There are 121 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

Alex Smith's QBR (ESPN stat) for the Philly game?

Wow, talk about a stupid rating system. I thought at first it was better but obviously not. They need to fine tune it more. When Romo or Orton has a better QBR rating you know something is wrong.
I just stick to passing rating. It's not perfect but it shows just how efficient a quarterback is playing.
  • Shemp
  • Hall of Fame
  • Posts: 26,734
Originally posted by HessianDud:
the two fumbles and 3 sacks take a huge hit out of his numbers.

stats are incredibly useful, but obviously anyone who watched the game knows that that doesn't reflect what happened in the game.

yeah, but the traditional stat also way over-inflated his results from the previous 3 games. They both have their liabilities.
FAIL ESPN. No one is going to buy this rating.
Originally posted by valrod33:
http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcwest/post/_/id/47325/qbr-ranks-parsing-alex-smiths-showing

not sure why he thinks Kendall Hunter had a touchdown, but that does make sense overall. However, it seems like the QBR stats don't really measure a comeback effectively. All the plays Smith made in the second half led to the comeback, cumulatively, even if most of them, individually, didn't do much to change the "win probability." The fumble lost is harshly punished but the scramble throw to Hunter that, IMO, was the turning point in the game isn't rewarded.
[ Edited by HessianDud on Oct 3, 2011 at 9:46 AM ]
The Qbr Rating is just another tool for the "four letter network" to make themselves more important than they are.
Espn QBR is a JOKE! it's controlled by subjectivity. They created it to be more a accurate way to measure a QB, but all they did was create a beauty patient with a scientific name. And what's with the sacks??? It's full of holes. I like the idea of trying to more acuratly measure a QBs performance, but this system needs a lot of tweaking.

Bottom line, QB is the most impacting position, we came back 20-down on the road.

There's so many fantasy and madden "fans" out there who've conditioned themselves to watch the game without appreciating the "big picture". This QBR thing a great example of that. So dumb.
This is ridiculous. You lead a second half comeback with three TD's over the "Dream Team" on the road and you get a 28? I mean, come on. I won't follow this statistic anymore. It is obviously absurd. I watched the game yesterday and that was not a 28 performance.
At first I used that number as a reason why QBR is bogus, but if you think more about it, it makes a lot of sense why Alex's QBR is low. First, we have to realize that just because your QBR is low, doesn't necessarily mean that you played terribly, but rather, that you didn't play exceptionally well. It simply means that Alex's successes came in lower leverage situations, which are still successes nonetheless when you look at his standard QB rating.

The game was pretty similar to the Philly game last year, or the Texans game, where we were down multiple scores, and Alex came back and threw some touchdown passes to get us into a position to win. The difference here was that A) our playcalling got us the winning score (critical plays such as Hunter's 3rd-7 run and Gore's TD run were not the doing of Alex Smith). B) Our defense stepped up and forced the turnover to seal the game.

Still, I think QBR leans a little too heavy on the situation, but it's pretty understandable why Alex's QBR was lower than we might've expected. He did not have a good first half (along with the rest of the offense)
it seems that the biggest difference between Smith's QBR and Stafford's (both led 20 [or more] point comebacks on the road) is that Stafford wasn't sacked and had more "action plays."
Originally posted by HessianDud:
it seems that the biggest difference between Smith's QBR and Stafford's (both led 20 [or more] point comebacks on the road) is that Stafford wasn't sacked and had more "action plays."

Why should a sac affect a QB rating? I mean..all sacks aren't on the QB.

f**k, Cambell is rated higher. The guy who threw an absolutely horrible INT in the endzone and then another to Wilfork has a higher QBR. That makes absolutely zero sense.
Originally posted by HessianDud:
it seems that the biggest difference between Smith's QBR and Stafford's (both led 20 [or more] point comebacks on the road) is that Stafford wasn't sacked and had more "action plays."

Stafford really wasn't the driving force of that comeback either. 2 pick 6's and an additional interception is what got the job done.
Originally posted by SportsFan:
Originally posted by HessianDud:
it seems that the biggest difference between Smith's QBR and Stafford's (both led 20 [or more] point comebacks on the road) is that Stafford wasn't sacked and had more "action plays."

Why should a sac affect a QB rating? I mean..all sacks aren't on the QB.

f**k, Cambell is rated higher. The guy who threw an absolutely horrible INT in the endzone and then another to Wilfork has a higher QBR. That makes absolutely zero sense.

and Romo is rated higher than Stafford, when Romo threw the game away and Stafford won it.

like the traditional rating system, the TQBR has its merits and its flaws, but this weeks ratings seem more dubious than usual.
The problem just isn't the score but in comparisons to other scores.

Kolb posted a 32.0 which was higher than Smith's which makes the QBR number useless system like the traditional QB rating is to a certain extent.

Smith threw 2 TDs vs Kolb's 0 TDs, Smith had a slightly higher completion average, threw for more yards, had one less turnover than Kolb, one less sack than Kolb, and we had a comeback from behind win while the Cards had a loss.

So what in the world is the formula for this?

I don't know about you guys but I think if I had to choose between the two I think I would want Smith's performance than Kolb's.
Originally posted by Shaj:
Originally posted by HessianDud:
the two fumbles and 3 sacks take a huge hit out of his numbers.

stats are incredibly useful, but obviously anyone who watched the game knows that that doesn't reflect what happened in the game.

yeah, but the traditional stat also way over-inflated his results from the previous 3 games. They both have their liabilities.

I think you have a valid point, but here are some stats I find interesting... Alex is 5th in the NFL in Pct...

Alex is 16th in average yards per completion with 7.4.
15th Mathew Stafford (7.6 yards).
17th Jay Cutler (7.3)
18th Ryan Fitzpatrick (7.2)
21st Matt Ryan (6.9)

I'm sure you would consider all these QB's better than Alex? Stafford has pretty much the same yards per completion and Cutler, Fitz and Ryan are lower.