eball Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 Carson Palmer, Tom Brady, Jake Delhomme, Byron Leftwich, Daunte Culpepper, Drew Bledsoe, Brad Johnson, Brett Favre, Steve McNair, Matt Hasselbeck, Mike Vick, and Jake Plummer. What do they have in common? They all have poorer QB ratings after a quarter of the season than our own JP Losman. Just thought that was interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 Here here!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokinandjokin Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 Carson Palmer, Tom Brady, Jake Delhomme, Byron Leftwich, Daunte Culpepper, Drew Bledsoe, Brad Johnson, Brett Favre, Steve McNair, Matt Hasselbeck, Mike Vick, and Jake Plummer. What do they have in common? They all have poorer QB ratings after a quarter of the season than our own JP Losman. Just thought that was interesting. 793779[/snapback] Palmer had a devastating knee injury, Brady has no receivers, Delhomme was missing Steve Smith, Leftwich and the Jags have had a tough schedule, Culpepper is being dragged down by Mularkey, Brad Johnson can't be expected to play well in those purple pants, Favre has to throw picks so that Ahman Green doesn't feel bad about all his fumbles, McNair just wins baby (and he's probaby hurt), Hasselbeck has no RB or LT, Vick was a victim of the NFL fix when the league forced them to lose the New Orleans game, Plummer just has to manage the game with that rushing attack...Trust me, it's a fluke, Losman sucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvermike Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 All kidding aside, Brady really doesn't have any receivers. If you've got a great QB, why don't you give him the tools to finish the job, rather than cheapingn out with Doug Gabriel and Reche Caldwell? The Pats are $13M under the salary cap. If you're not going to pay Branch, pay SOMEBODY. Well, their loss! :devil: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnychemo Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 Hehe, I almost posted the same thing after looking through the NFL.com stats pages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokinandjokin Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 The Pats are $13M under the salary cap. 793854[/snapback] That is appalling. It's not like staying under does you any favors. You can't roll those savings into the next season and be $13M over the cap... A 1st-rounder for Branch was a real coup, but not using that money while watching McGinnest, Vinatieri, Branch, and Givens walk just seems idiotic. I have a feeling this would be a much bigger deal in the media if it was another contender, like Baltimore or Cincy, hanging that far under the cap. The fact is, the Pats have made all of their moves work for the last five years, so it's hard to criticize them until the season plays out. I can't believe they haven't given Charles Rogers a look...He can be trouble, and has been injured, but that's a former #2 overall who is young and unemployed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 Passer rating was a dumb, very often misleading stat when Losman had a lousy one, and remains a dumb, very often misleading stat when he has a pretty decent one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marauderswr80 Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 Did you see JP Losman was in the top 3 as top fantasy free agents for QB's.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sen. John Blutarsky Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 Passer rating was a dumb, very often misleading stat when Losman had a lousy one, and remains a dumb, very often misleading stat when he has a pretty decent one. 793870[/snapback] Amen. I'm sure Roethlisberger's QB rating is god awful right now. Anyone here who wouldn't rather have Ben? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wraith Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 Amen. I'm sure Roethlisberger's QB rating is god awful right now. Anyone here who wouldn't rather have Ben? 793893[/snapback] I wouldn't rather have had Ben in his lousy two games that earned him that god awful rating. Are you trying to argue that he played better than his QB rating this season indicates or that he IS better than his QB rating indicates? Your problem is that QB rating is a summary statistic, not a predictive statistic. Big Ben is probably better than his 34 QB Rating, but his play the last two games certainly isn't. That 34.3 rating only applies to the last two games, in which he has been awful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 That is appalling. It's not like staying under does you any favors. You can't roll those savings into the next season and be $13M over the cap... A 1st-rounder for Branch was a real coup, but not using that money while watching McGinnest, Vinatieri, Branch, and Givens walk just seems idiotic. I have a feeling this would be a much bigger deal in the media if it was another contender, like Baltimore or Cincy, hanging that far under the cap. The fact is, the Pats have made all of their moves work for the last five years, so it's hard to criticize them until the season plays out. I can't believe they haven't given Charles Rogers a look...He can be trouble, and has been injured, but that's a former #2 overall who is young and unemployed. 793864[/snapback] And so far, at 3-1, its working out for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phlegm Alley Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 I wouldn't rather have had Ben in his lousy two games that earned him that god awful rating. Big Ben is probably better than his 34 QB Rating, but his play the last two games certainly isn't. That 34.3 rating only applies to the last two games, in which he has been awful. 793914[/snapback] Is this before or after motorcycle accident/appendectomy? He may not be the same ever again after these incidents and maybe these stats are truly representative of his possible decline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 I wouldn't rather have had Ben in his lousy two games that earned him that god awful rating. Are you trying to argue that he played better than his QB rating this season indicates or that he IS better than his QB rating indicates. Your problem is that QB rating is a summary statistic, not a predictive statistic. Big Ben is probably better than his 34 QB Rating, but his play the last two games certainly isn't. That 34.3 rating only applies to the last two games, in which he has been awful. 