VY's Passer Rating = 65.7, Completion % = 51.7 (1 Viewer)

[parasaurolophus]

what a joke. nice post. why did you leave out longwell, tomlinson, ryan, akers, and mewelde? Or did you feel tomlinson's name might take away from your point too much? Or maybe the kickers being in there would make it even more laughable.

I just copied and pasted the top 10 qbs. The point, in case you missed it, is that the rating isn't all it's cracked up to be. There are 3, maybe 4 guys on that list that are worth a damn.

you are right, they arent worth a damn, in the whole scope of their careers. However in whatever game that they had that high of a rating, they were. There are almost no examples of qbs with good career QB ratings who are considered bad QBs. In fact I cant think of a single one.

What do you consider a good rating? David Carr has a 87.5 rating this year and tied the NFL record for consecutive completions. His rating was extremely high in that game but we lost, so I will go on record and say his game of multiple 3 yard completions wasn't worth a damn, just like his NFL career so far (career rating of 76.3).

actually his passer rating in that game was only 83.8. so your right, they werent worth too much.

 

[icehouse]

what a joke. nice post. why did you leave out longwell, tomlinson, ryan, akers, and mewelde? Or did you feel tomlinson's name might take away from your point too much? Or maybe the kickers being in there would make it even more laughable.

I just copied and pasted the top 10 qbs. The point, in case you missed it, is that the rating isn't all it's cracked up to be. There are 3, maybe 4 guys on that list that are worth a damn.

you are right, they arent worth a damn, in the whole scope of their careers. However in whatever game that they had that high of a rating, they were. There are almost no examples of qbs with good career QB ratings who are considered bad QBs. In fact I cant think of a single one.

What do you consider a good rating? David Carr has a 87.5 rating this year and tied the NFL record for consecutive completions. His rating was extremely high in that game but we lost, so I will go on record and say his game of multiple 3 yard completions wasn't worth a damn, just like his NFL career so far (career rating of 76.3).

actually his passer rating in that game was only 83.8. so your right, they werent worth too much.

Again, would you consider an 87.5 rating good? That would put Carr in the top 10 when you eliminate all QB's who have played in less than 5 games. Good, not great.....And I can't think of one person outside of Carr's family who whoud deem him a top 10 QB. Hell, a top 20 QB....

 

[Fla\/\/ed]

Agreed. It only stops being objective when the historical stats used to based your objective argument are repeatedly shown to be specifically selected to support your subjective opinion. In other words, when you start with an outcome, and then only present facts that support that outcome, while ignoring facts that contradict the outcome, you've stopped being objective.

I'm not ignoring the facts opposing my position, I simply am objectively weighing them and have come to the conclusion that they pale in comparison to those facts which support my conclusion.

Sig worthy.

 

[Fla\/\/ed]

...member #22000 calling me a troll. I've forgotten more about fantasy football in the last week, than you'll ever know. FYI, I create the challenging discussion around here in the offseason. If you're obedient I might let you get me my coffee. Run along now...there's mod brownnosing that needs to be done. :colin:

I swear, every time I see LHUCKS post, it's like watching that dumb, fat kid in school who hasn't figured out how to finish his homework, let alone wear deoderant, and thinks he's the schiznit, while all the other kids around him roll their eyes and just turn the other way as he blathers on and on about how cool he is.Do you really think anyone finds you challenging or takes you seriously? You're a punchline here--not the Socrates of fantasy football. Let's get this straight. But, we do enjoy mocking you. Lord knows with you spending your life on this board, there's much opportunity and material to enjoy.

Now that's not nice. Don't forget.... "LHUCKS commands respect."

 

[PatsWillWin]

 

[parasaurolophus]

what a joke. nice post. why did you leave out longwell, tomlinson, ryan, akers, and mewelde? Or did you feel tomlinson's name might take away from your point too much? Or maybe the kickers being in there would make it even more laughable.

I just copied and pasted the top 10 qbs. The point, in case you missed it, is that the rating isn't all it's cracked up to be. There are 3, maybe 4 guys on that list that are worth a damn.

you are right, they arent worth a damn, in the whole scope of their careers. However in whatever game that they had that high of a rating, they were. There are almost no examples of qbs with good career QB ratings who are considered bad QBs. In fact I cant think of a single one.

What do you consider a good rating? David Carr has a 87.5 rating this year and tied the NFL record for consecutive completions. His rating was extremely high in that game but we lost, so I will go on record and say his game of multiple 3 yard completions wasn't worth a damn, just like his NFL career so far (career rating of 76.3).

actually his passer rating in that game was only 83.8. so your right, they werent worth too much.

