There are 215 users in the forums
Originally posted by tankle104:
I didn't realize how poor jimmy is at going through his reads until I've seen him these three games with the raiders. Makes me realize how simple kyle made the offense for him here and why he rarely had off schedule plays until CMC arrival. He still has stud WR & RB and is struggling. Solid o line too.
Originally posted by YACBros85:
Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:
Originally posted by YACBros85:
Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:
Originally posted by YACBros85:
Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:
Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:
Wait, so you believe a touchdown on second down, while in field goal range, when the score was 23 to 12 with six minutes minutes left is super clutch? The game was already a two score game and about to be extended with a field goal. If anything, that touchdown pass ought to matter less because the chances of the 49ers winning were already well above 90% at that point in the game.* As for the touchdown to Bell, the score was 3 to 3 in the middle of the second quarter. A great third down pass, but clutch? Come on. Clutch is when you're losing late in the fourth and convert a third and long.
*As you can see here, the 49ers chances of losing the game during that "clutch" moment were minuscule.
https://live.numberfire.com/nfl/8330
I mean really? Our win probability was already 98.79% and you think that's a clutch moment?
Like I said, homeritus is a dangerous thing. I am not knocking Purdy. He played well. He made some mistakes early, sure, but they didn't cost the team, and after he settled in he played like a Franchise QB. Negate the early portion and he played Super Bowl winning quarterbacking.
Total QBR takes into account situation, but also opponent's strength. The Jets have one of the best defenses in football. The Giants not so much. That's probably a big reason for the difference in and of itself.
As has been said before. Total QBR is not perfect. But it's still better than passer rating, which doesn't differentiate between player contributions to a given play.
II think that's the weirdest post I've read in a long time. I guess it comes down to the difference between "clutch" and "super clutch"
Watching a 49er quarterback throw us past the red zone for seven points is like water to a thirsty man in the desert for tour shanny offense. Yeah it's pretty clutch to turn a game that still has possibility to have some kind of crazy ending into a laugher with four or five minutes left? Yeah that's what Champions do. They shut the door they don't leave it open like we've had a tendency to do for the last few years. I think you've watched this team enough to know that it was a pretty impressive play. As far as it being either "clutch" or "super clutch" honestly I don't care you should focus more on consistency how many times has Brock done this in the last 10 games. Quite a few. That's the big picture. Not quibbling over some dumb Advanced stat that's complete opinion anyway. Sheesh. Talk about an agenda.
I am still trying to figure out how ALMOST INT's weigh heavy in that QBR stat but ALMOST TD's don't weigh anything.
I don't know for sure if almost INTs even do. I just know if I were grading QB performance, they would (assuming I had access to that data), because it's something the QB does (EDIT: In lieu of that data, for my own statistical analyses I tend to just use on target passing). As would great throws which are dropped, including almost TDs. But if I understand Total QBR, it's based almost entirely on EPA, weighted by various factors like situation and location on the field.
Honestly, my only strife is that if Brock doesn't throw those 2 TD passes against the giants, its essentially a 4 point game in the 4th quarter. While on the flip side, Dak against the same defense won 40-0 without throwing a TD pass, averaging only 6.0 ypa and completing only 54% of his passes. Dak may not have put the ball in harms way but he had no where near the impact Brock had in winning their respective games against the same defense imo. So why did Dak grade higher? It just doesn't make any sense to me if that stat is meant to determine how much of a factor the QB had in winning or losing a game. Who do you personally think had more of an impact on their team winning against the giants?
I think that's one of the problems with breaking everything down to a single play basis. It's why I'm not super high on EPA. Don't get me wrong, I'd still take Total QBR over passer rating in an instant. But to me I feel like there are simpler ways to gauge approximate QB value which don't require that level of sophistication, and the issues that come with that (such as overvaluing a situation because at the given moment it statistically is very important, but in hindsight at the end of the game it turns out that it's not as important as history might suggest). I think there's a simpler, better way: just do a statistical analysis of which stats correlate the most with winning, and weight them all by things like air yards to make sure the QB isn't getting too much credit, and combine them into a simple formula. IMHO that would be better. Perhaps not always as accurate, but the general trend will lead to it rating QBs approximately where they need to be with respect to one another.
