Breakdown of Weeden's 108.8 season rating

[jnday]

I can't think of anyone's "eye test" that I would trust less than yours. And how many times did Weeden throw to a running back last game? Go ask a stat guy, because you clearly have no idea. Your examples are embarrassing and show that your eye tests have cataracts.

One of the stat men chimes in. Keep defending Weedan. He has a 108 QBR. I hope you realize that Dallas may not win a game until Romo returns, but Weedan's stats will look good. That is all that counts , right?

 

[percyhoward]

I made this point several times in this thread , but I got tired of arguing with the stat posters. Weedan may have a 108 QBR, but the eye test says he played bad. The eye test is when Weedan has a 3 yard completion which looks good on the stats, but the stats don't say anything about the WR or TE that was wide open for the 12 yard completion. It can be a 3rd and 8, Weedan throws to a RB 5yds down the field that is brought down immediately . The stats looks good, but the play was a failure.

Although you've ignored my last two responses to you, I assume you would consider me a "stat poster" that you get "tired of arguing with." Both of those points that you just made were already made in the OP.

With stats.

<10 yards: 37 of 41 90.2% 321 yd 7.8 ypa 0 td 0 int 99.3

League-wide, 65% of all 3rd-down completions result in a first down. Only 41.7% of Weeden's 3rd-down completions have resulted in a first down.

 

[AdamJT13]

Although you've ignored my last two responses to you, I assume you would consider me a "stat poster" that you get "tired of arguing with." Both of those points that you just made were already made in the OP.

With stats.

Some people don't realize that stats are nothing more than actually keeping track of what you see instead of just going by memory. If stats and the "eye test" don't agree, it's only because either you don't know what you're watching, you don't have an accurate memory or perception of what you're watching, or you're not looking at the right stats.

 

[percyhoward]

Some people don't realize that stats are nothing more than actually keeping track of what you see instead of just going by memory.

I've made this analogy before, but it makes me wonder if people who blow off stats also ignore the gauges in their car, and rely on their memory of when they last stopped at a gas station, how much gas they put in, and how far they've driven since then.

 

[TwoDeep3]

There is only on stat which is significant.

Weeden as a start in 2015 - 0-2.

The rest is window dressing done by the team and fans that lost.

 

[Super_Kazuya]

There is only on stat which is significant.

Weeden as a start in 2015 - 0-2.

The rest is window dressing done by the team and fans that lost.

If you're going to make a post about a lone stat, maybe it should be about a real statistic, not a phony media created one. Thanks for playing.

 

[dallasdave]

I don't care about the stat's !!! Just win the game!!!!

 

[KJJ]

Both teams had three touchdown drives. So you're saying that having Murray run for a 1-yard touchdown instead of having Romo throw a 1-yard TD pass is the reason we lost?

Rodgers led the Packers on 5 scoring drives compared to 3 scoring drives led by Romo. Despite Romo having the higher passer rating Rodgers tossed one more TD, was more efficient on 3rd down and was much more productive passing for 316 yards compared to only 191 yards for Romo. The reason Romo had the higher passer rating was he had a higher completion percentage and a QBs completion percentage has the biggest affect on their passer rating. A QB can throw for less than 100 yards and have no TDs but have a 100.0+ passer rating if they have a high completion percentage. They can dink and dunk their way to a high passer rating without ever having to lead their team on a scoring drive. Despite Romo having a higher passer rating than Rodgers Romo only attempted 7 passes in the second half and was clearly outplayed by Rodgers who lite it up.

One of Romo's 7 pass attempts in the second half was a poor decision. He chose to go to Dez with a 50-50 jump ball on a manageable 4th and 2 with just over 4 minutes to play instead of trying to pick up the first down with a high percentage throw to Witten or Beasley. Had Dez's catch not been reversed and the Cowboys scored on the next play they would have left Rodgers with plenty of time to answer. The Cowboys had a manageable 4th down and could have converted it and milked the clock leaving Murray to pound the ball in or Romo could have hit Dez on a fade in the endzone leaving the Packers little time to answer.

I didn't say they do -- which is why I personally don't use passer rating to measure a team's passing effectiveness. I'm just saying that your measurement has flaws, too. Aside from a much higher possibility of the teams finishing with the same quarterback TD-to-INT ratio, and aside from the problem of being unable to divide by zero, your theory breaks down as the difference between touchdowns increases. For example, a 3:1 ratio has a better chance of winning than a 1:0 ratio, and a 4:1 ratio has a much better chance than a 1:0 ratio, even though the 1:0 ratio is "better."

