 plays, 67 yards, 3:31 elapsed (field goal, 40 yard Starks run, 2/4 24 yds) 7 plays, 37 yards, 4:23 elapsed (field goal, start at Carolina's 49, 5/5 39 yds, 1 sack for -13 yds) 3 plays, 7 yards, 2:45 elapsed (1/1 13 yds) 2 plays, 96 yards, 0:55 elapsed (Nelson pass, 1/1 84 yds) Take out his three big plays and Rodgers goes to 17/27 for 123 yards. Rather pedestrian isn't it? Here's McNabb: 6 plays, 37 yards, 1:52 elapsed (1/4 16 yds) 12 plays, 90 yards, 6:41 elapsed (5/5 39 yds) 14 plays, 75 yards, 7:45 elapsed (3/5 31 yds) 8 plays, 75 yards, 2:47 elapsed (1/3 42 yds, Gerhart did most of the work) 3 plays, 2 yards, 3:21 elapsed (0/0 0 yds) 4 plays, 4 yards, 2:00 elapsed (1/3 17 yds) 12 plays, 64 yards, 5:48 elapsed (2/5 14 yds) 5 plays, 17 yards, 2:20 elapsed (1/3 6 yds) 3 plays, 35 yards, 0:31 elapsed (1/3 11 yds) McNabb is no better. In fact, he's patently average, just as his QBR rating says he is. The reason why there's seems to be such a big disparity between McNabb and Rodgers performance is because Rodgers hit 3 big plays, 2 of which were for touchdowns. The offense was below average the rest of the time he was on the field. McNabb managed the game and let Adrian Peterson do the work. If you changed Rodgers' name to Grossman and McNabb's name to Dilfer, QBR would probably make a lot more sense.
Actually yeah, you just hit the nail on the head with this one. The point of the new QBR is to distinguish 50+ bombs from 5 yard passes where the O-Line or other receivers spring blocks, the WR gets 3 stiff arms, the defense slips on bad grass (looking at you Soldier field)/runs into each other trying to go for silly hard hits and then the WR gets an additional 50 YAC that had nothing to do with the QB. That's what it is trying to do. As much as it hurts me to say this...Tom Brady shouldn't get all the credit for Wes Welker's 99 play when he had to break tackles, and get blocks down the field when in actually just a 10 yard pass in light coverage. Did Tom Brady get some QBR out of it? Yes, he made the read, and threw the ball accurate. but the old system would have given it ALL to him like there was no one else on the field. The new QBR accounts for the entire situation. It is also more forgiving on INTs when QBs make a good pass but the WR lets it bounce off his numbers into a CB running to the endzone. It goes both ways. To run this into the ground, in the old system, take your boy Rodgers, and put him against Luke McCown. Rodgers plays his game up there, but Luke is the QB of an All-Star game and basically throws 1-10 yard passes where the other 10 men get the ball up the field with insane blocks, jukes, stiff-arms, and anything else. Luke gets 3 TDs and has 399 yards, even though from his hand to the receiver was a total max of 30 yards. His old school QB rating would be higher than Rodgers even though he did not work harder. In the new system it might be slightly higher or lower than Rodgers. That's the point of the new system...its weighs everything different.
One of the funniest things I have seen on a football field. Michael Boley of the Giants recovers a fumble and scores a TD for the Giants. So he goes to spike it and he does, directly in the face of some guy standing behind the end-zone.
I have no idea why you think it's a legit argument to say 'oh just don't count his touchdown passes and other biggest pass plays and he's average!' Well no shit, if you took away every good play from any QB they didn't have a good game. How these plays are not supposed to count under some arbitrary nonsensical evaluation of a QB - you've really lost me here. Their names have nothing nothing to do with why I think Rodgers played better. Everything counts, and Green Bay putting up 30 points isn't that bad. Sure, it would be nice to score a touchdown every drive, but I have realistic expectations. I guess we're giving Mcnabb credit for handing the ball off to Peterson now. Rivers also threw nearly a yard and a half more than Manning per attempt and had a higher completion percentage. Some of Eli's throws were unlucky, some were terrible passes too. OK, I'm done with this unless there's something new. Having to take out numbers until a system makes sense just proves to me this system sucks.
That was so hilarious. I came here to see if anyone posted the video.. Actual speed and super slow mo with annoying music
Here's a story on him. Apparently he's a photo intern. Kudos for the Giants defense getting cramps conveniently in the middle of the Rams' no huddle offense.
Honestly I'm not surprised at all. Green Bay is winning like they're supposed to. Anyone who followed the NFC north knew the lions were going to be a lot better this year and that Minnesota sucks. Chicago is probably a 10-6 team, they just open with a brutal schedule. I was pretty sure the colts were done after losing Manning, and the texans have too much talent to stay in the cellar. Plus that division just plain sucks this year so it's going to be hard for them to lose it. This is probably because I follow the NFC north so closely, but this is pretty much what I expected. I suppose you can't really believe in the lions until they win a playoff game though. I tried to post a gif of the two giants players purposely falling over in unison, but it says the file is too large. It made me wonder which kind of football we were watching last night.
I mean, Indy's collapse is only SOMEWHAT unexpected. People were already saying that it was an open contest b/t Houston and Indy, and that was before Manning went down. jacksonville was a dark horse there, although personally I never saw it. And the Lions were this summer's trendy pick for a sleeper team. They've been putting the pieces together for a few years now, and had an underrated defense last year that anyone could see would be better this year (middle of the road as far as yards and points, but a high sack and turnover defense). Before the season, I said elsewhere I saw them as a 6-8 win team. If someone is completely surprised by the Lions, they weren't paying attention. The real surprises: The Bengals won a game and the Redskins and Bills each won two. I thought all three of those teams would be terrible.
Maybe this is too nitpicky but does the new system actually evaluate how YAC were obtained? Because for every big YAC run that results because of supurb downfield running and blocking, many more are determined by the accuracy of the throw, which obviously rests on the QB. Hitting a receiver perfectly in stride and allowing him to continue downfield with his current momentum makes a huge difference. How many times have we seen completions that resulted in zero or a couple YAC because the receiver had to come to a stop and reach back for a ball thrown above or behind him and then start up again after the catch by which time defenders have caught up to him?
As much as it pains ME to say this as a Dolphins fan, I was at that game and that pass was 35% Brady, 15% Welker & 50% poor coverage by the Dolphins safety. Welker made 1 stiff arm and was gone. Brady laid it out there perfectly and the FS was out of position. Shit, the Dolphins corner on the coverage got cut the next day!