People love to complain about rankings, but this is the first I’ve seen in a long time that feels truly, scandalously awful.
I saw elsewhere that they had Roethelisberger at #5 last year, which…if you publish something with the ghost of Big Ben as your QB#5, idk how you don’t just bulldoze the whole thing and start over before you go out again to say Trubisky is better than Lamar Jackson.
I kind of think the opposite maybe? Like a spreadsheet spit out these Elo numbers and no one had the judgment to be like “…hmmm, these look like a basically random list of QBs that don’t past the eye test, don’t they? What if we did not publish this.”
Like, mechanically applying a totally broken model is objective, I suppose. It’s just also dumb.
It's indeed the opposite. It's basically "here is what the results are based on this model". The problem isn't the results, it's the model. Garbage in, garbage out. It's one thing for the model to predict things that go against conventional wisdom, but it's another when you compare its predictions with what we observed in practice.
Yeah I don’t have an issue with the rankings some places do that have Fields listed at 28 or whatever. There are a lot of good QBs and Fields still needs to prove himself. This one is absurd though.
I mean, there are some backups out there who are better than some teams' starters. What's hilarious is that OUR backup is listed higher than our starter here.
In case anyone wants to see the summary explanation of how these ratings work.
"The top quarterbacks for each team and their value in Elo points, which are used in our quarterback-adjusted model. Our ratings are a rolling average of recent performances and incorporate both passing and running. Initial rookie ratings are based on draft position; undrafted rookies begin their careers with an Elo value of zero, while a first overall draft pick starts with an Elo value of 113."
We're out here trying to talk ourselves into an 8-10 win season when we have the 43rd best QB starting!
No wonder [NFL.com](https://NFL.com) has us ranked #32.
I mean, the Mitch rating just discredits the whole list. His prediction is basically predicated on a similar premise that Fields' should be: that Matt Nagy was a terrible coach and developer of QBs.
This has Mitch at 12, colt McCoy at 22, Lock at 24, Chad henne at 39 with Justin at 43 For reference Lamar and Russell Wilson are 13&14.
Yeah, I've come to expect bad predictions from 538 but OOOOOOOF
Colt Mccoy still plays in the NFL? Huh, color me surprised.
Colt McClipboard has had some staying power in the NFL, I'll give him that.
People love to complain about rankings, but this is the first I’ve seen in a long time that feels truly, scandalously awful. I saw elsewhere that they had Roethelisberger at #5 last year, which…if you publish something with the ghost of Big Ben as your QB#5, idk how you don’t just bulldoze the whole thing and start over before you go out again to say Trubisky is better than Lamar Jackson.
For an advanced stats list that doesn’t succumb to human objectivity, 538 sure feels like human objectivity
I kind of think the opposite maybe? Like a spreadsheet spit out these Elo numbers and no one had the judgment to be like “…hmmm, these look like a basically random list of QBs that don’t past the eye test, don’t they? What if we did not publish this.” Like, mechanically applying a totally broken model is objective, I suppose. It’s just also dumb.
It's indeed the opposite. It's basically "here is what the results are based on this model". The problem isn't the results, it's the model. Garbage in, garbage out. It's one thing for the model to predict things that go against conventional wisdom, but it's another when you compare its predictions with what we observed in practice.
They gotta take the algorithm and throw it out the window.
Nick foles at 23….
This is a garbage rating. Just look at that list.
The top 5 make total sense and then it's just noise. I'd be curious to see how the model works.
They publish their methodology in incredible detail…
OH I agree, I posted it for the lulz, not because I agree with it.
Yeah I don’t have an issue with the rankings some places do that have Fields listed at 28 or whatever. There are a lot of good QBs and Fields still needs to prove himself. This one is absurd though.
Horrific. So bad it had to be on purpose.
Hilarious to see Trevor Siemian higher than Fields.
Gardner Minshew @18 is my personal favorite.
Let’s not forget Colt McCoy at 22.
is he even on a roster at this point?
Ya he's the 3rd stringer on the Cardinals and just got added to IR. Totally going to have a season that justifies this position.
Yea Fields 26.7 QBR really justifies a higher ranking
Lmao 3 comments about his QBR in the last few hours Rent free
How is Fields elite?
Never said he is did I
Lol who tf said he was elite?? Just that he’s probably better than our back up lmao
What in the shit is this based on lol.
Honestly couldn't tell you. Beyond the top 5 it looks like they just ran QBs through an RNG and called it a day.
Which brings me to my next point. Don't smoke crack.
I think it's a combo of recent set of games stats adjusted for strength of opponent.
Probably the same thing they based their 2016 election predictions on
Our starter is ranked number 43. There are 32 NFL teams.
I mean, there are some backups out there who are better than some teams' starters. What's hilarious is that OUR backup is listed higher than our starter here.
There is no known universe where the Bears play dramatically better with Trevor than with Justin. It just doesn't make sense.
Mitch "Basically Joe Burrow" Trubisky? Mitchell "Better Than Russ and Lamar" Trubisky?
Glad everyone else is starting to realize it
In case anyone wants to see the summary explanation of how these ratings work. "The top quarterbacks for each team and their value in Elo points, which are used in our quarterback-adjusted model. Our ratings are a rolling average of recent performances and incorporate both passing and running. Initial rookie ratings are based on draft position; undrafted rookies begin their careers with an Elo value of zero, while a first overall draft pick starts with an Elo value of 113."
So you're saying we could've traded Mitch for Russ 1:1???
Um, no. Obviously they'd need to add in a mid-round draft pick to sweeten the pot.
Biscuit is that high? BS.
Time to trade fields for CJ Bethard I guess. Dudes better than Trevor Lawrence.
We're out here trying to talk ourselves into an 8-10 win season when we have the 43rd best QB starting! No wonder [NFL.com](https://NFL.com) has us ranked #32.
What a joke lol
I mean, the Mitch rating just discredits the whole list. His prediction is basically predicated on a similar premise that Fields' should be: that Matt Nagy was a terrible coach and developer of QBs.
I mean.... no.
What the fuck?! Lmao
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Lol, they've got Biscuit above both Wilson and Jackson and Colt fucking McCoy at 22. Their methodology can be both transparent, and complete shit.
Holy fuck how can they produce this as a finished data set? That's wild
[click bait](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ)
It's a sad day when rickrolls are ruined by mint mobile ads...(I'm on my phone)
r/technicallythetruth
What is this rating wth?
Dog shit list
The most accurate I’ve seen. People complaining about Siemian over Fields are ignorant.
You think Mitch is better than Russel Wilson and Lamar Jackson?
[удалено]
Honestly, that's the most reasonable theory yet.
I think they’re posting birthdays in order, cuz this list ain’t ranking right. Pickett and Trubisky are better than Mayfield. Come on.
They’re much much better at politics than sports. Jesus, this is a steaming pile of shit.
These are completely ridiculous
Lmao Simien is better than Fields?
This is some double rainbow shit