All measurements have flaws when determining wins and losses because a lot of things factor into wins and losses not just how a QB performs. Nothing correlates to winning more than TDs and not turning the ball over which is why I focus on a QBs TD to turnover ratio. No position influences the outcome of games more than the QB position. If they're throwing TDs and not turning the ball over that's going to lead to a lot of wins unless the opposing QB can match them. How a defense performs is a big part of wins and losses. A lot of things play a part in a teams W/L record but if a QB isn't consistent/efficient and commits more turnovers than puts TDs on the board their team is going to lose a majority of their games. Brandon Weeden has more turnovers than TDs over his career and his W/L record reflects it.

 

[TwoDeep3]

If you're going to make a post about a lone stat, maybe it should be about a real statistic, not a phony media created one. Thanks for playing.

What's phony about it?

This is about winning. Every player on this team that got on the field is 0-2 since Weeden took over for Romo.

Sorry if this ruffles feathers. But truth tends to do that.

 

[Super_Kazuya]

What's phony about it?

This is about winning. Every player on this team that got on the field is 0-2 since Weeden took over for Romo.

Sorry if this ruffles feathers. But truth tends to do that.

It doesn't ruffle feathers, it's just idiotic beyond comprehension. Players are perfectly capable of being evaluated on their own merits, unless you are just really, really lazy.

Over the last two games, Dan Bailey has made every field goal and extra point he has attempted, and despite the Cowboys scoring a reasonable amount of points, only TWO of his kickoffs have even been returned. Is Dan Bailey 0-2? To a really, really dumb and lazy person, yes.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

Good news is, with the way Weeden is playing, if the pass rush comes alive, the Cowboys can win some games.

 

[TwoDeep3]

It doesn't ruffle feathers, it's just idiotic beyond comprehension. Players are perfectly capable of being evaluated on their own merits, unless you are just really, really lazy.

Over the last two games, Dan Bailey has made every field goal and extra point he has attempted, and despite the Cowboys scoring a reasonable amount of points, only TWO of his kickoffs have even been returned. Is Dan Bailey 0-2? To a really, really dumb and lazy person, yes.

I am neither lazy, nor dumb.

That fact is this entire team is 0-2 since Romo went out.

There is a saying, once attributed by Mark Twain to Benjamin Disreali that goes like this.

"There are statistics, damned statistics, and lies."

Disreali may not have really said that.

In this case, there is no way of getting past the truth, which is this team, from Jerry Jones to the ball boy are 0-2 since Romo went down. This has nothing to do with pet cats, or trying to make a diamond out of bull droppings.

For a decade there have been people trying to make this case with Romo. But the facts are the facts.

And this fact is this team has not won a game since Romo went down. That includes Weeden and his throwing underneath stats.

Notice how I responded without insulting you.

 

[KJJ]

Good news is, with the way Weeden is playing, if the pass rush comes alive, the Cowboys can win some games.

I have a feeling his 108.8 passer rating will be a little lower after tomorrow.

 

[Super_Kazuya]

I am neither lazy, nor dumb.

That fact is this entire team is 0-2 since Romo went out.

There is a saying, once attributed by Mark Twain to Benjamin Disreali that goes like this.

"There are statistics, damned statistics, and lies."

Disreali may not have really said that.

In this case, there is no way of getting past the truth, which is this team, from Jerry Jones to the ball boy are 0-2 since Romo went down. This has nothing to do with pet cats, or trying to make a diamond out of bull droppings.

For a decade there have been people trying to make this case with Romo. But the facts are the facts.

And this fact is this team has not won a game since Romo went down. That includes Weeden and his throwing underneath stats.

Notice how I responded without insulting you.

There is not a single fact in anything you said. And you are changing your story to the "Cowboys are 0-2" from "Weeden is 0-2" which is clearly what you are trying to say, but you realize it's lazy analysis.

Wins and losses for players are lazy stats. They are phony, made up, and have no official recognition or definition by the NFL. You can do better, but you have to try. You can't just be lazy and expect people to take you seriously.

 

[TwoDeep3]

There is not a single fact in anything you said. And you are changing your story to the "Cowboys are 0-2" from "Weeden is 0-2" which is clearly what you are trying to say, but you realize it's lazy analysis.

Wins and losses for players are lazy stats. They are phony, made up, and have no official recognition or definition by the NFL. You can do better, but you have to try. You can't just be lazy and expect people to take you seriously.

