You said you don’t agree with it.
So what part do you not agree with?
How would you know you don’t agree with it if you don’t even know what it is?
You're hilariously missing my first point on this.
The first issue with QBR is that it isn't transparent.
Don't know what you do for a living, but it's clear you must not work much with data.
Assuming any formula is a good formula or better than nothing, is clear evidence of not understanding data.
QB rating for example isn't a perfect formula. It doesn't take much into account, particularly strength of schedule and context, but it does factor in some of the most important data points in its formula.
As I said earlier in the thread, the Packers are 11-3 and Rodgers has a 12:1 TD to INT ratio. Dak has 2 more touchdowns overall than Rodgers but has 11 interceptions compared to 2. Dak has been largely able to pad his stats in losses, while Rodgers does not have to. It is clear as day that Rodgers is having an MVP type year here. He's been largely flawless. QBR and even QB Rating, clearly aren't reflecting that nearly enough because they both weigh things inappropriately.
In the case of QB Rating, we can see clearly statistical anomalies. TDs, yards, completion percentage, against prevent defense or when trailing by large figures have no differential. There is no strength of schedule consideration.
We could forever go through the fallacy of stats in football. How does QBR account for the strength of an opponent? Is it based on yards or points?
The Cowboys are #1 in yards on offense in the league, yet they are 5th in the league in points scored. When you consider their schedule, it is even worse. The defense has a similar stumble in yards and points. Largely because the inverse of stat padding is also true for a defense.
When you look at the context you understand why we are 1-6 against teams with winning records.