Finding a cure for insufficient statistics

WhoDat · 04-10-2005, 09:46 AM

George is all arm without the nuances that make for a great quarterback.

Sounds like someone else I know.

quote:The final results are the passer ratings. Not quarterback ratings. The system acknowledges that it does not factor in leadership, play-calling and other very pertinent qualities that make a quarterback successful.

So imagine how bad it COULD be for our guy if it did. Yikes.

Wow - finishing 20th might look good if you factor in leadership and other pertinent qualities.

GumboBC · 04-11-2005, 10:42 AM

WhoDat --

You\'ve always loved to use the Passer Rating System as the end-all for who is a great QB. Or who isn\'t a good QB.

I however must believe you don\'t really understand the system at all.

When Jeff George is ranked 29th all time in QB Rating, then obviously the system is a FRAUD.

Neil Lomax is ranked 10th all-time! That\'s in the history of the NFL.

But you continue to use the QB rating system to your benefit.

Unless you are willing to acknowledge that Jeff George is the 29th best QB and Neil Lomax is the 10th best QB, then you ought to stop parading around here using the QB Rating System.

Just accept that the QB Rating System is flawed. VERY FLAWD!!

Anyone here buying Neil Lomax as the 10th best QB in NFL history? NO? Well, his QB Rating says he is!!

Can\'t argue with that ... Right?

WhoDat? Right? NO? Why not?

I can\'t wait to hear that answer. But I\'m quite sure WhoDat will come up with something. But, if WhoDat is honest he will admit that the Passer Rating System is one of the most FLAWED statisics there is.

[Edited on 11/4/2005 by GumboBC]

GoldenTomb · 04-11-2005, 11:30 AM

WhoDat --

You\'ve always loved to use the Passer Rating System as the end-all for who is a great QB. Or who isn\'t a good QB.

I however must believe you don\'t really understand the system at all.

When Jeff George is ranked 29th all time in QB Rating, then obviously the system is a FRAUD.

Neil Lomax is ranked 10th all-time! That\'s in the history of the NFL.

But you continue to use the QB rating system to your benefit.

Unless you are willing to acknowledge that Jeff George is the 29th best QB and Neil Lomax is the 10th best QB, then you ought to stop parading around here using the QB Rating System.

Just accept that the QB Rating System is flawed. VERY FLAWD!!

Anyone here buying Neil Lomax as the 10th best QB in NFL history? NO? Well, his QB Rating says he is!!

Can\'t argue with that ... Right?

WhoDat? Right? NO? Why not?

I can\'t wait to hear that answer. But I\'m quite sure WhoDat will come up with something. But, if WhoDat is honest he will admit that the Passer Rating System is one of the most FLAWED statisics there is.

[Edited on 11/4/2005 by GumboBC]

You go on like it\'s the BCS or something. It\'s nothing but a single stat.

The QB rating isn\'t perfect, but it\'s the best thing we\'ve had up to this. There will be exceptions to the rule, but by in large, the rating system is reliable when you speak of efficiency in attempts, completions, passing percentage, TDs and INTs. It is the individual\'s perception as to what the QB rating actually means. Do you believe that someone\'s value can be measured strictly in numbers, or do you believe that there are qualities that stats can\'t calculate? I kind of agree with you though. I don\'t list stats most of the time because they are all flawed in their own way. I personally think that a good deal of people on here can stand to leave the stats alone for a minute and look at the player for a change. Results are what matters.

It\'s a single stat though.
One thing is certain, the passer rating can judge who ISN\'T a good QB.

[Edited on 11/4/2005 by GoldenTomb]

saintz08 · 04-11-2005, 11:32 AM

I can\'t wait to hear that answer. But I\'m quite sure WhoDat will come up with something. But, if WhoDat is honest he will admit that the Passer Rating System is one of the most FLAWED statisics there is.

To the simple minded it might appear to be .

Those who do not account for the evolution of the game are certainly doomed to misconception . To compare quarterbacks of the ground chuck running game era to the West Coast systems is barbaric .

The rules have been changed to open the air attack up .

inkele:

Keep dancin GumboBC ......

GumboBC · 04-11-2005, 11:42 AM

I can\'t wait to hear that answer. But I\'m quite sure WhoDat will come up with something. But, if WhoDat is honest he will admit that the Passer Rating System is one of the most FLAWED statisics there is.