Try as you might, you still support an untenable position by trying to rewrite the truth. Weeden is 0-2. No stat changes that. Your straw man "lazy" concept is just sleight-of-hand. A way to divert the eye away from what is an immutable truth. Which is essentially what stats proffered by the fans of losing teams do.

As far as taking me seriously. This is an opinion site full of people trying to lay claim to knowledge gained as observers. There is nothing serious about this endeavor.

You have your opinion. I find it as I do most of these opinions trying to somehow justify Weeden by a stat. He is a back-up, and frankly the wrong back-up. That does not discount he is playing without Dez and a REAL running game. He is merely a guy with enough talent to get a job standing and watching, and when called upon to actually play, he delivers no special skill set that wins games.

He is not a play maker.

I'd call him, a bus driver, but then that would severely insult Ralph Cramden.

 

[dallasdave]

One of the stat men chimes in. Keep defending Weedan. He has a 108 QBR. I hope you realize that Dallas may not win a game until Romo returns, but Weedan's stats will look good. That is all that counts , right?

 

[jnday]

I am neither lazy, nor dumb.

That fact is this entire team is 0-2 since Romo went out.

There is a saying, once attributed by Mark Twain to Benjamin Disreali that goes like this.

"There are statistics, damned statistics, and lies."

Disreali may not have really said that.

In this case, there is no way of getting past the truth, which is this team, from Jerry Jones to the ball boy are 0-2 since Romo went down. This has nothing to do with pet cats, or trying to make a diamond out of bull droppings.

For a decade there have been people trying to make this case with Romo. But the facts are the facts.

And this fact is this team has not won a game since Romo went down. That includes Weeden and his throwing underneath stats.

Notice how I responded without insulting you.

You went out if way not to insult him, as many of us has, and I can promise you that he won't return favor. I agree with your point about the whole team being 0-2 since Weedan has took over. There should not be any debate about it. Weedan brought his losing ways to Dallas from Cleveland. There are many reasons that he had such poor success. I really don't need stats to see that.

 

[jnday]

I have a feeling his 108.8 passer rating will be a little lower after tomorrow.

I have that same feeling. I wonder what the excuses will be when the stats finally reflect his play. I am sure there will be some entertaining posts.

 

[Super_Kazuya]

I have that same feeling. I wonder what the excuses will be when the stats finally reflect his play. I am sure there will be some entertaining posts.

Maybe they'll just disappear from the board for a long time, like you did while Romo lit it up last year and made all of your thousands of posts about him look even more stupid than they already did. I kept waiting for you and the ufc troll to come out of hiding as the team's wins piled up last year, but you two must have found a nice comfy spot under that cowardly rock you eventually crawled out from.

 

[AdamJT13]

Rodgers led the Packers on 5 scoring drives compared to 3 scoring drives led by Romo. Despite Romo having the higher passer rating Rodgers tossed one more TD, was more efficient on 3rd down and was much more productive passing for 316 yards compared to only 191 yards for Romo. The reason Romo had the higher passer rating was he had a higher completion percentage and a QBs completion percentage has the biggest affect on their passer rating. A QB can throw for less than 100 yards and have no TDs but have a 100.0+ passer rating if they have a high completion percentage. They can dink and dunk their way to a high passer rating without ever having to lead their team on a scoring drive. Despite Romo having a higher passer rating than Rodgers Romo only attempted 7 passes in the second half and was clearly outplayed by Rodgers who lite it up.

Like I said, I'm well aware of passer rating's flaws, which is why I use my own stat.

All measurements have flaws when determining wins and losses because a lot of things factor into wins and losses not just how a QB performs. Nothing correlates to winning more than TDs and not turning the ball over which is why I focus on a QBs TD to turnover ratio. No position influences the outcome of games more than the QB position. If they're throwing TDs and not turning the ball over that's going to lead to a lot of wins unless the opposing QB can match them. How a defense performs is a big part of wins and losses. A lot of things play a part in a teams W/L record but if a QB isn't consistent/efficient and commits more turnovers than puts TDs on the board their team is going to lose a majority of their games. Brandon Weeden has more turnovers than TDs over his career and his W/L record reflects it.

Yes, all stats are flawed in that they can't tell the whole story by themselves, but TD-to-INT ratio is fundamentally flawed. Do you really think one TD and no turnovers is better than five TDs and one turnover? Seriously? And do you really think that if Romo had thrown a 1-yard TD pass to Murray against the Packers instead of handing it off to him for a 1-yard touchdown, that we would not have lost?