Zombo Posted October 15, 2009 Report Share Posted October 15, 2009 If you look at CHAMPIONSHIP football teams, team defensive ranking is a much more indicitive statistic for success than the starting QB's passer rating. There is an occasional exception like the year the Colts won with Manning, their defense did not rank well that year ... but do note that their Dungy Defense played lights out in the post season that year, and that is the only time Manning's offense won a championship. Do you want your QB to have a good passer rating? Sure. It means he's accurate, he not throwing a lot of interceptions and the team is moving the ball and scoring. Passer rating is a nice indicator of passing success ... over the course of the season. I hate when it is used game-by-game. Coaches are not that concerned with passer ratings, they look at production. First downs, touchdowns, moving the chains, not turning it over. A lot of that is built into passer ratings, but I guarantee you that coaches don't say "oh, Soandso had a 56.5 rating last week, I'm concerned" .. no, they look at the film, break down the turnovers, look at the production. An 80 yard drive that ends with a one-yard run is as productive as an 80 yard drive that ends with a 1-yard pass to a wide open tight-end ... but one pumps up the rating and one doesn't. And a three and out with two short completions and a punt is just as unproductive as a third down deep pass that goes off the receiver's hands and is intercepted ... but one is healthy for passer ratings and one is not. It is a nice indicator of passing success over a large sample of games. That's all. Zombo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest AdaM Posted October 15, 2009 Report Share Posted October 15, 2009 I disagree to an extent... If your QB goes 2/17 with a pick and 22 yards, they did absolutely nothing to help you win the game. Yes, the W was the outcome, but that player did nothing to warrant that outcome. We could have won by MORE if we had a different QB in, a QB who wouldve done better than 2/17 with 1 int and 22yds It was 23 yards, dont dis DA man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumpkin Eater Posted October 15, 2009 Report Share Posted October 15, 2009 I disagree to an extent... If your QB goes 2/17 with a pick and 22 yards, they did absolutely nothing to help you win the game. Yes, the W was the outcome, but that player did nothing to warrant that outcome. We could have won by MORE if we had a different QB in, a QB who wouldve done better than 2/17 with 1 int and 22yds well, they didn't lose the game. They didn't throw 15 pick-6'es. A win is a win, the margin of victory has no meaning, this isn't NCAA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumpkin Eater Posted October 15, 2009 Report Share Posted October 15, 2009 If you look at CHAMPIONSHIP football teams, team defensive ranking is a much more indicitive statistic for success than the starting QB's passer rating. There is an occasional exception like the year the Colts won with Manning, their defense did not rank well that year ... but do note that their Dungy Defense played lights out in the post season that year, and that is the only time Manning's offense won a championship. Do you want your QB to have a good passer rating? Sure. It means he's accurate, he not throwing a lot of interceptions and the team is moving the ball and scoring. Passer rating is a nice indicator of passing success ... over the course of the season. I hate when it is used game-by-game. Coaches are not that concerned with passer ratings, they look at production. First downs, touchdowns, moving the chains, not turning it over. A lot of that is built into passer ratings, but I guarantee you that coaches don't say "oh, Soandso had a 56.5 rating last week, I'm concerned" .. no, they look at the film, break down the turnovers, look at the production. An 80 yard drive that ends with a one-yard run is as productive as an 80 yard drive that ends with a 1-yard pass to a wide open tight-end ... but one pumps up the rating and one doesn't. And a three and out with two short completions and a punt is just as unproductive as a third down deep pass that goes off the receiver's hands and is intercepted ... but one is healthy for passer ratings and one is not. It is a nice indicator of passing success over a large sample of games. That's all. Zombo Good point, here's a stat: the QB with the most passing yards has never won the super bowl that same year, I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greythan Posted October 15, 2009 Report Share Posted October 15, 2009 The passer rating is not something to ignore. Its a statistic so by definition sample size matters. Hence, Chip's analysis. A sample size of 25 or 30 attempts is too small. Find a QB who goes the course of a season and completes 45% of his passes for 4,500 yards, 35 TD's and 10 INT's and you'll have a nice anomoly. Point is, it usually doesn't happen. I believe its because there are only so many big plays that can be completed and that to round it out you MUST complete a high level of passes to keep the chains moving, open up big plays, etc. So, I agree with Z that coaches don't look at the passer rating as the primary indicator of success. However, as Z stated, the things they do look at are heavily factored into the rating: decision making (INT's and completion %), first downs (completion %, total yards), TD's, etc. Net net, if you finish a year with a below average passer rating, most coaches would look at that QB's body of work on film as subpar. They are closely related. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roach Posted October 16, 2009 Report Share Posted October 16, 2009 According to Wikipedia, Joe Namath had a career rating of 65.5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest CardDawg Posted October 17, 2009 Report Share Posted October 17, 2009 According to Wikipedia, Joe Namath had a career rating of 65.5 Yikes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zombo Posted October 17, 2009 Report Share Posted October 17, 2009 According to Wikipedia, Joe Namath had a career rating of 65.5 Horseballs is the modern day Joe Namath. I think he should guarantee victory over the Steelers. Zombo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.