NFL offseason thread

I think you're trying especially hard not to factor in the difference in styles. But if you believe he's the 26th-best quarterback in the league because passer rating puts him there ... agree to disagree. You can believe he's a little worse than #25 Blaine Gabbert.

 

Eh. Whatever. I never said I thought Luck is the 26th best QB in the league. I just said the rankings, for the most part, have the guys who should be at the top, at the top, and so forth. I also said there were a few outliers, but that QB rating doesn't distort the rankings all that bad for as much as people complain about it.

 

It's a bummer Nate Silver likes baseball and can't apply his adorable Skewed Math to football and give us some kind of PECOTA-esq formula that properly measures quarterbacks. Maybe PFF or Football Outsiders has some shit like this, but I haven't seem that shit. It ain't QBR.

 

If Passer rating is the way to measure a QB, then Tony Romo is the fifth best QB of all-time and Philip Rivers is sixth.

It goes Rodgers, Young, Brady, Manning and then the greatness that is Romo and Rivers. Daunte Culpepper is 14th and Joe Flacco is ahead of Brett Favre, who is tied with Trent Green for 20th place.

 

OK, before this goes any deeper into idiocy than it already has, no one said passer rating is the way to measure a QB. Far from it. As I've said multiple times, it's flawed. Not exactly breaking news. However, if you look at last year's passer rating rankings, aside from a few outliers, the top 10 or so guys on that list are pretty close to the list most people would have when writing out a top 10 or so QB list. That's all. It's certainly not the way to rank QBs overall, or all time. No one is saying that.

Just to be clear.

Also, Andrew Luck is terrible.

 

A few? So only like three of those 10 don't belong?

Thirty percent error is pretty far out of outlier territory.

And Andrew Luck has two functioning knees, so (_|_)

 

Everyone knows you measure starting QBs by their winning percentage.

 

1. The stat is Passer Rating, not Quarterback Rating
2. Obviously winning and losing is part of evaluating quarterbacks. Nobody knows exactly how big a part, that's all.
3. The highly informal metric "Good Enough to Win With" is worth using. By that standard, Luck and his rookie peers stand together so far, which seems correct.

 

Haha. So does You Know Who, dammit!!!!!

 

Is there something in the, um, water up there? Or are the cops just that rough?

 

Passer rating is typically unkind to the chuck and duck quarterbacks, even if they're actually HOF level players. It's why guys like Favre and Marino are in the 15-20 range. Elway is another one who has a ridiculously bad rating. Fouts and Tarkenton as well...

 

Yeah, the stats can be deceiving. Take the old-style Raider QBs, who had a lower than average number because they were chucking the ball 40 yards downfield all the time. OK, fine, you might complete 2 out of 10, but maybe one of those goes for a touchdown. Is that better or worse than a guy who goes 9 for 10 for 36 yards?