Top 10 Statistical QBs 2019-20

[Matts4313]

59 minutes ago, Bearerofnews said:

Well that's the problem. There really isnt a formula. Its all subjective. It's grading based off what they watch and accrediting different scales of value to different aspects. Its much like PFF's grading. But unlike QBR, PFF grading more routinely correlates to what the mass sees when watching the qbs play. QBR, really doesnt. It's a mess.

No its not. Its based on EPA, advanced analytics. You are completely wrong about this. I dont think you even read the articles you posted. And once again, its the second highest correlated stat to winning.

[Bearerofnews]

1 hour ago, Matts4313 said:

No its not. Its based on EPA, advanced analytics. You are completely wrong about this. I dont think you even read the articles you posted. And once again, its the second highest correlated stat to winning.

I dont think you read the articles. It looks at passing, rushing, fumbles, it looks at distance and down, air yards.. all of it absolutely contextually subjective, with no trace of any type of standardized baseline formula. It correlates to winning because it uses outcomes in it's grading. It says that much in the articles. Sorry fam, you're 110% wrong on this. It is a garbage stat and always has been and always will be. It doesnt correlate to actual quality of qb play.... almost at all.

Edited April 6, 2020 by Bearerofnews

[MrnastiesNO]

33 minutes ago, Bearerofnews said:

I dont think you read the articles. It looks at passing, rushing, fumbles, it looks at distance and down, air yards.. all of it absolutely contextually subjective, with no trace of any type of standardized baseline formula. It correlates to winning because it uses outcomes in it's grading. It says that much in the articles. Sorry fam, you're 110% wrong on this. It is a garbage stat and always has been and always will be. It doesnt correlate to actual quality of qb play.... almost at all.

You cant say at all. For the most part it does reflect the quality of play. Is it flawed yes. But can you look at it can and tell if a QB played good? 99% of the time yes. It also matches the eye test.

[Soko]

1 hour ago, Bearerofnews said:

all of it absolutely contextually subjective, with no trace of any type of standardized baseline formula. 

I don’t care for EPA or QBR as much as some do (especially here) but there is certainly some standard ESPN uses to calculate QBR. They weight stuff in regards to competition and all of that, but the numbers are largely based on EPA. Their “formula”, which directly leads to the QBR number, is actually unspectacular and only slightly differs from QB EPA.

[Matts4313]

7 hours ago, Bearerofnews said:

I dont think you read the articles. It looks at passing, rushing, fumbles, it looks at distance and down, air yards.. all of it absolutely contextually subjective, with no trace of any type of standardized baseline formula.

None of those things are subjective. And it does have a formula.

7 hours ago, Bearerofnews said:

It correlates to winning because it uses outcomes in it's grading. It says that much in the articles.

It does not use W/L in its grading. This is completely false.

7 hours ago, Bearerofnews said:

Sorry fam, you're 110% wrong on this. It is a garbage stat and always has been and always will be. It doesnt correlate to actual quality of qb play.... almost at all.

lol

[YogiBiz]

8 hours ago, Bearerofnews said:

It looks at passing, rushing, fumbles, it looks at distance and down, air yards.. all of it absolutely contextually subjective.

Since when were any of these stats considered subjective?

 

Edited April 6, 2020 by YogiBiz

[Bearerofnews]

16 hours ago, MrnastiesNO said:

You cant say at all. For the most part it does reflect the quality of play. Is it flawed yes. But can you look at it can and tell if a QB played good? 99% of the time yes. It also matches the eye test.

If you took qbr and put it again PR, DVOA, and PFF's grade. I'd bet that the biggest disparity was between QBR vs the others.

[Bearerofnews]

16 hours ago, Yin-Yang said:

I don’t care for EPA or QBR as much as some do (especially here) but there is certainly some standard ESPN uses to calculate QBR. They weight stuff in regards to competition and all of that, but the numbers are largely based on EPA. Their “formula”, which directly leads to the QBR number, is actually unspectacular and only slightly differs from QB EPA.

