I have a friend who claims to know sports. He's a Cowboys fan and a big Tony Romo fan, so I could stop right here and you'd know where this is going, but I'll proceed. His argument for Romo being classified a great quarterback is his regular season winning percentage and his QBR.
Here's why the stat is ridiculous. For one, it doesn't stand up to comparing different eras. It doesn't really stand up to different seasons, because in one of his best QBR season, the team was 8-8 and was 6-4 when he was above his career average of 95.6, but one of his best games, was one in which he threw an interception, allowing for a last second field goal, when all he had to do was run out the clock. He's barely penalized for this, because of his stats earlier. I don't want to make this about Romo, so I'm going to look at one random game from last night's preseason game, which proves, the stat is ridiculous.
In the Ravens/Falcons game there were multiple quarterbacks who played, but I will compare, Ravens starter Joe Flacco to Falcons backup Dominique Davis. Both QBs has stellar games according to the QBR, but in very different ways. Flacco's was 116 and Davis' was 107. Flacco played the entire first half, was 7-9-1-118-1 (averaging 13.1 yards per reception). Davis came in one series into the second quarter and played until nearly the end of the 3rd. He was 8-10-0-98-0 for obviously, an average of 9.8 So Flacco was deemed to have a slightly better game, but just barely.
Here is what isn't taken into account. Aside from two passes, Flacco was 6-7 for 42 yards and two first downs (in an entire half). The other two passes were a dump pass which went for a 77 yard touchdown and an interception, which was returned all the way down to the 2 yard line and which resulted in an easy score for the Falcons and a two touchdown lead. Neither of these two things is factored into the actual ability of the quarterback. I'd say, in Flacco's case, he benefited greatly by a fast receiver or poor defense and should have been penalized severely for his miscue.
Then there is Davis. Davis came in with a no huddle offense, defense playing prevent and marched down the field going 4-4 for 60 yards before a fumble derailed the drive (not by Davis). By the way, fumbles by the quarterback don't count against QBR. Romo has 51 career fumbles (30 of which he's lost) in six seasons, only 17 of them when he's past the line of scrimmage. So Davis in a normal setting was 4-6 for 38 yards. Not bad, but hardly worthy of a 100+ rating.
One could argue that it balances out during the course of a season, but look at the teams that lose and their quarterbacks end up with a nice 4-5 for 50 yard drive down the stretch. Imagine adding those numbers to every quarterback in the league. Also, what about the coach who always goes for it during the half. As a John Elway fan, I can remember countless hail Mary interceptions before the half. Does that make Tony Romo better than John Elway? Of course not.
If you watch games and you watch a player consistently miss 3rd and 3 passes, throw INTs in tight games and light up the scoreboard in blowouts, you begin to realize that it's a ridiculous stat. The only equivalent is basketball's points per 48 minutes, because apparently fatigue doesn't matter in basketball. The irony of my friend using QBR in an argument is that he's also the same person who mocked Sabermetrics during a baseball discussion. Stats that actually matter more than our common knowledge stats. So the next time you hear someone try and tell you that Romo is better than Eli, ask them to take their jersey off first and then sit them down and pat them on the head. No use arguing with people who don't understand the game.
Here's why the stat is ridiculous. For one, it doesn't stand up to comparing different eras. It doesn't really stand up to different seasons, because in one of his best QBR season, the team was 8-8 and was 6-4 when he was above his career average of 95.6, but one of his best games, was one in which he threw an interception, allowing for a last second field goal, when all he had to do was run out the clock. He's barely penalized for this, because of his stats earlier. I don't want to make this about Romo, so I'm going to look at one random game from last night's preseason game, which proves, the stat is ridiculous.
In the Ravens/Falcons game there were multiple quarterbacks who played, but I will compare, Ravens starter Joe Flacco to Falcons backup Dominique Davis. Both QBs has stellar games according to the QBR, but in very different ways. Flacco's was 116 and Davis' was 107. Flacco played the entire first half, was 7-9-1-118-1 (averaging 13.1 yards per reception). Davis came in one series into the second quarter and played until nearly the end of the 3rd. He was 8-10-0-98-0 for obviously, an average of 9.8 So Flacco was deemed to have a slightly better game, but just barely.
Here is what isn't taken into account. Aside from two passes, Flacco was 6-7 for 42 yards and two first downs (in an entire half). The other two passes were a dump pass which went for a 77 yard touchdown and an interception, which was returned all the way down to the 2 yard line and which resulted in an easy score for the Falcons and a two touchdown lead. Neither of these two things is factored into the actual ability of the quarterback. I'd say, in Flacco's case, he benefited greatly by a fast receiver or poor defense and should have been penalized severely for his miscue.
Then there is Davis. Davis came in with a no huddle offense, defense playing prevent and marched down the field going 4-4 for 60 yards before a fumble derailed the drive (not by Davis). By the way, fumbles by the quarterback don't count against QBR. Romo has 51 career fumbles (30 of which he's lost) in six seasons, only 17 of them when he's past the line of scrimmage. So Davis in a normal setting was 4-6 for 38 yards. Not bad, but hardly worthy of a 100+ rating.
One could argue that it balances out during the course of a season, but look at the teams that lose and their quarterbacks end up with a nice 4-5 for 50 yard drive down the stretch. Imagine adding those numbers to every quarterback in the league. Also, what about the coach who always goes for it during the half. As a John Elway fan, I can remember countless hail Mary interceptions before the half. Does that make Tony Romo better than John Elway? Of course not.
If you watch games and you watch a player consistently miss 3rd and 3 passes, throw INTs in tight games and light up the scoreboard in blowouts, you begin to realize that it's a ridiculous stat. The only equivalent is basketball's points per 48 minutes, because apparently fatigue doesn't matter in basketball. The irony of my friend using QBR in an argument is that he's also the same person who mocked Sabermetrics during a baseball discussion. Stats that actually matter more than our common knowledge stats. So the next time you hear someone try and tell you that Romo is better than Eli, ask them to take their jersey off first and then sit them down and pat them on the head. No use arguing with people who don't understand the game.
Comments
Post a Comment