To the simple minded it might appear to be .

Those who do not account for the evolution of the game are certainly doomed to misconception . To compare quarterbacks of the ground chuck running game era to the West Coast systems is barbaric .

The rules have been changed to open the air attack up .

inkele:

Keep dancin GumboBC ......

Now, you can argue that this merely proves that the passer rating rewards the style of play of more modern quarterbacks rather than the way the game was played in a previous era. This doesnÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã¢Â„Â¢t hold up, though, since Jeff George is ranked 29th all-time, while Phil Simms is ranked 36th. Both played in the same era. George is all arm without the nuances that make for a great quarterback. Simms may not have been a golden-armed quarterback, but he personified all the subtleties of the position that make for a winning quarterback. Yet George ranks higher. Something is wrong.

saintz08 -

I know it must be painful to admit the Passer Rating System is one of the most flawed statistics in football. I mean, since that\'s one of yours and WhoDat\'s favorite things to use.

But Phil Simms is ranked 36th all time and Jeff George is ranked 29th all time!! Both played in the same era so that shoots that argument down.

NEXT!!

[Edited on 11/4/2005 by GumboBC]

WhoDat · 04-11-2005, 12:53 PM

I can\'t wait to hear that answer. But I\'m quite sure WhoDat will come up with something. But, if WhoDat is honest he will admit that the Passer Rating System is one of the most FLAWED statisics there is.

Man, you just don\'t get it.

Let\'s make this easy. Let\'s assume you\'re right and the passer rating is flawed. Nevermind that the great QBs consistently have ratings at the top of the league IN THEIR ERA.

Would it not, therefore, be equally and relatively flawed among all QBs? It hurts Brett Favre for his 5 INT games just as much as it hurts AB or any other QB, no?

Your argument in the Delhomme debate is that Jake is surrounded by a better team - his WR\'s catch his underthrown balls.

OK - explain to me then why Kurt Warner and David Carr had better QB ratings LAST YEAR than Aaron Brooks? Those teams have terrible lines, worse than the Saints. They have bad WRs, none as good as Horn, and no combo near Horn, Pathon, and Stallworth. Neither had a great RB. None have great TEs (shockey could be if he could stay healthy).

So what\'s the explanation?

And why is it that Steve Young (one of the best QBs ever), Dan Marino (again - all-time great) and Peyton Manning (future hall of famer) both said that the MOST significant record that Manning broke last season wasn\'t the all-time TD record, but the single-season QB RATING record, formerly held by Young. That\'s three Hall of Famers saying that the QB rating was the MOST SIGNIFICANT measure of just how incredible Peyton\'s season was last year. But sure Billy - you know more about how to measure success as a QB than three of the best to ever play the game. LMAO.

GumboBC · 04-11-2005, 01:05 PM

WhoDat --

I get it perfectly WhoDat. I understand that Passer Rating has more to do with the supporting cast than you give them credit for.

I understand that when a QB has more time in the pocket that his Passer Rating is likely to be better.

I understand that offenive \"schemes\" and \"play-calling\" has a lot to do with Passer Rating.

I understand that bad defenses affect Passer Ratings. By putting the offense in predicatbale passing situations.

I understand the slow less talented receivers might not drop the ball as much as someone like Donte\' Stallworth.

I understand that YAC for receivers is the single most improtant stat for determining Passer Rating. Didn\'t know that did ya!?

I uderstand that Neil Lomax (Neil Lomax?) isn\'t the 10th greatest QB of all time. Regardless of how much you want to sell Passer Rating.

Did I miss something?

What does YAC have to do with QB Passer Rating? Very litte.

What\'s Joe Horn\'s YAC? Randy Moss? Tory Holt?

And Dan Marino did NOT have very good Passer Rating throughout his carrer. For a lot of years Marino\'s Passer Rating was worse than Brooks. They should have cut that bum.

[Edited on 11/4/2005 by GumboBC]

[Edited on 11/4/2005 by GumboBC]

saintz08 · 04-11-2005, 05:39 PM

:rollinglaugh:

Now, you can argue that this merely proves that the passer rating rewards the style of play of more modern quarterbacks rather than the way the game was played in a previous era. This doesnÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã¢Â„Â¢t hold up, though, since Jeff George is ranked 29th all-time, while Phil Simms is ranked 36th. Both played in the same era. George is all arm without the nuances that make for a great quarterback. Simms may not have been a golden-armed quarterback, but he personified all the subtleties of the position that make for a winning quarterback. Yet George ranks higher. Something is wrong.

