Jump to content

5 Bears make Pro Bowl; 6 Alternates

beardown3231

By beardown3231
in Chicago Bears

Recommended Posts

Superman(DH23)

Superman(DH23)

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, WindyCity said:

5th in QBR.

He has had a better year then we think. His lows haven't been good, but his good games have been incredible.

Bingo.  It's being too close to the situation, and also w bit of thinking that other QBs are playing better off of game recognition, but hes had a great year for a second year qb. In the NFC, Tru probably should have got it over Rodgers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Superman(DH23)

Superman(DH23)

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, RunningVaccs said:

Hey, I like him too, more after thinking about it, but there are too many clunker games to call him better than Rodgers yet IMHO

I can excuse the Rams game, but didn't like him against the Jets, Bills, Cardinals and Seahawks.  He also was REALLY bad in the Giants game AND looked totally out of shape. 

Jets and Bill's were both much better than the raw numbers indicate.  I can only assume you are joking about the Giants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JAF-N72EX

JAF-N72EX

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, WindyCity said:

5th in QBR.

He has had a better year then we think. His lows haven't been good, but his good games have been incredible.

QBR also says Big Ben has been the 4th best QB in the league this year and I can tell you that is far from the truth. If you don't believe me just ask any Steelers fan. I watch every single Steelers game (family tie reasons) and while I think he has played better than alot of people may think....he has certainly not played like a top 5 QB. He would barely crack top 10 only because of the way this season has played out for QB's in general minus the small top-heavy group. 

While ESPN has certainly made improvements to QBR over the years, it is still far from being a finished product and even further away from being a trusted stat. After years now since it's inception it is still a work-in-progress. A work-in-progress that will most likely never completed enough to be taken serious for the simple fact that it tries to use ONLY charting data mixed with a proprietary 0-100 scale to rate a QB based on performance while using the remaining "100" to attribute other offensive players on the field. That alone is a flaw. This is what makes PFF's ratings so flawed. It is impossible to use such a wide range (0-100) to gauge a single player without any prior scouting requirement set in place before-hand as it doesn't account for so many other variables that happens in a single play that simply cannot be charted without an absurd amount of time involved (i.e A WR making a one-handed catch on a ball that was over and under thrown--- otherwise "uncatchable" vs the average player in the same position). 

Even the "new" QBR change in their methodology used now compared to a few years ago is still too flawed to take serious. For example, they claim to account for opponent defenses now into their final 0-100 scale. Yet, do THEY even truly believe in their own QBR format? I say not. Because if they did, they would use it in their own defensive ratings as well. But they don't. Because they also know that it's flawed.  

-------------------------------------------------------
If you think Mitch has been the 5th best QB in the league, or even a top-11 QB, then you are clearly blinded by Bear goggles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dll2000

dll2000

Posted
Posted
15 hours ago, JustAnotherFan said:

QBR also says Big Ben has been the 4th best QB in the league this year and I can tell you that is far from the truth. If you don't believe me just ask any Steelers fan. I watch every single Steelers game (family tie reasons) and while I think he has played better than alot of people may think....he has certainly not played like a top 5 QB. He would barely crack top 10 only because of the way this season has played out for QB's in general minus the small top-heavy group. 

While ESPN has certainly made improvements to QBR over the years, it is still far from being a finished product and even further away from being a trusted stat. After years now since it's inception it is still a work-in-progress. A work-in-progress that will most likely never completed enough to be taken serious for the simple fact that it tries to use ONLY charting data mixed with a proprietary 0-100 scale to rate a QB based on performance while using the remaining "100" to attribute other offensive players on the field. That alone is a flaw. This is what makes PFF's ratings so flawed. It is impossible to use such a wide range (0-100) to gauge a single player without any prior scouting requirement set in place before-hand as it doesn't account for so many other variables that happens in a single play that simply cannot be charted without an absurd amount of time involved (i.e A WR making a one-handed catch on a ball that was over and under thrown--- otherwise "uncatchable" vs the average player in the same position). 

Even the "new" QBR change in their methodology used now compared to a few years ago is still too flawed to take serious. For example, they claim to account for opponent defenses now into their final 0-100 scale. Yet, do THEY even truly believe in their own QBR format? I say not. Because if they did, they would use it in their own defensive ratings as well. But they don't. Because they also know that it's flawed.  

-------------------------------------------------------
If you think Mitch has been the 5th best QB in the league, or even a top-11 QB, then you are clearly blinded by Bear goggles.

Every play and every game has a story.  A fool proof rating system is impossible.

Maybe on 10th play you rolled your ankle, pulled a muscle or pinched a nerve, but said nothing and played through it.

Maybe another guy blew an assignment in some way that caused you to look bad. Just one guy doing poorly or wrong thing can have a cascading effect. 

Maybe grader doesn't understand assignment for that particular play and misgrades it.

Maybe grader doesnt value an assignment well done that doesnt show up in any stat sheet, but is essential. 

Maybe every week it works out you are playing back up guards or whatever and feasting.

Maybe you keep getting matched with pro bowlers.

Maybe someone else did something amazing that made you look good. For example a crazy catch, instant penetration, a tipped ball, taking out 2 blockers, blocking two guys, a pancake block, a great fake. Those can also have cascading effects. 

Maybe one guy commands so much attention that your job is way easier. 

Maybe your team has been out coached and you arent put in a position to succeed. 

Maybe your team did the out coaching.

Grading has some value, but should be taken with a large grain of salt.

 Best grader is position coach becuase he has all the inside knowledge, but those grades aren't public. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JAF-N72EX

JAF-N72EX

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, dll2000 said:

Every play and every game has a story.  A fool proof rating system is impossible.

Maybe on 10th play you rolled your ankle, pulled a muscle or pinched a nerve, but said nothing and played through it.

Maybe another guy blew an assignment in some way that caused you to look bad. Just one guy doing poorly or wrong thing can have a cascading effect. 

Maybe grader doesn't understand assignment for that particular play and misgrades it.

Maybe grader doesnt value an assignment well done that doesnt show up in any stat sheet, but is essential. 

Maybe every week it works out you are playing back up guards or whatever and feasting.

Maybe you keep getting matched with pro bowlers.

Maybe someone else did something amazing that made you look good. For example a crazy catch, instant penetration, a tipped ball, taking out 2 blockers, blocking two guys, a pancake block, a great fake. Those can also have cascading effects. 

Maybe one guy commands so much attention that your job is way easier. 

Maybe your team has been out coached and you arent put in a position to succeed. 

Maybe your team did the out coaching.

Grading has some value, but should be taken with a large grain of salt.

 Best grader is position coach becuase he has all the inside knowledge, but those grades aren't public. 

Not disputing any of this because I agree in general. But that's not to say that the right methodology can't work at all either though. The right format and set guidelines can paint a picture that comes close to reality and match what most coaches with trained eyes would see on film. It's just that ESPN's QBR is not the one.

Many GM's, scouts, coaches and players all use analytics in their research in some way, shape or form. Some use it more then others, but all of them use it to some extent. And Like I have stated many times on this forum and other places -- analytics and scouting are not the same thing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...