QB Rating Differential

[Dorkington]

As has been discussed here in the past... QB Rating differential is a pretty solid way to rate NFL teams these days... so where do the Bills stand?

 

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/stats/2014/9/PRD/

Rank Team  Off PR Def PR PRD
1 Denver  118.58 82.33 36.26
2 Green Bay 110.32 82.13 28.19
3 New England 106.12 86.76 19.36
4 Cincinnati 91.89 73.01 18.87
5 Pittsburgh 107.14 91.47 15.67
6 Dallas  105.02 89.74 15.28
7 San Diego 109.51 94.47 15.05
8 N.Y. Giants 97.25 82.75 14.50
9 Buffalo  92.22 79.42 12.81
10 Cleveland 90.78 81.55 9.23
11 San Francisco 93.95 85.67 8.28
12 Detroit  86.34 79.46 6.88
13 Indianapolis 98.84 92.34 6.51
14 Arizona  90.33 86.24 4.09
15 Baltimore 90.63 87.03 3.60
16 Miami  86.07 82.65 3.42
17 Kansas City 94.97 92.55 2.42
18 Seattle  98.38 99.67 - 1.29
19 New Orleans 97.38 99.00 - 1.62
20 Atlanta  92.29 94.22 - 1.93
21 Houston  87.74 93.05 - 5.32
22 Carolina 92.24 97.71 - 5.46
23 Chicago  94.95 101.18 - 6.24
24 Tennessee 83.20 90.18 - 6.98
25 Washington 92.15 104.04 - 11.89
26 Philadelphia 80.66 93.90 - 13.24
27 St. Louis 90.11 105.54 - 15.43
28 Jacksonville 71.65 97.40 - 25.75
29 Minnesota 65.66 92.95 - 27.29
30 Tampa Bay 79.44 106.96 - 27.52
31 Oakland  78.10 107.50 - 29.40
32 N.Y. Jets 62.20 113.50 - 51.29

 

9th place overall, not bad.... we'd be 3rd if we just used KO's rating instead of overall team rating, but that's not exactly fair.

 

Here's Cold Hard Football Fact's "Real" QB Rating differential:

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/stats/2014/9/RQRD/

Rank Team  RQBR DRQBR RQRD
1 Denver  112.55 78.05 34.50
2 Green Bay 98.90 80.23 18.67
3 New England 95.22 77.44 17.78
4 San Diego 103.77 88.60 15.17
5 Cincinnati 87.61 73.83 13.78
6 N.Y. Giants 91.18 79.40 11.78
7 Miami  82.50 70.86 11.64
8 Buffalo  82.78 71.54 11.24
9 Indianapolis 94.57 84.66 9.91
10 Detroit  80.02 71.49 8.53
11 Seattle  98.54 90.76 7.78
12 Pittsburgh 93.82 86.11 7.71
13 San Francisco 87.53 81.52 6.01
14 Cleveland 83.59 77.84 5.75
15 Baltimore 87.16 81.61 5.55
16 Dallas  94.57 89.54 5.03
17 Kansas City 85.66 80.73 4.93
18 New Orleans 94.73 93.69 1.04
19 Houston  82.80 82.89 - 0.09
20 Arizona  84.38 84.67 - 0.29
21 Tennessee 78.81 80.30 - 1.49
22 Atlanta  85.40 91.81 - 6.41
23 Carolina 84.96 91.93 - 6.97
24 Chicago  84.59 92.46 - 7.87
25 Philadelphia 75.45 83.71 - 8.26
26 Washington 83.35 97.58 - 14.23
27 Minnesota 63.13 81.91 - 18.78
28 Jacksonville 64.11 83.95 - 19.84
29 Tampa Bay 76.22 99.90 - 23.68
30 Oakland  75.48 100.80 - 25.32
31 St. Louis 77.71 104.31 - 26.60
32 N.Y. Jets 58.95 99.77 - 40.82

 

Wish I could find ESPN's QBR for defenses, but they only have offensive totals.

 

(Tried posting this before, but this board doesn't like tables/tabs... so here goes... sorry if it's ugly)

[Security]

Would have beat Houston with Orton.

[Dorkington]

Most definitely.

[peterpan]

Maybe beat SD too. And with did zebras the patsies* too

[NoSaint]

9th doesnt sound too crazy. id say we are in that mess of good teams, but not in the group of "favorites" for the SB.

[D. L. Hot-Flamethrower]

Nice thread! I think it fairly accurately represents team strength as a quick and dirty proxy.

[Dorkington]

9th doesnt sound too crazy. id say we are in that mess of good teams, but not in the group of "favorites" for the SB.

 

What about 3rd*? (KO only)

[NoSaint]

 

 

What about 3rd*? (KO only)

 

id venture ill wait as the sample size grows before diving in on that projection. im guessing KO doesnt stick at 104 rating long term. his career is 81.3 and highest season is 87.5. if you go with that best season, it bumps us to 12.

Edited October 28, 2014 by NoSaint

[Dibs]

As has been discussed here in the past... QB Rating differential is a pretty solid way to rate NFL teams these days... so where do the Bills stand?

 

http://www.coldhardf...ats/2014/9/PRD/

Rank Team Off PR Def PR PRD
1 Denver 118.58 82.33 36.26
2 Green Bay 110.32 82.13 28.19
3 New England 106.12 86.76 19.36
4 Cincinnati 91.89 73.01 18.87
5 Pittsburgh 107.14 91.47 15.67
6 Dallas 105.02 89.74 15.28
7 San Diego 109.51 94.47 15.05
8 N.Y. Giants 97.25 82.75 14.50
9 Buffalo 92.22 79.42 12.81
10 Cleveland 90.78 81.55 9.23
11 San Francisco 93.95 85.67 8.28
12 Detroit 86.34 79.46 6.88
13 Indianapolis 98.84 92.34 6.51
14 Arizona 90.33 86.24 4.09
15 Baltimore 90.63 87.03 3.60
16 Miami 86.07 82.65 3.42
17 Kansas City 94.97 92.55 2.42
18 Seattle 98.38 99.67 - 1.29
19 New Orleans 97.38 99.00 - 1.62
20 Atlanta 92.29 94.22 - 1.93
21 Houston 87.74 93.05 - 5.32
22 Carolina 92.24 97.71 - 5.46
23 Chicago 94.95 101.18 - 6.24
24 Tennessee 83.20 90.18 - 6.98
25 Washington 92.15 104.04 - 11.89
26 Philadelphia 80.66 93.90 - 13.24
27 St. Louis 90.11 105.54 - 15.43
28 Jacksonville 71.65 97.40 - 25.75
29 Minnesota 65.66 92.95 - 27.29
30 Tampa Bay 79.44 106.96 - 27.52
31 Oakland 78.10 107.50 - 29.40
32 N.Y. Jets 62.20 113.50 - 51.29

 

9th place overall, not bad.... we'd be 3rd if we just used KO's rating instead of overall team rating, but that's not exactly fair.

 

Here's Cold Hard Football Fact's "Real" QB Rating differential:

http://www.coldhardf...ts/2014/9/RQRD/

Rank Team RQBR DRQBR RQRD
1 Denver 112.55 78.05 34.50
2 Green Bay 98.90 80.23 18.67
3 New England 95.22 77.44 17.78
4 San Diego 103.77 88.60 15.17
5 Cincinnati 87.61 73.83 13.78
6 N.Y. Giants 91.18 79.40 11.78
7 Miami 82.50 70.86 11.64
8 Buffalo 82.78 71.54 11.24
9 Indianapolis 94.57 84.66 9.91
10 Detroit 80.02 71.49 8.53
11 Seattle 98.54 90.76 7.78
12 Pittsburgh 93.82 86.11 7.71
13 San Francisco 87.53 81.52 6.01
14 Cleveland 83.59 77.84 5.75
15 Baltimore 87.16 81.61 5.55
16 Dallas 94.57 89.54 5.03
17 Kansas City 85.66 80.73 4.93
18 New Orleans 94.73 93.69 1.04
19 Houston 82.80 82.89 - 0.09
20 Arizona 84.38 84.67 - 0.29
21 Tennessee 78.81 80.30 - 1.49
22 Atlanta 85.40 91.81 - 6.41
23 Carolina 84.96 91.93 - 6.97
24 Chicago 84.59 92.46 - 7.87
25 Philadelphia 75.45 83.71 - 8.26
26 Washington 83.35 97.58 - 14.23
27 Minnesota 63.13 81.91 - 18.78
28 Jacksonville 64.11 83.95 - 19.84
29 Tampa Bay 76.22 99.90 - 23.68
30 Oakland 75.48 100.80 - 25.32
31 St. Louis 77.71 104.31 - 26.60
32 N.Y. Jets 58.95 99.77 - 40.82

 

Wish I could find ESPN's QBR for defenses, but they only have offensive totals.

 

(Tried posting this before, but this board doesn't like tables/tabs... so here goes... sorry if it's ugly)

 

What you have shown is not passer rating differential, it is the passer rating difference. The differential is the Offensive QBR divided by the Defensive QBR......not the Offensive QBR minus the Defensive QBR(as shown). Likely both lists work out to be somewhat similar though.

 

ESPN Defensive Passer ratings for you(though I'm pretty sure it deducts the sack yardage from the QBR calculation so it isn't totally accurate)......it is the column "RATE":

http://espn.go.com/n...osition/defense

Edited October 28, 2014 by Dibs

[Dorkington]

I agree with your terminology, but was using the linked site's term for accuracy's sake in linking. My apologies.

 

And your link is for simple QB Rating, not ESPN's Total QBR number. Confusing, unfortunately.

Edited October 28, 2014 by Dorkington

[Dibs]

I agree with your terminology, but was using the linked site's term for accuracy's sake in linking. My apologies.

 

And your link is for simple QB Rating, not ESPN's Total QBR number. Confusing, unfortunately.

 

No worries. Agreed, pitty ESPN don't have a defensive team Total QBR. It would be very interesting to see if its differential marries as well as standard QBR differential in this regard.

[K-9]

So, let me see if I have this straight: you stand a better chance of success when you get superior QB play while your defense limits the success of the opposing QB? Who knew? I'm so glad there are stat geeks that can point out what should be obvious to even the most casual fan. That's not a shot at the OP or even the people who's hobbies include statistical analysis; it's fun to crunch numbers. But I have yet to see a new analytical that tells me anything we haven't known for years about football.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Dorkington]

It's nothing mind blowing, it's just a simple ranking to see where teams stand...

[Canadian Bills Fan]

Does anyone see Orton choosing not to return next year?

 

 

CBF

[Dorkington]

Does anyone see Orton choosing not to return next year?

 

 

CBF

 

If he can get a bigger contract on a better team, there's no reason for him to stay.

 

Technically he's not allowed contact with other teams until he opts out, but you know his agent will be talking to "sources".

[Billsguy]

9th doesnt sound too crazy. id say we are in that mess of good teams, but not in the group of "favorites" for the SB.

 

Last week the Bills were 19th. Don't jump to conclusions. It's not like they piled up numbers against the Broncos. Remember it was the pathetic Jets!

[Dorkington]

Last week the Bills were 19th. Don't jump to conclusions. It's not like they piled up numbers against the Broncos. Remember it was the pathetic Jets!

 

The Broncos played the Jets as well!

[Dibs]

So, let me see if I have this straight: you stand a better chance of success when you get superior QB play while your defense limits the success of the opposing QB? Who knew? I'm so glad there are stat geeks that can point out what should be obvious to even the most casual fan. That's not a shot at the OP or even the people who's hobbies include statistical analysis; it's fun to crunch numbers. But I have yet to see a new analytical that tells me anything we haven't known for years about football.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

For the last bunch of years it has shown a remarkable correlation to not only playoff teams but SB contenders as well. It is a little flippant to say "it's something we already knew" as there are many axioms in football that "everybody knows" that are not supported by statistical analysis. "Run & stop the run" is one such axiom that can't be backed up statistically in the modern NFL.

[BillsBytheBay]

Does anyone see Orton choosing not to return next year?

 

 

CBF

he completed ten passes on sunday. Three of them went for 152 and a TD.

 

I think Kyle knows why he looks good.

I think it's in his best interest to stick around. Besides, anyone see our starting QB for next year anywhere?

[K-9]

 

For the last bunch of years it has shown a remarkable correlation to not only playoff teams but SB contenders as well. It is a little flippant to say "it's something we already knew" as there are many axioms in football that "everybody knows" that are not supported by statistical analysis. "Run & stop the run" is one such axiom that can't be backed up statistically in the modern NFL.

 

With regard to this particular analytic, it certainly is something we've always known to be true. If you consistently get good QB play while your defense consistently limits the opposing QB's effectiveness, you are gonna be more successful and it stands to reason you're gonna be in contention.

 

The "run and stop the run" axiom still holds and kind of makes my case about the irrelevancy of certain statistics. As much as it's a passing league, it's not a pass "only" league and unless they have one of the handful of truly elite passers in the game, teams still need the added dimension of a running game. "Pass to score, run to win" is a new adage that makes a lot of sense in the pass happy era.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[C.Biscuit97]

I think QBR is better than QB rating, which is out of date. QB rating does not account for garbage time and the opponent. I'd love this breakdown with QBR if you can get this.

[Rockinon]

If he can get a bigger contract on a better team, there's no reason for him to stay.

 

Technically he's not allowed contact with other teams until he opts out, but you know his agent will be talking to "sources".

He's on a 2 yr contract. I think he likes winning.

[C.Biscuit97]

Does anyone see Orton choosing not to return next year?

 

 

CBF

 

He needs to finish the season first. He started a season 5-0 once and didn't make the playoffs. I also don't think the qb market goes crazy for 32 year olds.

 

Long way to go before we make any rash Jauron like decisions.

[norton20]

I dont see why Orton wouldn't be back. My understanding is that he has a 2 yr deal @ a very reasonable $5 mil per. That is cheap for a #1 Qb. With no 1st round pick, I cant see them taking a Qb that would be an obvious #1. By paying their starting Qb only $5 mil, they can allocate monies for Dareus, Hughes or extending Glenn.

[Orton's Arm]

Last week the Bills were 19th. Don't jump to conclusions. It's not like they piled up numbers against the Broncos. Remember it was the pathetic Jets!

 

This is a good point. Between them, Geno Smith and Michael Vick produced one of the worst quarterbacking performances I've ever seen. Vick did a good job hurting us with his legs, but that's not something which shows up in quarterback rating. His throwing was really bad--albeit not as bad as Geno Smith's! I think that Smith had a quarterback rating of zero. When you average a number like that into the defense's ranking, it's obviously going to make it look better than it had a week ago.

 

On the other hand, Orton's perfect passer rating for the game came at the expense of what is widely recognized as a very weak Jets secondary. Orton is a better player than his reputation would suggest. But it's not like he'll be facing the Jets secondary every week.

 

On the other hand, the Bills would undoubtedly have had a better offensive ranking if Orton had been with the team the whole offseason, and had been made the starter from the very first game. The fact that we look worse than we should due to Manuel's games may partially balance out the fact we look better than we should due to that Jets game.

[NoSaint]

I dont see why Orton wouldn't be back. My understanding is that he has a 2 yr deal @ a very reasonable $5 mil per. That is cheap for a #1 Qb. With no 1st round pick, I cant see them taking a Qb that would be an obvious #1. By paying their starting Qb only $5 mil, they can allocate monies for Dareus, Hughes or extending Glenn.

 

the issue is orton can opt out.