Wrong with what ???

The QB rating system is set up for the passer .

I personally would put George over Simms .

Look at the top 10 rated performances in the league history and see that they are fairly accurate quarterbacks that knew where to place the balls to get the receptions . The West Coast system , which plays to the more accurate quarterback , rather then the stronger arm quarterback gets the higher ratings a fair amount of the time .

I understand that when a QB has more time in the pocket that his Passer Rating is likely to be better.

Release the ball sooner to a check down receiver .

I understand that offenive \"schemes\" and \"play-calling\" has a lot to do with Passer Rating.

Does it affect the quarterback putting the ball on the numbers ??

I understand that bad defenses affect Passer Ratings. By putting the offense in predicatbale passing situations.

There is no defense for a perfect pass .

I understand the slow less talented receivers might not drop the ball as much as someone like Donte\' Stallworth.

A stupid qb throws to a dropsalot receiver .

I understand that YAC for receivers is the single most improtant stat for determining Passer Rating. Didn\'t know that did ya!?

Quarterbacks should lead their receivers to get more yards .

Tobias-Reiper · 04-11-2005, 06:55 PM

..interrrresting...

... so Simms was a better QB than George... even though George had much more physical ability than Simms, and higher numbers than Simms... sounds familiar... and I agree...

... all stats are \"insufficient\"... they are just averages, and as such, they are inherenty flawed when used to interpret any data with multiple variables ...
.

04-10-2005, 09:46 AM	#11
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	Finding a cure for insufficient statistics George is all arm without the nuances that make for a great quarterback. Sounds like someone else I know. quote:The final results are the passer ratings. Not quarterback ratings. The system acknowledges that it does not factor in leadership, play-calling and other very pertinent qualities that make a quarterback successful. So imagine how bad it COULD be for our guy if it did. Yikes. Wow - finishing 20th might look good if you factor in leadership and other pertinent qualities.
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631

04-11-2005, 10:42 AM	#12
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616	Finding a cure for insufficient statistics WhoDat -- You\'ve always loved to use the Passer Rating System as the end-all for who is a great QB. Or who isn\'t a good QB. I however must believe you don\'t really understand the system at all. When Jeff George is ranked 29th all time in QB Rating, then obviously the system is a FRAUD. Neil Lomax is ranked 10th all-time! That\'s in the history of the NFL. But you continue to use the QB rating system to your benefit. Unless you are willing to acknowledge that Jeff George is the 29th best QB and Neil Lomax is the 10th best QB, then you ought to stop parading around here using the QB Rating System. Just accept that the QB Rating System is flawed. VERY FLAWD!! Anyone here buying Neil Lomax as the 10th best QB in NFL history? NO? Well, his QB Rating says he is!! Can\'t argue with that ... Right? WhoDat? Right? NO? Why not? I can\'t wait to hear that answer. But I\'m quite sure WhoDat will come up with something. But, if WhoDat is honest he will admit that the Passer Rating System is one of the most FLAWED statisics there is. [Edited on 11/4/2005 by GumboBC]
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616

04-11-2005, 11:30 AM	#13
GoldenTomb 500th Post Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 591	Finding a cure for insufficient statistics WhoDat -- You\'ve always loved to use the Passer Rating System as the end-all for who is a great QB. Or who isn\'t a good QB. I however must believe you don\'t really understand the system at all. When Jeff George is ranked 29th all time in QB Rating, then obviously the system is a FRAUD. Neil Lomax is ranked 10th all-time! That\'s in the history of the NFL. But you continue to use the QB rating system to your benefit. Unless you are willing to acknowledge that Jeff George is the 29th best QB and Neil Lomax is the 10th best QB, then you ought to stop parading around here using the QB Rating System. Just accept that the QB Rating System is flawed. VERY FLAWD!! Anyone here buying Neil Lomax as the 10th best QB in NFL history? NO? Well, his QB Rating says he is!! Can\'t argue with that ... Right? WhoDat? Right? NO? Why not? I can\'t wait to hear that answer. But I\'m quite sure WhoDat will come up with something. But, if WhoDat is honest he will admit that the Passer Rating System is one of the most FLAWED statisics there is. [Edited on 11/4/2005 by GumboBC] You go on like it\'s the BCS or something. It\'s nothing but a single stat. The QB rating isn\'t perfect, but it\'s the best thing we\'ve had up to this. There will be exceptions to the rule, but by in large, the rating system is reliable when you speak of efficiency in attempts, completions, passing percentage, TDs and INTs. It is the individual\'s perception as to what the QB rating actually means. Do you believe that someone\'s value can be measured strictly in numbers, or do you believe that there are qualities that stats can\'t calculate? I kind of agree with you though. I don\'t list stats most of the time because they are all flawed in their own way. I personally think that a good deal of people on here can stand to leave the stats alone for a minute and look at the player for a change. Results are what matters. It\'s a single stat though. One thing is certain, the passer rating can judge who ISN\'T a good QB. [Edited on 11/4/2005 by GoldenTomb]
GoldenTomb 500th Post Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 591