793914[/snapback] It's still a dumb rating regardless. Stats as a whole are often misleading and this is the worst stat. It doesn't take into consideration sacks and fumbles, which are just as important as INTs. It rewards certain kinds of plays that are bad plays. It especially rewards efficiency in mediocre quarterbacks to playmakers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wraith Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 Is this before or after motorcycle accident/appendectomy? He may not be the same ever again after these incidents and maybe these stats are truly representative of his possible decline. 793920[/snapback] That is also possible. Either way, I am comfortable saying that Roethlisberger's 34.3 passer rating IS indicative of his play this year. All in all, I think QB rating is not a bad tool. It certainly isn't the worst of the generally accepted statistics. I do not know the formula off-hand, but I do know that it at least tries to account for a wide range of parameters to give a balanced view of performance. However, not knowing the formula, I cannot say if it takes down/distance/situation/etc into account. That information is CONTEXT and it is CRITICAL to any statistic being worthwhile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 I wouldn't rather have had Ben in his lousy two games that earned him that god awful rating. Are you trying to argue that he played better than his QB rating this season indicates or that he IS better than his QB rating indicates. Your problem is that QB rating is a summary statistic, not a predictive statistic. Big Ben is probably better than his 34 QB Rating, but his play the last two games certainly isn't. That 34.3 rating only applies to the last two games, in which he has been awful. 793914[/snapback] It'll be interesting to see how Roethlisburger plays this coming week, after the bye week rest. I only watched him in the CIN game...he moved well in and out of the pocket, but struggled in passing. After the nice opening drive, he was 10 for 25. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 That is also possible. Either way, I am comfortable saying that Roethlisberger's 34.3 passer rating IS indicative of his play this year. All in all, I think QB rating is not a bad tool. It certainly isn't the worst of the generally accepted statistics. I do not know the formula off-hand, but I do know that it at least tries to account for a wide range of parameters to give a balanced view of performance. However, not knowing the formula, I cannot say if it takes down/distance/situation/etc into account. That information is CONTEXT and it is CRITICAL to any statistic being worthwhile. 793929[/snapback] No, down and distance have no part in the formula. In fact, it rewards plays like 10 yard passes on 3rd and 13 that precede punts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hollywood Donahoe Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 That is appalling. It's not like staying under does you any favors. You can't roll those savings into the next season and be $13M over the cap... Yes, you can. I don't know if the Patriots will make use of the methods, but it is a fairly standard process. You essentially write NLTBE incentives into contracts, and they count against the cap in the current year, and once they're not met, you're credited with that amount on the following year's cap. ...but not using that money while watching McGinnest, Vinatieri, Branch, and Givens walk just seems idiotic. The thing is, none of those the guys are lighting it up for their new teams. McGinest is old, Vinatieri is proving to be too injury-prone for how how much money he's getting (recall that he had injury issues in his last few years with the Pats as well), Givens is already complaining about not getting the ball enough in Tennessee, and I don't care what Branch does, giving a 5'8" WR $13 million a year with a 1st rounder on the table would never be a good decision. I can't believe they haven't given Charles Rogers a look...He can be trouble, and has been injured, but that's a former #2 overall who is young and unemployed. No one's giving Rogers a look. The guy's a train wreck. Injury-prone + locker room cancer = avoid at all costs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDH Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 Yes, you can. I don't know if the Patriots will make use of the methods, but it is a fairly standard process. You essentially write NLTBE incentives into contracts, and they count against the cap in the current year, and once they're not met, you're credited with that amount on the following year's cap. The thing is, none of those the guys are lighting it up for their new teams. McGinest is old, Vinatieri is proving to be too injury-prone for how how much money he's getting (recall that he had injury issues in his last few years with the Pats as well), Givens is already complaining about not getting the ball enough in Tennessee, and I don't care what Branch does, giving a 5'8" WR $13 million a year with a 1st rounder on the table would never be a good decision. No one's giving Rogers a look. The guy's a train wreck. Injury-prone + locker room cancer = avoid at all costs. 793984[/snapback] So basically you're happy that the Pats aren't spending that cash and trying to put the best possible product on the field? Are you getting a percentage or something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hollywood Donahoe Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 So basically you're happy that the Pats aren't spending that cash... I don't recall saying that. I do recall noting, however, that the team shouldn't waste money on older, injury-prone, or marginal players. ...and trying to put the best possible product on the field? more expensive != best Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDH Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 I don't recall saying that. I do recall noting, however, that the team shouldn't waste money on older, injury-prone, or marginal players.more expensive != best 794035[/snapback] Yeah, you generally have to spend money to attract FAs. Sure the Pats might not have wanted to re-sign some of their older vets but are you really telling me that there was nobody out there in FA that could have helped the Pats? Come on, you can't really apologize for every move the Pats make (or don't make). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts