But it doesn't take into account when he does it, nor why. Nor whether it's really him doing it, or someone else (e.g. bad line, YAC, dropped balls). As you can tell, I've always thought it pretty dangerous number to throw around without knowing what you're doing (for the same reason I've always thought fantasy football was pretty silly). Lies, d@mn lies, statistics. For example, Favre has made it clear that when his team is down big, he starts throwing the ball up for grabs. "Anything it takes to have a shot at winning, no matter how improbable" His QB rating of course gets penalized for it. As does his QB rating for that play week 1 when he thres it up on 4th and Stucky caught it at the goal line -- the ball was going to turn over on downs anyway, so that was a smart play. But if he does get the INT, it kills his QB rating, even though it was a smart play. I would be curious to see QB ratings compiled in different circumstances, e.e. when your team is down big and in the 4th Q vs not. Otherwise since it doesn't tell you anything about circumstances, it's very misleading.
Sorry to disappoint you in advance, but he won't continue at this pace (another meaningless statistic lol - extrapolating to a full season!)
Passer rating should be used like any stat...they give you an idea...but you should dig deeper. Watch how they play, consider the situation...team...scheme...etc...which usually requires more stats... Passer rating sucks though...like it's retarded as a whole. I'd rather look at completion %, TD's, INT's, and YPA.
it looks at those things for you and does the math for you since most of us are incompetent and/or too lazy to add all those stats up and make something out of them.
So what, you're going to trust an arbitrary formula to weight said numbers for you and not factor into it how any of those numbers were achieved?
+1 Also, in terms of statistics, I've been told in the past that a good QB will have: 1) 2:1 TD:INT ratio. (or better. That's bare minimum) 2) 60% completion ratio. (Again, minimum) 3) 250+ yards/game. (Also, minimum) Again, in that order too. That's the kind of "statistical analysis" that I would agree with. If you look at Pennington under this light, you will realize how pedestrian (if he's that good) he is.
you should look at both. Steve Young has a higher QB rating than Favre but has about half as many TDs. I'd take Favre's stats any day but it still shows that Young was a good QB
I agree and it tends to show the quality of the teams Young played on in the passing game rather than just his talent as a QB. More interesting is that Favre has only one sub 90 game with the Jets and that against the Pats and he had years of nobody open, thread the needle, catch me if you can years in GB and he still got the job done and that has not been the situation he is in this year. I for one am encouraged by the 110.8 stat not because it confirms Favre is the real deal, I had already concluded that but that this Jets team may really be ready to break loose in the passing game. No I don't predict another 6 TD game but I do predict 15 TDs or better in the next 5 games. Just for fun we will see if my analysis is correct.
If I'm not mistaken, the stat also doesn't account for sacks. Ken O'Brien had a great rating but a lot of drives stalled because he held the ball too long and took way too many sacks. Getting rid of the ball would have led to incompletions, which would have lowered his rating but led to more makable 3rd downs.
I agree with #2 Zach but not necessarily #1 because that assumes receivers are running their routes and D's aren't giving up so many points that you have your QB going air Coryell so it MAY be a stat that is team dependant rather than a QB stat. As to #3, put up those numbers every game and your not good your Pro Bowl good every year without exception. That figure is 4000 yds a season and is too high as cutoff for good QBs. As an example Tom Brady has had 2 good seasons out of 7 under this requirement.
Actually his rating is only avg. at 81.5 or so. Can't compare to the old time stars because the game passing game changed. Much less bombing today than in the old days and the passing game is way more sophisticated than the old Bob Hayes fly pattern. Also points out that the rating is misleading in that it rewards a QB for being on a quality team slightly and can heavily penalize an excellent QB stuck on a stinker--that's been my point and was just looking for opinions.
Yeah, it is not good to compare Krieg to passers who played the bulk of their careers prior to the major rule changes of 1978.
I'll never know why these factor into how good a QB is. Sure, generally his performance will reflect the performance of his team and vice versa, but how that somehow means he gets credit for wins and championships is beyond me. It'll probably remain like that too. It makes some sense, but only if you really dumb down one of the most complicated sports out there.
If you go by wins, Joe Namath had a losing record and he threw more INTs in his career than TDs. But those are just stats. If you watched him play, he controlled the game from the line of scrimmage, called the plays and he had the arm to exploit anything he saw anywhere in the field. That's why he went to the Hall of Fame and that's why he is, I think, the only QB to be the Super Bowl MVP without throwing a TD pass. But in those days people paid more attention to that kind of thing and less to stats, because there weren't fantasy leagues all over the place skewing people's perceptions of what a good or great football player is. Personally, the numbers I look at for a QB in every game are attempts, completions and yards, those are usually the best indicators of how the QB is running the offense but even those are flawed. Dropped balls and yards after catch can alter them sometimes. TD passes and INTs can be blown out of proportion, too. A rushing TD counts just as much ad a TD pass, it all depends on the personnel, down and distance, all kinds of variables.
I think the true mark of a QB is his leadership and ability to command an offense and the team attitude. Eli Manning needed 4 years to become that guy, some take a shorter time for some like Matt Ryan - he has that in ATL already. Thats his team. Peyton had it within one year. Brady has/had it in NE. Favre did it in GB and now here. Its the true intangible, and so hard to see when scouting a kid. Vince Young does not have it, ask the Titans players. I don't think Kyle Orton has that, nor does Jon Kitna. I think Aaron Rodgers has some of it, and should have all of it by the end of the year if healthy. The Vikings need to find it. Its very important, and it is the difference. It.
"It" is simply an intimate knowledge of a system. Take most QBs out of the system they know intimately, and you see a bit more hesitation. The largest difference between a good and great QB is the work they put on...given similar physical tools. Theres a few guys with Peyton Manning's physical tools, the difference is his knowledge of the X's and O's and the amount of time he puts into his job. He knows the Colts system as if he created the plays, and can read most of the leagues defenses better than some of their own players.
Namath was .500 as a starting QB in regular season play. He was one game over .500 as a starting QB in postseason action.
Interesting comment. So, does this mean Favre no longer has "it?" Sure he's made strides, but I can't imagine anyone saying he's "intimate" with it after just 4 games and <60 days. But Rex Grossman (for example) has "it?"
