New ESPN Total QB Rating System Announced - How do our QB's rate?

I like it... IMO thats just about how I would have ranked the QB's last year... Colt McCoy and Sanchez seem a little high but its not bad.

It's BS. You cannot tell me Eli Manning and a few others on that list are better then Matt Schaub...

Smith was always good at running up numbers when it didn't matter, and screwing up when the game was on the line. Anything that puts him toward the bottom and guys like Manning, Brady, Brees, and Rodgers on the top seems pretty good to me.

Originally posted by gold49er2183:
It's BS. You cannot tell me Eli Manning and a few others on that list are better then Matt Schaub...

I doubt it is BS. I think what they probably did is some very intense statistics involving correlation coefficients and determining what QB factors most influenced winning games and from there assigned variables and weights. The previous system was somewhat arbitrary and missed a lot of variables. I'm sure they then took this model and ran the figures for previous years to see if in fact the results supported empirical results on the field and W/L ratios. I'm sure the analysis was very much like what the A's did with Moneyball. Correlation coefficient analysis is the key here.

It also makes sense in that before, Alex was being compared to QBs he had no business being compared to, such as Carson Palmer, and now that comparison is no longer valid with this system. It however introduces some more interesting comparisons, such as why Bradford, who seemed very clutch, is so close to Smith, who is anything but. However, Bradford is just a rookie, and Smith of course is a 7 year vet.

Originally posted by gold49er2183:
It's BS. You cannot tell me Eli Manning and a few others on that list are better then Matt Schaub...

It doesn't really matter. All that matters is wins/losses. Rating the QB is just to give you something to post about. Why not rate other positions also? Don't they matter too? How about combining the QB rating with his Oline's rating and then see what you have.

Its not perfect, but its closer to the truth than the normal QB rating imo.

Here is another ESPN categorization based on 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.

I would take every one of the below average guys over Alex for one season.

Originally posted by Overkill:

Its not perfect, but its closer to the truth than the normal QB rating imo.

Agree, there are a few examples of qbs who a rated lower than those who are not as goood, but not as much as with the traditional rating system.

fake, gay

Originally posted by 80sbaby24:
I would take every one of the below average guys over Alex for one season.

Excluding Campbell and Henne, I agree.

I am waiting for an Alex Smith fan to come up with a system that makes 2-7 for 10 yards look good.

Originally posted by Shaj:
Here is another ESPN categorization based on 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.

Basically they designed a rating system to fit their preconceived notion of what the ratings should look like. Basically a statistical version of "begging the question". Another good example of this is John Hollinger's PER system for basketball, basically weighted to assume that Michael Jordan was the greatest player to ever live, and weighting his particular statistical strengths as the most important criteria in rating everyone else.

Measures of "clutchness" btw....highly problematic. There is no rigorous way to define "clutch". It's a fundamentally qualitative interpretation trying to masquerade as an objective metric.

The fact that such a "measure" is in the formula for this QBR rating basically invalidates it.