I can completely understand why you would take QBR over PR. PR does not account for anything that the QB is asked to do outside the pocket. Which are not QB skills that should be overlooked because they bring real value to an offense.
You and I both emphasize stats like QB 1st down % and 3rd down passing conversion rate because they do correlate strongly with winning. Because if you aren't converting on 3rd down and moving the chains, its very hard for an offense to be productive. A team that cannot move the ball and doesn't score many points will find it very difficult to win games.
I also like BTT% and TWP% I would use them over air yards. There are HOF's/soon to be HOF's who made a career off the short/precision game. BTT% tells me how often a QB is elevating the play of the offense. While TWP% tells me how often the QB is putting the ball in harms way. I also have collected enough data to suggest that there is a strong correlation between how well a QB performs when facing pressure and the general concesus of who is elite in this league.
I have been collecting data and searching for trends for about a year now. I was thinking about creating my own QB formula. I'm just not sure on how to weigh each statistic at this point. I want to weigh heavy on efficiency stats on dropbacks where the QB is facing pressure. For reasons noted above. But I don't think I should completely disregard the value of how efficient a QB is with a clean pocket either.
Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:
Originally posted by RickyRoma:
Originally posted by Giedi:
Absolutely agree, *so far, so good.* The only thing I would say with operating with lesser offensive talent, is that the OLine (specially on the right side) needs to be upgraded. You can operate with lesser offensive talent, in my opinion, if you have elite Offensive Line talent. Give Brock 3+ seconds and he can definitely create some passing offensive fireworks. Having said that, in the playoffs and possibly in the Super Bowl, those offensive talent deficiencies will show up, by a better team.
An example of that would be the 49ers vs Chargers, the Chargers were exposed in the super bowl by a more complete team. In other words, I'd like ShanaLynch to keep the offensive firepower up, and not let it diminish - if they want to get to the championship game year in and year out. (easier said that than done for sure, though).
I'm assuming you meant Dolphins, because that Charger team was one of the weakest teams to ever reach a SB.
If Purdy *is* a guy who can be that top 5 type of dude, then he's a player who can elevate those around him. He's going to get the ball out, so OL doesn't have to block a guy for 4+ seconds. He's going to feel the pressure, and maneuver within the pocket and hit the open guy - like he did with that throw to Kittle against the Giants that has been posted. He's going read and recognize pre and post snap, and poor receivers are going to look average, average receivers are going to look good, and good receivers are going to look great.
He's also gonna get paid....and that means other positions will have to be sacrificed. If Shanahan, with his scheme? And assuming he has a guy with *it* in Purdy? There are many ways to skin a cat, but I'd be all for the team to just to load up on defense, and make do with lesser offensive skill guys.
We have three years to worry about that.
Originally posted by Giedi:
Everybody harp's on Brock's lack of arm strength and Height. But Brees did fine. Brock's taller than Brees, and his arm - if you consider 54 MPH (before Brock's elbow operation) as a true measure of his arm strength - that is about what a typical NFL average QB has. So his arm strength is - at worst - is average, and not a weakness. Maybe his straight line speed isn't great (4.84/40) but it is a good Tight End speed. It's not terribly slow. Jimmy has a 4.97/40 score, before his ACL injury. Personally I don't see any real weaknesses that a typical average defense can exploit. Specially if he operates safely in Kyle's offense.
Originally posted by BoldRedandGold:
Originally posted by Giedi:
Everybody harp's on Brock's lack of arm strength and Height. But Brees did fine. Brock's taller than Brees, and his arm - if you consider 54 MPH (before Brock's elbow operation) as a true measure of his arm strength - that is about what a typical NFL average QB has. So his arm strength is - at worst - is average, and not a weakness. Maybe his straight line speed isn't great (4.84/40) but it is a good Tight End speed. It's not terribly slow. Jimmy has a 4.97/40 score, before his ACL injury. Personally I don't see any real weaknesses that a typical average defense can exploit. Specially if he operates safely in Kyle's offense.
His 10 yard split is elite. It's what gets you tds at the goal line and converts third and 4th and short. His legs are short so he doesn't have a high top speed but he gets there extremely quickly.
His first two steps are elite quick. Let's him escape the rush and convert short scores.
People act like he's slow but he's actually extremely quick.
Originally posted by 9ers4eva:
Originally posted by tankle104:
I didn't realize how poor jimmy is at going through his reads until I've seen him these three games with the raiders. Makes me realize how simple kyle made the offense for him here and why he rarely had off schedule plays until CMC arrival. He still has stud WR & RB and is struggling. Solid o line too.
Why we need Brock to stay healthy because Sam is equally as poor.
Originally posted by Giedi:
Originally posted by Rsrkshn:
Originally posted by Giedi:
I'm still a big Jimmy fan, but I think those panic throws come from the fact that he just doesn't have the wheels to get away from a pass rush. He isn't as mobile as Brock, for example. Having said that, if you compare his ability to understand Kyles offense - hands down, Brock is superior to Jimmy. As good as Jimmy is in processing, Brock is much better, and more accurate too. Also, just looking at Jimmy's arm versus Brock's arm - it just feels (to me) that Brock's arm is stronger. It just does, I dont know why.
Jimmy isn't good at processing actually. He doesn't see the field well when the first read isn't there. His first pick last night was clear evidence of that.
Have to be objective about guys strengths and weaknesses. Brock has weaknesses too but when you can process at an elite level that can mask a ton. Thats the big difference.
So far I see some limitations, but zero weaknesses.
He seems above average in everything. Even arguably arm strength. Certainly not elite there; he doesn't have a bazooka, but having a cannon can also be problematic if you can't control it. As I've noticed, Purdy throws a very catchable ball. This helps even when he's off target; receivers can bring it in. Something that's not possible if you're throwing bullets.
Of course, if he has to fling it 60 yards down field on target like Rodgers, that has yet to be demonstrated. I agree that his arm strength looks superior to Garappolo.
His elusiveness in/from the pocket is way above average, it looks to me.
Lacks the elite twitch and straight line speed of, say, Jackson. But even there, better than average.
Don't see any weakness. Unless being only a little above average is a weakness.
Everybody harp's on Brock's lack of arm strength and Height. But Brees did fine. Brock's taller than Brees, and his arm - if you consider 54 MPH (before Brock's elbow operation) as a true measure of his arm strength - that is about what a typical NFL average QB has. So his arm strength is - at worst - is average, and not a weakness. Maybe his straight line speed isn't great (4.84/40) but it is a good Tight End speed. It's not terribly slow. Jimmy has a 4.97/40 score, before his ACL injury. Personally I don't see any real weaknesses that a typical average defense can exploit. Specially if he operates safely in Kyle's offense.
Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:
Originally posted by YACBros85:
Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:
Originally posted by YACBros85:
Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:
Originally posted by YACBros85:
Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:
Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:
Wait, so you believe a touchdown on second down, while in field goal range, when the score was 23 to 12 with six minutes minutes left is super clutch? The game was already a two score game and about to be extended with a field goal. If anything, that touchdown pass ought to matter less because the chances of the 49ers winning were already well above 90% at that point in the game.* As for the touchdown to Bell, the score was 3 to 3 in the middle of the second quarter. A great third down pass, but clutch? Come on. Clutch is when you're losing late in the fourth and convert a third and long.
*As you can see here, the 49ers chances of losing the game during that "clutch" moment were minuscule.
https://live.numberfire.com/nfl/8330
I mean really? Our win probability was already 98.79% and you think that's a clutch moment?
