Jimmy Garoppolo, QB, Los Angeles Rams

Originally posted by Furlow:
Lol wut. No, they don't "expire." But it's well known that QB's today play with rules that favor QB's. So the passer ratings in today's era are much higher than previous eras. Brady played a lot of years under different rules.

Can't believe this has to be stated.

Which shows why it's not a particularly useful stat. Made my point.

It's the football equivalent of batting average. It really only means much when it's really bad.

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by Furlow:
Lol wut. No, they don't "expire." But it's well known that QB's today play with rules that favor QB's. So the passer ratings in today's era are much higher than previous eras. Brady played a lot of years under different rules.

Can't believe this has to be stated.

Which shows why it's not a particularly useful stat. Made my point.

It's the football equivalent of batting average. It really only means much when it's really bad.

False. It's not a useful stat when comparing QB's across different eras. It IS a useful stat when comparing current QB's (to each other) and their value/worth as it correlates highly to winning football games.

Originally posted by picklejuice:

Jimmy G knows it was a fumble 😂

(via @Raiders) pic.twitter.com/ycCfGDw2vH

— B/R Gridiron (@brgridiron) March 23, 2023

these are gold

Originally posted by Furlow:
False. It's not a useful stat when comparing QB's across different eras. It IS a useful stat when comparing current QB's (to each other) and their value/worth as it correlates highly to winning football games.

I'd rather use dyar from football outsiders myself.

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
per ESPN

Garoppolo taking snaps will be a decidedly different look for Las Vegas. He's replacing Derek Carr, the Raiders' starter since his rookie season of 2014, and Carr only missed two regular-season starts because of injury in his career.

But Garoppolo is also expected to give the Raiders' offense, which was the NFL's No. 12-ranked unit last season (No. 11 passing, No. 17 rushing, No. 12 scoring), not only a fresh start, but a kickstart, given his familiarity with McDaniels and the scheme and the discomfort Carr had in said system.

Consider: Garoppolo's passer rating as a starter with McDaniels calling plays is 119.0 compared to Carr's 86.3.

But passer rating doesn't matter. Air yards, fantasy football points, and SportsCenter Top Ten Plays are what win games.

Completed air yards per attempt is part of why Jimmy makes way less than Derek Carr. Despite your (and TreyDey's) denial, throwing short to YAC monsters is easier than throwing down the field to regular WRs.

Filter by completed air yards per attempt and scan through. Please show me the correlation to winning. It doesn't exist. The best QB in the NFL (Mahomes) ranked 16th in that "stat" last year.

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2022/passing_advanced.htm

Just because they are called "advanced stats," doesn't mean they carry any significance to winning football games.

That's because winning is a team effort. Sometimes teams win because their QB does most of the work. Sometimes teams win because they have a lot of studs on offense and the QB is a cog in the machine.

For example, look what happened when Tua went down in Miami. Their offense fell off a cliff (I believe they went to 16 points per game or so). Look what happened when Jimmy went down in San Francisco. The offense went from 22 points per game to 32 points per game. Brock Purdy completed air yards per completoin: 5.9. Jimmy: 4.8.

This argument is terrible lol. Purdy is better than Jimmy. Tua's backup is worse than Tua. That's all that proves.

Now go look at passer rating rankings, and you'll see a much higher correlation to winning. That's the issue here. Those of us who appreciate Jimmy can see that what he does helps win games. The small number of you who don't just want to see cool highlights.

So far, Purdy has provided both, let's hope that continues.

Passer rating is a TEAM STAT. Of course it's going to correlate with winning. Every single good thing about a QB in passer rating also is a good thing about the receivers, and there's literally no way to distinguish who is more at fault or deserving of praise for each pass included in the metric, because the metric doesn't distinguish between contributions to passer or pass receiver. Hence why Total QBR is better. As is Next Gen Stats. And so on.

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by Furlow:
Derek Carr career passer rating - 91.8
Jimmy G career passer rating - 99.6

A much better comparison then the other.

That being said a stat that has Kirk Cousins above Tom Brady all time doesn't hold much weight for me.