 

 

The fact that we look worse than we should due to Manuel's games may partially balance out the fact we look better than we should due to that Jets game.

 

like i said, right in that mess of good but not GREAT teams, likely. without going back to the list say 7-8 through 16-18. teams that are wild card type contenders. talent levels pretty similar so a few lucky breaks and health being a big part of the differentiation.

Edited October 28, 2014 by NoSaint

[Orton's Arm]

 

For the last bunch of years it has shown a remarkable correlation to not only playoff teams but SB contenders as well. It is a little flippant to say "it's something we already knew" as there are many axioms in football that "everybody knows" that are not supported by statistical analysis. "Run & stop the run" is one such axiom that can't be backed up statistically in the modern NFL.

 

> "Run & stop the run" is one such axiom that can't be backed up statistically in the modern NFL.

 

Correct. The New York Times performed a multiple linear regression analysis. The dependent variable was teams' winning percentages. The independent variables were yards per pass attempt, yards per running attempt, INT percentage, and the defensive equivalents thereof. A one SD improvement in yards per pass attempt was three times as effective as a one SD improvement in yards per rush attempt, or a one SD improvement in INT percentage. Given that interceptions are part of the passing game, the authors concluded that the passing game is four times as important as the running game.

 

Of course, there will be exceptions to that rule of thumb. If your opponent has a great running game, and if your run defense is chopped liver, that team's running game may play a much greater role in the game's outcome than the above-described 4:1 ratio would suggest. But that logic can also be true of any other aspect of football. For example, if the other team is tremendously good at returning punts, and if your punt coverage team is lousy, punt returns might end up having a significantly greater impact than you'd usually expect.

[starrymessenger]

If Orton has a stellar year he will be in demand. He doesn't have to play for the Bills, though he may want to.

The suggestion that he's some kind of deadbeat just looking for a chance to play QB anywhere is absurd.

Idk what kind of contract he may be able to parlay a strong performance into but I can guarantee it will be more than 5 bucks per.

Oh and by the way that's why he's here. He has a plan and a personal agenda. He knew perfectly well that the Bills were basically one player away from being able to compete. He thinks he's that player.

He's not stupid and Kyle Orton is the last person on earth who would ever sell Kyle Orton short.

Kyle wants money and as much of it that he can get.

By year end if he leads the Bills to the playoffs he will have Whaley right where he wants him.

Smooth.

[billybrew1]

 

 

id venture ill wait as the sample size grows before diving in on that projection. im guessing KO doesnt stick at 104 rating long term. his career is 81.3 and highest season is 87.5. if you go with that best season, it bumps us to 12.

 

While i agree the sample size is small and we've had a couple easier matchups, the classic QB rating (which I think is what we're talking about; not QBR) is more of a function of an offense than a QB..... Perhaps Kyle has found a better team or is a late bloomer or both....

[Rocky Landing]

Here is my problem with the Quarterback Rating Differential (and this is going to sound picky, and semantic because it is):

 

The Quarterback Rating Differential should not be called the Quarterback Rating Differential.

Hear me out.

The Quarterback Rating (QBR) is a formula used to rate a quarterback’s performance based on completion percentage, yards per pass attempt, touchdowns, and interceptions. It is statistically meaningless because it doesn’t take into consideration the playing level of anyone else on the field other than the quarterback, and the null hypothesis is easy to prove.

The Quarterback Rating Differential (QBRD), on the other hand, is a measure of team performance based on those four metrics. In other words, everyone’s performance on the field, including the offense and defense of the team being measured, and the opponents of that team factor into the equation. That is why the above list doesn’t state Aaron Rodgers’ QBRD, but the Packers’ QBRD. In fact, there could be several quarterbacks playing during any game that would be included into QBRD.

Really, this stat should be called Team Rating Differential. And, with that being said, if someone (or some group) with a firm understanding of statistics, and a lot of time on their hands would calculate, and include corresponding values for running plays, rushing touchdowns, and field goals, the statistic would be even more useful.