Again, would you consider an 87.5 rating good? That would put Carr in the top 10 when you eliminate all QB's who have played in less than 5 games. Good, not great.....And I can't think of one person outside of Carr's family who whoud deem him a top 10 QB. Hell, a top 20 QB....

just because Carr is playing well right now, doesnt mean he is better than some other QBs. However if Carr would continue to be one of the top rated QBs for several years, then he would certainly be considered a top 10 QB. This thinking is funny to me. VY has started ten games. Played well in a handful of them. Carr has started more games this year and has put up better passing numbers, yet people arent ready to judge solely based on his performance this year. I wonder why? Maybe its because with QBs only time can really show whether they are really good or not. otherwise it is just a formulated OPINION.

 

[parasaurolophus]

what a joke. nice post. why did you leave out longwell, tomlinson, ryan, akers, and mewelde? Or did you feel tomlinson's name might take away from your point too much? Or maybe the kickers being in there would make it even more laughable.

I just copied and pasted the top 10 qbs. The point, in case you missed it, is that the rating isn't all it's cracked up to be. There are 3, maybe 4 guys on that list that are worth a damn.

you are right, they arent worth a damn, in the whole scope of their careers. However in whatever game that they had that high of a rating, they were. There are almost no examples of qbs with good career QB ratings who are considered bad QBs. In fact I cant think of a single one.

Brian Griese's career rating is 15th all time. Elway is 43rd and Unitas is 52nd.Edit: Neil Lomax is 10th.

neil lomax is not 10th. his rating is lower than griese's

 

[dparker713]

what a joke. nice post. why did you leave out longwell, tomlinson, ryan, akers, and mewelde? Or did you feel tomlinson's name might take away from your point too much? Or maybe the kickers being in there would make it even more laughable.

I just copied and pasted the top 10 qbs. The point, in case you missed it, is that the rating isn't all it's cracked up to be. There are 3, maybe 4 guys on that list that are worth a damn.

you are right, they arent worth a damn, in the whole scope of their careers. However in whatever game that they had that high of a rating, they were. There are almost no examples of qbs with good career QB ratings who are considered bad QBs. In fact I cant think of a single one.

Brian Griese's career rating is 15th all time. Elway is 43rd and Unitas is 52nd.Edit: Neil Lomax is 10th.

neil lomax is not 10th. his rating is lower than griese's

I cant find the current rankings, that was from an article from a few years ago. From the profootball HOF, I found rankings for 2 years ago. But in any rankings for Griese and Lomax to be in the top 20 of all time as they were in both of these rankings is fairly ridiculous.

 

[Jetdoc]

Carr has started more games this year and has put up better passing numbers, yet people arent ready to judge solely based on his performance this year.

Being from Houston, I can tell you that the majority of Houstonians, the newspaper writers and talk show hosts have already judged Carr as a very, very poor QB, despite his rating. Why? Because he doesn't have the intangible qualities that a QB rating simply can't address.Your comparison is actually dead on for this debate...why VY is becoming a very good QB while Carr is showing that he is not a good QB. Statistics, despite their ardent followers, can simply lie about a QB's ability.

 

[icehouse]

what a joke. nice post. why did you leave out longwell, tomlinson, ryan, akers, and mewelde? Or did you feel tomlinson's name might take away from your point too much? Or maybe the kickers being in there would make it even more laughable.

I just copied and pasted the top 10 qbs. The point, in case you missed it, is that the rating isn't all it's cracked up to be. There are 3, maybe 4 guys on that list that are worth a damn.

you are right, they arent worth a damn, in the whole scope of their careers. However in whatever game that they had that high of a rating, they were. There are almost no examples of qbs with good career QB ratings who are considered bad QBs. In fact I cant think of a single one.

What do you consider a good rating? David Carr has a 87.5 rating this year and tied the NFL record for consecutive completions. His rating was extremely high in that game but we lost, so I will go on record and say his game of multiple 3 yard completions wasn't worth a damn, just like his NFL career so far (career rating of 76.3).

actually his passer rating in that game was only 83.8. so your right, they werent worth too much.

