ESPN is a ratings based, click bait, drama hyping machine.. A lot of people forget this..

Yeah,, I never understood any of these jacked ratings for QBs anyway, especially from ESPN.

---

He also threw a td for a "game winning drive" which their "clutch" metric should like and had a higher comp % and more yards.


Traditional QB Rating


Blake 91

Mariota 81


That seems better to me


On a side note. JT was open, the ball was in a bad spot. Further outside or like you said over the defender and it's a 1st down.

 

I'm a much bigger fan of the traditional.  I'm not saying Blake had a horrible game, but I can see why someone who puts some sort of model together could give Blake a grade lower than Mariota would have had.  Blake had two turnovers and one passing td.  Mariota had the one rushing td and no turnovers.  Blake did more going beyond that than Mariota did and I think that's where ESPN misses the mark.

 

Blake throws the ball down the field and Mariota is a short/mid range guy.  Their only scoring guy was throwing it down the field and praying for a penalty.

---

I do think its a worthwhile attempt because pure QB Rating doesnt capture the whole story.  A QB who can run at the right moments and pick up key first downs and keep drives alive is invaluable.  But that isnt captured in QB Rating.  So while maybe this QBR isnt the right answer... or isnt the right calculation... I think the attempt is a worthwhile one.  We just need someone to come along and fine tune the calculation to make it more meaningful.

---

________________________________________________
Scouting well is all that matters.  Draft philosophy is all fluff.

I do think its a worthwhile attempt because pure QB Rating doesnt capture the whole story.  A QB who can run at the right moments and pick up key first downs and keep drives alive is invaluable.  But that isnt captured in QB Rating.  So while maybe this QBR isnt the right answer... or isnt the right calculation... I think the attempt is a worthwhile one.  We just need someone to come along and fine tune the calculation to make it more meaningful.

 

I think the right one is next to impossible, if nothing else extremely costly.  Every time you tweak something to take one thing into account it's going to adjust and something else is going to lose value....so unless someone can make some sort of extremely complex algorithm that is able to distinguish between the importance of different plays its just tough.

---

I do think its a worthwhile attempt because pure QB Rating doesnt capture the whole story.  A QB who can run at the right moments and pick up key first downs and keep drives alive is invaluable.  But that isnt captured in QB Rating.  So while maybe this QBR isnt the right answer... or isnt the right calculation... I think the attempt is a worthwhile one.  We just need someone to come along and fine tune the calculation to make it more meaningful.

 

QB rating doesn't need to capture the whole story.  The only thing the QB rating needs to do is show who had the better statistics.  Anything further than that gets into the realm of generic algorithmic scouting, which is stupid.  Why should you put any trust into an algorithmic scout that doesn't watch the games and outputs random grades? 

---

I think the right one is next to impossible, if nothing else extremely costly.  Every time you tweak something to take one thing into account it's going to adjust and something else is going to lose value....so unless someone can make some sort of extremely complex algorithm that is able to distinguish between the importance of different plays its just tough.

 

Exactly.  If QBR were even possible (or relevant), teams wouldn't even need a scouting team.  It's just like the segment every week on Jaguars Monday when Boselli loses his mind over PFF grades.  When what you see doesn't match the grades, you have to make a leap of faith and say "if you say so".  Or you can just ignore it (which is usually the better option).   But in the end, if you ignore only what you don't agree with, then the grades just become your own opinion, which makes the grade itself an opinion.  This would never happen with QB rating.

---

Another thing about such formulas... (this, plus the old BCS computer models, etc, etc.)

 

...those who create them experiment with the formula until they generate a desired outcome.

 

So, while they may genuinely try to be objective, they cannot be.  Different elements will be weighted until they have a formula that makes "sense," which means plugging in historical data and ranking past players to ensure it fits "consensus" opinion... in the hope that the resulting rankings will be acceptable and not show bias.

 

But, as we saw in the different computer models, there was bias built in to several of them, if not all to some extent.

 

Same here.  The results are how the formulators intended.  It's certainly not generated in a blind or unbiased way.

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

If I told you it was the favorite stat of Skip Bayless, would that change your mind?

 

Because it's Skip Bayless' favorite stat.

 

Of course it is.  He's the chimp pounding away at the keyboard that determines QBR.

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke.