What's everyone's feelings on QB rating?

What matters most to me this year is his turnover percentage. The dude has just not given up the ball this year unlike anything we have ever seen from him before. Maybe the pressure is just off of him now and he is going out there and playing.

Originally posted by cNiner:
not important it's what you do on the field and the new qb rating is more acurate !

The new one sucks man, it has too much subjective s**t. Like for instance, Romo had a higher QBR than Stafford and Stafford didn't throw three picks, and he won the game. That new QBR is worse than the NFL one.

First and foremost people (incuding the so called expert talking heads) need to stop using it for single game analysis. It was designed to analyze a seasons worth of games, or at least chunks of games.

The reason why there is a max set in because the creators of it realized that the max would never be reached in a full season. If it was meant for single game analysis a much higher(or no max) would have been set

'W' is the most important statistic

It is extremely flawed, especially after using it after 1 game. It is weighted far too much on how many times you throw TD's and how many times you throw picks. Guys like Matt Cassell last year look like pro bowlers because they got tons of opportunites for TD throws at the goal line.

Personally, I am of the belief that the eye test never fails, but if forced to use stats, I like YPA, comp. pct, and to an extent INT prevention.

Originally posted by NineFourNiner:
Here is NT's feeling:

When it fits my preconceived agenda, I love it.
When it refutes it, it is a load of crap.

Originally posted by 49erfeeeever808:

Originally posted by NineFourNiner:
Here is NT's feeling:

When it fits my preconceived agenda, I love it.
When it refutes it, it is a load of crap.

It's funny 'cuz it's true!

Originally posted by thojess:

Originally posted by cNiner:
not important it's what you do on the field and the new qb rating is more acurate !

More accurate???? f**k no. more subjective? you bet!

it is more accurate

i mean romo definitely played better than stafford last game i mean its not like romo had 3 or 4 int to lose the game....

Originally posted by oldman9er:

Originally posted by Joecool:
I just think it's funny how in the past, the rating was used against Alex but now that his is up there with the best, some are trying to devalue the rating.

Nice ! ... and quite true.

The thing is, it wasnt JUST quarterback rating that was used against Alex in the past. It was:

- Quarterback rating
- W-L record
- Yardage
- Lack of touchdowns
- Touchdown to turnover ratio
- Completion %
(etc.)

Its funny to me how the AFC is desperately trying to throw certain things in us detractors faces, yet its been 4 games. 3.5 of which Alex played average to below average football. I have been the first detractor to admit that he has been MUCH better and I hope to see him continue to take strides in his game. I just feel like the AFC has been taking stats/plays/our record and completely blowing them out of proportion to make Alex seem great. Hes been better. He still hasnt been good-great. Half of a game does not make up for the first 3.5 games, or the last 6 years.

When the quarterback has 140 yards passing and a 90 rating people don't care.

He plays like he did in the 2nd half of Philly and no one is going to complain about him.

Originally posted by NineFourNiner:

Originally posted by 49erfeeeever808:

Originally posted by NineFourNiner:
Here is NT's feeling:

When it fits my preconceived agenda, I love it.
When it refutes it, it is a load of crap.

It's funny 'cuz it's true!

Look at you, arguing both sides like a lawyer

Originally posted by NineFourNiner:

Originally posted by 49erfeeeever808:

Originally posted by NineFourNiner:
Here is NT's feeling:

When it fits my preconceived agenda, I love it.
When it refutes it, it is a load of crap.

It's funny 'cuz it's true!

No it's not; it's a load of crap.

(edited to help convey sarcasm)

Originally posted by 80sbaby24:
The thing is, it wasnt JUST quarterback rating that was used against Alex in the past. It was:

- Quarterback rating
- W-L record
- Yardage
- Lack of touchdowns
- Touchdown to turnover ratio
- Completion %
(etc.)

Its funny to me how the AFC is desperately trying to throw certain things in us detractors faces, yet its been 4 games. 3.5 of which Alex played average to below average football. I have been the first detractor to admit that he has been MUCH better and I hope to see him continue to take strides in his game. I just feel like the AFC has been taking stats/plays/our record and completely blowing them out of proportion to make Alex seem great. Hes been better. He still hasnt been good-great. Half of a game does not make up for the first 3.5 games, or the last 6 years.

WTF is an AFC?

And I won't lump everyone into one category as you seem inclined to do. I just speak for myself and say this.

If the QB has a 97.7 QBR and is ranked #8 with efficient numbers... after 4 games... with the 32nd ranked pass protecting OL... the offense # 1 in penalties... starting RB averaging 3.7 yds... with starting WRs out and injured... and multiple drops per game... new HC and OC... new scheme, etc...

Blowing up stats? No... just appreciating them, considering all of the above things mentioned.

Most likely a QB with a rating of 60 had a s**tty game and a one with a rating over 90 had a pretty good game. It's not prefect but it is a useful stat, I would rather a QB that holds a high rating leading my team.

QB Rating correlates to winning more than any other QB stat. I think that kind of makes it of some value.