But its subjective, look at the articles i linked. They accredit EPA subjectively based on their opinion. It's a grading system. Grading systems are typically always subjective credit being appointed to different criterias. Why can no one post a numeric formula for QBR? Because it doesnt exist. Not from anything ive seen. Regardless ill never put any credit into QBR. Ive tracked its results and its the single stat that has the lowest correlation to the other major qb stats. 

They discount stats in "garbage time" (what they perceive as garbage time) or credit wr's for yds or 1st downs, or punish qbs for sacks or fumbles.  I dont see how they can have any type of formula that regulates that weighted credit.

I might be wrong, if so, someone provide the formula. I will never change my mind based off the track record of QBR. Worst stat ive seen for QBs. 

[Bearerofnews]

10 hours ago, Matts4313 said:

None of those things are subjective. And it does have a formula.

So what is the formula?

 

Straight from ESPN.

 

ESPN’s Total Quarterback Rating (Total QBR), which was released in 2011, has never claimed to be perfect, but unlike other measures of quarterback performance, it incorporates all of a quarterback’s contributions to winning, including how he impacts the game on passes, rushes, turnovers and penalties. Also, since QBR is built from the play level, it accounts for a team’s level of success or failure on every play to provide the proper context and then allocates credit to the quarterback and his teammate to produce a clearer measure of quarterback efficiency.

 

that's subjective. 

10 hours ago, Matts4313 said:

It does not use W/L in its grading. This is completely false.

Yes it does, i just posted it from their mouths.

 

"it incorporates all of a quarterback’s contributions to winning, including how he impacts the game on passes, rushes, turnovers and penalties."

 

10 hours ago, Matts4313 said:

lol

This is the hill you want to die on, QBR? 

Just last year had Fitz as 8th best, most others had 19 to 20

 

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2017/passing.htm

Keenum 2, Dak 4, Goff 21? In 2017. No stat, that ive ever seen for football, has a bigger disparity sprinkled all over the board. Sure for majority it aligns just about with other stats. But it by far has the biggest head scratchers and no one can explain how.... sounds like a great stat to me.  

Someone break it down for me. What is the formula. If your answer is you dont know, it sucks.

 

Player
1	Carson Wentz*
2	Case Keenum
3	Tom Brady*+
4	Dak Prescott
5	Matt Ryan
6	Alex Smith*
7	Ben Roethlisberger*
8	Matthew Stafford
9	Drew Brees*
10	Aaron Rodgers
11	Philip Rivers*
12	Russell Wilson*
13	Tyrod Taylor
14	Josh McCown
15	Blake Bortles
16	Marcus Mariota
17	Kirk Cousins
18	Jameis Winston
19	Cam Newton
20	Carson Palmer
21	Jared Goff*
22	Derek Carr*
23	Joe Flacco
24	Andy Dalton
25	Jay Cutler
26	Eli Manning
27	Brett Hundley
28	Jacoby Brissett
29	Trevor Siemian
30	C.J. Beathard
31	Mitchell Trubisky
32	DeShone Kizer

