Breakdown of Weeden's 108.8 season rating

[windward]

Precisely why I have never put much stock into the quarterback rating formula or statistic.

It has an extremely high correlation to winning and losing games.

It's your loss if you don't want to put much stock in it.

 

[windward]

Does that accusation have any proof with it?

The only manipulating I can see is from Section 444

 

[Doomsay]

Ah, thanks. That makes sense, if they were talking about an adjustment they made for that specific player. I can definitely see that.

The Durant quote is gets to more of what I was talking about, and it's a more general comment about their defense:



As I said, several players confirmed that, schematically, they didn't really change much at all (beyond your point re: Dunbar). They really were just keeping containment better and tackling where they were out of position earlier in the game and Dunbar made them pay for it.

I just told you how they changed.

 

[Idgit]

Have to laugh at those that claim eye tests are subjective then claim that 'their' eyes see better.

Here we go again with Percy manipulating statistics again. No QB in Cowboys history has ever been a poor player.

I'd be bummed if I had to respond to percy, too, guys. Better to try to make a broad comment about stat manipulation and hope that nobody calls you on the fact that percy never actually does that than to try to refute what he's saying with an iota of actual support.

The data is the data. This guy is smart enough to present you with the data. You have two choices: point out where the data is wrong, or convince us you have a better interpretation. Well, three choices, I guess, if you want to fall back and try to explain yet again how you can magically eyeball something better than somebody else can carefully measure it. Yawn.

There are posters here perfectly capable of making the argument that Weeden stinks despite his ratings and his splits. Somebody do that, because this stamping your feet but offering nothing in return isn't impressing anybody.

 

[Idgit]

I just told you how they changed.

Ah, ok. The person covering Dunbar cheated up on him. Granted.

That's not a point I would have disputed. The larger point is that they weren't changing their scheme or their coverages or who was responsible for whom, or start blitzing more, or less, or anything like that. The person responsible for Dunbar cheated up, and the rest of them just played better gap control and tackled better than they had in the first half.

 

[jobberone]

Here we go again with Percy manipulating statistics again. No QB in Cowboys history has ever been a poor player.

I've never seen PH manipulate anything. So not only is that not accurate it is a covert personal attack. I've had an occasional disagreement with him but it is on the use of stats and what they mean.

If you don't like what he has to say then I'd challenge him more constructively as in this is why stats aren't always a clear window into the machinery. I've not read the entire thread BTW and this is as a member not staff.

 

[TwentyOne]

You can bet Bellicheat will know this and force Weeds to throw outside the hash.

He knows our complete gameplan. He knows every play we are going to use on every down.

 

[burmafrd]

Ah, thanks. That makes sense, if they were talking about an adjustment they made for that specific player. I can definitely see that.

The Durant quote is gets to more of what I was talking about, and it's a more general comment about their defense:



As I said, several players confirmed that, schematically, they didn't really change much at all (beyond your point re: Dunbar). They really were just keeping containment better and tackling where they were out of position earlier in the game and Dunbar made them pay for it.

you do realize sometimes a very minor adjustment can have big effects, right? Dunbar had been hurting them and they took him out of it. No one else stepped up so that was enough. Like how you ignore this:

That cheating up made the Falcons susceptible to a deep pass, but Cowboys quarterback Brandon Weeden rarely took the opportunity and never connected. His only completion of more than 20 yards came on a catch-and-run by Dunbar.


THAT is what is meant by stat lying. THEY knew what was important and gambled that one play really meant nothing and they were right.

 

[jnday]

It has an extremely high correlation to winning and losing games.

It's your loss if you don't want to put much stock in it.

Roger Staubach was one of the best QBs in the history of this league, but his QB rating would be horrible compared to any of the current QBs playing. Since these numbers mean so much, should I assume that he was really that bad? I know what your answer will be, but numbers don't lie, or at least that is what I am reading in this thread.

 

[dallasdave]

Roger Staubach was one of the best QBs in the history of this league, but his QB rating would be horrible compared to any of the current QBs playing. Since these numbers mean so much, should I assume that he was really that bad? I know what your answer will be, but numbers don't lie, or at least that is what I am reading in this thread.

Well said indeed sir, stats don't win games, winners do, like Staubach and Aikman !!!

 

[Idgit]

you do realize sometimes a very minor adjustment can have big effects, right? Dunbar had been hurting them and they took him out of it. No one else stepped up so that was enough. Like how you ignore this:

That cheating up made the Falcons susceptible to a deep pass, but Cowboys quarterback Brandon Weeden rarely took the opportunity and never connected. His only completion of more than 20 yards came on a catch-and-run by Dunbar..

Who do you think they had covering Lance Dunbar, burm?

 

[dallasdave]

I

Roger Staubach was one of the best QBs in the history of this league, but his QB rating would be horrible compared to any of the current QBs playing. Since these numbers mean so much, should I assume that he was really that bad? I know what your answer will be, but numbers don't lie, or at least that is what I am reading in this thread.

I fixed my spelling on that reply, sorry.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

As I recall, prior to the last 91 yard drive against the Saints, Weeden had completed less than 60 percent for less than 200 yards. The last drive bolstered his game rating, largely because the coaches weren't able to constrain him as much as they had been. Unfortunately, the Cowboys never got the ball again after that.

 

[percyhoward]

Roger Staubach was one of the best QBs in the history of this league, but his QB rating would be horrible compared to any of the current QBs playing.

That's not because of any flaw with the statistic, it's because of the difference in eras. Staubach led the NFL in passer rating four times. According to the statistic, he was the best passer of his era.

NFL average passer rating:
1977 60.7
2014 88.9

Staubach's 87.0 rating in 1977 is the equivalent of a 115.8 rating in 2014.

 

[casmith07]

The Weeden game is strictly down the middle and mainly to the right side line...and that makes defending the run a ton easier as well.

Teams are just starting to wait until the second half and adjust to handling the Dallas weakness and then tiring out the short manned defensive front.

Check and roger.

 

[jnday]

Percy, I tried to reply to your post , but this phone wouldn't let me. The foments that you made have proved my point. The stats don't show the differences in the era , so that tells me that stats don't tell the whole story. I knew your response would show the flaw in the stats argument and it has. Stats leave out certain situations and conditions that can effect winning. Stats would lead evto believe that Roger wasn't a great QB, but my eyes tell me a different story .

 

[dallasdave]

Percy, I tried to reply to your post , but this phone wouldn't let me. The foments that you made have proved my point. The stats don't show the differences in the era , so that tells me that stats don't tell the whole story. I knew your response would show the flaw in the stats argument and it has. Stats leave out certain situations and conditions that can effect winning. Stats would lead evto believe that Roger wasn't a great QB, but my eyes tell me a different story .

 

[windward]

Roger Staubach was one of the best QBs in the history of this league, but his QB rating would be horrible compared to any of the current QBs playing. Since these numbers mean so much, should I assume that he was really that bad? I know what your answer will be, but numbers don't lie, or at least that is what I am reading in this thread.

You can only compare passer rating to how they compared with their peers. Staubach was the highest rated passer in the league when he retired, so yes there was a high correlation to winning games even then.

 

[windward]

Well said indeed sir, stats don't win games, winners do, like Staubach and Aikman !!!

Some stats indicate which team wins 85 percent of the time, too. Passer rating is one such metric.

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

45 of 59 76.3% 551 yd 9.3 ypa 2 td 1 int 108.8

by direction
left :1 of 8 12.5% 67 yd 8.4 ypa 0 td 1 int 22.4
middle: 34 of 36 94.4% 356 yd 9.9 ypa 1 td 0 int 117.1
right: 10 of 14 71.4% 128 yd 9.1 ypa td 0 int 123.5

by target distance
<10 yards: 37 of 41 90.2% 321 yd 7.8 ypa 0 td 0 int 99.3
10-19 yards: 5 of 10 50.0% 118 yd 11.8 ypa 1 td 1 int 86.7
20+ yards: 3 of 7 42.9% 112 yd 16.0 ypa 1 td 0 int 129.5

by target
Witten 11 of 15 73.3% 129 yd 8.6 ypa 0 td 1 int 71.2
Beasley 12 of 12 100% 126 yd 10.5 ypa 0 td 0 int 110.4
Dunbar 12 of 12 100% 106 yd 8.8 ypa 0 td 0 int 103.5
Williams 4 of 13 30.8% 91 yd 7.0 ypa 2 td 0 int 96.5
Randle 2 of 2 for 18 yd
Escobar 1 of 2 for 3 yd
Butler 1 of 1 for 67 yd
Hanna 1 of 1 for 7 yd
Clutts 1 of 1 for 4 yd

by down (conversion %)
1st: 11 of 18 61.1% 159 yd 8.8 ypa 0 td 1 int 66.7 (38.9%)
2nd: 21 of 25 84% 237 yd 9.5 0 td 0 int 106.2 (46.2%)
3rd: 12 of 14 85.7% 138 yd 9.9 1 td 0 int 131.5 (27.8%)
4th: 1 of 2 50% 17 yd 8.5 ypa 1 td 0 int 118.8 (50%)

by quarter
1st: 10 of 11 90.9% 110 yd 10.0 ypa 0 td 0 int 108.3
2nd: 11 of 15 73.3% 120 yd 8.0 ypa 0 td 1 int 68.8
3rd: 9 of 14 64.3% 138 yd 9.9 ypa 0 td 0 int 96.7
4th: 15 of 19 78.9% 183 yd 9.6 ypa 2 td 0 int 141.9

11.9% of Weeden's attempts have been to targets 20+ yards downfield. That's more than Eli (10.5%), Brees (10.2%), and Rodgers (8.9%).

Only 13.4% of Weeden's attempts have come off of play action. That's less than Ryan (19.7%), Rodgers (18.9%), and Brady (18.7%)

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.

Over the last two games, Dallas' average gain on a 1st- or 2nd-down run is 5.2 yards, which leads the league. The Cowboys' 14 first downs on 1st- or 2nd-down runs ties for the league lead with the Chiefs. 13 of the 14 first downs have come in the first half of games. In Weeden's two starts, Dallas' average gain on a 1st- or 2nd-down run in the first half of games is 7.2 yards (1st). In the second half of games it's 1.4 yards (32nd).

You ruin ever thing!