04-11-2005, 11:32 AM	#14
saintz08 1000 Posts + Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 3,020	Finding a cure for insufficient statistics I can\'t wait to hear that answer. But I\'m quite sure WhoDat will come up with something. But, if WhoDat is honest he will admit that the Passer Rating System is one of the most FLAWED statisics there is. To the simple minded it might appear to be . Those who do not account for the evolution of the game are certainly doomed to misconception . To compare quarterbacks of the ground chuck running game era to the West Coast systems is barbaric . The rules have been changed to open the air attack up . inkele: Keep dancin GumboBC ......
saintz08 1000 Posts + Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 3,020

04-11-2005, 11:42 AM	#15
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616	Finding a cure for insufficient statistics I can\'t wait to hear that answer. But I\'m quite sure WhoDat will come up with something. But, if WhoDat is honest he will admit that the Passer Rating System is one of the most FLAWED statisics there is. To the simple minded it might appear to be . Those who do not account for the evolution of the game are certainly doomed to misconception . To compare quarterbacks of the ground chuck running game era to the West Coast systems is barbaric . The rules have been changed to open the air attack up . inkele: Keep dancin GumboBC ...... Now, you can argue that this merely proves that the passer rating rewards the style of play of more modern quarterbacks rather than the way the game was played in a previous era. This doesnÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã¢Â„Â¢t hold up, though, since Jeff George is ranked 29th all-time, while Phil Simms is ranked 36th. Both played in the same era. George is all arm without the nuances that make for a great quarterback. Simms may not have been a golden-armed quarterback, but he personified all the subtleties of the position that make for a winning quarterback. Yet George ranks higher. Something is wrong. saintz08 - I know it must be painful to admit the Passer Rating System is one of the most flawed statistics in football. I mean, since that\'s one of yours and WhoDat\'s favorite things to use. But Phil Simms is ranked 36th all time and Jeff George is ranked 29th all time!! Both played in the same era so that shoots that argument down. NEXT!! [Edited on 11/4/2005 by GumboBC]
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616

Latest Blogs
2023 New Orleans Saints: Training Camp Last Blog: 08-01-2023 By: MarchingOn Puck the Fro Browl! Last Blog: 02-05-2023 By: neugey CFP: "Just Keep Doing What You're Doing" Last Blog: 12-08-2022 By: neugey

04-11-2005, 12:53 PM	#16
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	Finding a cure for insufficient statistics I can\'t wait to hear that answer. But I\'m quite sure WhoDat will come up with something. But, if WhoDat is honest he will admit that the Passer Rating System is one of the most FLAWED statisics there is. Man, you just don\'t get it. Let\'s make this easy. Let\'s assume you\'re right and the passer rating is flawed. Nevermind that the great QBs consistently have ratings at the top of the league IN THEIR ERA. Would it not, therefore, be equally and relatively flawed among all QBs? It hurts Brett Favre for his 5 INT games just as much as it hurts AB or any other QB, no? Your argument in the Delhomme debate is that Jake is surrounded by a better team - his WR\'s catch his underthrown balls. OK - explain to me then why Kurt Warner and David Carr had better QB ratings LAST YEAR than Aaron Brooks? Those teams have terrible lines, worse than the Saints. They have bad WRs, none as good as Horn, and no combo near Horn, Pathon, and Stallworth. Neither had a great RB. None have great TEs (shockey could be if he could stay healthy). So what\'s the explanation? And why is it that Steve Young (one of the best QBs ever), Dan Marino (again - all-time great) and Peyton Manning (future hall of famer) both said that the MOST significant record that Manning broke last season wasn\'t the all-time TD record, but the single-season QB RATING record, formerly held by Young. That\'s three Hall of Famers saying that the QB rating was the MOST SIGNIFICANT measure of just how incredible Peyton\'s season was last year. But sure Billy - you know more about how to measure success as a QB than three of the best to ever play the game. LMAO.
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	\"Excuses, excuses, excuses. ThatÃ¢Â€Â™s all anyone ever makes for the New Orleans SaintsÃ¢Â€Â™ organization.\" - Eric Narcisse \"Being a Saints fan is almost like being addicted to crack,\" he said.[i]\"You know you should stop, but you just can\'t.\"

