Siri Picks Best QB in the NFL

[Enlightened32]

Can someone ask Siri ..."what is a catch in the nfl"?

It isnt having possession of the ball and going down to one knee...that is obvious...

 

[gjdeftmv]

Awesome, Siri! Now please find me the best bacon double-cheeseburger in Beaumont, Texas. And from now on - call me 'sexy daddy'.

Have you tried Willy Burger on Calder?

 

[Irvin88_4life]

Yet none of those guys listed after him are better then him. Think what you want but the truth is he is something like 13-1 against Super Bowl winning QBs. That's not all defense.

Your right is not all defense, he has a great team from top to bottom. As a QB Wilson is not as good as half of them. You can say his record is this against certain teams but that is teams. Sorry when the game is on the line Wilson is not on my list as the guy I want with the ball in his hands. .....see INT in the superbowl.

 

[Irvin88_4life]

Yet none of those guys listed after him are better then him. Think what you want but the truth is he is something like 13-1 against Super Bowl winning QBs. That's not all defense.

Ryan, Flacco, Newton, Rivers, Brees, Stafford is all better then Wilson as a QB......not sure what your smoking

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Explain its worthlessness, because that QBR list looks pretty close to how well those QBs actually played.

Because it overvalues close and late without statistical basis. Because it gets changed and we have no idea the actual formula. Because it uses a proportional method that distorts the data values to get it within an aesthetically pleasing range ie 30-120 which distorts linear values. That is just off the top of my head.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

QBR and QB Rating are different stats.

There are QBs that have played flawless games but didn't get a perfect QB Rating.

It's a flawed stat anyway you want to look at it.

There was someone who got 100 yds/att and a 1:1 TD:completion ratio?

 

[rpntex]

QBR and QB Rating are different stats.

There are QBs that have played flawless games but didn't get a perfect QB Rating.

It's a flawed stat anyway you want to look at it.

Enlighten us as to the differences between QBR and QB rating then...

The post of yours that I responded to referenced QB RATING as a worthless stat. I pointed out that the very things you said you put stock into are also factored into the rating formula.

Tap dance around it if you'd like, but everyone can see that we were talking about the same thing. Only one of us knew what we were talking about, however.

 

[Zekeats]

Ryan, Flacco, Newton, Rivers, Brees, Stafford is all better then Wilson as a QB......not sure what your smoking

Your right, them is

 

[Enlightened32]

There was someone who got 100 yds/att and a 1:1 TD:completion ratio?

That would give a perfect QBR not QB rating. These stats are different.

 

[Enlightened32]

Enlighten us as to the differences between QBR and QB rating then...

The post of yours that I responded to referenced QB RATING as a worthless stat. I pointed out that the very things you said you put stock into are also factored into the rating formula.

Tap dance around it if you'd like, but everyone can see that we were talking about the same thing. Only one of us knew what we were talking about, however.

Whether or not the stats I put stock in are factored into the formula does not make that formula flawless.

The difference between QB Rating and QBR is simple. QB Rating is the stat you see on NFL.com, QBR was a stat created by ESPN

Total Quarterback Rating - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_Quarterback_Rating
Passer Rating - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passer_rating

"Passer rating is used to evaluate passers, not quarterbacks." The formula does not include rushing statistics, sacks, or fumbles, nor does it put added weight on performance during crucial situations such as third downs or fourth quarter scoring drives. Passer rating also cannot account for the quality of wide receivers or pass protection from the offensive line.

Its a flawed stat.

 

[Wheeltax]

Yet none of those guys listed after him are better then him. Think what you want but the truth is he is something like 13-1 against Super Bowl winning QBs. That's not all defense.

When did Wilson start playing Corner?

 

[Zekeats]

When did Wilson start playing Corner?

Huh???

 

[KJJ]

Wilson is way to high. As a QB he isn't that great, his team wins cause of great defense and a beast run game. He has almost lost games but lynch and defense bails him out time and time again

Wilson is disrespected by some because he doesn't put up big numbers (yards and TD's) but he's a very efficient passer and provides a duel threat. He hasn't had a great receiving corp since he became the Seahawks QB in 2012 and the best receiver they had Golden Tate left after the 2013 season. Lynch arrived 2 years before Wilson and Seattle remained just another team until Wilson took over. His efficient play has helped Seattle's defense. There's no coincidence that it all started coming together for the Seahawks immediately after Wilson took over. No way are they the same team with Tavaris Jackson and some of the other QB's they've had.

 

[Irvin88_4life]

Wilson is disrespected by some because he doesn't put up big numbers (yards and TD's) but he's a very efficient passer and provides a duel threat. He hasn't had a great receiving corp since he became the Seahawks QB in 2012 and the best receiver they had Golden Tate left after the 2013 season. Lynch arrived 2 years before Wilson and Seattle remained just another team until Wilson took over. His efficient play has helped Seattle's defense. There's no coincidence that it all started coming together for the Seahawks immediately after Wilson took over. No way are they the same team with Tavaris Jackson and some of the other QB's they've had.