Different eras. But you knew that.

i guess ratings have an expiration date now

Lol wut. No, they don't "expire." But it's well known that QB's today play with rules that favor QB's. So the passer ratings in today's era are much higher than previous eras. Brady played a lot of years under different rules.

Can't believe this has to be stated.

What I can't believe is you acknowledge different eras but don't seem to be aware of the fact that passer rating doesn't distinguish between a two yard tunnel screen that goes 90 yards or a 90 yard bomb that traveled sixty yards through the air and was thrown between two defenders. I mean we all know why: Passer rating favors QBs who throw the ball short (because it effectively counts completion percentage twice, since it includes both comp% as well as ypa—neither of which are strictly due to the QB, or even mostly some of the time), and it favors QBs with YAC monsters.

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by Furlow:
False. It's not a useful stat when comparing QB's across different eras. It IS a useful stat when comparing current QB's (to each other) and their value/worth as it correlates highly to winning football games.

I'd rather use dyar from football outsiders myself.

That had Jimmy ranked 8th last year? Okay. Lol

Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
per ESPN

Garoppolo taking snaps will be a decidedly different look for Las Vegas. He's replacing Derek Carr, the Raiders' starter since his rookie season of 2014, and Carr only missed two regular-season starts because of injury in his career.

But Garoppolo is also expected to give the Raiders' offense, which was the NFL's No. 12-ranked unit last season (No. 11 passing, No. 17 rushing, No. 12 scoring), not only a fresh start, but a kickstart, given his familiarity with McDaniels and the scheme and the discomfort Carr had in said system.

Consider: Garoppolo's passer rating as a starter with McDaniels calling plays is 119.0 compared to Carr's 86.3.

But passer rating doesn't matter. Air yards, fantasy football points, and SportsCenter Top Ten Plays are what win games.

Completed air yards per attempt is part of why Jimmy makes way less than Derek Carr. Despite your (and TreyDey's) denial, throwing short to YAC monsters is easier than throwing down the field to regular WRs.

Filter by completed air yards per attempt and scan through. Please show me the correlation to winning. It doesn't exist. The best QB in the NFL (Mahomes) ranked 16th in that "stat" last year.

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2022/passing_advanced.htm

Just because they are called "advanced stats," doesn't mean they carry any significance to winning football games.

That's because winning is a team effort. Sometimes teams win because their QB does most of the work. Sometimes teams win because they have a lot of studs on offense and the QB is a cog in the machine.

For example, look what happened when Tua went down in Miami. Their offense fell off a cliff (I believe they went to 16 points per game or so). Look what happened when Jimmy went down in San Francisco. The offense went from 22 points per game to 32 points per game. Brock Purdy completed air yards per completoin: 5.9. Jimmy: 4.8.

This argument is terrible lol. Purdy is better than Jimmy. Tua's backup is worse than Tua. That's all that proves.

Now go look at passer rating rankings, and you'll see a much higher correlation to winning. That's the issue here. Those of us who appreciate Jimmy can see that what he does helps win games. The small number of you who don't just want to see cool highlights.

So far, Purdy has provided both, let's hope that continues.

Passer rating is a TEAM STAT. Of course it's going to correlate with winning. Every single good thing about a QB in passer rating also is a good thing about the receivers, and there's literally no way to distinguish who is more at fault or deserving of praise for each pass included in the metric, because the metric doesn't distinguish between contributions to passer or pass receiver. Hence why Total QBR is better. As is Next Gen Stats. And so on.

Lol right. If passer rating is a TEAM STAT then every stat is a TEAM STAT. Terrible argument. Next.

Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by Furlow:
Derek Carr career passer rating - 91.8
Jimmy G career passer rating - 99.6

A much better comparison then the other.

That being said a stat that has Kirk Cousins above Tom Brady all time doesn't hold much weight for me.

Different eras. But you knew that.

i guess ratings have an expiration date now

Lol wut. No, they don't "expire." But it's well known that QB's today play with rules that favor QB's. So the passer ratings in today's era are much higher than previous eras. Brady played a lot of years under different rules.

Can't believe this has to be stated.

