Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TJV" data-source="post: 384943" data-attributes="member: 4300"> Hey I’m the new guy here I don’t know why you’d have expectations of me. OTOH, because you’re a vet here, I was going to post my disappointment with your posts on this thread but we don’t know each other well, like I said I’m the new guy, and I was attempting to be more civil. This is the first post after mine in which I brought up QBR and listed the top 8 from week one:  It was so void of content it caused Raptorman, who as far as I can tell is an entirely reasonable poster in spite of being cursed by being a Vikings fan, to post “I want to hear your reasoning… So tell us what’s wrong with it”. You responded to his very reasonable post – reread it if you don’t remember it – in a mocking manner: “LOL sensitive over comments about the great espn?” All Raptorman posted was he’d like to hear your reasoning – hardly a show of sensitivity and in no way advancing the notion that ESPN is great. Your post looks to me to be the sensitive and defensive one. In that post you bring up the fact that Dan Orlovsky is rated too high on their 2008 list, since he was 0-7 as a starter. That seems to me to be your one substantive point regarding their results: QBR is supposed to reflect a QB’s impact on winning so an 0-7 QB can’t be rated higher than a Super Bowl winning QB, in spite of the fact that QBs don’t control the outcome of games: Obviously a QB can outplay the opposing QB and his team still lose the game. In this thread I listed the 2010 passer rating and QBR leaders. For someone who completely dismisses QBR, I’d think that would provide fertile ground to substantively point out it's flaws. I also related that both passer rating and QBR have Roethlisburger at #24 for the 2008 regular season. You admit you’re somewhat a fan of passer rating yet you don’t comment on that either, except to say the Lions’ QB is rated too high. They show three years of data and as far as I can tell, that’s your one substantive criticism of the results of their rating system. Three seasons, 30+ QBs per season and one complaint? What we agree on is the error ESPN is making by not publishing their formula. Regarding sacks, if they are doing what they are claiming they are assigning a degree of responsibility, or lack of responsibility to QBs for each and every sack recorded throughout the league. Again, we have no way of knowing that because their methods are double secret at this point. Ivo610, seriously go back and read your exchanges with Raptorman. You are the one accusing him of twisting your words when all he was trying to do was understand your opinion. You’re the one inferring that he, and presumably I, are members of a “herd” following ESPN. You’re the one being sarcastic and defensive, not him. Except for my first couple of sentences above, IMO Raptorman and I have avoided that. This subject isn’t that important so I’m done with it unless you ask me a direct question. Anyway in summary, I’m not worried about the Vikings. I never worry about the Vikings. </blockquote>

Verification

Members online

No members online now.

Total: 789 (members: 0, guests: 789)

Latest posts

The Crew - 2026
- Latest: weeds
- 39 minutes ago
Milwaukee Brewers Forum
Why I Love The 2026-2027 Green Bay Packers
- Latest: OldSchool101
- Yesterday at 11:12 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Josh Jacobs facing charges…
- Latest: tynimiller
- Yesterday at 10:57 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
2026 Roster Thread - Semi-Live
- Latest: Pokerbrat2000
- Yesterday at 3:04 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Movies and TV shows Thread
- Latest: Pokerbrat2000
- Yesterday at 2:00 PM
Movies and Entertainment