QBR and QBR leaders

[manbearchef]

I see them as different things.

Stats: QB had 325, 3td, 1 int. Must be good.
Context: 210 of that and 3 tds were in Q4 and a loss.
Eye test: passing through the game was erratic without a lot of catchable passes into good coverage and taking hot routes and dump offs until the defense started playing more prevent.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'll do it for Teddy Bridgewater on Sunday:

Stats: Teddy was 23/28 (80%) for 254 yards, 9 YPA, 10.5 AYPA, 2 TDs, 0 INT, 128 passer rating.

Eye test: Teddy is hot and cold and frequently bails on the pocket too early and doesn't take enough shots. His passes are usually wide open or are quick first-read throws.

Context: 75 yards and 1 TD were to a wide open Moore and he under threw it to the point he had to slow way down. 5 yards and 1 TD were from a glorified forward handoff to Moore on a reverse. So minus 80 yards and 2 TDs, Teddy basically was 21/26 for 174 yards and 0 TDs. He also **** his pants on a 3rd down in FG range by eating a sack which costs us the game tying FG by a yard.

Teddy is having games that look amazing on the stat sheet (only two games below a 98 passer rating), but it's not pretty to watch and he's basically a product of an elite WR trio and a good OC.

[mariner4life]

The argument is about what matters more.

But I would never dismiss someone's argument based solely on the eye test, whereas I would dismiss arguments based solely on stats. That's not to say that any conclusion from watching someone play is legitimate.

Did you read the article I posted? It’s not one or the other.
I think of stats as evidence. And any argument without evidence is ...

[warfelg]

The argument is about what matters more.

But I would never dismiss someone's argument based solely on the eye test, whereas I would dismiss arguments based solely on stats. That's not to say that any conclusion from watching someone play is legitimate.

Neither matters more is my point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[crewfan13]

I'll do it for Teddy Bridgewater on Sunday:

Stats: Teddy was 23/28 (80%) for 254 yards, 9 YPA, 10.5 AYPA, 2 TDs, 0 INT, 128 passer rating.

Eye test: Teddy is hot and cold and frequently bails on the pocket too early and doesn't take enough shots. His passes are usually wide open or are quick first-read throws.

Context: 75 yards and 1 TD were to a wide open Moore and he under threw it to the point he had to slow way down. 5 yards and 1 TD were from a glorified forward handoff to Moore on a reverse. So minus 80 yards and 2 TDs, Teddy basically was 21/26 for 174 yards and 0 TDs. He also **** his pants on a 3rd down in FG range by eating a sack which costs us the game tying FG by a yard.

Teddy is having games that look amazing on the stat sheet (only two games below a 98 passer rating), but it's not pretty to watch and he's basically a product of an elite WR trio and a good OC.

But it all sort of depends on what people's definition of "stats" is. Alot of the context stuff that's been brought up can be explained, at least partially, with numbers and stats.

That's where stats like air yards per attempt and comparing that to yards per attempt come in. That's where looking at seperation metrics for wr's come in, to help quantify quality of guys around them.

I get all of those stats aren't used by everyone and some of them aren't even fully available to the public or at least some of them require paid subscriptions. But stats can explain alot of the context stuff that people look at. There's even sites that are differentiating garbage time stats from clutch stats and things like that.

I'm not disagreeing that all inputs are needed and that context and eye tests are useless, but if we're picking from the 3, stats seem to be the best suited, espeically when looking at some of the advanced stuff.

[Bullseyed]

Not really. Stats need context.

Fulgham > Cooper since he has more TDs. Stats lie all the time, but so do our eyes. Critical thinking and context do more than either.

Number of TDs does not indicate quality of WR. Number of TDs mostly indicates number of red zone targets for a WR.

[Bullseyed]

A QB that throws a screen pass to a rb that he eventually runs in for a 80 yard TD against a terrible defense

All the advanced stats companies have been adjusting for this kind of basic stuff for a decade or more.

