Twitter: NFL passing leaders through week 7 (top 5 may surprise some)

[keysersoze]

Despite your hate for the formula being proprietary to ESPN, it is a far better measure of a QB's contribution to his team.

Isn’t it weird that this stat was respected during our previous quarterback’s tenure? It was considered gospel in regards to Romo’s contributions. Now it’s a fake garbage stat? SMDH. I wonder what changed...

 

[HungryLion]

In order for me:

QBR
AY/A
Net yards gained per pass attempt
Y/A
TD:INT
Passer rating

~~~~~~

Total passing yards













QB record












Some made up thing like multiple playoff wins in a season

You forgot to put “the eye test” at the top of the list.

 

[conner01]

I would prefer to be 7-0.

Wins are my favorite stat lol

 

[QuincyCarterEra]

You forgot to put “the eye test” at the top of the list.

Okay okay okay

My eye test at the top

LilWillie's eye test below his made up stats hahahahha

 

[austin88]

You forgot to put “the eye test” at the top of the list.

Technically, the best method for evaluating a QB is to listen to whatever the voices in your head tell you that "every GM in the league" thinks. If any statistics tell you differently, that just means that statistics are for losers.

 

[keysersoze]

Technically, the best method for evaluating a QB is to listen to whatever the voices in your head tell you that "every GM in the league" thinks. If any statistics tell you differently, that just means that statistics are for losers.

 

[aikemirv]

Isn’t it weird that this stat was respected during our previous quarterback’s tenure? It was considered gospel in regards to Romo’s contributions. Now it’s a fake garbage stat? SMDH. I wonder what changed...

Nah, this stat carried very little discussion back then. The normal quarterback rating usually was discussed.
Whats comical is that it was dismissed by Dak slobberers LAST YEAR!

From WIki:
Total QBR was developed based on analysis of 60,000 NFL plays between 2008-2010, and was unveiled on August 5, 2011.

 

[keysersoze]

Nah, this stat carried very little discussion back then. The normal quarterback rating usually was discussed.

From WIki:
Total QBR was developed based on analysis of 60,000 NFL plays between 2008-2010, and was unveiled on August 5, 2011.

Both are being disregarded here when it applies to Dak. Nice try tho.

 

[Starforever]

Who has Mahomes played? lol. Who has Brady played? You can only play whos in front of you.

I love when they use the quality of the teams Dallas play, but excuse that same ideology for the team, or players they brag about.

 

[HungryLion]

Nah, this stat carried very little discussion back then. The normal quarterback rating usually was discussed.
Whats comical is that it was dismissed by Dak slobberers LAST YEAR!

From WIki:
Total QBR was developed based on analysis of 60,000 NFL plays between 2008-2010, and was unveiled on August 5, 2011.

You lose credibility when you use the tired “Dak slobberer” label.

Let your argument stand in its own without the over generalizations.

 

[aikemirv]

Both are being disregarded here when it applies to Dak. Nice try tho.

Way to change the argument. You guys disregarded them last year!

 

[aikemirv]

You lose credibility when you use the tired “Dak slobberer” label.

Let your argument stand in its own without the over generalizations.

No I don't , we know who they are. They defend every error he makes even when it does not require a defense!

You can look at the poll results and find out how many in each category there are!

 

[HungryLion]

Technically, the best method for evaluating a QB is to listen to whatever the voices in your head tell you that "every GM in the league" thinks. If any statistics tell you differently, that just means that statistics are for losers.

This guy gets it.

 

[HungryLion]

No I don't , we know who they are. They defend every error he makes even when it does not require a defense!

Yes you do.

Strong arguments don’t include insults and over generalizations.

Calling a subset of people “Dak slobberers” proves nothing about Dak’s actual level of play.

 

[aikemirv]

Yes you do.

Strong arguments don’t include insults and over generalizations.

Calling a subset of people “Dak slobberers” proves nothing about Dak’s actual level of play.

If I had a nickel for every time somebody said "hater" over a valid criticism I would have a couple hundred bucks in my pocket this year alone!

 

[CouchCoach]

NFL passing leaders through Week 7:
- Pat Mahomes, 2180 5-2
- Matt Ryan, 2170 1-6
- Dak Prescott, 2123 4-3
- Philip Rivers, 2114 2-5
- Aaron Rodgers, 2019
- Jared Goff, 1995
- Tom Brady, 1992
- Deshaun Watson, 1952
- Russell Wilson, 1945
- Andy Dalton, 1923

Numbers 2-4 combined record, 7-14. Top 4 combined record, 12-16 . Stats can be misleading. I like these better. Top 4 rushing attacks, 19-7. Top 4 D's, 20-6.

 

[HungryLion]

If I had a nickel for every time somebody said "hater" over a valid criticism I would have a couple hundred bucks in my pocket this year alone!

Calling somebody a hater is a weak argument too. Doesn’t make using “Dak slobberer” any less weak.

 

[Doomsday101]

People do not have to like Dak that is their own choice but it is a joke for people to use these QB ratings against Dak when it fits their agenda then blow off the same stats when it does not fall their way.

 

[aikemirv]

Calling somebody a hater is a weak argument too. Doesn’t make using “Dak slobberer” any less weak.

Well, there are two sides of the coin here - irrational on both sides and those rational ones somewhere in the middle. I would not want to generalize the rational with the irrational. That's the problem with the overuse of hater every time someone makes a valid criticism.

Saying Dak slobberer just tells everyone who I am talking about!

 

[QuincyCarterEra]

You lose credibility when you use the tired “Dak slobberer” label.

Let your argument stand in its own without the over generalizations.

He lost credibility a LONGGGG time ago