Breakdown of Weeden's 108.8 season rating

windward

NFL Historian
Messages
18,681
Reaction score
4,533
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 .

An incorrect reading of the stats would lead one to believe that Roger wasn't a great Qb. If Roger put up an 87 rating Ina given game and Jim Hart put up a 53, the odds are that Dallas would win the game. If Hart puts up a 100 rating odds are that the Cardinals would have won.
 

Idgit

Fattening up
Staff member
Messages
58,971
Reaction score
60,826
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
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 .

It's the differential between the competing teams that matters and not the QBs actual number when it comes to measuring relative effectiveness.

The fact that QBs get more efficient after fifty years of coaching shouldn't surprise you. But there's nothing about the statistical measurement that suggests Roger wasn't a great in his time. The stats confirm your own recollections in this case. Percy's right, again.
 

Rogerthat12

DWAREZ
Messages
14,604
Reaction score
9,988
There pre- snap looks were fairly similar - but the LB's and SS consistently let their assignments run past them down field and focused on containing the underneath routes. On the runs, while they started with 7-8 men close to the LOS in the fist half - not everybody seem to be playing the run 100% post snap. In the 2nd half they often had 9 guys playing run first on many if not most running plays.

Falcons explain what changed in second half in win over Cowboys: 'We had to respect the speed and start cheating up'
Falcons defensive lineman Jonathan Babineaux said stopping the run was just a matter of realizing what run plays the Cowboys were using. Moore said stopping the short passes to Dunbar was a matter of cheating up.

"With Dunbar, his speed, we knew what we were facing," Moore said. "Once he gets out of the backfield, they like to bubble him a lot and most of the time matchup him up against linebackers. We had to respect the speed and start cheating up on him a lot."

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.

"They weren't trying to beat us down the field at all," Allen said.

http://www.***BANNED-URL***/sports/...o-respect-the-speed-and-start-cheating-up.ece

Just don't waste your time!

Dan Quinn has already indicated in interviews and on his coaches show the defense made minor adjustments to take away underneath routes to Dunbar and Beasley, what was caught was for a short gain.

They also attacked the line and attacked the runner.

Certainly they played soundly as well by tackling better but the simple adjustments frustrated and also exposed the tendencies they noted and shut down the running game and underneath stuff, resulting in 4 passes to Beasley, no other receivers.

The reason it worked is because the down field game was not attempted and what was successful was being frustrated, these were not all self-inflicted.

Predictable run calls every first down backed up down and distance as well.

I give Atlanta credit for outplaying and making the necessary adjustments regardless of how extensive the adjustments were accordingly.

Surely, the Cowboys own mistakes were on display at various times but failing to attack down field was a huge and critical mistake!

The offense had 19 snaps with 52 yards of offense and ZERO scores in the entire second half.

Atlanta dominated our offense in the second half, just like the defense.

For perspective: The Falcons were ranked 29th against the pass playing the same two teams the Cowboys beat with Tony Romo at the helm.
 
Last edited:

percyhoward

Research Tool
Messages
17,062
Reaction score
21,861
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 .
Think about why the average ratings of the 70's were 20-30 points lower than the ratings of today. Explain why you think this shows a flaw in passer rating rather than a difference in eras. Explain how a stat that says Staubach led the NFL four different times is telling us anything other than "he was a great QB."

And please, don't just take my word for it. Read up on it.

https://instantreplay1.wordpress.com/tag/era-adjusted-passer-rating/
http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/content/yearly-league-wide-passer-rating-passer-rating/6205/
http://www.si.com/more-sports/2011/06/23/most-importantstatpasserratingdifferential
 

percyhoward

Research Tool
Messages
17,062
Reaction score
21,861
The fact that QBs get more efficient after fifty years of coaching shouldn't surprise you.
People also point to the rule changes that favored the passing game. Whatever the cause, there's no denying that the average passer rating has gone up 20-30 points since Staubach played.

To look at in another way, there's no logical reason to think a player who led the NFL in passer rating four times (Staubach) would be just an average Joe if he played today. To look at it yet another way, if we switch all the QB who played in 2014 with all the QB who played in 1977, and Staubach still ranked no higher than about 20th, who in the blazes are those 19 other guys ahead of him, and what makes them so much better in 2014 that doesn't make Staubach better too?
 

Idgit

Fattening up
Staff member
Messages
58,971
Reaction score
60,826
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
People also point to the rule changes that favored the passing game. Whatever the cause, there's no denying that the average passer rating has gone up 20-30 points since Staubach played.

To look at in another way, there's no logical reason to think a player who led the NFL in passer rating four times (Staubach) would be just an average Joe if he played today. To look at it yet another way, if we switch all the QB who played in 2014 with all the QB who played in 1977, and Staubach still ranked no higher than about 20th, who in the blazes are those 19 other guys ahead of him, and what makes them so much better in 2014 that doesn't make Staubach better too?

Yep. Didn't think about the rule changes, but that's obviously a huge issue.

I know just from watching my kid's HS wrestling team how much better these guys are in terms of skills than we were, and I was on a perennial State contender myself back in the day. Just having video and improvements to conditioning and nutrition have made huge differences. Having kids start early and get coaching all their lives so that they've been doing it for, literally, 15 years before they even get into high school. Progress from watching the greats who've done it before and learning from them and improving with time ought to be expected. It takes nothing from the greats of the prior era. They were doing the same thing with the tools available to them at the time. That's how evolution works.
 

KJJ

You Have an Axe to Grind
Messages
62,163
Reaction score
39,424
Weeden's 108.8 passer rating is a perfect example of why I don't put much stock in passer rating stats.
 

ScipioCowboy

More than meets the eye.
Messages
25,266
Reaction score
17,597
Weeden has a 108.8 passer rating and is 0-2....case closed!

Because the opponent quarterback had a higher rating in each game. In fact, the cowboys are 2-0 this year in games in which they have a higher pass efficiency rating than their competition and 0-2 in games in which they don't.
 

Dodger12

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,142
Reaction score
3,532
Weeden has a 108.8 passer rating and is 0-2....case closed!

He could very easily be 2 and 0 with that passer rating but the question is how he got there. He dink and dunked his way there. There is a difference. He never challenged downfield against Atlanta which made the offense completely sputter in the seond half so that rating means very little as opposed to how you got it.

If a QB is 10 for 10 with 10 total yards and 1 TD, his passer rating is 112.5. That's just not acceptable but you'd never know it by just the passer rating.
 

RunDMC

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,407
Reaction score
2,286
He could very easily be 2 and 0 with that passer rating but the question is how he got there. He dink and dunked his way there. There is a difference. He never challenged downfield against Atlanta which made the offense completely sputter in the seond half so that rating means very little as opposed to how you got it.

If a QB is 10 for 10 with 10 total yards and 1 TD, his passer rating is 112.5. That's just not acceptable but you'd never know it by just the passer rating.

There were just so many open receivers down the field. They have just had no trouble getting down field without that overrated bum Dez Bryant. Terrance is so good catching with his hands, in traffic, and such a precise route runner. Brice Butler has looked like Randy Moss out there taking the tops off a defensive and that bum Weeden can't get him the football. Then you have our awesome backs who have made all forget about DeMarco Murray. There is our offensive line making the 90's great Wall of Dallas look like a bunch of scrubs.
 

KJJ

You Have an Axe to Grind
Messages
62,163
Reaction score
39,424
Because the opponent quarterback had a higher rating in each game. In fact, the cowboys are 2-0 this year in games in which they have a higher pass efficiency rating than their competition and 0-2 in games in which they don't.

I've listed a bunch of games in Romo's career where he had a higher passer rating than the opposing QB and still lost. All you have to do is go back to the playoffs last season he had a much higher passer rating than Aaron Rodgers but lost. He's lost 2 playoffs games where his passer rating was higher than the winning QB.
 

KJJ

You Have an Axe to Grind
Messages
62,163
Reaction score
39,424
He could very easily be 2 and 0 with that passer rating but the question is how he got there. He dink and dunked his way there. There is a difference. He never challenged downfield against Atlanta which made the offense completely sputter in the seond half so that rating means very little as opposed to how you got it.

If a QB is 10 for 10 with 10 total yards and 1 TD, his passer rating is 112.5. That's just not acceptable but you'd never know it by just the passer rating.

The passer rating stat is flawed a QB can dink and dunk their way to a high passer rating because a QBs completion percentage plays a big part in the rating. A QB can still end up with 100+ passer rating despite a couple of turnovers if they have a real high completion percentage.
 

ScipioCowboy

More than meets the eye.
Messages
25,266
Reaction score
17,597
The passer rating stat is flawed a QB can dink and dunk their way to a high passer rating because a QBs completion percentage plays a big part in the rating. A QB can still end up with 100+ passer rating despite a couple of turnovers if they have a real high completion percentage.

I don't doubt it has flaws, but it still has a very high correlation to winning.
 
Top