[Bullseyed]

75 yards and 1 TD were to a wide open Moore and he under threw it to the point he had to slow way down

Do you have a playbook to link to so we can prove Moore didn't mess up the route?

[manbearchef]

Do you have a playbook to link to so we can prove Moore didn't mess up the route?

Can't rule anything out, I guess it could've been the first ever deep post curl route lmao.

[QQQ]

Can't rule anything out, I guess it could've been the first ever deep post curl route lmao.

Lol.. This is when watching the actual game helps. Like you said, can’t rule anything out, but a lot of times you can tell in the game if it’s just a horrible pass by the QB.

[Vee-Rex]

Neither matters more is my point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agree. People make these comparisons all the time and I just think it's pointless. Both eye test and stats have their pros and cons, and work best depending on what you're doing and who is doing it. If a 10 year old is giving an eye test during a football game, it's probably not as valuable or accurate as a genius coach with 30 years of experience and understanding of what players are trying to accomplish on a given play, with an entire week to pour over that All-22 film. We're all on different parts of the spectrum for the eye test. Elite eye test can fill in context that no stat can, but stats (Quarterback peabrain has thrown a slant 25/25 times when it's 3rd and 6th while trailing in the game in the 3rd quarter) can show things no eye test/brain will remember. I know you guys are mostly discussing accolade-type stats, but the point remains.

Combining eye tests and stats gives a more holistic view. So in essence, they're all right... but instead I'd rather just say that they're all wrong.

[Bullseyed]

Any flat earthers in the group?

Eye test says Earth is flat. All I see is flat in all directions.

Those fancy "stats" on the internet says the Earth is round though. They're too dang confusing.

[Bullseyed]

60/40 in favor of stats over context/eye test

Context is a stat. Player A plays for Team B is a stat. Team B is better than Team C is a stat. Team D has a bad o-line is a stat.


Eye test is "despite the fact that QB A threw 15 completions, each time the WR had to dive to get to the ball because they weren't very on target".

Problem is, unless you are the coach, have the playbook and know the play that was called, you have no idea if the WR was in the right spot or if the ball was in the right spot.

[Bullseyed]

Eye test: passing through the game was erratic without a lot of catchable passes into good coverage and taking hot routes and dump offs until the defense started playing more prevent.

(lot of catchable passes) <-- stat
(good coverage) <-- stat
(taking hot routes) <-- stat
(dump offs) <-- stat
(defense started playing more prevent) <-- stat


You're just listing stats that don't show up on the box score and claiming it is an eye test, when it isn't.


Eye Test: The QB had a proper throwing motion and his feet were in good position on each throw. The ball had good velocity. Therefore he is a great QB and had a great game despite not translating those proper techniques into success on the field.

[Bullseyed]

Can't rule anything out, I guess it could've been the first ever deep post curl route lmao.

Or more likely he ran the wrong angle on the route. Further, a WR who outranges his QB's accuracy range is a bad WR.


Lowest average intended air yards per attempt this season?

#26 Teddy
#27 Cam
#28 Haskins
#29 Big Ben
#30 Danny Dimes
#31 Jimmy G
#32 Breesus

[manbearchef]

Eye test says Earth is flat. All I see is flat in all directions.

Those fancy "stats" on the internet says the Earth is round though. They're too dang confusing.

Lolwut? The eye test literally shows the Earth isn't flat. That's pretty much how ancient civilisations knew it was spherical by observing the fact that you can't see the entire world from a tower. That'd be like saying a QB is good because of the eye test without seeing the full play.

Or more likely he ran the wrong angle on the route. Further, a WR who outranges his QB's accuracy range is a bad WR.


Lowest average intended air yards per attempt this season?

#26 Teddy
#27 Cam
#28 Haskins
#29 Big Ben
#30 Danny Dimes
#31 Jimmy G
#32 Breesus

This might be the worst take ever posted on PSD. A WR who gets too much deep separation is bad but the not the **** QB who couldn't accurately hit him that far. Every QB in the league can throw a ball 60 yards, minimum. If they can't do it with any accuracy, that's their fault.