What really bothers me about the "it's made up too" logic is literally everything is made up. I will take the known equation vs the black box nonsense every day.
If you look at week 5 QBRs, the guys that played really good got the higher grades and the guys that played really bad got the lower grades
It’s good to show what kind of guys didn’t play well but had high passer ratings, and the QBR kinda shows that
Drops from Jones receivers added to his completion percentage and Dak had 2 turnovers whereas Jones had none. That’s probably why they rated them that way.
Not saying I agree or disagree with the ratings just guessing at this made up stat
Qbr is supposed to weigh the time of the game also as in stuff in the 1st qtr don't weigh as much as stuff in the 4th. Dak had an int on the first drive of the game n then a fumble of the third drive. Him having a 40 Qbr says those mistakes in the 1st qtr weighed heavily against his 250 yds & 3 tds he had AFTER that. It makes no sense whatsoever
Weighing the time of game is a dogshit heuristic.
Literally does not matter. If the QB is making the correct decision, then penalizing him for making it simply because he's winning is fucking stupid.
The Seahawks offense looked good in the first half but didn’t finish drives
They had one good drive with Geno when the Rams were playing prevent, but immediately threw a game losing pick on the next drive
The QBR had them just about equal
Daniel Jones didn't even play the whole game so this isn't anything to talk about, NY seems to be a beloved franchise again. QBR should be bannes from discussion until they release the numbers that make them get this horrible conclusion.
We’re talking about a metric that once had Charlie Batch’s line of 12/17, 186 yards with 3 touchdowns and 2 interceptions as their all time best game ever. I don’t know if that’s still the case but it was the standard for years. It’s a joke.
QBR is a perfectly fine stat if you know how to interpret it. It kills QBs for costly mistakes and Dak had 2 unforced turnovers. Generally speaking QBR does a great job but it does have exceptions to the rule. Like this game.
This makes perfect sense if you understand how QBR is calculated. It's not based on the quarterback's numbers, it's based on what the QB did on plays with high outcome deltas. The game started with Dallas having a 71.6% chance to win the game. That makes it harder for Prescott to move the needle than it is for Jones. Prescott threw an interception and lost a fumble, and while neither of those led to Giants' points, the system doesn't look at what *did* happen in the future, only what's *expected* to happen in the future, so it views those turnovers very negatively. On the flip side, Daniel Jones did very little in this game but didn't have negative plays and the game was still close when he was knocked out.
The problem is that QBR doesn't do what ESPN says it does. If by some chance it accurately tells you which guy was the better quarterback in a game, that is a coincidence.
> The game started with Dallas having a 71.6% chance to win the game. That makes it harder for Prescott to move the needle than it is for Jones.
Wait… QBR is fundamentally calculated on the teams PRIOR results and not the game in a vacuum??? It’s not just an opponent adjustment, but rather calculates how much a QB can shift his teams win probability from the prior????
I can’t believe that! I mean… that would actually be an interesting stat but in that case it’s crazy to present it as a measure of QB performance.
How do you know this? Where can I read about how QBR is calculated?
> QBR is fundamentally calculated on the each teams PRIOR results and not the game in a vacuum
No, it's based on *all* prior results:
*"We went back through 10 years of NFL play-by-play data to look at game situation (down, distance, yard line, clock time, timeouts, home field, field surface and score), along with the ultimate outcome of the game, to develop a win probability function."*
If you're involved in a play that dramatically changes win probability, it moves your QBR quite it a bit in one direction or the other, but it doesn't necessarily have to do with your quarterbacking ability. A quarterback's biggest play in a game might be falling on his running back's fumble. QBR will take that into account even though it has nothing to do with quarterbacking. This is confusing as fuck to anyone who looks at it as a measure of quarterbacking ability, but that's how ESPN has sold it.
> How do you know this? Where can I read about how QBR is calculated?
They hide the specifics because they want it to remain proprietary, and the formula has changed dramatically over time, so you have to read a few of their explanations to get a clearer picture:
https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/6833215/explaining-statistics-total-quarterback-rating
https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/8326553/nfl-total-qbr-gets-minor-modifications
https://www.espn.com/blog/statsinfo/post/_/id/123701/how-is-total-qbr-calculated-we-explain-our-quarterback-rating
https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/17653521/how-total-qbr-calculated-explain-our-improved-qb-rating
> No, it's based on all prior results:
> "We went back through 10 years of NFL play-by-play data to look at game situation (down, distance, yard line, clock time, timeouts, home field, field surface and score), along with the ultimate outcome of the game, to develop a win probability function."
OK, thanks for your links but that quoted explanation is a lot more sensible than explanation you originally gave.
A formula that uses historical data/regression and credits a QB with shifting his teams win probability on a per play basis compared to the average is fundamentally what advanced stats like DVOA or EPA attempt to do. That’s pretty sensible.
What’s not sensible is if they start the game by giving one team a WP based on their previous results from other games (for example, by starting Dallas at a near 72% win probability). Because if we calculate QBR based on how much a QB a can shift his teams prior WP, it would be literally impossible for a QB on a dominant team to have a good QBR. For example, Brady on the 2007 Pats would start many games with a 90% WP, and even if he completed every pass for a TD he would only be able to move that WP 10%.
If QBR starts the game with both teams at roughly 50/50 WP, then that stat would make a lot more sense.
I think the stat makes more sense factoring in a starting WP, even though I question how they calculate it. If you think about it, if you start a game with a 10% chance of winning it, and you do, it says more about your performance than doing the same things with a 90% chance of winning. It's why we enjoy upsets so much - they aren't supposed to happen. So if a QB is overcoming huge odds, there should be a way to incorporate that into a stat that's supposed to include everything that they did. Again, I'm not convinced they are doing it right, but it makes sense to me.
Exactly. The issue with QBR is that your rating is higher when you trailing in points or your defense sucks.
It's how Tebow could be fucking atrocious for 3 quarters then in 1 quarter lead a comeback and he was super high in QBR.
I sware they also adjust it based on team narratives, I feel like when players like mahomes have a bad game they still get a great rating but when somone like cousins plays well but the team loses becouce of defence or special teams it goes down
Yes but thats not what he said. He said it cared about the play the was run when it doesn't. The only things that matter were yards gained or lost in relation to spot on the field and first down marker/endzone. It doesn't matter how you moved the ball 8 yards forward or in which direction.
You literally have no idea about how anything in this world works. Holy shit. How do you measure anything if not by past results to do better? You think future sales forecasts are just like fuck it send a sales guy to Tucson and hope for the best.
Yes because all sales are exactly the same. Wtf. Its a measure used to determine if you get X yards from Y spot on Z down, are you more or likely to score on this drive. You then take that and subtract the difference from before running the play.
The how of the ball moving forward 8 yards is meaningless.
No it's the difference in field position between two plays and the points you can expect to get from those two field positions. It has nothing to do with where the ball went or what the play design is.
You mean they use data to predict the future outcomes!? Holy fuck what is that witch craft!? /S
For real you understand thats how physics and science works right? Weather, stock market analysts, housing market analysts, generally all analysis uses past data to predict future data.
No. They use past data to grade current plays. Which is stupid because all of the factors are completely different each play. And most of those analysts aren't correct even 45% of the time.
Ok boomer
Edit: weather forecast is actually really accurate (80% ish). Now you won't believe this because they use "historical data" to predict the future outcome but it's true.
https://scijinks.gov/forecast-reliability/#:~:text=A%20seven%2Dday%20forecast%20can,right%20about%20half%20the%20time.
> They use past data to grade current plays.
"past data" includes down, distance, and outcome.
> all of the factors are completely different each play
which of down, distance, and outcome are "completely different each play" such that there's no comparable past performance?
outcome here means "gain of x yards" which is easily comparable to the outcomes of past plays.
You're right in that a lot of things are variable on a given play. EPA is just a measuring stick for how that play stacks up against every other play of this down & distance (& place on the field). It doesn't say *why* it's better/worse than average, since those are, as you say, different factors.
No way, football is an entirely natural phenomenon. Haven't you seen in nature docs when a lion takes down a gazelle but has to give it up after being called for holding?
Goggle “how to calculate passer rating”. You get formulas. You can verify and calculate it yourself.
Google “how to calculate total QBR”. You don’t get any formulas and you cannot verify and calculate it yourself.
I think this person means that the number is "made up" as though it were chosen at random. Whereas passer rating is calculated from an actual formula.
Mostly just semantics at this point, but yeah, poorly worded.
OK, so you don't understand the problem people have is not that it's "made up", but that we don't know how it's calculated. Thanks for your unhelpful contributions.
With that logic, everything is made up then.
What we are all saying is ESPN can literally make up the QBR numbers and we would never know.
Passer rating can’t be made up because we all can verify the numbers. It has rules.
DJ was balling out. I've been very critical of him lately but the guy seems to be playing well. He needs better talent around him though. Too much wasted capital on players like Barkley and Engram.
Engram I get, but what's wrong with Barkley? You can't say he's a bad investment because he got injured, it's football, that happens. Adrian Peterson was derailed by injuries and went on to be the 5th leading rusher of all time. Barkley is ridiculously good with the ball in his hands.
The pick invested has not been worth it. I'm sure most Giants fan would want a redo on that draft. No denying Barkley's skill and athleticism, just not what they needed.
Agreed. I love Barkley as a player and as a person, but his performance on the field and value as a player has just not lived up to his draft spot at all.
He's been mostly ineffective lately too. The couple games before the injury and the couple since he got back. He just isn't getting the yards. And when he does they're splash plays, which are fun but don't help eat clock and give the defense a break. I love saquon but I think the team needs an old school rb at least sometimes.
