Vikings Message Board.Com

I like QBR, but as is the case with all stats you have to understand its context. If you're looking at it to tell you who is the best QB in the league, you'll hate it. Where it really shines, in my opinion, is answering the question "How well did this player do his job?"

Teddy Bridgewater didn't have an all time great performance, but he did what he was asked (as a supplementary threat to an Adrian Peterson focused offense) to a near perfect level.

At its core, it tells you if a player played within his game plan effectively. Some players are asked to do more than others, but no stat tells the perfect story, so I don't know why the QBR seems to be universally hated.

DK Sweets wrote:I like QBR, but as is the case with all stats you have to understand its context. If you're looking at it to tell you who is the best QB in the league, you'll hate it. Where it really shines, in my opinion, is answering the question "How well did this player do his job?"

My whole point though, is: Without knowing exactly how it is calculated, how can you know if it is indeed an accurate measure of "how he did his job?" Just for an example: It (allegedly) takes into account if the quarterback is under pressure. How do they determine that? Christian Ponder was typically under pressure many times. In order not to re-hash Ponder-bashing, let's agree that that "some" of those issues were a bad offensive line, and "some" were Ponder holding the ball too long. The exact split is not important for purposes of my argument. Who determines when he is under pressure? I could easily argue that the reason a certain QB is "never under pressure" (which presumably would yield the potential for a lower QBR) is because he gets rid of the ball quickly. Even in Bridgwater's case IIRC, Zimmer placed at least part of the blame (at SF) for Bridgewater's pressure on Teddy himself. That is just one example. I dislike it, because I have to rely on Trent Dilfer (Tongue-in-cheek. Dilfer was one of the individuals who helped to develop it, but he wasn't the sole source) to determine what is relevant on a "good QB's" performance.

Another example is how much weight was afforded to Bridgewater on his TD Run? I could easily argue that had more to do with Peterson (and the fact the defense was focusing on him) rather than any exceptional skill by Bridgewater. True, he had to sell the fake, and I'm not trying to take that away from him, but I'm willing to wager, nearly any QB in the league could have made that TD run after a fake to Peterson.

Would it be your opinion that Bridgewater had a "nearly perfect" job performance against the Lions? Because that is what his QBR seems to indicate.

Just Me wrote: My whole point though, is: Without knowing exactly how it is calculated, how can you know if it is indeed an accurate measure of "how he did his job?" Just for an example: It (allegedly) takes into account if the quarterback is under pressure. How do they determine that? Christian Ponder was typically under pressure many times. In order not to re-hash Ponder-bashing, let's agree that that "some" of those issues were a bad offensive line, and "some" were Ponder holding the ball too long. The exact split is not important for purposes of my argument. Who determines when he is under pressure? I could easily argue that the reason a certain QB is "never under pressure" (which presumably would yield the potential for a lower QBR) is because he gets rid of the ball quickly. Even in Bridgwater's case IIRC, Zimmer placed at least part of the blame (at SF) for Bridgewater's pressure on Teddy himself. That is just one example. I dislike it, because I have to rely on Trent Dilfer (Tongue-in-cheek. Dilfer was one of the individuals who helped to develop it, but he wasn't the sole source) to determine what is relevant on a "good QB's" performance.

Another example is how much weight was afforded to Bridgewater on his TD Run? I could easily argue that had more to do with Peterson (and the fact the defense was focusing on him) rather than any exceptional skill by Bridgewater. True, he had to sell the fake, and I'm not trying to take that away from him, but I'm willing to wager, nearly any QB in the league could have made that TD run after a fake to Peterson.

Would it be your opinion that Bridgewater had a "nearly perfect" job performance against the Lions? Because that is what his QBR seems to indicate.

In a nutshell, it's combination of subjectivity and lack of transparency make it unreliable. I don't hate it but I don't find it terribly useful either.

I don't mean to largely ignore your well thought out post, Dan, but I feel like I can give a simple and honest answer to why I like QBR: I've never looked at it and completely disagreed. I don't expect everyone to accept that answer, but I feel like it accurately reflects performance based on what I saw with my eyes, so while I acknowledge its flaws I find it to be useful.

I do feel like Bridgewater was nearly perfect in what he was asked to do in the Detroit game, to answer your question.

DK Sweets wrote:I don't mean to largely ignore your well thought out post, Dan, but I feel like I can give a simple and honest answer to why I like QBR: I've never looked at it and completely disagreed. I don't expect everyone to accept that answer, but I feel like it accurately reflects performance based on what I saw with my eyes, so while I acknowledge its flaws I find it to be useful.

I do feel like Bridgewater was nearly perfect in what he was asked to do in the Detroit game, to answer your question.

I thought he played a good game, as well (which is supported by both the QBR and the passer rating). Understood. We'll disagree on the degree of usefulness the QBR is, but I understand your point of view.

You guys probably already discussed it, but AP fumbling pisses me off more than anyone else. Especially when it's at the goal line. I think it has to do with the fact that it's an ugly reminder about his fumble in the NFCCG at the goal line, just before the half. He needs to knock it off.

PacificNorseWest wrote:You guys probably already discussed it, but AP fumbling pisses me off more than anyone else. Especially when it's at the goal line. I think it has to do with the fact that it's an ugly reminder about his fumble in the NFCCG at the goal line, just before the half. He needs to knock it off.

I said the exact same thing in the game day thread.

had he held onto that we would have been in the super bowl. and likely would have won it. it still makes me sick how we pissed that game away on every single level. we were by FAR the better team and lost.

*sigh*

Mothman wrote: Fair enough. I didn't think Demi was trying to make such a fine distinction.

Ok, let's split hairs. He got ran "through" three times? Gave up pressure while not slowing the defender down very much...three times? He got owned, three times.

I could post gifs, but people would see what they want to see, so what's the point.

Demi wrote: Ok, let's split hairs. He got ran "through" three times? Gave up pressure while not slowing the defender down very much...three times? He got owned, three times.

I could post gifs, but people would see what they want to see, so what's the point.

You don't even have to.. Just refer to the time and quarter so I can see for myself please. I'm not trying to gloss over a serious issue like that...

But you've definitely got to love how our D (Especially the line) stepped up in week 2!

mosscarter wrote: it still makes me sick how we pissed that game away on every single level. we were by FAR the better team and lost.

Join the Club.

Jordysghost wrote: Join the Club.

?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

frosted wrote: ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I was referring to my teams own playoffs failure, which is eerily similar in description to what MossCarter described, perhaps I should have been more clear I was simply saying I know how it feels, thats all.