His first half QBR must have been horrible. I kinda agree with this though, that fumble return TD and his other fumble....... He might as well have tossed INT's.

http://scores.espn.go.com/nfl/boxscore?gameId=321111026

Bruce Irvin does not look like a bust BTW. 2 sacks along with 2 QB hits. A blank on the stat sheet for Clemons though

Meh.

Bruce is slowly becoming a beast.
Let's hope it continues.

Man, I knew it wouldn't be nearly as good as his passer rating, but 45.8 is a bit steep.

I'm still not sure how much I buy into the whole QBR thing. Just seems like it could be too subjective.

_________________
FrankerZ FrankerZ FrankerZ FrankerZ FrankerZ FrankerZ FrankerZ FrankerZ

50 is average, and considering he had that fumble return that tied the game I can see how that hurt his QBR> It's understandable.

_________________
Legal Notice: Any references made by the online entity know as SacHawk 2.0 or "Sac" in regards to "Currystopstheruns" being a pre-op tranny with an anal tampon fetish are entirely accurate.

I want road Bruce to become what home Bruce is.

_________________
@SeahawkGreg

Clem put a lick Sancho or Teebs or one of em though. He's was in there disrupting things.

_________________
Tanzania¹²

qbr is lame, sando is the only one who quotes it, cuz he made up that stupid crap to try an be relevant. It is about as important as dvoa, and upthewazzu.

I thought Trent Dilfer made it up?

And here I thought that it was Al Gore.

_________________
"Wilson will come in there pissing lightning and crapping thunder! Watch out!" ... Tech Worlds, 5/9/2012

Endzorn, 3 min. later... "Football aside, I would pay money to see that. I'm serious."

Moved to Seattle in 1980. Hawks fan for 33 years and counting.

I kinda agree with this one. That fumble was bad....... The 2nd one right after it was just as bad, only it had a different outcome. And he got sacked quite a bit too.

I'd love to see his QBR minus those 4 plays he got sacked. Probably somewhere in the 80's.

Bruce gets 2 sacks and you still want to complain about Clem?

_________________
Give me some damn skittles...

Didn't Clem cause the fumble, or was that Irvin?

_________________

R.I.P. Dad. I miss you. You will never be forgotten
1/12/39 - 8/7/08

You do know what our pass rush was like last year, correct? When Clemons was the only guy who could rush the passer?

I think we all know that the best way to have a great pass rush is to have multiple threats.

Sando didn't make that up.

Dilfer pulled it out of his butt. It's the trent Dilfer popularity gauge.

QBR is hokum.

_________________
Hodor Hodor Hodor. HODOR HODOR!! Hodor? Hodor...? HODOR HODOR!? Hodor.....

I'd prefer to use stats that are explainable. Passer rating may be arbitrary and flawed, but at least we know how it's calculated. ANYA is a great stat- it's simple to calculate and bases it's formula off of studies that determined the actual value of an interception. I see any stat that we can't calculate ourselves as being a "mystery stat."

Football outsiders and Advanced NFL stats have a lot of mystery stats, but at least they pass the eyeball test. Seattle's high scores on DVOA and individual scores for DYAR make sense, there are no results that feel wildly at odds with reality. Same thing with Advanced NFL stats individual metrics like success rate.

But QBR almost never seems to pass the eyeball test. If you watched this game, you knew that Wilson played very well. He bought time, he made perfect throws when he had to, and he was smart with the football- most of his incompletions were throw-aways. His 133 passer rating was one of the highest of the week, but his QBR was under 50, saying that he had a below average game overall. QBR might take fumbles into consideration, but if it doesn't and still thinks that, then holy crap what a worthless stat.

Just as bad is Luck's 93.7 QBR, meaning a 93.7th percentile performance, on Thursday. His line? 18/26, 227 yards, 0 TD, 1 INT, 80.1 rating. It's a high YPA performance and probably under-rated by his QB rating, but there is just no way that he had a 94th percentile performance. If Indy was 75% on 3rd downs or something that might explain things, but they were 3/11, which is below average. Really, I can't figure it out, and it makes me think their system is too flawed to take seriously.

In fairness, FO pretty much agrees with QBR with Luck v. Wilson. Luck has a big lead in DYAR and a slim lead in DVOA. The lead in DYAR makes sense- since DYAR is a counting stat- more reps = more opportunity for DYAR. The DVOA number does surprise me though. Wilson only rates +1.2%, meaning that they see him as almost dead average. That's pretty close to QBR which has him at 56.9/100 for the season, with 50 being average.

It should be noted though that play tracking is very much a subjective science. With QBR they have to make decisions about who gets the blame for a drop and also awards extra points for an undefined "clutch factor." It's not hard at all to see bias coming into play with those numbers.

_________________

"I believe there’s merit to the idea that once something in life becomes conventional, it’s no longer the safest path to success." -Matt Waldman
"If everyone's thinking alike, no one's thinking." -Bill Walsh

excellent post, and pretty much sums up my feelings about QBR. Too much vagueness and subjectivity for me to really take it seriously.

_________________
FrankerZ FrankerZ FrankerZ FrankerZ FrankerZ FrankerZ FrankerZ FrankerZ

best part of those stats: Tate's 100.0 QBR and 158.3 passer rating. I vote we start him next week.

but yeah... passer rating is complicated enough... we don't need QBR in there making things even more confusing... and i also hate the how vague it is... no one knows exactly what it actually means, i don't know if even the people at espn know what it means.


also, hello from slovenia everybody

It was Sherman who caused the fumble that was recovered by Jones IIRC. Sherman should be nominated for Defensive player of the week- if there is such an award. An INT and Sack for a CB is pretty awesome.