E!SPNs made up QBR and their obvious agenda

[lurker1965]

E!SPNs made up QBR and their obvious agenda


Mods please merge if this thread exists but not on the first page or whatever

ESPN’s Invented QBR Rating System is SEVERELY Flawed, Get a Load of This

Weeden ranks higher than Brady and Brady is second worst QB. Link is to off the monster sports making fun of it.

 

[Bobsyouruncle]

You just can't accept that Weeden is an all time great who outplayed Brady.

Look at Hoyer, #3, man wish we would have cut Brady and kept him. Doubt Houston will let him walk though, after how amazing they look.

 

[wolverinejoe80]

it's been well established that QBR is a joke. but Brady has been ranked high in QBR many times. so i wouldn't call it an agenda. it's just a flawed formula.

 

[RelocatedPatFan]

I think I found a fatal flaw in the formula. Sacks * -1 * if(player = "Tom Brady", 5, 1)

 

[RobertWeathers]

I knew it was a joke when in 2011 Tebow had a better qbr than Brady.

 

[oldrover]

I knew it was a joke when in 2011 Tebow had a better qbr than Brady.

sssshhh... he said 'Tebow'... nobody else comment and we just might save this thread...

 

[XLIX]

I'm with those that say the stat is silly, but I don't see an agenda there. I mean, they invented it a couple years ago, and have tweaked it a bit since then. It isn't exactly targeting specific QBs.

I think what hurts Brady is you get more points for things like scoring TD's in close games and especially late in close games. Brady doesn't have much of that this year.

 

[BradyFTW!]

This is what's commonly referred to a back-to-the-drawing-board result. If your system says that Brian Hoyer, Colin Kaepernick, Tyrod Taylor, Kirk Cousins, Jameis Winston, Dan Orlovsky, Brandon Weeden, and Matt Stafford (who sucked so hard he was benched, FFS) all out-quarterbacked Brady, that can only mean one thing. That your formula is complete and utter garbage and this chart wasn't worth the time that it took for a single reader to read it.

It might as well conclude that 2 + 2 = 5, because it's just objectively wrong, and so badly wrong that a rational person is forced to question if it's even capable of producing output that isn't worthless.

 

[SVN]

dont know why we need validation from every place about brady or go and do a witchunt about about everything is about getting at brady/pats with some agenda and playing the victim card

 

[Gumby]

Gee, I hope Luck is healthy, I'd hate to have to face that number one guy

 

[Deus Irae]

QBR is awful. It's the sort of garbage that PFF would put out.

That being said, I've seen no evidence of any agenda beyond "Get ESPN mentioned as much as possible" being behind it.

 

[Patsfan22]

dont know why we need validation from every place about brady or go and do a witchunt about about everything is about getting at brady/pats with some agenda and playing the victim card

It's not about validation, it's about QBR being total dogshit as an analytical tool. Outside of the 'result' column, we have no damn clue how well any of these quarterbacks did. Contrast that to passer rating, sure it has its quirks but at least you know that someone with over 100 rating played well.

If we're going to use QBR we might as well go all out and start rating QB's out of unicorns.

 

[Tony2046]

I'm with those that say the stat is silly, but I don't see an agenda there. I mean, they invented it a couple years ago, and have tweaked it a bit since then. It isn't exactly targeting specific QBs.

I think what hurts Brady is you get more points for things like scoring TD's in close games and especially late in close games. Brady doesn't have much of that this year.

Except Weeden didn't score any touchdowns in the last game.

 

[edkk323]

I read some of the EBSN's explanation on TQBR. "Assign Credits to throws a" aka "Give whatever score EBSN wants" is just BS. How many sacks were Brady's fault? The line broke down immediately. Yet he got a -3.8 which carried a significant weight....
Also some TDs were results of JE and DL's great move which meant less TQBR to TB. TB had rushing TD but had a negative RUN score...

EBSN is consisted of a bunch of brain dead as usual.

 

[RelocatedPatFan]

For QBR, isn't a score of 50 suppose to represent what an "Average" QB would accomplish in a given situation? Thus, a rating of 24.1 indicates that Brady played well below what an average QB would have done in his place.

it seems highly subjective to me in this regard and feels like BS (given the score this week) or perhaps an average QB would have put 45+ points on the board vs Dallas.

 

[Pat the Pats Fan]

but, but, but, Joe Flacko is an elite QB too , and he is right next to Brady.....so it must be right.....

 

[rookBoston]

sssshhh... he said 'Tebow'... nobody else comment and we just might save this thread...

You said it again! Twice in the same thread will trigger the robots web crawlers. Please just call it the T-word.

 

[patchick]

This is what's commonly referred to a back-to-the-drawing-board result.

Bingo. That's just a total embarrassment from top to bottom.

Anybody notice that Philip Rivers doesn't even make that top 26 list? All that bum Rivers has done so far is lead the league in passing yardage while completing 71% of his passes and throwing 10 TDs vs 5 INTs. Not like that top-5 quarterback Colin Kaepernick, with his 63% passing, 198 yds/game and 4 TDs to 5 INTs.

It doesn't work, ESPN. Admit it and start over.

 

[Sicilian]

QBR is awful. It's the sort of garbage that PFF would put out.

That being said, I've seen no evidence of any agenda beyond "Get ESPN mentioned as much as possible" being behind it.

Yeah, it's like how every time a ref makes a blatantly bad call people cry "conspiracy!" When in reality it's just incompetence. True incompetence looks suspicious because people can't believe that someone could be that stupid without doing it on purpose, but they're often wrong.

 

[Hammer of Thor]

Yeah, it's like how every time a ref makes a blatantly bad call people cry "conspiracy!" When in reality it's just incompetence. True incompetence looks suspicious because people can't believe that someone could be that stupid with doing it on purpose, but they're often wrong.

Hanlon's razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."