Again, would you consider an 87.5 rating good? That would put Carr in the top 10 when you eliminate all QB's who have played in less than 5 games. Good, not great.....And I can't think of one person outside of Carr's family who whoud deem him a top 10 QB. Hell, a top 20 QB....

just because Carr is playing well right now, doesnt mean he is better than some other QBs. However if Carr would continue to be one of the top rated QBs for several years, then he would certainly be considered a top 10 QB. This thinking is funny to me. VY has started ten games. Played well in a handful of them. Carr has started more games this year and has put up better passing numbers, yet people arent ready to judge solely based on his performance this year. I wonder why? Maybe its because with QBs only time can really show whether they are really good or not. otherwise it is just a formulated OPINION.

He put up better numbers but we LOST. When the game was on the line he fails to make plays. VY makes plays when the game is on the line.He isn't a leader and VY is. If you ever want to guage how a QB's intangibles can make a difference just watch a Texans game.Wins > rating

 

[parasaurolophus]

VY has won when the game was on the line what 3 times in the NFL? You guys are failing to understand my point. VY is very young, very inexperienced, not a very good passer currently, and has won 6 games in the NFL. SIX!!!!!

I have never really considered favre to be a great crunch time QB. WHo cares though? When he was in his prime, the guy was money in the first quarter. His team controlled the game when it won. It got ugly when he didnt.

So is it really fair to praise a guy for keeping drives going late in the game and leading them to a needed score, when they should have scored on the 5 previous drives?

How about if a kicker kicks a game winning FG with 6 seconds left. But he was 1-4 on the game. if he goes 3-4 it doesnt even get noticed that he kicked a game winner, cuz he kicked it in the 1st quarter.

 

[Road Warriors]

VY has won when the game was on the line what 3 times in the NFL? You guys are failing to understand my point. VY is very young, very inexperienced, not a very good passer currently, and has won 6 games in the NFL. SIX!!!!! I have never really considered favre to be a great crunch time QB. WHo cares though? When he was in his prime, the guy was money in the first quarter. His team controlled the game when it won. It got ugly when he didnt.So is it really fair to praise a guy for keeping drives going late in the game and leading them to a needed score, when they should have scored on the 5 previous drives?How about if a kicker kicks a game winning FG with 6 seconds left. But he was 1-4 on the game. if he goes 3-4 it doesnt even get noticed that he kicked a game winner, cuz he kicked it in the 1st quarter.

Valid points. But the bulk of the sports world places a HUGE premium on big plays when the game is on the line. Is it fair? Maybe not. It's not like a late TD counts for more points or something. But, there is an added element of pressure that accumulates as the clock winds down, and the player that steps up & performs with the increased pressure is often given more credit than a steady performer.

 

[parasaurolophus]

VY has won when the game was on the line what 3 times in the NFL? You guys are failing to understand my point. VY is very young, very inexperienced, not a very good passer currently, and has won 6 games in the NFL. SIX!!!!! I have never really considered favre to be a great crunch time QB. WHo cares though? When he was in his prime, the guy was money in the first quarter. His team controlled the game when it won. It got ugly when he didnt.So is it really fair to praise a guy for keeping drives going late in the game and leading them to a needed score, when they should have scored on the 5 previous drives?How about if a kicker kicks a game winning FG with 6 seconds left. But he was 1-4 on the game. if he goes 3-4 it doesnt even get noticed that he kicked a game winner, cuz he kicked it in the 1st quarter.

Valid points. But the bulk of the sports world places a HUGE premium on big plays when the game is on the line. Is it fair? Maybe not. It's not like a late TD counts for more points or something. But, there is an added element of pressure that accumulates as the clock winds down, and the player that steps up & performs with the increased pressure is often given more credit than a steady performer.

I will also agree that the end of the game stuff is probably more entertaining as well. I mean i will go take a crap in the first quarter, but i am probably not leaving my seat with 3 minutes left. Unless of course i get the gumbel 3 minute warning.

 

[enfuego]

This has deteriorated rapidly...

Perhaps you should have nipped it in the bud from the get go...just sayin.

You mean by banning you back when we were arguing about Chris Brown three seasons ago?

You should've banned yourself.

You should've banned yourself. = "I know you are, but what am I?!?"

 

[LHUCKS]

This has deteriorated rapidly...

Perhaps you should have nipped it in the bud from the get go...just sayin.

You mean by banning you back when we were arguing about Chris Brown three seasons ago?

You should've banned yourself.

You should've banned yourself. = "I know you are, but what am I?!?"

Very constructive...that was an A, B conversation.

 

[Kleck]

It's basically an unwritten rule that you can fire back if you're first fired upon...

No. No it's not.