Rk	Player	Tm	Age	Pos	G	GS	QBrec	Cmp	Att	Cmp%	Yds	TD	TD%	Int	Int%	1D	Lng	Y/A	AY/A	Y/C	Y/G	Rate	QBR ▼	Sk	Yds	NY/A	ANY/A	Sk%	4QC	GWD
1	Carson Wentz*	PHI	25	QB	13	13	11-2-0	265	440	60.2	3296	33	7.5	7	1.6	161	72	7.5	8.3	12.4	253.5	101.9	77.2	28	162	6.70	7.43	6.0	1	1
2	Case Keenum	MIN	29	QB	15	14	11-3-0	325	481	67.6	3547	22	4.6	7	1.5	180	65	7.4	7.6	10.9	236.5	98.3	74.3	22	136	6.78	7.03	4.4	1	3
3	Tom Brady*+	NWE	40	QB	16	16	13-3-0	385	581	66.3	4577	32	5.5	8	1.4	230	64	7.9	8.4	11.9	286.1	102.8	73.2	35	201	7.10	7.56	5.7	2	2
4	Dak Prescott	DAL	24	QB	16	16	9-7-0	308	490	62.9	3324	22	4.5	13	2.7	162	81	6.8	6.5	10.8	207.8	86.6	69.5	32	185	6.01	5.74	6.1	0	4
5	Matt Ryan	ATL	32	QB	16	16	10-6-0	342	529	64.7	4095	20	3.8	12	2.3	199	88	7.7	7.5	12.0	255.9	91.4	68.3	24	156	7.12	6.87	4.3	2	3
6	Alex Smith*	KAN	33	QB	15	15	9-6-0	341	505	67.5	4042	26	5.1	5	1.0	182	79	8.0	8.6	11.9	269.5	104.7	67.0	35	207	7.10	7.65	6.5	1	3
7	Ben Roethlisberger*	PIT	35	QB	15	15	12-3-0	360	561	64.2	4251	28	5.0	14	2.5	203	97	7.6	7.5	11.8	283.4	93.4	66.3	21	139	7.07	6.95	3.6	3	4
8	Matthew Stafford	DET	29	QB	16	16	9-7-0	371	565	65.7	4446	29	5.1	10	1.8	210	71	7.9	8.1	12.0	277.9	99.3	65.3	47	287	6.80	7.01	7.7	1	4
9	Drew Brees*	NOR	38	QB	16	16	11-5-0	386	536	72.0	4334	23	4.3	8	1.5	203	54	8.1	8.3	11.2	270.9	103.9	64.6	20	145	7.53	7.71	3.6	2	2
10	Aaron Rodgers	GNB	34	qb	7	7	4-3-0	154	238	64.7	1675	16	6.7	6	2.5	86	72	7.0	7.2	10.9	239.3	97.2	64.4	22	168	5.80	5.99	8.5	2	2
11	Philip Rivers*	LAC	36	QB	16	16	9-7-0	360	575	62.6	4515	28	4.9	10	1.7	217	75	7.9	8.0	12.5	282.2	96.0	64.1	18	120	7.41	7.60	3.0	2	2
12	Russell Wilson*	SEA	29	QB	16	16	9-7-0	339	553	61.3	3983	34	6.1	11	2.0	189	74	7.2	7.5	11.7	248.9	95.4	61.7	43	322	6.14	6.45	7.2	2	2
13	Tyrod Taylor	BUF	28	QB	15	14	8-6-0	263	420	62.6	2799	14	3.3	4	1.0	133	47	6.7	6.9	10.6	186.6	89.2	60.0	46	256	5.46	5.67	9.9	1	2
14	Josh McCown	NYJ	38	QB	13	13	5-8-0	267	397	67.3	2926	18	4.5	9	2.3	137	69	7.4	7.3	11.0	225.1	94.5	60.0	39	264	6.11	6.00	8.9	1	2
15	Blake Bortles	JAX	25	QB	16	16	10-6-0	315	523	60.2	3687	21	4.0	13	2.5	195	75	7.0	6.7	11.7	230.4	84.7	59.2	24	123	6.52	6.21	4.4	1	1
16	Marcus Mariota	TEN	24	QB	15	15	9-6-0	281	453	62.0	3232	13	2.9	15	3.3	149	75	7.1	6.2	11.5	215.5	79.3	58.8	27	173	6.37	5.51	5.6	3	4
17	Kirk Cousins	WAS	29	QB	16	16	7-9-0	347	540	64.3	4093	27	5.0	13	2.4	194	74	7.6	7.5	11.8	255.8	93.9	54.2	41	342	6.46	6.38	7.1	1	4
18	Jameis Winston	TAM	23	QB	13	13	3-10-0	282	442	63.8	3504	19	4.3	11	2.5	185	70	7.9	7.7	12.4	269.5	92.2	54.0	33	207	6.94	6.70	6.9	2	2
19	Cam Newton	CAR	28	QB	16	16	11-5-0	291	492	59.1	3302	22	4.5	16	3.3	167	64	6.7	6.1	11.3	206.4	80.7	53.3	35	242	5.81	5.28	6.6	1	3
20	Carson Palmer	ARI	38	qb	7	7	3-4-0	164	267	61.4	1978	9	3.4	7	2.6	95	46	7.4	6.9	12.1	282.6	84.4	52.5	22	150	6.33	5.86	7.6	2	2
21	Jared Goff*	LAR	23	QB	15	15	11-4-0	296	477	62.1	3804	28	5.9	7	1.5	177	94	8.0	8.5	12.9	253.6	100.5	52.1	25	172	7.24	7.72	5.0	1	1
22	Derek Carr*	OAK	26	QB	15	15	6-9-0	323	515	62.7	3496	22	4.3	13	2.5	168	87	6.8	6.5	10.8	233.1	86.4	51.0	20	101	6.35	6.07	3.7	1	1
23	Joe Flacco	BAL	32	QB	16	16	9-7-0	352	549	64.1	3141	18	3.3	13	2.4	163	66	5.7	5.3	8.9	196.3	80.4	49.8	27

