4th Quarter QB ratings 04-12..Guess who's #1

[Aurican]

Of course using only one stat to determine which QB is better is a silly thing to do. Throw in as man stats as possible and most important, watch the guys play. Anyone who watched Romo and Pennington play are going to choose Romo as the QB they want. It helps that Romo is ranked 5th all-time in passer rating while Pennington ranks 13th.

When I saw the guys play I saw Romo as more of a playmaker who gives his team a good chance to win. Pennington needed to be surrounded by playmakers to get the most out of him. One stat that shows that is TD%, which also is part of the passer rating. Romo is ranked 27th all-time in TD%(5.5%) while Pennington is ranked 119th(4.1%). That means Romo throws a TD once every 18.3 pass attempts. Pennington threw a TD once every 24.2 pass attempts.

I agree with most of what you said, the problem with stats is you can break them down and manipulate them to make them say what you want. There are too many that rely on stats alone to give them an opinion on who is good or better which is not always the case, the best way is to see things as a whole and make your opinion based on that.

 

[percyhoward]

I would think having Romo and Pennington as 5th and 13th all time respectively would be enough to show most its a flawed stat but I'll take it further if you like.

I'll try to clear up your cross-era confusion.

Brunell is ahead of Staubach on the list you're talking about. That doesn't make passer rating a bad stat.

Passer rating says Staubach was the highest-rated passer in the NFL four times. Only once was Brunell ever rated higher than 7th. People often lump QB from different eras together because it's easy, or they're lazy, or just don't know any better. They don't realize they're falsely assuming a guy like Brunell would have won multiple passing titles if only he had played in the 1970s.

To do that is to make bad use of a good stat. "All-time passer rating" is a meaningless list based on the misuse of a good stat.

There is no individual stat that has a significantly higher correlation with team success than passer rating. So it's actually a very good stat. One of the best.

 

[gbrittain]

I would think having Romo and Pennington as 5th and 13th all time respectively would be enough to show most its a flawed stat but I'll take it further if you like. Rivers is listed 6th all time, Schaub is listed 11th, Culpepper 14th and Jeff Garcia is 15th all time. I could go on with more hilarity like David Garrard being 23rd all time or Jason Campbell being above Matt Hasselbeck and Troy Aikman at 41 but I'll leave it at that.

Now let me ask do you believe these are truly the best QB's to ever play or is the stat flawed?

PercyHoward has already showed that comparing different eras is a no go...so I do not need to beat that horse to death.

Among the 10 active QBs with the highest QB rating there are 9 Super Bowl victories represented (Rodgers x 1, Brady x 3, Manning x 1, Brees x 1, Roethlisberger x 2, Flacco x 1).

So 60% of the QBs that currently have a top 10 active QB rating have won a Super Bowl.

Exactly one QB has won a Super Bowl that is not ranked in the top 10 and that is Eli Manning.

 

[TwoDeep3]

Stats are what the loser uses to argue why his team, or player was actually better, even though the results showed they were not.

Sometime like a blind date when you're told, "He or She is a real fun person."

That is a stat of sorts because if you're out for looks, someone is trying to sell a used car in that scenario.

 

[Section446]

And yet he's found a way to choke the season away two straight years. Nothing will change until the guy is out the gate, and we get a QB with a spine.

 

[Eskimo]

Say what you will, but the truth is no matter what had happened in that game up to that point, .. no matter what had happened up to that game during the season, .. Romo got the ball back with a perfect opportunity to win the game, win the division, make the playoffs, and shut up all of the critics.

I hate what happened after that, but it is what it is.

He had that chance but without Dez, Harris and Miles, without a running game and poor pass blocking. It was near a miracle that he got us the other TD but that's a pretty tall task to go down the field with Beasley and Otree as your main targets at WR in that situation.

I think it is that very situation which made the team go out and draft Terance Williams.

 

[Eskimo]

I think Tony Romo is clutch.

I think Romo is clutch, too.

 

[SilverStarCowboy]

I think Romo is clutch, too.

Hold back on the anointing oil had a better ring 8 years ago....but not much better.

Wins vs Losses mean everything in the NFL, stats be damned...and remembering Wins vs Losses would serve one very well to say the least especially when deciding to break out any form of "clutch" term for a Pro Quarterback.



The last word on the bottom line is Winning PERIOD

 

[Idgit]

Hold back on the anointing oil had a better ring 8 years ago....but not much better.

Wins vs Losses mean everything in the NFL, stats be damned...and remembering Wins vs Losses would serve one very well to say the least especially when deciding to break out any form of "clutch" term for a Pro Quarterback.

The last word on the bottom line is Winning PERIOD

Romo's the 8th winningest QB in the league during his tenure as a starter. That's top 25% on a team with OL and defensive secondary issues. But then, we both know that winning's not *really* the bottom line, don't we?

Also, wins are a stat.

 

[Red Dragon]

"But can he win?"

(QB wins games)

"Yes, but can he win in December?"

(QB wins games in December)

"Yes, but can he win a playoff game?"

(QB wins a playoff game)

 

[percyhoward]

Stats are what the loser uses to argue why his team, or player was actually better, even though the results showed they were not.

There's no difference between stats and results. Stats are results. If by "results" you mean W-L, those are stats too. What you're calling the difference between "stats" and "results" is really just the difference between individual stats and team stats.

Often in a discussion about individual players, when it's pointed out that a player on a losing team has better individual stats than a player on a winning team, someone makes a post like yours without realizing that it wasn't the teams that were being compared in the first place.

 

[Red Dragon]

By the "winning is all that counts" logic, which player would you rather trade for to get on your team:

Anthony Allen, a little-known running back who has a Super Bowl ring (he was/is with the Ravens,)

or Adrian Peterson, one of the best running backs in the league today (but has never won a Super Bowl?)

 

[Idgit]

There's no difference between stats and results. Stats are results. If by "results" you mean W-L, those are stats too. What you're calling the difference between "stats" and "results" is really just the difference between individual stats and team stats.

Often in a discussion about individual players, when it's pointed out that a player on a losing team has better individual stats than a player on a winning team, someone makes a post like yours without realizing that it wasn't the teams that were being compared in the first place.

Wow. What a nicely expressed post.

 

[percyhoward]

Wow. What a nicely expressed post.

I had a moment of clarity.

 

[cowboys#1]

because we were always behind 14 in the 4th and always passed

 

[birdwells1]

"But can he win?"

(QB wins games)

"Yes, but can he win in December?"

(QB wins games in December)

"Yes, but can he win a playoff game?"

(QB wins a playoff game)

Hey leave T.J. Yates out of this.