Breakdown of Weeden's 108.8 season rating

[Doomsday101]

Personally I think Weedon has done all he can. What you and too many others refuse to see is that we need more from him and there is none. You can whine and cry about the D as much as you want but it does not matter.

I disagree, I think coaches will open things up a bit more for Weeden. Their main priority was for him not to turn the ball over and he has been pretty secure with the ball. This past game they were a bit more aggressive and I think they will try to open things up a bit more. Saying I can cry about the defense? why not you guys are crying about Weeden. Fact is defense has stunk thus far, we are in the lower half of sacks, in turnover and 3rd down stops that is not a defense that is a fricken turn style. Defense can't just stand there and not do their part in these games.

 

[Doomsday101]

The passing game under Weeden has really been assisted by post catch receiving yards. While he ranks 3rd in yards per attempt, he ranks 31st in Yards in the Air as a % of total passing yards. Brandon is really going to miss Dunbar's YAC, arguably our offensive MVP up till now.

Yeah and Tom Brady makes a living off the short balls to Edelman that is why he leads his team with 30 catches. I agree that Dallas needs to take the ball down the field more but throwing short balls to help move the chains I don't think is a bad thing and frankly the majority of passes most QB throw are shorter passes.

 

[Doomsday101]

Don't disagree but Weeden is not a rookie. Either the staff had him play conservative or that's just his game. Either way it doesn't bode well. Weeden is catching hell because the way he plays makes our offense too easy to defend.

No he is not a rookie and I do think much of this has been coaches being conservative. Weeden has the arm to throw the deep balls but decision making in the past I think did effect how the coaches were going to play Weeden. I knew when he took over they would have to lean more on the defense and fact is most here was saying the same thing. Weeden has started 2 game offense has put up 28 and 20 points what has the defense done? Weeden is not going to carry this team Dallas must get something out of this defense. We don't get sacks, we don't get turnovers and we can't stop teams on 3rd down yet it is Weeden fault? He is doing what is normally expected out of a backup QB. Even Cassel when he was in NE was not setting the league on fire, he played within the system and the rest of the team was expected to do their jobs. His 1st 3 games Belicheck played very conservative with him none of the 1st 3 games he played did he even have 200 yards passing.

 

[Super_Kazuya]

The passing game under Weeden has really been assisted by post catch receiving yards. While he ranks 3rd in yards per attempt, he ranks 31st in Yards in the Air as a % of total passing yards. Brandon is really going to miss Dunbar's YAC, arguably our offensive MVP up till now.

It's an interesting stat for sure, but I'm not sure what to make of it. If you look at the list, generally the higher you go the worse the quarterback is, so I'm not sure Weeden's rank means anything. I do think it's interesting that the two quarterbacks who sit at about 50% are Tom Brady and Aaron Rodgers.

 

[Doomsay]

It's an interesting stat for sure, but I'm not sure what to make of it. If you look at the list, generally the higher you go the worse the quarterback is, so I'm not sure Weeden's rank means anything. I do think it's interesting that the two quarterbacks who sit at about 50% are Tom Brady and Aaron Rodgers.

The differential is really interesting, most of the leading Y/att QB's are in the top half of % of the yards though the air measurement, while Weeden and Rivers are near the bottom. Beasley and Dunbar have been really productive in terms of YAC.

 

[burmafrd]

bottom line is that Weedon has to go deep and complete deep balls to free up the running game. I just do not think he can do it without throwing pics.

 

[KJJ]

YOU brought it up. It's on you to show what the correlation is. You said there was a higher correlation on Td to turnover ratio than passer rating. Well, what is it?