[Bearerofnews]

Dont get me started on 2018.

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2018/passing.htm

Mitch, Ben and Jameis over Rivers, Ryan and Russell. Haha yeah, ok.

Too many occurences to be statistical anomalies. Bad stat is a bad stat.

[Matts4313]

3 minutes ago, Bearerofnews said:

So what is the formula?

Are you not reading anything I have posted???????

NO ONE KNOWS THE FORMULA. THEY HAVE NEVER MADE IT PUBLIC

3 minutes ago, Bearerofnews said:

Straight from ESPN.

 

ESPN’s Total Quarterback Rating (Total QBR), which was released in 2011, has never claimed to be perfect, but unlike other measures of quarterback performance, it incorporates all of a quarterback’s contributions to winning, including how he impacts the game on passes, rushes, turnovers and penalties. Also, since QBR is built from the play level, it accounts for a team’s level of success or failure on every play to provide the proper context and then allocates credit to the quarterback and his teammate to produce a clearer measure of quarterback efficiency.

 

that's subjective. 

No, its not. Its a measurement of a QBs play relative to how likely it is to contribute to a teams win. So throwing for 9 years on 3rd and 10 is worth less than rushing for 5 on 3rd and 4. 

3 minutes ago, Bearerofnews said:

Yes it does, i just posted it from their mouths.

You are misinterpreting what is stated. I cant tell if its on purpose or you just dont understand what that sentence means.

3 minutes ago, Bearerofnews said:

"it incorporates all of a quarterback’s contributions to winning, including how he impacts the game on passes, rushes, turnovers and penalties."

I suggest you read it again.

3 minutes ago, Bearerofnews said:

This is the hill you want to die on, QBR? 

Just last year had Fitz as 8th best, most others had 19 to 20

 

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2017/passing.htm

Keenum 2, Dak 4, Goff 21? In 2017. No stat, that ive ever seen for football, has a bigger disparity sprinkled all over the board. Sure for majority it aligns just about with other stats. But it by far has the biggest head scratchers and no one can explain how.... sounds like a great stat to me.  

Someone break it down for me. What is the formula. If your answer is you dont know, it sucks.