04-11-2005, 01:05 PM	#17
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616	Finding a cure for insufficient statistics WhoDat -- I get it perfectly WhoDat. I understand that Passer Rating has more to do with the supporting cast than you give them credit for. I understand that when a QB has more time in the pocket that his Passer Rating is likely to be better. I understand that offenive \"schemes\" and \"play-calling\" has a lot to do with Passer Rating. I understand that bad defenses affect Passer Ratings. By putting the offense in predicatbale passing situations. I understand the slow less talented receivers might not drop the ball as much as someone like Donte\' Stallworth. I understand that YAC for receivers is the single most improtant stat for determining Passer Rating. Didn\'t know that did ya!? I uderstand that Neil Lomax (Neil Lomax?) isn\'t the 10th greatest QB of all time. Regardless of how much you want to sell Passer Rating. Did I miss something? What does YAC have to do with QB Passer Rating? Very litte. What\'s Joe Horn\'s YAC? Randy Moss? Tory Holt? And Dan Marino did NOT have very good Passer Rating throughout his carrer. For a lot of years Marino\'s Passer Rating was worse than Brooks. They should have cut that bum. [Edited on 11/4/2005 by GumboBC] [Edited on 11/4/2005 by GumboBC]
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616

04-11-2005, 05:39 PM	#18
saintz08 1000 Posts + Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 3,020	Finding a cure for insufficient statistics :rollinglaugh: Now, you can argue that this merely proves that the passer rating rewards the style of play of more modern quarterbacks rather than the way the game was played in a previous era. This doesnÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã¢Â„Â¢t hold up, though, since Jeff George is ranked 29th all-time, while Phil Simms is ranked 36th. Both played in the same era. George is all arm without the nuances that make for a great quarterback. Simms may not have been a golden-armed quarterback, but he personified all the subtleties of the position that make for a winning quarterback. Yet George ranks higher. Something is wrong. Wrong with what ??? The QB rating system is set up for the passer . I personally would put George over Simms . Look at the top 10 rated performances in the league history and see that they are fairly accurate quarterbacks that knew where to place the balls to get the receptions . The West Coast system , which plays to the more accurate quarterback , rather then the stronger arm quarterback gets the higher ratings a fair amount of the time . I understand that when a QB has more time in the pocket that his Passer Rating is likely to be better. Release the ball sooner to a check down receiver . I understand that offenive \"schemes\" and \"play-calling\" has a lot to do with Passer Rating. Does it affect the quarterback putting the ball on the numbers ?? I understand that bad defenses affect Passer Ratings. By putting the offense in predicatbale passing situations. There is no defense for a perfect pass . I understand the slow less talented receivers might not drop the ball as much as someone like Donte\' Stallworth. A stupid qb throws to a dropsalot receiver . I understand that YAC for receivers is the single most improtant stat for determining Passer Rating. Didn\'t know that did ya!? Quarterbacks should lead their receivers to get more yards .
saintz08 1000 Posts + Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 3,020	\"Americans play to win at all times. I wouldn\'t give a hoot in hell for a man who lost and laughed.\" - George S. Patton On another note, I\'ll take a bite of that crow 08. - Saintfan Brooks is a moron!! - Halo

04-11-2005, 06:55 PM	#19
Tobias-Reiper Merces Letifer Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 4,161	Finding a cure for insufficient statistics ..interrrresting... ... so Simms was a better QB than George... even though George had much more physical ability than Simms, and higher numbers than Simms... sounds familiar... and I agree... ... all stats are \"insufficient\"... they are just averages, and as such, they are inherenty flawed when used to interpret any data with multiple variables ... .