1. Welcome to Green Bay Packers NFL Football Forum & Community!
    Packer Forum is one of the largest online communities for the Green Bay Packers.

    You are currently viewing our community forums as a guest user.

    Sign Up or

    Having an account grants you additional privileges, such as creating and participating in discussions. Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member!
    Dismiss Notice

I'm Worried About The Vikings

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by ivo610, Sep 12, 2011.

  1. TJV

    TJV Lifelong Packers Fanatic

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    Messages:
    4,243
    Ratings:
    +3,284
    Since an entire season is a better indicator than the first week of the season, in your opinion which list better reflects QBs contributions to their teams during the 2010 regular season (don't cheat!)?

    1. Brady, Rivers, Rodgers, Vick, Roethlesberger, Freeman, Flacco, Cassel, Schaub, P. Manning.
    2. Brady, P. Manning, Ryan, Rodgers, Vick, Brees, Eli Manning, Freeman, Rivers, Roethlesberger.

    No statistical analysis is perfect since it cannot incorporate all the variables in play. Until ESPN reveals their formula, a statistical analysis comparing the two (good point, cheesehurdler) isn't possible. And at least a summary of their historical analysis would be nice, too. But I think passer rating is significantly flawed and I appreciate any attempt at improving it, even if it's ESPN. I'd love to see Football Outsiders, who developed DVOA (Defense-adjusted Value Over Average), attempt to improve upon both passer rating and QBR.
     
  2. Raptorman

    Raptorman Vikings fan since 1966.

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    2,235
    Ratings:
    +856
    Not sensitive about anything, just want to know why your so opposed to it.

    So what your saying here is that if a team does not win, it is the sole resposnibility of the QB. Just because a team does not win does not mean the QB did not play well. Did Brees play well the other night? Did they they win? Then according your statement, his QBR should be zero. Or it should be lower than any QB that won. Right?
     
  3. ivo610

    ivo610 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Messages:
    16,285
    Ratings:
    +4,131
    No, and if your not sensitive then why twist my words?

    What I am saying is ( and I thought it was pretty clear but guess not for a vikings fan) that the rating system is severely out of wack when the SB winning QB is ranked lower than the guy who Quarterbacked a team that went 0-16 when the premise of the rating system is to weigh heavier on someone who contributes more the the win. Did that make sense to you?
     
  4. ivo610

    ivo610 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Messages:
    16,285
    Ratings:
    +4,131
    I also think its insane they want people to take them seriously with this when they wont release the formula. But bc its ESPN the heard will graze.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Kitten

    Kitten Feline Cheesehead Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2010
    Messages:
    5,094
    Ratings:
    +1,429
    Food is usually a welcome distraction and your post contained the word "cheese" so it can't be off topic! :) I like Pauls Pizza on 8th and Samson St, Olde City for my cheesesteaks! :) See it says CHEESE! It's on topic!
     
  6. TJV

    TJV Lifelong Packers Fanatic

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    Messages:
    4,243
    Ratings:
    +3,284
    For 2008 ESPN's QBR puts Orlovsky at 19th with a rating of 51.1. They have Roethlisburger at 24th with a 46.4 rating.

    For 2008, the passer rating for Roethlisberger puts him again at #24 with a 80.1 rating and Orlovsky is #29 with a 72.6 rating.

    Roethlisburger's numbers weren't great in '08 but they were better than Orlovsky's: 59.9 vs. 56.1 completion percentage, 7.0 average yards per completion vs. 6.3. And Roethlisburger had 17 TDs and 15 INTs vs. Orlovsky's 8 and 8. The biggest difference between them was Orlovsky was sacked 14 times for 95 yards while Roethlisburger was sacked 46 times for 284 yards. While Roethlisburger started 16 games to Orlovsky's 7, that could explain the difference in QBR ratings.

    ivo610, I'll state the obvious: A QB who went 0-7 could have played average while his D and STs cost the team game after game. (I'm not saying that happened, just that it's possible and that contradicts what you've posted as your biggest criticism of QBR IMO.) And don't you find it at least interesting that both QBR and passer ratings have big Ben at #24? I'll leave it for you to check how many crappy QBs had a higher passer rating in 2008 than Roethlisburger. :D
     
  7. greenandgold

    greenandgold I'm Dirty Hairy Callahan

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2010
    Messages:
    1,727
    Ratings:
    +466
    Maybe they wanted to try to park him a couple years behind a wily old vet first.

