According to their measurements, Rodgers had a 40.9 total QBR with a -1.6 points added. Points added is kind of like WAR in baseball. Basically it is a measure of how well a QB plays vs. that of an average QB. So basically what ESPN’s unicorn stat says is that in that game Aaron Rodgers was a hindrance to the Packers winning that football game.
ESPN’s Unicorn like QBR
- Thread starter Ogsponge
- Start date
XPack
Cheesehead
I've been looking at that table for 5 mins now and it still doesn't make sense.
It was that last 2 second killing heave that done it.
Media guys love to push that QBR stat, but I've never trusted it. According to the QBR, Rodgers was sub average Sunday night.
In comparison, his passer rating was 130.7.
Which stat do you think told the story more accurately?
I'd say the passer rating.
In comparison, his passer rating was 130.7.
Which stat do you think told the story more accurately?
I'd say the passer rating.
gbgary
Cheesehead
any noise from espn is invalid.
I have not willingly turned on Espn in years. Last night was one of the first, and I put it on ESPN2 to watch the Lions/Jets in spanish so I didn't have to listen to any of their shtick. their analysis and constant talk went out about 15 years ago for me
FIFY as it is a proprietary ESPN stat that last I heard they never divulged the algorithm for. Seems to rate QBs that suck the 1st 3/4 of the game then play outta their minds higher than guys that dominate from the git go and cruise with the lead during the 2nd half. Unless the data inputters feel different that day.
ETA: this is from the Dallas game last season.
Dullass led from the opening drive until 1st play of 4th qtr. Then got lead back until 11 seconds left in game. Prescott ended tied with TB12 for the 11th highest QBR for the season this game.
C/ATT YDS AVG TD INT SACKS QBR RTG
Dak Prescott 25/36 251 7.0 3 1 1-6 97.0 105.2
Aaron Rodgers 19/29 221 7.6 3 0 4-39 77.1 122.9
Last edited:
PackAttack12
R-E-L-A-X
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2016
- Messages
- 6,500
- Reaction score
- 2,157
I’ve never trusted QBR and this solidifies it for me.
That is exactly what it is but unfortunately that is subjective, for instance did Cobb make that play entirely on his own or did Rodgers put the pass in a perfect spot for Cobb to make the play? How many QB’s throw that and Cobb gets tackled or even in complete.
This is the overall problem with QBR, it is subjective but only on certain things apparently. Which is obvious in this game because they completely ignore the fact that this was all done on one leg. Everyone who watched that game realizes the single most important player on the field that night was Rodgers.
I pay attention to it because I like to ***** about ESPN trying to create a highly flawed football stat.
AmishMafia
Cheesehead
Rodgers really sucked before he was hurt in the first half. Other than the 2 turnovers, Kizer was playing better. Of course that brought his overall score down. I know I will get some wrath for this, but that is the way it was.
I guess that's a good enough reason
The reason I said "media guys" is that Skip Bayless is still a big proponent of the QBR, even though he works for Fox now. He used to work for ESPN, of course.
One difference I'm aware of is that it supposedly takes sacks into account and holds them against the quarterback.
If I know Bayless, one reason that he hangs on to the QBR is that Tom Brady usually outperforms Rodgers in that stat (which stands to reason, if sacks are emphasized).
For instance, this week Brady's QBR was 80.6, compared to Rodgers 40.1. Bayless can point to that and say "See, Brady is twice as good as Rodgers".
D
Deleted member 6794
Guest
Rodgers definitely didn't play great by any means during the first half but it's ridiculous to suggest that he was a hindrance to the Packers winning that game. In my opinion there's no other quarterback in the league being able to rally the team for a comeback win like that while playing on one leg.
AmishMafia
Cheesehead
It's a metric measured by statistics. He was a hindrance in the first half. He was amazing the 2nd half. I agree his overall performance was a positive, by I understand why a metric may not show that. His biggest contribution to the game may have been motivating the rest of the team. They all (except Clay) played better in the 2nd half and I believe he inspired that.
D
Deleted member 6794
Guest
In that case it's a terrible metric though.
Similar threads