Thats a bus driver, he was really on target in the superbowl huh. I've watched him play and he is decent but not great. As a QB he is in bottom half, as a bus driver he is very good

Also they didn't have the team they do now so that point makes no sense

 

[KJJ]

Thats a bus driver, he was really on target in the superbowl huh. I've watched him play and he is decent but not great. As a QB he is in bottom half, as a bus driver he is very good

Also they didn't have the team they do now so that point makes no sense

Wilson had a 110.6 passer rating in the SB which was higher than Brady's (which shows how flawed that stat is) so according to the stat he had a great game but his only mistake helped cost Seattle the SB. I've watched Wilson play and Seattle was a 7-9 team before he took over and he immediately turned the Seahawks into an 11-5 playoff team. One of the main reasons they have the team they do now is because of him. Compare his stats with the previous Seahawks QB's it's not even close. A bus driver doesn't put up 3475 yards passing and 849 yards rushing. He accounted for 4324 yards and 26 TD's that's not what I consider a bus driver. He has a career passer rating of 98.6 and is clearly the best QB in the history of that franchise. Seattle's D wouldn't be near as good having to deal with all the turnovers and the lack of efficiency of Jackson/Whitehurst who had a 15 to 20 TD to turnover ratio in 2011. The amazing turnaround of the Seahawks all started with Russell Wilson.

 

[rpntex]

Whether or not the stats I put stock in are factored into the formula does not make that formula flawless.

The difference between QB Rating and QBR is simple. QB Rating is the stat you see on NFL.com, QBR was a stat created by ESPN

Total Quarterback Rating - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_Quarterback_Rating
Passer Rating - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passer_rating



Its a flawed stat.

The difference between QB Rating and QBR is simple. QB Rating is the stat you see on NFL.com, QBR was a stat created by ESPN

Total Quarterback Rating - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_Quarterback_Rating
Passer Rating - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passer_rating

Its a flawed stat.[/quote]

Every stat can be flawed in some way. One of your "favorites" - TD:INT ratio, for instance. Terry Bradshaw has four SB rings. He also has a career TD:int of 1:1 (212 career TDs, 210 INTs.). By the stat you put so much stock in, Bradshaw was nothing more than an average QB.

The NFL passer rating breaks everything down to a "per attempt" factor, and includes yards, completions, TDs, and INTs per pass attempt. That's the very same thing you said you put stock in. Then you turn around and call it a flawed stat.

Yes, I understand ESPN's QB rating stat as well. I know that it factors in more than just passing stats. Your original post - the things you "put stock in" - did not include any of those "other" factors. It only included stats that are factored into the NFL's official stat of passer rating.

So, to summarize...you value the stats that factor into the QB rating formula...just not the rating itself. Yeah, that makes sense.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

That would give a perfect QBR not QB rating. These stats are different.

Seeing the ESPN's stats adjusts for score and time of game I would say you are wrong.

 

[KJJ]

Every stat can be flawed in some way. One of your "favorites" - TD:INT ratio, for instance. Terry Bradshaw has four SB rings. He also has a career TD:int of 1:1 (212 career TDs, 210 INTs.). By the stat you put so much stock in, Bradshaw was nothing more than an average QB.

Bradshaw's TD to turnover ratio was actually a lot worse than 212 to 210 because his lost fumbles aren't listed and I'm sure there were quit a few. His TD to turnover ratio reflected the era in which he played in and a lot of QB's didn't have great TD to turnover ratios during the 70's because the game was played under different rules. The passer ratings back in the 70's weren't close to what they are today as well as completion percentages. The rules today have perfected QB's in every statistical category. Bradshaw had a career completion percentage of only 51.9% which wouldn't even gain a QB a roster spot in todays game. Although Bradshaw's TD to turnover ratio wasn't very good during the regular season it was 9 to 4 in his 4 SB wins.

 

[Irvin88_4life]

Wilson had a 110.6 passer rating in the SB which was higher than Brady's (which shows how flawed that stat is) so according to the stat he had a great game but his only mistake helped cost Seattle the SB. I've watched Wilson play and Seattle was a 7-9 team before he took over and he immediately turned the Seahawks into an 11-5 playoff team. One of the main reasons they have the team they do now is because of him. Compare his stats with the previous Seahawks QB's it's not even close. A bus driver doesn't put up 3475 yards passing and 849 yards rushing. He accounted for 4324 yards and 26 TD's that's not what I consider a bus driver. He has a career passer rating of 98.6 and is clearly the best QB in the history of that franchise. Seattle's D wouldn't be near as good having to deal with all the turnovers and the lack of efficiency of Jackson/Whitehurst who had a 15 to 20 TD to turnover ratio in 2011. The amazing turnaround of the Seahawks all started with Russell Wilson.

I disagree. Russell is a decent QB but he is not great and is bailed out by running game and defense. ......just so you know Russell isn't the only player that changed that team around.

 

[AtlCB]

Now ask Siri who about America's Team.

Immediately, Siri says looking up the Cowboys when asked that question.

Anybody with Siri needs to ask what zero divided by zero is. The answer is hilarious!