    Now who else did that?
     
  8. Raptorman

    Raptorman Vikings fan since 1966.

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    2,235
    Ratings:
    +856
    I'm not twisting anything. What you are saying is no matter how well a QB plays, if his team does not win he should not be rated higher than one that does. Or do I have that wrong. Let me quote that again.
    So a QB can to 30-30 250 yards and 4 Tds 0 Int's and lose the game and he has to play second fiddle to someone who won the Super Bowl. I'm sure Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson will be happy to hear that.
     
  9. ivo610

    ivo610 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Messages:
    16,285
    Ratings:
    +4,131
    Yep, still twisting. good job. Ben roethlisburger is not Trent Dilfer or Brad Johnson. He is a future first HOF (maybe first ballot). Good job trying to skew that though. Expect nothing less from a vikings fan.

    Im saying a guy that cant lead his team to victory at all shouldnt be ranked higher than the guy that carries his team at several points in the season to the SB and win it, if you are basing your argument for your "formula" on actually winning."
     
  10. ivo610

    ivo610 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Messages:
    16,285
    Ratings:
    +4,131
    Im not arguing for Ben to be higher, Im arguing that Dan watshisname shouldnt be above him. Even more so on a list that weighs heavily on "clutch situations" and who contributes to the win. Big Ben is one of the most clutch QBs I have seen in the past 15 years.

    ESPNs argument is that this formula will count more towards players who contribute more to wins. But if they dont win how can they be ranked ahead of a SB winning QB (please the trent dilfer comment just made me laugh, its like you can name 2 guys that were not good QBs but played on HISTORIC defenses try to put it in perspective instead of just shouting those two) of that year.

    The difference in games also might count towards those sack numbers too. Just maybe. Does the formula weigh strength of schedule? Nope. Does it weigh O line? not that I know of.
     
  11. Raptorman

    Raptorman Vikings fan since 1966.

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    2,235
    Ratings:
    +856
    Ok, based on your idea than, that a QB that does not "win" as many games, the following QB's should not be listed above Ben in 2008 because the all won "less" games than the Steelers. After all, the Steelers and Ben won the Super Bowl.

    Tom Brady
    Peyton Manning
    Aaron Rodgers
    Tony Romo
    Donavan McNabb
    Kurt Warner

    All those QB's had lost at least as many games or more during the regular season. And since none of the AFC teams played in the Super Bowl Ben had more wins than they did. Don't pick just one name because he only played 7 games on a bad team. A loss is a loss..it matters not that they lost every game. If they didn't win it should count against them right? So then you have to count the losses that these QB's had as well. Since they all lost more games than Ben, they all should be rated lower than him.

    " if they dont win how can they be ranked ahead of a SB winning QB?"
     
  12. greenandgold

    greenandgold I'm Dirty Hairy Callahan

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2010
    Messages:
    1,727
    Ratings:
    +466
    I've always wondered if they used Wisconsin cheese on them Chicago deep pan pizzas the Bears fans are always raving about.
     
  13. ivo610

    ivo610 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Messages:
    16,285
    Ratings:
    +4,131
    LMAO dude keep twisting any way you want, just shows you know I am right.

    either that or you are reaaallly struggling here. THE LIONS DIDNT WIN A GAME. THE SYSTEM IS BASED HEAVILY ON WINNING (even though they dont tell you what its based off of). A QB WHO DID NOT WIN A GAME SHOULD NOT BE RATED HIGHER THAN ONE WHO WON THE SB THE SAME YEAR IF YOUR PREMISE FAVORS WINNING.

    I see in week 1 they had McNabb rated higher than sanchez. No wonder you seem so eager to defend something the creators wont tell you much about. But hey, if it came from espn it must be great right? Does that make stuart scott the shepard?
     
  14. ivo610

    ivo610 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Messages:
    16,285
    Ratings:
    +4,131
  15. ivo610

    ivo610 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Messages:
    16,285
    Ratings:
    +4,131
    The QBR allows for subjectivity on the part of those compiling it and can't be calculated by anyone other than ESPN, who is making those subjective calls. It's a complete fail as a statistical system. At least with the passer rating I can sit at home and come up with the rating myself. With this system I have to rely on ESPN to tell me what they came up with. It sucks donkey ****.
     
  16. Raptorman

    Raptorman Vikings fan since 1966.

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    2,235
    Ratings:
    +856
    And based on your statement, a QB that did not win as many games should not be rated higher than the one who won the Super Bowl. That's my point. You can't say just because his team didn't win any game he shouldn't be rated higher than turn around and say "Well this team won some games so that QB can be rated higher than Ben." If they didn't win as many games as Ben they have to be rated lower. Right? I also think you are taking the term "winning" in this case to the extreme. The system is designed so that it shows how well a QB played to get his team to win. Just because they don't win doesn't mean the QB didn't do his job.

    I know you don't like the QBR, and I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one. Just because you don't know the formula does not mean it doesn't work.
     
  17. TJV

    TJV Lifelong Packers Fanatic

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    Messages:
    4,243
    Ratings:
    +3,284
    I hesitate to continue with this discussion because I may appear to be an apologist for ESPN and I'm not. Except for Jason Wilde and Steve True who are associated with the Madison ESPN radio affiliate, I pay very little attention to, and have little respect for ESPN. I mentioned QBR in this thread because I think passer rating is flawed and am interested in a better formula. Whether or not ESPN has developed a better formula is obviously the question.

    I certainly don't hold that view and from his posts, its apparent Raptorman doesn't either. Your "logic" appears to be, because it is from ESPN it must suck. No one is arguing the opposite.


    The formula for both passer rating and QBR were arrived at subjectively because those formulating each stat subjectively determined which stats would be used and how much weight would be given to each. Once the formula is determined, plugging in the stats is objective. What you are alleging here is ESPN is changing their formula subjectively on an ongoing basis and since we don't have access to their formula (a foolish decision by ESPN IMO) no one has any way to know that, including you. I doubt they are doing that and if that's the premise to your conclusion that it's a "complete fail" I think both your premise and conclusion are wrong. It may be a failed statistical system, but that wouldn't be why.

    From what is available on their website: The reason QBR doesn't correlate directly to wins is because they say they score each play individually based upon historical data they (again, foolishly) don't share with us. The reason the Lions QB rating is higher than Ben's is probably because Ben was assigned negative points for each sack he took that they determined he didn't have to. For example, if a QB takes five sacks in a game totaling 40 negative yards, they probably have a stat for how those plays negatively impact a teams' chances of winning. Keep in mind, during such a game, the Steelers could have sacked the opponent's QB 8 times for more yardage. After they assign points for each play, they then divide the credit or demerit the QB receives for that play. IOW how much responsibility should the QB be assigned for that play. For example, a QB gets less credit for a first down, 5-yard pass to a wide open WR who then eludes 3 defenders for a 50 yard gain (the QB gets 50 yards of credit in passer rating, doesn't he?) than for a third and 8 pass he puts right on the money for a 9-yard gain with no YAC. Their next step is to determine how clutch the play was and factor that in. And they say they do this for every play a QB is involved in. The other obvious reason it doesn't correlate directly to wins is because other players on O, D and STs have a lot to do with the outcome of games. My guess is if the QB throws a "perfect" pass in a clutch situation and the WR drops it, the QB probably gets some benefit from that play because he did his job. In passer rating, that wouldn't be the case.
    As I've said a couple of times, I think they err by not making their formula public. But their approach appears to be more nuanced than passer rating although we can't know that for certain until they publish it. But alleging it sucks just because ESPN developed it is a shallow argument IMO.
     
  18. Wood Chipper

    Wood Chipper Fantasy Football Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2010
    Messages:
    4,056
    Ratings:
    +1,406
    I thought we all decided ESPN has slowly become a biased station that caters to the weak minded to sway their opinion.
     
  19. 13 Times Champs

    13 Times Champs Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2011
    Messages:
    3,924
    Ratings:
    +1,379
    I'm having a hard time figuring out what this thread is about. :confused:
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. TJV

    TJV Lifelong Packers Fanatic

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    Messages:
    4,243
    Ratings:
    +3,284
    How would that apply to QBR? How do you think their bias would be revealed? IOW, toward which opinion would they be attempting to sway the weak minded using QBR?
     
  21. Raptorman

    Raptorman Vikings fan since 1966.

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    2,235
    Ratings:
    +856
    It's realy simple:

    Old QB rating. Based purely on numbers. Quantitative
    ESPN QBR rating. Based on numbers and human thought, which play was harder to make. Quantitative and Qualitative.

    It's the human factor most don't want to deal with. I would venture a guess as to why ESPN does not divulge the info is because they would have to write a book about how it's done.

    Yet the following are all quantitative and qualitative and most will accept them at face value.

    HOF inductee's
    Player of the year, player of the game, player of week.
    Pro bowl. (mostly a popularity contest)

    Based strictly on a quantitative value, after the first week of play, the Vikings defense is better than the Packers. The gave up less passing yards, less yards per pass, less points, less running yards, less yards per run, and more interceptions, Yet I bet know one here would agree with that.
     
  22. Croak

    Croak Terminally twisted.

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2010
    Messages:
    4,222
    Ratings:
    +1,383
    They lost me at "algorythms". Is that something to do with sayings by a former Vice President? ;)
     
  23. ivo610

    ivo610 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Messages:
    16,285
    Ratings:
    +4,131
    It's sad and insulting frankly that all you got from my post was I think it sucks bc ESPN developed it. I am disapointed, I expected more from you. You clearly have choosen to gloss over my legit complaints against QBR and focused on my comments about the network. Try rereading the thread, then come back and try again. I have a strong dislike for ESPN. I have passed up opportunities to go to Bristol even. I will admit I watch several programs that air on ESPN and do appreciate the few things they do right, even though they sometimes don't. But none of this affects my feelings on QBR. I am a stat geek, I explained in a previous post why it fails to be a good stat. I guess you missed or glossed over that huh? Anyways, while RS and I have had our differences on the passer rating, I think it is a better rating system than anything I have seen otherwise if used in the correct context. For some reason this feels like an attempt to make Michael Vick rank a little higher as a QB. I guess thats a benefit to Arod as well though. The complaints against the passer rating have been going on since it came out, it will always have its critics.

    But I am glad you brought up sacks, it gives me the chance to tackle yet another flaw in QBR. Last thursday was Aaron Rodgers responsible for every sack he took? Or if lets say Eli Manning has a great line how much of a benefit should that give him in terms of other QBs who dont? Does the QBR discount the QB that put his team in the hole that he eventually dug them out of? For some reason a Buffalo Cowboys game comes to mind... maybe a Chicago AZ game as well. Actually Brett Favre's career pretty much was that.
     
  24. ivo610

    ivo610 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Messages:
    16,285
    Ratings:
    +4,131
    Its a series of tubes.
     
  25. ivo610

    ivo610 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Messages:
    16,285
    Ratings:
    +4,131
    Im pretty sure that would be too small of a sample size. But hey I am no math major. ;)
     

Share This Page