 

Player
1	Carson Wentz*
2	Case Keenum
3	Tom Brady*+
4	Dak Prescott
5	Matt Ryan
6	Alex Smith*
7	Ben Roethlisberger*
8	Matthew Stafford
9	Drew Brees*
10	Aaron Rodgers
11	Philip Rivers*
12	Russell Wilson*
13	Tyrod Taylor
14	Josh McCown
15	Blake Bortles
16	Marcus Mariota
17	Kirk Cousins
18	Jameis Winston
19	Cam Newton
20	Carson Palmer
21	Jared Goff*
22	Derek Carr*
23	Joe Flacco
24	Andy Dalton
25	Jay Cutler
26	Eli Manning
27	Brett Hundley
28	Jacoby Brissett
29	Trevor Siemian
30	C.J. Beathard
31	Mitchell Trubisky
32	DeShone Kizer

Rk	Player	Tm	Age	Pos	G	GS	QBrec	Cmp	Att	Cmp%	Yds	TD	TD%	Int	Int%	1D	Lng	Y/A	AY/A	Y/C	Y/G	Rate	QBR ▼	Sk	Yds	NY/A	ANY/A	Sk%	4QC	GWD
1	Carson Wentz*	PHI	25	QB	13	13	11-2-0	265	440	60.2	3296	33	7.5	7	1.6	161	72	7.5	8.3	12.4	253.5	101.9	77.2	28	162	6.70	7.43	6.0	1	1
2	Case Keenum	MIN	29	QB	15	14	11-3-0	325	481	67.6	3547	22	4.6	7	1.5	180	65	7.4	7.6	10.9	236.5	98.3	74.3	22	136	6.78	7.03	4.4	1	3
3	Tom Brady*+	NWE	40	QB	16	16	13-3-0	385	581	66.3	4577	32	5.5	8	1.4	230	64	7.9	8.4	11.9	286.1	102.8	73.2	35	201	7.10	7.56	5.7	2	2
4	Dak Prescott	DAL	24	QB	16	16	9-7-0	308	490	62.9	3324	22	4.5	13	2.7	162	81	6.8	6.5	10.8	207.8	86.6	69.5	32	185	6.01	5.74	6.1	0	4
5	Matt Ryan	ATL	32	QB	16	16	10-6-0	342	529	64.7	4095	20	3.8	12	2.3	199	88	7.7	7.5	12.0	255.9	91.4	68.3	24	156	7.12	6.87	4.3	2	3
6	Alex Smith*	KAN	33	QB	15	15	9-6-0	341	505	67.5	4042	26	5.1	5	1.0	182	79	8.0	8.6	11.9	269.5	104.7	67.0	35	207	7.10	7.65	6.5	1	3
7	Ben Roethlisberger*	PIT	35	QB	15	15	12-3-0	360	561	64.2	4251	28	5.0	14	2.5	203	97	7.6	7.5	11.8	283.4	93.4	66.3	21	139	7.07	6.95	3.6	3	4
8	Matthew Stafford	DET	29	QB	16	16	9-7-0	371	565	65.7	4446	29	5.1	10	1.8	210	71	7.9	8.1	12.0	277.9	99.3	65.3	47	287	6.80	7.01	7.7	1	4
9	Drew Brees*	NOR	38	QB	16	16	11-5-0	386	536	72.0	4334	23	4.3	8	1.5	203	54	8.1	8.3	11.2	270.9	103.9	64.6	20	145	7.53	7.71	3.6	2	2