What I can't believe is you acknowledge different eras but don't seem to be aware of the fact that passer rating doesn't distinguish between a two yard tunnel screen that goes 90 yards or a 90 yard bomb that traveled sixty yards through the air and was thrown between two defenders. I mean we all know why: Passer rating favors QBs who throw the ball short (because it effectively counts completion percentage twice, since it includes both comp% as well as ypa—neither of which are strictly due to the QB, or even mostly some of the time), and it favors QBs with YAC monsters.

Well Tua led the NFL in passer rating last season, and led the NFL in air yards per attempt. So your argument here is also terrible. Even if it did favor QB's who threw shorter passes, that just means that throwing shorter passes correlates to winning. Because the passer rating rankings heavily correlate to winning. Much more than QBR, air yards, or whatever other "cool" QB stats that ESPN has brainwashed this generation into thinking have significance.

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
per ESPN

Garoppolo taking snaps will be a decidedly different look for Las Vegas. He's replacing Derek Carr, the Raiders' starter since his rookie season of 2014, and Carr only missed two regular-season starts because of injury in his career.

But Garoppolo is also expected to give the Raiders' offense, which was the NFL's No. 12-ranked unit last season (No. 11 passing, No. 17 rushing, No. 12 scoring), not only a fresh start, but a kickstart, given his familiarity with McDaniels and the scheme and the discomfort Carr had in said system.

Consider: Garoppolo's passer rating as a starter with McDaniels calling plays is 119.0 compared to Carr's 86.3.

But passer rating doesn't matter. Air yards, fantasy football points, and SportsCenter Top Ten Plays are what win games.

Completed air yards per attempt is part of why Jimmy makes way less than Derek Carr. Despite your (and TreyDey's) denial, throwing short to YAC monsters is easier than throwing down the field to regular WRs.

Filter by completed air yards per attempt and scan through. Please show me the correlation to winning. It doesn't exist. The best QB in the NFL (Mahomes) ranked 16th in that "stat" last year.

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2022/passing_advanced.htm

Just because they are called "advanced stats," doesn't mean they carry any significance to winning football games.

That's because winning is a team effort. Sometimes teams win because their QB does most of the work. Sometimes teams win because they have a lot of studs on offense and the QB is a cog in the machine.

For example, look what happened when Tua went down in Miami. Their offense fell off a cliff (I believe they went to 16 points per game or so). Look what happened when Jimmy went down in San Francisco. The offense went from 22 points per game to 32 points per game. Brock Purdy completed air yards per completoin: 5.9. Jimmy: 4.8.

This argument is terrible lol. Purdy is better than Jimmy. Tua's backup is worse than Tua. That's all that proves.

Now go look at passer rating rankings, and you'll see a much higher correlation to winning. That's the issue here. Those of us who appreciate Jimmy can see that what he does helps win games. The small number of you who don't just want to see cool highlights.

So far, Purdy has provided both, let's hope that continues.

Passer rating is a TEAM STAT. Of course it's going to correlate with winning. Every single good thing about a QB in passer rating also is a good thing about the receivers, and there's literally no way to distinguish who is more at fault or deserving of praise for each pass included in the metric, because the metric doesn't distinguish between contributions to passer or pass receiver. Hence why Total QBR is better. As is Next Gen Stats. And so on.

Lol right. If passer rating is a TEAM STAT then every stat is a TEAM STAT. Terrible argument. Next.

To a degree most are. But some less so than others. For example, yards per completion versus completed air yards per completion. The former has LITERALLY ZERO means of distinguishing between what the receiver contributed and what the QB does. The latter shows that the QB is at least responsible for how far the ball traveled. The pass may have been inaccurate, he may have thrown under pressure, and so on. But we have MORE information about his contribution with that stat than we do with yards per completion, in which a WR catching a pass behind the line and running for a 12 yard gain is indistinguishable from a pass thrown 12 yards through the air.

Other stats, such as QBR and various other advanced metrics, painstakingly look at the context of each play to determine how much contribution from each player likely went into the play. The problem with QBR is ESPN hiding some of how the stats are weighted, but EPA and so on are fairly accessible.

But passer rating? It gives you LITERALLY ZERO information about how much is on the QB and how much is on the receivers. None. None at all. That at best gives it a large margin of error in evaluating QB play, but a very accurate evaluation of team passing offense.