Like I said, homeritus is a dangerous thing. I am not knocking Purdy. He played well. He made some mistakes early, sure, but they didn't cost the team, and after he settled in he played like a Franchise QB. Negate the early portion and he played Super Bowl winning quarterbacking.
Total QBR takes into account situation, but also opponent's strength. The Jets have one of the best defenses in football. The Giants not so much. That's probably a big reason for the difference in and of itself.
As has been said before. Total QBR is not perfect. But it's still better than passer rating, which doesn't differentiate between player contributions to a given play.
II think that's the weirdest post I've read in a long time. I guess it comes down to the difference between "clutch" and "super clutch"
Watching a 49er quarterback throw us past the red zone for seven points is like water to a thirsty man in the desert for tour shanny offense. Yeah it's pretty clutch to turn a game that still has possibility to have some kind of crazy ending into a laugher with four or five minutes left? Yeah that's what Champions do. They shut the door they don't leave it open like we've had a tendency to do for the last few years. I think you've watched this team enough to know that it was a pretty impressive play. As far as it being either "clutch" or "super clutch" honestly I don't care you should focus more on consistency how many times has Brock done this in the last 10 games. Quite a few. That's the big picture. Not quibbling over some dumb Advanced stat that's complete opinion anyway. Sheesh. Talk about an agenda.
I am still trying to figure out how ALMOST INT's weigh heavy in that QBR stat but ALMOST TD's don't weigh anything.
I don't know for sure if almost INTs even do. I just know if I were grading QB performance, they would (assuming I had access to that data), because it's something the QB does (EDIT: In lieu of that data, for my own statistical analyses I tend to just use on target passing). As would great throws which are dropped, including almost TDs. But if I understand Total QBR, it's based almost entirely on EPA, weighted by various factors like situation and location on the field.
Honestly, my only strife is that if Brock doesn't throw those 2 TD passes against the giants, its essentially a 4 point game in the 4th quarter. While on the flip side, Dak against the same defense won 40-0 without throwing a TD pass, averaging only 6.0 ypa and completing only 54% of his passes. Dak may not have put the ball in harms way but he had no where near the impact Brock had in winning their respective games against the same defense imo. So why did Dak grade higher? It just doesn't make any sense to me if that stat is meant to determine how much of a factor the QB had in winning or losing a game. Who do you personally think had more of an impact on their team winning against the giants?
I think that's one of the problems with breaking everything down to a single play basis. It's why I'm not super high on EPA. Don't get me wrong, I'd still take Total QBR over passer rating in an instant. But to me I feel like there are simpler ways to gauge approximate QB value which don't require that level of sophistication, and the issues that come with that (such as overvaluing a situation because at the given moment it statistically is very important, but in hindsight at the end of the game it turns out that it's not as important as history might suggest). I think there's a simpler, better way: just do a statistical analysis of which stats correlate the most with winning, and weight them all by things like air yards to make sure the QB isn't getting too much credit, and combine them into a simple formula. IMHO that would be better. Perhaps not always as accurate, but the general trend will lead to it rating QBs approximately where they need to be with respect to one another.
I can completely understand why you would take QBR over PR. PR does not account for anything that the QB is asked to do outside the pocket. Which are not QB skills that should be overlooked because they bring real value to an offense.
You and I both emphasize stats like QB 1st down % and 3rd down passing conversion rate because they do correlate strongly with winning. Because if you aren't converting on 3rd down and moving the chains, its very hard for an offense to be productive. A team that cannot move the ball and doesn't score many points will find it very difficult to win games.
I also like BTT% and TWP% I would use them over air yards. There are HOF's/soon to be HOF's who made a career off the short/precision game. BTT% tells me how often a QB is elevating the play of the offense. While TWP% tells me how often the QB is putting the ball in harms way. I also have collected enough data to suggest that there is a strong correlation between how well a QB performs when facing pressure and the general concesus of who is elite in this league.