I said there's a higher correlation to winning with a QBs TD to turnover ratio than there is with their passer rating and it's based on my opinion from the research I've done examining the playoffs and SBs. It's all based on opinion. It would be very difficult if not impossible to come up with data that proves a QBs passer rating correlates to winning more than their TD to turnover ratio and vise versa. A QBs passer rating and TD to turnover ratio go hand in hand because for a QB to have a high passer rating they can't have many turnovers unless some of their turnovers are by way of lost fumbles which doesn't affect their passer rating. Again, that's one of the flaws of a passer rating it doesn't take into account all of a QBs turnovers. In last years SB Russell Wilson had a higher passer rating than Tom Brady but the Seahawks lost due to Wilson's only turnover. Brady had 2 turnovers in the SB but tossed 4 TDs. Wilson only had 2 TDs which made it harder to overcome his one turnover which came at the worse possible time. To give you the true scope of how misleading a QBs passer rating is Romo's career passer rating is currently #2 all-time but from 2010 to 2013 he had a losing record.

In 2011 Romo had a 102.5 passer rating which was his career high at the time but the Cowboys only won 8 games that season. If you examine Romo's record you'll see that's he's lost a number of games where he finished with a higher passer rating than the winning QB but in some of those games his TD to turnover ratio wasn't very good. In Romo's first 3 seasons he suffered 32 fumbles losing 12 of them which again didn't have any affect on his passer rating. There's a lot of fans who don't put much weight in passer rating stats. I certainly don't consider it a worthless stat but I don't put near as much stock into it as some others because it's flawed which makes it misleading. A QB can have a 100.0+ passer rating without even throwing a TD provided they don't suffer any int's and have a high completion percentage.

In 2011 Kyle Orton who was playing for the Chiefs had a 104.1 passer rating vs Green Bay without throwing a single TD because he didn't suffer any turnovers and completed almost 75% of his passes. If a QB has a rushing TD like Russell Wilson has 11 times during his career that has no affect on their passer rating. A QBs TD to turnover ratio takes into account "all" their TDs and turnovers. One reason Aaron Rodgers has been so successful is because he has such an impressive TD to turnover ratio. In 2011 he led the Packers to a 15-1 record despite having the 32nd ranked defense that was historically bad due primarily to his 45-6 TD to turnover ratio. When a QB is throwing TDs and is rarely turning the ball over that's going to lead to a lot of wins.

 

[TrailBlazer]

This is why you have to watch games instead of stat sheets.

 

[Idgit]

This is why you have to watch games instead of stat sheets.

Thing is, the guys who watch the stats sheets also tend to be the guys who watch the games multiple times.

 

[percyhoward]

To give you the true scope of how misleading a QBs passer rating is Romo's career passer rating is currently #2 all-time but from 2010 to 2013 he had a losing record.

That's not a "true scope" because it only looks at half the picture. A "true scope" would include both quarterbacks' passer ratings -- yours and your opponent's.

This is a true scope.

Opposing QB's Rating
(aka Defensive Passer Rating)
2010-13
1 Seattle 75.3
2 Pittsburgh 76.6
3 Baltimore 77.1
4 Chicago 77.8
5 NY Jets 78.0
6 San Francisco 79.3
7 Arizona 79.6
8 Green Bay 80.2
9 Cincinnati 81.1
10 Miami 82.3
11 Kansas City 83.2
12 NY Giants 83.3
13 New England 83.8
14 Cleveland 84.2
15 Buffalo 85.2
16 Houston 85.7
17 Atlanta 86.0
18 St. Louis 86.4
19 Philadelphia 86.8
20 Detroit 86.8
21 Tennessee 87.0
22 Denver 87.2
23 New Orleans 87.2
24 Carolina 88.0
25 San Diego 88.4
26 Tampa Bay 89.3
27 Washington 89.8
28 Jacksonville 92.1
29 Oakland 92.2
30 Indianapolis 92.3
31 Dallas 93.0
32 Minnesota 96.2

From 2010-13, Dallas had a 25-26 record (the "losing record" you referred to) in games that Romo started and played at least a half.

According to passer rating, Romo ranked 6th in the NFL from 2010-13. This means that, with an average-to-good pass defense, the Cowboys would have averaged no fewer than 10 wins per season during that span. Instead, Dallas' pass defense ranked 31st -- far from average. Combine Romo's and the defense's rankings of 6th and 31st and you get 18.5, which puts the expected record at about the 18th- or 19th-best.

That's where the 25-26 comes from.

It most definitely does not come from lost QB fumbles that don't count in passer rating. Look how Romo's lost fumbles compare to the five QB ranked ahead of him over that time period.

Lost QB fumbles, 2010-13
Rivers 18
Manning 9
Bees 7
Romo 7
Brady 6
Rodgers 5

From 2010-13, Dallas had the #31 defense according to passer rating. This means that, with an average-to-bad QB, the Cowboys should have averaged no more than 5 wins per season, like Minnesota, Washington, Oakland, Jacksonville, and Tampa Bay did over that span.

 

[AdamJT13]

Go back to the playoff game with the Packers last season Romo had a 143.6 passer rating compared to a 125.4 passer rating for Aaron Rodgers but Rodgers 3 to 0 TD to turnover ratio was slightly better than Romo's 2 to 0 TD to turnover ratio.

Mathematically, they had the same ratio, because neither one had a turnover.

You also might want to state your theory differently -- otherwise you'd be saying that one TD and no turnovers (a 1:0 ratio) is better than three or more TDs and one turnover (3:1, 4:1, etc.), for example.

 

[Idgit]

That's not a "true scope" because it only looks at half the picture. A "true scope" would include both quarterbacks' passer ratings -- yours and your opponent's.

This is a true scope.

Opposing QB's Rating
(aka Defensive Passer Rating)
2010-13
1 Seattle 75.3
2 Pittsburgh 76.6
3 Baltimore 77.1
4 Chicago 77.8
5 NY Jets 78.0
6 San Francisco 79.3
7 Arizona 79.6
8 Green Bay 80.2
9 Cincinnati 81.1
10 Miami 82.3
11 Kansas City 83.2
12 NY Giants 83.3
13 New England 83.8
14 Cleveland 84.2
15 Buffalo 85.2
16 Houston 85.7
17 Atlanta 86.0
18 St. Louis 86.4
19 Philadelphia 86.8
20 Detroit 86.8
21 Tennessee 87.0
22 Denver 87.2
23 New Orleans 87.2
24 Carolina 88.0
25 San Diego 88.4
26 Tampa Bay 89.3
27 Washington 89.8
28 Jacksonville 92.1
29 Oakland 92.2
30 Indianapolis 92.3
31 Dallas 93.0
32 Minnesota 96.2

From 2010-13, Dallas had a 25-26 record (the "losing record" you referred to) in games that Romo started and played at least a half.

According to passer rating, Romo ranked 6th in the NFL from 2010-13. This means that, with an average-to-good pass defense, the Cowboys would have averaged no fewer than 10 wins per season during that span. Instead, Dallas' pass defense ranked 31st -- far from average. Combine Romo's and the defense's rankings of 6th and 31st and you get 18.5, which puts the expected record at about the 18th- or 19th-best.

That's where the 25-26 comes from.

It most definitely does not come from lost QB fumbles that don't count in passer rating. Look how Romo's lost fumbles compare to the five QB ranked ahead of him over that time period.

Lost QB fumbles, 2010-13
Rivers 18
Manning 9
Bees 7
Romo 7
Brady 6
Rodgers 5

From 2010-13, Dallas had the #31 defense according to passer rating. This means that, with an average-to-bad QB, the Cowboys should have averaged no more than 5 wins per season, like Minnesota, Washington, Oakland, Jacksonville, and Tampa Bay did over that span.

How does this not sink in for everybody at this point? I don't get it.

 

[punchnjudy]

I would agree that the 108.8 rating doesn't necessarily reflect Weeden as a QB, but that's not because passer rating is a flawed stat. It's obviously one of the best individual stats.

Weeden's 108.8 rating is built on a lot of short passes and many 3rd-down completions short of the first down. The OP made that point -- it wasn't a Weeden puff piece, as some seem to be under the impression that it was. When teams begin to take away the shorter passes on more of a regular basis, either his rating will suffer, or he will show that he has another dimension to his game. (We've seen hints of it, I hope). Also, quarterbacks whose 3rd-down completions lead to 4th down more than 50% of the time usually don't play enough games to get a meaningful sample size. You won't see a QB go through an entire season with a high rating that's based in great part on 3rd-down completions short of the sticks.

In short, consider that the sample size is 2+ games.

Can't remember who said it...Yogi maybe?...but it reminds of the quote about a .250 hitter batting .300 in August. Except, in this case, it would be the equivalent of May lol.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

How does this not sink in for everybody at this point? I don't get it.

Let's try this: In a randomized selection of NFL games, you can predict the winner 85 percent of the time by looking at the difference in passer rating between the teams for the game in question.

 

[jnday]

No he is not a rookie and I do think much of this has been coaches being conservative. Weeden has the arm to throw the deep balls but decision making in the past I think did effect how the coaches were going to play Weeden. I knew when he took over they would have to lean more on the defense and fact is most here was saying the same thing. Weeden has started 2 game offense has put up 28 and 20 points what has the defense done? Weeden is not going to carry this team Dallas must get something out of this defense. We don't get sacks, we don't get turnovers and we can't stop teams on 3rd down yet it is Weeden fault? He is doing what is normally expected out of a backup QB. Even Cassel when he was in NE was not setting the league on fire, he played within the system and the rest of the team was expected to do their jobs. His 1st 3 games Belicheck played very conservative with him none of the 1st 3 games he played did he even have 200 yards passing.

Weedan may have a good arm that gives him the ability to throw long, but I really doubt his ability to throw accurate passes deep or even passes over 15 yards. Romo is much more accurate on deep balls and he really doesn't have a strong arm.

 

[dallasdave]

Weedan may have a good arm that gives him the ability to throw long, but I really doubt his ability to throw accurate passes deep or even passes over 15 yards. Romo is much more accurate on deep balls and he really doesn't have a strong arm.

Weedan will never be more than a backup !!

 

[KJJ]

Mathematically, they had the same ratio, because neither one had a turnover.

You also might want to state your theory differently -- otherwise you'd be saying that one TD and no turnovers (a 1:0 ratio) is better than three or more TDs and one turnover (3:1, 4:1, etc.), for example.

Regardless Rodgers had one more TD and despite Romo having the higher passer rating Rodgers led the Packers on 2 more scoring drives than Romo led the Cowboys on. Rodgers led the Packers on 3 of their 5 scoring drives in the second half while Romo only led the Cowboys on one scoring drive in the second half. Passer ratings don't tell the whole story.

 

[jnday]

Regardless Rodgers had one more TD and despite Romo having the higher passer rating Rodgers led the Packers on 2 more scoring drives than Romo led the Cowboys on. Rodgers led the Packers on 3 of their 5 scoring drives in the second half while Romo only led the Cowboys on one scoring drive in the second half. Passer ratings don't tell the whole story.

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. My eye test concluded that Weedan made poor decisions , but these stat guys say the stats tell the whole story and that I am wrong. I think stats are useful in certain situations, but they are not the only way to measure the success and failures in football. I am sure that there is a stat about the usefulness of stats if you look it up. This is just how silly this thread has been.

 

[AdamJT13]

Regardless Rodgers had one more TD and despite Romo having the higher passer rating Rodgers led the Packers on 2 more scoring drives than Romo led the Cowboys on.

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 3 of their 5 scoring drives in the second half while Romo only led the Cowboys on one scoring drive in the second half. Passer ratings don't tell the whole story.

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."

 

[Super_Kazuya]

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. My eye test concluded that Weedan made poor decisions , but these stat guys say the stats tell the whole story and that I am wrong. I think stats are useful in certain situations, but they are not the only way to measure the success and failures in football. I am sure that there is a stat about the usefulness of stats if you look it up. This is just how silly this thread has been.

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.