kearly wrote:It's really ironic that a stat designed to be the eyeball test stat is the worst stat in the world at reflecting the eyeball test.
QBR is FAR from perfect, but it's meant to factor in alot of things. I like the concerpt but it needs tweaking. QBR helps in 3 situations I think:1. QB's that dont put up great numbers but are clutch. QBR can tell you this while traditional QBR cant. See Eli Manning, Andrew Luck
2. QB's that have great passer ratings, but fail when it matters most. QBR can tell you this while traditinal QBR cant. See Tony Romo
3. QB's that run/scramble to put thier team in position to win. QBR can tell you this while traditional QBR cant. See RG3, Michael Vick and Russel Wilson.
QBR rewards players who have 3 terrible quarters and 1 good quarter.
I don't believe in rewarding players who are "clutch", if they're bad for the first 3 quarters.
Rewarding a player like Wilson for a clutch performance against New England or Chicago I agree with - because he was good for the first 3 quarters but when the game came down to the wire he took them over the edge.
Awarding Andrew Luck a 47.2 QB rating (slightly below average) for a game in which he threw 27 of 50 with 2 TDs for Indianaopolis and 2 TDs for New England (and a further interception on top of that), but giving Russell Wilson a 45.8 when he threw 2 TDs for Seattle and 0 for New York (but did fumble twice, one of which was recovered by NY and returned for a TD - however, fumble recoveries are a crapshoot and in comparison to poor decisions throwing the ball, is a lot less culpable for the QB) on a 12 of 19 for 188 yard performance was enough to tell me it's nowhere near good enough yet