I have been collecting data and searching for trends for about a year now. I was thinking about creating my own QB formula. I'm just not sure on how to weigh each statistic at this point. I want to weigh heavy on efficiency stats on dropbacks where the QB is facing pressure. For reasons noted above. But I don't think I should completely disregard the value of how efficient a QB is with a clean pocket either.
My problem with BTT as it pertains to a QB metric is that, based on its stated definition, it is extremely subjective, and the entire point of a metric is to minimize subjectivity. And also, sometimes a guy is making a death defying throw because he made a bad read and was forced to (Jimmy G did this from time to time; and one of Brock's TDs against the Raiders last year only occurred because he missed the read and then had to improvise. Not sure if they count that sort of thing as BTT, but regardless there will be some level of subjectivity there).
Originally posted by Memphis9er:
If you have watched enough football, and are smart enough to know how football works, you should be able to spot a good qb without a bunch of mathematicians who never played a single down, at any level, telling you if they are good. Watching a guy play will tell you far more than ink on paper ever could.
Originally posted by Memphis9er:
If you have watched enough football, and are smart enough to know how football works, you should be able to spot a good qb without a bunch of mathematicians who never played a single down, at any level, telling you if they are good. Watching a guy play will tell you far more than ink on paper ever could.
Originally posted by YACBros85:
Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:
Originally posted by YACBros85:
Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:
Originally posted by YACBros85:
Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:
Originally posted by YACBros85:
Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:
Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:
Wait, so you believe a touchdown on second down, while in field goal range, when the score was 23 to 12 with six minutes minutes left is super clutch? The game was already a two score game and about to be extended with a field goal. If anything, that touchdown pass ought to matter less because the chances of the 49ers winning were already well above 90% at that point in the game.* As for the touchdown to Bell, the score was 3 to 3 in the middle of the second quarter. A great third down pass, but clutch? Come on. Clutch is when you're losing late in the fourth and convert a third and long.
*As you can see here, the 49ers chances of losing the game during that "clutch" moment were minuscule.
https://live.numberfire.com/nfl/8330
I mean really? Our win probability was already 98.79% and you think that's a clutch moment?
Like I said, homeritus is a dangerous thing. I am not knocking Purdy. He played well. He made some mistakes early, sure, but they didn't cost the team, and after he settled in he played like a Franchise QB. Negate the early portion and he played Super Bowl winning quarterbacking.
Total QBR takes into account situation, but also opponent's strength. The Jets have one of the best defenses in football. The Giants not so much. That's probably a big reason for the difference in and of itself.
As has been said before. Total QBR is not perfect. But it's still better than passer rating, which doesn't differentiate between player contributions to a given play.
II think that's the weirdest post I've read in a long time. I guess it comes down to the difference between "clutch" and "super clutch"
Watching a 49er quarterback throw us past the red zone for seven points is like water to a thirsty man in the desert for tour shanny offense. Yeah it's pretty clutch to turn a game that still has possibility to have some kind of crazy ending into a laugher with four or five minutes left? Yeah that's what Champions do. They shut the door they don't leave it open like we've had a tendency to do for the last few years. I think you've watched this team enough to know that it was a pretty impressive play. As far as it being either "clutch" or "super clutch" honestly I don't care you should focus more on consistency how many times has Brock done this in the last 10 games. Quite a few. That's the big picture. Not quibbling over some dumb Advanced stat that's complete opinion anyway. Sheesh. Talk about an agenda.
I am still trying to figure out how ALMOST INT's weigh heavy in that QBR stat but ALMOST TD's don't weigh anything.
I don't know for sure if almost INTs even do. I just know if I were grading QB performance, they would (assuming I had access to that data), because it's something the QB does (EDIT: In lieu of that data, for my own statistical analyses I tend to just use on target passing). As would great throws which are dropped, including almost TDs. But if I understand Total QBR, it's based almost entirely on EPA, weighted by various factors like situation and location on the field.
