Week 3 TQBR Rankings

NFL - Week 3 Total QBR Season Leaders - ESPN (http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/7020881/nfl-week-3-total-qbr-season-leaders)

I'm linking to this now because there's now three weeks of data points so theres some semblance of meaning to the numbers. The sample is pretty small, but most QBs are approaching or have passed 125 dropbacks, and they've done it vs three different opponents, so the numbers have some meaning.

The top of the list is interesting, but the names at the bottom are more interesting. Rivers in particular is shocking, but Vick/Ryan/Sanchez are all struggling this year. And Bradford has been preposterously ineffective (though his teammates are responsible for plenty of suck).

Grossman has finally crashed back into average land.

More interestingly, his QBR is actually HIGHER this week than last, but I think it's undebateable that he had a MUCH crappier game this week, and his 23.3 TQBR sure as hell showed that.

Rex sucked last night but I hate this rating system

Rex sucked last night but I hate this rating system

The rankings make a helluva lot of more sense than what the old QBR is showing. Fitzpatrick and Brady are CLEARLY outdoing everyone else in the league and the old QBR is not doing them any justice.

I think the Total QBR is as close as we can get to a coaches 'grade'. (Although I still think they're being too hard on QBs that have limited pass protection.)

I just wish there was a way to be more open about the process.

But, I understand they might feel the need to hold back some of their method but I think it would help the stat gain more popularity.

This thing is too open to opinion. I think you lose too much in translation, and with 4 different people, you get 4 different ratings. I just think that the regular Quarterback rating is fine. I mean, if your QB had a game of over 80, he did well. If its 95 or over, he did damn well. and if its over 110, then he rocked the shit.

Like I said, this doesnt take into account responsibility for sacks, and for fumbles, two of the biggest things a quarterback does other than throw and make reads. Just a little too unsure of the whole process in which they get the numbers. The regular rating works for me, its an easy overall barometer, and you dont have to wait a full day so a panel can "look through the tape and make their determinations." The old rating is not perfect by any stretch, but I think I like it a little better, maybe its the comfort factor and Im just not used to the QBR, but something is telling me that I'll prefer the old tried and true method over this new one when it comes down to it. Its nice to have another gauge, but I prefer the old one.

This thing is too open to opinion. I think you lose too much in translation, and with 4 different people, you get 4 different ratings. I just think that the regular Quarterback rating is fine. I mean, if your QB had a game of over 80, he did well. If its 95 or over, he did damn well. and if its over 110, then he rocked the shit.

Like I said, this doesnt take into account responsibility for sacks, and for fumbles, two of the biggest things a quarterback does other than throw and make reads. Just a little too unsure of the whole process in which they get the numbers. The regular rating works for me, its an easy overall barometer, and you dont have to wait a full day so a panel can "look through the tape and make their determinations." The old rating is not perfect by any stretch, but I think I like it a little better, maybe its the comfort factor and Im just not used to the QBR, but something is telling me that I'll prefer the old tried and true method over this new one when it comes down to it. Its nice to have another gauge, but I prefer the old one.
The old passer rating is turrible and in need of its own Lucas Critique. Four factors go into its calculation. Completion %, Yards/att, TD/att, and INT/att. It ignores a shitload of data. Actually, once you think about it, it's basically fantasy football scoring except it has completion percentage and the weights are different for each category.

I just think that the regular Quarterback rating is fine. I mean, if your QB had a game of over 80, he did well. If its 95 or over, he did damn well. and if its over 110, then he rocked the shit.

This made me want to look up single season QB ratings throughout the history of the team.

I know the "old" QB rating is un-sexy and inaccurate now that we have the ESPN TQBR, but since I can't apply a TQBR formula to the data from Pro-football-reference I can't see where Sexy Rexy stacks up compared to past Redskins QBs.

But if we look at single-season QB Ratings for all Washington QB's, the top 25 list looks like this:


# Name Year Rate Age G GS
01 Sammy Baugh 1945 109.9 31 08 08
02 Mark Rypien 1991* 97.9 29 16 16
03 Joe Theismann 1983* 97.0 34 16 16
04 Sonny Jurgensen 1974 94.5 40 14 04
05 Sammy Baugh 1947 92.0 33 12 01
06 Sonny Jurgensen 1970 91.5 36 14 14
07 Joe Theismann 1982* 91.3 33 09 09
08 Brad Johnson 1999* 90.0 31 16 16
09 Mark Rypien 1989* 88.1 27 14 14
10 Sonny Jurgensen 1967* 87.3 33 14 14
11 Joe Theismann 1984 86.6 35 16 16
12 Mark Brunell 2006 86.5 36 10 09
13 Jason Campbell 2009 86.4 28 16 16
14 Rex Grossman 2011 86.4 31 03 03
15 Eddie LeBaron 1957* 86.1 27 12 12
16 Frank Filchock 1944 86.0 28 10 06
17 Mark Brunell 2005 85.9 35 16 15
18 Sonny Jurgensen 1969* 85.4 35 14 14
19 Sonny Jurgensen 1964* 85.4 30 14 14
20 Mark Rypien 1988 85.2 26 09 06
21 Billy Kilmer 1972* 84.8 33 12 10
22 Sonny Jurgensen 1966* 84.5 32 14 14
23 Jason Campbell 2008 84.3 27 16 16
24 Joe Theismann 1979 83.9 30 16 16
25 Billy Kilmer 1974 83.5 35 11 10

Asterisks represent Pro Bowl seasons.

So we've had three players in history who garnered a 95+ passer rating over a single season. According to PFR, there have been 108 players in league history to do finish the season with a 95 or better.

This thing is too open to opinion. I think you lose too much in translation, and with 4 different people, you get 4 different ratings.

I don't think that is true.
I'm sure there are written parameters for grading what they wee.

Heck, I've graded the same game as a friend of mine.
Without ever consulting the parameters before hand.
Our breakdown of what we saw on the film was almost the same.
I trust that ESPN takes the stat seriously enough to be football honest.

My main problem with the old QBR all stats were created equal.
A QB could fumble and throw a pick 2 get his team down by 2 scores.
He might put up good stats via the old QBR because he might hit a couple of meaningless touchdowns against prevent but the fact that his own poor play to start the game was the reason he accumulated the stats in the first place is lost.

How are Fitz and Brady beating out A.ROD?