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by Furlow:
Derek Carr career passer rating - 91.8
Jimmy G career passer rating - 99.6

A much better comparison then the other.

That being said a stat that has Kirk Cousins above Tom Brady all time doesn't hold much weight for me.

Different eras. But you knew that.

i guess ratings have an expiration date now

Lol wut. No, they don't "expire." But it's well known that QB's today play with rules that favor QB's. So the passer ratings in today's era are much higher than previous eras. Brady played a lot of years under different rules.

Can't believe this has to be stated.

What I can't believe is you acknowledge different eras but don't seem to be aware of the fact that passer rating doesn't distinguish between a two yard tunnel screen that goes 90 yards or a 90 yard bomb that traveled sixty yards through the air and was thrown between two defenders. I mean we all know why: Passer rating favors QBs who throw the ball short (because it effectively counts completion percentage twice, since it includes both comp% as well as ypa—neither of which are strictly due to the QB, or even mostly some of the time), and it favors QBs with YAC monsters.

Well Tua led the NFL in passer rating last season, and led the NFL in air yards per attempt. So your argument here is also terrible. Even if it did favor QB's who threw shorter passes, that just means that throwing shorter passes correlates to winning. Because the passer rating rankings heavily correlate to winning. Much more than QBR, air yards, or whatever other "cool" QB stats that ESPN has brainwashed this generation into thinking have significance.

No it isn't. Because one single example doesn't alter the trend.

Now, regarding win correlation, I'd say the data disagrees with you, as you can see here. From this link, passer rating's correlation with win% is 0.51:
https://www.footballperspective.com/correlating-passing-stats-with-wins/

From this tweet, you can see that NGS, QBR, and PFF grade ALL correlate with winning more (0.61, 0.56, and 0.54 respectfully):

This wouldn't be that difficult to check, but entering the values into a spread sheet and then a correlation calculator is more work than I feel like doing right now. One caveat is that the passer rating analysis is from 2012, but I see no reason why there would be some drastic change. Nevertheless, NGS is clearly the winner in win% correlation of these three.

Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:
Passer rating is a TEAM STAT. Of course it's going to correlate with winning. Every single good thing about a QB in passer rating also is a good thing about the receivers, and there's literally no way to distinguish who is more at fault or deserving of praise for each pass included in the metric, because the metric doesn't distinguish between contributions to passer or pass receiver. Hence why Total QBR is better. As is Next Gen Stats. And so on.

Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:
To a degree most are. But some less so than others. For example, yards per completion versus completed air yards per completion. The former has LITERALLY ZERO means of distinguishing between what the receiver contributed and what the QB does. The latter shows that the QB is at least responsible for how far the ball traveled. The pass may have been inaccurate, he may have thrown under pressure, and so on. But we have MORE information about his contribution with that stat than we do with yards per completion, in which a WR catching a pass behind the line and running for a 12 yard gain is indistinguishable from a pass thrown 12 yards through the air.

Other stats, such as QBR and various other advanced metrics, painstakingly look at the context of each play to determine how much contribution from each player likely went into the play. The problem with QBR is ESPN hiding some of how the stats are weighted, but EPA and so on are fairly accessible.

But passer rating? It gives you LITERALLY ZERO information about how much is on the QB and how much is on the receivers. None. None at all. That at best gives it a large margin of error in evaluating QB play, but a very accurate evaluation of team passing offense.

This is all on point.

Stats can tell you something, but more often than not they are cherry picked in these kinds of arguments and lack context.

For a more up to date look on win correlation with various metrics (2020), you can see passer rating is again pretty low:

https://mfootballanalytics.com/2020/04/06/which-qb-stats-are-the-most-important/


This is the square of the correlation coefficient, so passer rating in this case would be about 0.53.

Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:
For a more up to date look on win correlation with various metrics (2020), you can see passer rating is again pretty low:

https://mfootballanalytics.com/2020/04/06/which-qb-stats-are-the-most-important/


This is the square of the correlation coefficient, so passer rating in this case would be about 0.53.

Let me add that this also agrees with my own claims that INT% and COMP% are weakly correlated with win/loss percentage. I recall being mocked at making that claim after doing the math myself with 2020 statistics.