Honestly, my only strife is that if Brock doesn't throw those 2 TD passes against the giants, its essentially a 4 point game in the 4th quarter. While on the flip side, Dak against the same defense won 40-0 without throwing a TD pass, averaging only 6.0 ypa and completing only 54% of his passes. Dak may not have put the ball in harms way but he had no where near the impact Brock had in winning their respective games against the same defense imo. So why did Dak grade higher? It just doesn't make any sense to me if that stat is meant to determine how much of a factor the QB had in winning or losing a game. Who do you personally think had more of an impact on their team winning against the giants?
I think that's one of the problems with breaking everything down to a single play basis. It's why I'm not super high on EPA. Don't get me wrong, I'd still take Total QBR over passer rating in an instant. But to me I feel like there are simpler ways to gauge approximate QB value which don't require that level of sophistication, and the issues that come with that (such as overvaluing a situation because at the given moment it statistically is very important, but in hindsight at the end of the game it turns out that it's not as important as history might suggest). I think there's a simpler, better way: just do a statistical analysis of which stats correlate the most with winning, and weight them all by things like air yards to make sure the QB isn't getting too much credit, and combine them into a simple formula. IMHO that would be better. Perhaps not always as accurate, but the general trend will lead to it rating QBs approximately where they need to be with respect to one another.
I can completely understand why you would take QBR over PR. PR does not account for anything that the QB is asked to do outside the pocket. Which are not QB skills that should be overlooked because they bring real value to an offense.
You and I both emphasize stats like QB 1st down % and 3rd down passing conversion rate because they do correlate strongly with winning. Because if you aren't converting on 3rd down and moving the chains, its very hard for an offense to be productive. A team that cannot move the ball and doesn't score many points will find it very difficult to win games.
I also like BTT% and TWP% I would use them over air yards. There are HOF's/soon to be HOF's who made a career off the short/precision game. BTT% tells me how often a QB is elevating the play of the offense. While TWP% tells me how often the QB is putting the ball in harms way. I also have collected enough data to suggest that there is a strong correlation between how well a QB performs when facing pressure and the general concesus of who is elite in this league.
I have been collecting data and searching for trends for about a year now. I was thinking about creating my own QB formula. I'm just not sure on how to weigh each statistic at this point. I want to weigh heavy on efficiency stats on dropbacks where the QB is facing pressure. For reasons noted above. But I don't think I should completely disregard the value of how efficient a QB is with a clean pocket either.
My problem with BTT as it pertains to a QB metric is that, based on its stated definition, it is extremely subjective, and the entire point of a metric is to minimize subjectivity. And also, sometimes a guy is making a death defying throw because he made a bad read and was forced to (Jimmy G did this from time to time; and one of Brock's TDs against the Raiders last year only occurred because he missed the read and then had to improvise. Not sure if they count that sort of thing as BTT, but regardless there will be some level of subjectivity there).
You may see it as subjective but I see it as another way of isolating QB play from receiver play. When refering to BTT, PFF focuses heavily on distance, difficulty of throw as well as ball placement. Something no other stat site I have seen has ever attempted to do. I feel like too much objectivity takes away from the nuances of the game. So I feel like some subjectivity is needed in order to balance things out. Take INT's for example. A QB is credited with an INT whether he threw it into the chest of the defender or threw it into the chest of the receiver. The ball could have been on target but it was the receiver who actually caused the TO. Either way its a blemish on those objective QB stats and doesn't neccessarily reflect the performance of the QB.
Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:
Originally posted by YACBros85:
Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:
Originally posted by YACBros85:
Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:
Originally posted by YACBros85:
Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:
Originally posted by YACBros85:
Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:
Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:
Wait, so you believe a touchdown on second down, while in field goal range, when the score was 23 to 12 with six minutes minutes left is super clutch? The game was already a two score game and about to be extended with a field goal. If anything, that touchdown pass ought to matter less because the chances of the 49ers winning were already well above 90% at that point in the game.* As for the touchdown to Bell, the score was 3 to 3 in the middle of the second quarter. A great third down pass, but clutch? Come on. Clutch is when you're losing late in the fourth and convert a third and long.
*As you can see here, the 49ers chances of losing the game during that "clutch" moment were minuscule.
https://live.numberfire.com/nfl/8330
I mean really? Our win probability was already 98.79% and you think that's a clutch moment?
Like I said, homeritus is a dangerous thing. I am not knocking Purdy. He played well. He made some mistakes early, sure, but they didn't cost the team, and after he settled in he played like a Franchise QB. Negate the early portion and he played Super Bowl winning quarterbacking.
Total QBR takes into account situation, but also opponent's strength. The Jets have one of the best defenses in football. The Giants not so much. That's probably a big reason for the difference in and of itself.
As has been said before. Total QBR is not perfect. But it's still better than passer rating, which doesn't differentiate between player contributions to a given play.
II think that's the weirdest post I've read in a long time. I guess it comes down to the difference between "clutch" and "super clutch"
Watching a 49er quarterback throw us past the red zone for seven points is like water to a thirsty man in the desert for tour shanny offense. Yeah it's pretty clutch to turn a game that still has possibility to have some kind of crazy ending into a laugher with four or five minutes left? Yeah that's what Champions do. They shut the door they don't leave it open like we've had a tendency to do for the last few years. I think you've watched this team enough to know that it was a pretty impressive play. As far as it being either "clutch" or "super clutch" honestly I don't care you should focus more on consistency how many times has Brock done this in the last 10 games. Quite a few. That's the big picture. Not quibbling over some dumb Advanced stat that's complete opinion anyway. Sheesh. Talk about an agenda.
I am still trying to figure out how ALMOST INT's weigh heavy in that QBR stat but ALMOST TD's don't weigh anything.
I don't know for sure if almost INTs even do. I just know if I were grading QB performance, they would (assuming I had access to that data), because it's something the QB does (EDIT: In lieu of that data, for my own statistical analyses I tend to just use on target passing). As would great throws which are dropped, including almost TDs. But if I understand Total QBR, it's based almost entirely on EPA, weighted by various factors like situation and location on the field.
Honestly, my only strife is that if Brock doesn't throw those 2 TD passes against the giants, its essentially a 4 point game in the 4th quarter. While on the flip side, Dak against the same defense won 40-0 without throwing a TD pass, averaging only 6.0 ypa and completing only 54% of his passes. Dak may not have put the ball in harms way but he had no where near the impact Brock had in winning their respective games against the same defense imo. So why did Dak grade higher? It just doesn't make any sense to me if that stat is meant to determine how much of a factor the QB had in winning or losing a game. Who do you personally think had more of an impact on their team winning against the giants?
I think that's one of the problems with breaking everything down to a single play basis. It's why I'm not super high on EPA. Don't get me wrong, I'd still take Total QBR over passer rating in an instant. But to me I feel like there are simpler ways to gauge approximate QB value which don't require that level of sophistication, and the issues that come with that (such as overvaluing a situation because at the given moment it statistically is very important, but in hindsight at the end of the game it turns out that it's not as important as history might suggest). I think there's a simpler, better way: just do a statistical analysis of which stats correlate the most with winning, and weight them all by things like air yards to make sure the QB isn't getting too much credit, and combine them into a simple formula. IMHO that would be better. Perhaps not always as accurate, but the general trend will lead to it rating QBs approximately where they need to be with respect to one another.
I can completely understand why you would take QBR over PR. PR does not account for anything that the QB is asked to do outside the pocket. Which are not QB skills that should be overlooked because they bring real value to an offense.
You and I both emphasize stats like QB 1st down % and 3rd down passing conversion rate because they do correlate strongly with winning. Because if you aren't converting on 3rd down and moving the chains, its very hard for an offense to be productive. A team that cannot move the ball and doesn't score many points will find it very difficult to win games.
I also like BTT% and TWP% I would use them over air yards. There are HOF's/soon to be HOF's who made a career off the short/precision game. BTT% tells me how often a QB is elevating the play of the offense. While TWP% tells me how often the QB is putting the ball in harms way. I also have collected enough data to suggest that there is a strong correlation between how well a QB performs when facing pressure and the general concesus of who is elite in this league.
I have been collecting data and searching for trends for about a year now. I was thinking about creating my own QB formula. I'm just not sure on how to weigh each statistic at this point. I want to weigh heavy on efficiency stats on dropbacks where the QB is facing pressure. For reasons noted above. But I don't think I should completely disregard the value of how efficient a QB is with a clean pocket either.
My problem with BTT as it pertains to a QB metric is that, based on its stated definition, it is extremely subjective, and the entire point of a metric is to minimize subjectivity. And also, sometimes a guy is making a death defying throw because he made a bad read and was forced to (Jimmy G did this from time to time; and one of Brock's TDs against the Raiders last year only occurred because he missed the read and then had to improvise. Not sure if they count that sort of thing as BTT, but regardless there will be some level of subjectivity there).
You may see it as subjective but I see it as another way of isolating QB play from receiver play. When refering to BTT, PFF focuses heavily on distance, difficulty of throw as well as ball placement. Something no other stat site I have seen has ever attempted to do. I feel like too much objectivity takes away from the nuances of the game. So I feel like some subjectivity is needed in order to balance things out. Take INT's for example. A QB is credited with an INT whether he threw it into the chest of the defender or threw it into the chest of the receiver. The ball could have been on target but it was the receiver who actually caused the TO. Either way its a blemish on those objective QB stats and doesn't neccessarily reflect the performance of the QB.
It's not just the subjectivity, it's also that the definition I've read of it is nebulous. I mean, "generally further down the field"? Further down the field from what? And "generally?" So does that mean sometimes but not always? Usually fifteen yards down the field, except where it was a really awesome five yard pass? Why bother with a metric if you're going to be so ambiguous? At this point you might as well just go by the eye test.
Originally posted by Waterbear:
Originally posted by BoldRedandGold:
Originally posted by Giedi:
Everybody harp's on Brock's lack of arm strength and Height. But Brees did fine. Brock's taller than Brees, and his arm - if you consider 54 MPH (before Brock's elbow operation) as a true measure of his arm strength - that is about what a typical NFL average QB has. So his arm strength is - at worst - is average, and not a weakness. Maybe his straight line speed isn't great (4.84/40) but it is a good Tight End speed. It's not terribly slow. Jimmy has a 4.97/40 score, before his ACL injury. Personally I don't see any real weaknesses that a typical average defense can exploit. Specially if he operates safely in Kyle's offense.
His 10 yard split is elite. It's what gets you tds at the goal line and converts third and 4th and short. His legs are short so he doesn't have a high top speed but he gets there extremely quickly.
His first two steps are elite quick. Let's him escape the rush and convert short scores.
People act like he's slow but he's actually extremely quick.
This. Probably the most underrated thing about Purdy is his quickness. Without it, he's probably closer to Dak's. Cousins'. and Jimmy G's, but with it, he's potentially a top 5 QB IMO.
Originally posted by elguapo:
10-yard splits:
Brock Purdy: 1.55
Josh Allen: 1.60
Patrick Mahomes: 1.65
Christian McCaffrey: 1.55
Saquon Barkley: 1.54
DeSean Jackson: 1.53
Tyreek Hill: 1.50
Again, this makes Brock Purdy easily a top 10 qb that can get out of would be sacks and make plays off schedule. So many points are scored bc of this. Not all McCaffery's addition. Otherwise they would be sacks and punts vs points.