10	Aaron Rodgers	GNB	34	qb	7	7	4-3-0	154	238	64.7	1675	16	6.7	6	2.5	86	72	7.0	7.2	10.9	239.3	97.2	64.4	22	168	5.80	5.99	8.5	2	2
11	Philip Rivers*	LAC	36	QB	16	16	9-7-0	360	575	62.6	4515	28	4.9	10	1.7	217	75	7.9	8.0	12.5	282.2	96.0	64.1	18	120	7.41	7.60	3.0	2	2
12	Russell Wilson*	SEA	29	QB	16	16	9-7-0	339	553	61.3	3983	34	6.1	11	2.0	189	74	7.2	7.5	11.7	248.9	95.4	61.7	43	322	6.14	6.45	7.2	2	2
13	Tyrod Taylor	BUF	28	QB	15	14	8-6-0	263	420	62.6	2799	14	3.3	4	1.0	133	47	6.7	6.9	10.6	186.6	89.2	60.0	46	256	5.46	5.67	9.9	1	2
14	Josh McCown	NYJ	38	QB	13	13	5-8-0	267	397	67.3	2926	18	4.5	9	2.3	137	69	7.4	7.3	11.0	225.1	94.5	60.0	39	264	6.11	6.00	8.9	1	2
15	Blake Bortles	JAX	25	QB	16	16	10-6-0	315	523	60.2	3687	21	4.0	13	2.5	195	75	7.0	6.7	11.7	230.4	84.7	59.2	24	123	6.52	6.21	4.4	1	1
16	Marcus Mariota	TEN	24	QB	15	15	9-6-0	281	453	62.0	3232	13	2.9	15	3.3	149	75	7.1	6.2	11.5	215.5	79.3	58.8	27	173	6.37	5.51	5.6	3	4
17	Kirk Cousins	WAS	29	QB	16	16	7-9-0	347	540	64.3	4093	27	5.0	13	2.4	194	74	7.6	7.5	11.8	255.8	93.9	54.2	41	342	6.46	6.38	7.1	1	4
18	Jameis Winston	TAM	23	QB	13	13	3-10-0	282	442	63.8	3504	19	4.3	11	2.5	185	70	7.9	7.7	12.4	269.5	92.2	54.0	33	207	6.94	6.70	6.9	2	2
19	Cam Newton	CAR	28	QB	16	16	11-5-0	291	492	59.1	3302	22	4.5	16	3.3	167	64	6.7	6.1	11.3	206.4	80.7	53.3	35	242	5.81	5.28	6.6	1	3
20	Carson Palmer	ARI	38	qb	7	7	3-4-0	164	267	61.4	1978	9	3.4	7	2.6	95	46	7.4	6.9	12.1	282.6	84.4	52.5	22	150	6.33	5.86	7.6	2	2
21	Jared Goff*	LAR	23	QB	15	15	11-4-0	296	477	62.1	3804	28	5.9	7	1.5	177	94	8.0	8.5	12.9	253.6	100.5	52.1	25	172	7.24	7.72	5.0	1	1
22	Derek Carr*	OAK	26	QB	15	15	6-9-0	323	515	62.7	3496	22	4.3	13	2.5	168	87	6.8	6.5	10.8	233.1	86.4	51.0	20	101	6.35	6.07	3.7	1	1
23	Joe Flacco	BAL	32	QB	16	16	9-7-0	352	549	64.1	3141	18	3.3	13	2.4	163	66	5.7	5.3	8.9	196.3	80.4	49.8	27

