dave mcbride

I think you're basically right, but keep this in mind: losing close games makes them look slightly better than losing by big scores. Coaches care about perception. I know that sounds illogical because the object is to do everything possible to win, but it happens so often that it has to be true, right?

I honestly don't care what is "real" and not "real" as it pertains to "official" status. So let's get past that right away. The reason I focused so much years ago on sacks taken is because we basically had a perfect lab experiment with Flutie and Johnson - they both played behind the same line, and while Flutie's sack rates were pretty low, Johnson's were not only record-breaking, they completely crippled the offense. However, that didn't get factored into QB rating. It did, however, get factored into team qb rating by way of yards lost on sacks. I've long felt that while sacks aren't always on the QB, the most sacked QBs deserves some of the blame because they hold it too long. It's a weakness, and indeed it's been a flaw of Taylor's. That said, some of his "sacks" are on scrambles back to the LOS rather than crippling strip sacks on blindside hits. He doesn't fumble much at all. The latter point has absolutely nothing to do with PFF, btw.

Good post; thanks.

I don't understand your question.

Not true at all. For years, I've been the one banging the drum loudest on this site with regard to the importance of sacks taken by and sack rates for qbs. To be fair, sack yardage lost is factored into team QB ratings (albeit not individual player ratings).

I strongly believe that they will, and it'll be interesting what happens to Taylor if they do. He's a legit mid-tier NFL starter, and there will be demand. Yeah, I can't believe I'm defending it either, because like you I was against in the debates about it here years ago for the same reasons. I'm just saying that drops are a real thing and should be measured when assessing a qb.

How you can gauge accuracy without a statistical measure? "I know it when I see it" doesn't work, so while I can't provide you with a link for this (obviously), simple common sense and a basic understanding of math dictates that they do in fact measure it. Feel free to discount my point through legalisms about officialness, but I think we both know that teams measure this. Anyway, to undercut my own point, I will offer this: the Jets led the league last year with 30-30+ odd drops, which means that as a baseline, the average nfl team has about 1.5 drops per game. Assuming most teams fall along the norm, the drops come out in the wash and a raw measure of accuracy pretty much tells you how accurate your qb is (because most teams' drop totals are around the same). That argument makes a certain amount of sense to me. Regardless, Clay should have caught that pass.

I predicted 31-6, and the bills would have had 31 if not for the shank and the drop .

Your words -- "or throwing a bad ball should be counted too." That's what I was addressing. Regarding the first part of the sentence, I don't think it should be included because we don't know the play design. But yes,I do think that drops on good passes and badly thrown balls should both be included.

But you are not really addressing the core question: do teams factor in drops -- which are visible on film -- when evaluating a qb? They do, and they do it statistically because just about every team believes that accuracy is the most important gauge of a qb. Just because FO does it too is in no way a reason to discount them.

The jets didn't look as awful as I thought they would, but I suspect that by midseason, they will look terrible after teams have enough film on them. Their offensive talent is ridiculously poor.

"Safe space" is a term meant to insult too, fwiw (and please don't argue that it isn't), but whatever. I have never had much tolerance for argument through insult, but i do recognize that it goes on all the time here. Bottom line: we disagree on certain statiscal measures, which is fine.

Huh? We have a stat for that: it's called an incompletion. In adjusted completion pct, it's also called an incompletion.

Then we are talking past each other. Not a fan of the attempt to cast my point aside by referring to clicks and implying I am a "statboy." That is argument through insult, which isn't really arguing at all. Like you said, though, to each his own. Let me ask you this re official v non-official: what do you think actual nfl teams use when they evaluate qb play? You think they don't factor it in? They definitely do, and stressing the point that it's not "official" seems to me like a legalism to escape the import of the point.

See my most recent post above and soend some time on football outsiders. More importantly, i can't actually believe I'm arguing about drops being a valid indicator of a qb's performance. It's patently obvious that they are.

I am WELL aware of where total qbr comes from. Yet answer me this: why is that the best -- meaning far crunchier and analytical -- stat sites like FO and PFF factor in drops to to their qb evals? Basically, every every modern stat approach to qb play factors it in.

Then why do most f the major stat sites feature total qbr now? Pfr and espn all feature it. It is part of the statistical landscape now, for real.

It is most definitely factored into total qbr, and thus a real stat for many. Check it out: http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/6833215/explaining-statistics-total-quarterback-rating

Huh? Please explain your logic. It makes no sense to me. It seems pretty obvious that one could adjust the completion percentage by including passes dropped that should have been caught. It is actually factored into the newer total qbr rating, the ooint being to provide a more accurate and true measure of the qb's performance. All the qb can do is deliver the ball; if a good throw is dropped, he shouldn't be assigned blame for it.

Not a perfect throw, but it was certainly an easy catch for an allegedly top-shelf TE. That catch gets made by the Greg Olsens of the world. Clay is a solid player, though, and I'm willing to give him a mulligan for this game.

No, it's actually a real stat that makes a ton of sense if you look.

You're barking up the wrong tree, I fear.

"It's never been easy ...." Please. Many of the posters on this board have been here 15 plus years, and we have all bitched about terrible qb play. Taylor is not elite. No one here thinks he is, and suggesting otherwise is a straw-man argument. But he is the best qb they've had since Flutie. He's a legit NFL starter who had a good game yesterday against a team with a strong front 7 and one elite-looking safety (Adams). Let's see how he does next week against a better team on the road, but raining on the parade after an objectively good performance is foolish.

Pretty much every non-bills fan who has analyzed the game (ie, pff, nfl network) says he played well. Check out some of the other qb play today. Most of it was terrible.

My god. The jets had 214 yards, 3.9 ypp, and a 56.2 passer rating. Focus on the postive. Dareus was fine. He was totally stout on running plays.