This entire post reads as you are purposely going into this close minded and hard headed. So I will leave it at this:

You are wrong. 

The end. 

[Bearerofnews]

4 minutes ago, Matts4313 said:

Are you not reading anything I have posted???????

NO ONE KNOWS THE FORMULA. THEY HAVE NEVER MADE IT PUBLIC

So..... then there is no formula.

4 minutes ago, Matts4313 said:

No, its not. Its a measurement of a QBs play relative to how likely it is to contribute to a teams win. So throwing for 9 years on 3rd and 10 is worth less than rushing for 5 on 3rd and 4. 

And how do you measure "how likely" a probability is with numbers. How do you measure who gets credit for a 30 yd pass. How do you distribute credit for whos fault a fumble is; oline or qb, or a sack. They give more credit for a 5 yd run in the 4th qtr for a td from a qb than a 45 yd air pass for 1st down in the 1st qtr. This..... is..... wait for it. SUBJECTIVE. Id love to see the formula that does that 🤣 and i swear if anyone on here tells me the formula does that im rioting.

4 minutes ago, Matts4313 said:

You are misinterpreting what is stated. I cant tell if its on purpose or you just dont understand what that sentence means.

I suggest you read it again.

Nope, you are. I dont think you read it.

4 minutes ago, Matts4313 said:

This entire post reads as you are purposely going into this close minded and hard headed. So I will leave it at this:

You are wrong. 

The end. 

The entire post reads you saying "nope you are wrong" but ignoring their own words, not providing any evidence of a numeric based formula, etc.

Plain and simple, the stat sucks and should be the last stat used for judging qbs.  When it's skip bayless go to stat, ya know it sucks.

[Soko]

36 minutes ago, Bearerofnews said:

But its subjective, look at the articles i linked. They accredit EPA subjectively based on their opinion. It's a grading system. Grading systems are typically always subjective credit being appointed to different criterias. Why can no one post a numeric formula for QBR? Because it doesnt exist. Not from anything ive seen. Regardless ill never put any credit into QBR. Ive tracked its results and its the single stat that has the lowest correlation to the other major qb stats. 

They discount stats in "garbage time" (what they perceive as garbage time) or credit wr's for yds or 1st downs, or punish qbs for sacks or fumbles.  I dont see how they can have any type of formula that regulates that weighted credit.

I might be wrong, if so, someone provide the formula. I will never change my mind based off the track record of QBR. Worst stat ive seen for QBs. 

They don’t attribute is subjectively. They use EPA across the board, but do use other subjective terms to weight their numbers (positively or negatively). So in that sense, yes, it’s subjective what they do, but the way they use EPA is not subjective at all.  That’s the only point I was making in response to your comment that said “no trace of a standardized formula”. There’s certainly some standard value that they use in there. 

I don’t care for it anymore than I do PFF grades. I’m not defending it as the best number you can put out there for a QB. Just saying it A) does have a semblance of a standard, and B) is pretty much just EPA.

[Matts4313]

43 minutes ago, Bearerofnews said:

So..... then there is no formula.

I have a client from England. Brilliant. He was recruited by Apple. It took 6 months for each security level access upgrade. Over 2 years before he was able to do the job he was hired for. Companies go to extreme lengths to keep their secrets.... secret.

Just because we dont know the formula doesnt meant there isnt one. 

43 minutes ago, Bearerofnews said:

And how do you measure "how likely" a probability is with numbers. How do you measure who gets credit for a 30 yd pass. How do you distribute credit for whos fault a fumble is; oline or qb, or a sack. They give more credit for a 5 yd run in the 4th qtr for a td from a qb than a 45 yd air pass for 1st down in the 1st qtr. This..... is..... wait for it. SUBJECTIVE. Id love to see the formula that does that 🤣 and i swear if anyone on here tells me the formula does that im rioting.

Nope. This is all wrong. 

43 minutes ago, Bearerofnews said:

Nope, you are. I dont think you read it.

You need to read more thoroughly.Contribution to winning =/= Winning

43 minutes ago, Bearerofnews said:

The entire post reads you saying "nope you are wrong" but ignoring their own words, not providing any evidence of a numeric based formula, etc.

Plain and simple, the stat sucks and should be the last stat used for judging qbs.  When it's skip bayless go to stat, ya know it sucks.

In your own example you had to reach the 14th QB before there was a losing record. Dude you are just wrong. 

[Bearerofnews]

5 hours ago, Matts4313 said:

I have a client from England. Brilliant. He was recruited by Apple. It took 6 months for each security level access upgrade. Over 2 years before he was able to do the job he was hired for. Companies go to extreme lengths to keep their secrets.... secret.

Just because we dont know the formula doesnt meant there isnt one. 

Nope. This is all wrong. 

You need to read more thoroughly.Contribution to winning =/= Winning

In your own example you had to reach the 14th QB before there was a losing record. Dude you are just wrong. 

You're right, QBR is a good accurate stat..... that you'll never reference when rating seasonal qb performances.. but, yup you are right. In the spirit of social distancing, imma have to walk away.

(ps you're wrong, i am right)