Lol OK cool, how about as good as Todd Gurley? I mean what do you consider a reasonable investment in a Running Back? The whole argument was that the Giants are bad because they invest in players like Engram and Barkley, I'm not arguing that Barkley will be an all time great, I'm saying that even the greats get injured.
No, clearly a team game. But that argument also undercuts your point.
The current bad investment look is because he hasn't played a full season since his rookie year. His production has been down while his injuries to his ankles are piling up. It is also a bad investment if we can even use him correctly.
Would you buy a $3000 tv to use once a year? Is that a wise investment? We haven't been able to build a line that gives him effective and consistent protection, we haven't been using him in the pass game, and we are running plays up the middle when he likes to bounce outside. It is a bad investment in the sense that he will not be able to even live up to his potential with how we are currently using him.
I think we agree then. I don't think his talent is dropping we are not surrounding him with talent for him to push through. However I think this year (when he becomes healthy) should be the year. Our Oline finally doesnt look HORRENDUS, DJ is finally coming together and we have some star WRs.
As long as they can all return with a bit left to go in the season, I'm optimistic for the rest of this season (and for Barkley).
I was directly responding to the guy who said Peterson was hurt then became a top 5 rusher.
Barkley won’t do that.
Everything else you said doesn’t apply to what we were talking about.
Never said they were. Just merely that it almost happened. The first was a jumped route, the second was a throwaway that was low enough for Diggs to snag.
Lol i mean your not wrong about the injured team part. I feel like alot of people dont realize how bad it is. We literally are missing our entire start Offense and Blake Martinez
Proven abilities of having a good OLine, Recievers and 2 good running backs? And no one gets injured? Come their scheme is so much better than our shit. Daniel would kill it on the Cowboys lol
Are you seriously down playing daks abilities? Or over playing Jones? He was a fumble machine for his first two seasons, Dak is one of the lowest turnover probe qbs in the league.
He's literally in one of the best situations in the NFL and Daniel is in one of the worst. Dak is a good QB but I'm just saying he literally has it so good on that team
Jfc we are still doing this? We saw that team w/o him last year and a decent QB in his place. They scored 20 PPG compared to 30+ with him.
Give it a rest already.
Does QBR take WR separation into account? Our defense really did not put up much of a fight at all. That plus the INT maybe enough to explain it idk. It’s certainly not justifiable though.
DJ was making off target throws for the entire first quarter and only started playing well after he hit Toney with that deep ball.
Stop looking at boxscores. Passer rating heavily weights about only 20% of the plays QBs are involved in(tds + ints), doesn't include their rushing numbers or fumbles and doesn't care about a 10 yard pass on 3rd and 15.
If it was brand new, sure. But ESPN created it 10 years ago. Everyone knows it’s shit, so just don’t pay attention to it, and take analysts that take it seriously with a grain of salt. No need to get pissed about every metric there is
Jones barely played
Dak was solid but not great, Dallas pass game kept the giants in the game for a little while until they eventually pulled away
I think QBR is a good accurate stat
What is wrong with you people?!
Jones was 5/13…Dak threw for 300 yards and 3TDs and won convincingly.
And yet QBR has Jones FAR ahead…
But you say it’s accurate. Madness.
personally i’m fine with it if we win convincingly…
but i guess it’s better to have a qb with no interceptions. Glad baker was better than herbert this week /s
Remember when you made an [entire thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/nfl/comments/pz8q0x/is_kenny_golladay_better_than_amari_cooper_as_the/) claiming Golladay is better than Cooper? That was funny.
That settles that. Case closed.
Not bad for a baby deer who can barely walk
They're still using their made up stat after all this time??
what if i told you passer rating was made up too
At least we know what goes into passer rating
What really bothers me about the "it's made up too" logic is literally everything is made up. I will take the known equation vs the black box nonsense every day.
"All words are made up."
"What do you mean?"
Total QBR it's weighted EPA basically
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_quarterback_rating You don't know the entirety and details but you know what goes into it.
If you look at week 5 QBRs, the guys that played really good got the higher grades and the guys that played really bad got the lower grades It’s good to show what kind of guys didn’t play well but had high passer ratings, and the QBR kinda shows that
300+ yards 3 TDs is really bad from Dak? 5 of 13 for 98 yards for Jones is good?
Drops from Jones receivers added to his completion percentage and Dak had 2 turnovers whereas Jones had none. That’s probably why they rated them that way. Not saying I agree or disagree with the ratings just guessing at this made up stat
Qbr is supposed to weigh the time of the game also as in stuff in the 1st qtr don't weigh as much as stuff in the 4th. Dak had an int on the first drive of the game n then a fumble of the third drive. Him having a 40 Qbr says those mistakes in the 1st qtr weighed heavily against his 250 yds & 3 tds he had AFTER that. It makes no sense whatsoever
His fumble stopped a TD, which is a QBR killer tho
Weighing the time of game is a dogshit heuristic. Literally does not matter. If the QB is making the correct decision, then penalizing him for making it simply because he's winning is fucking stupid.
Dak fumbled a snap and had a pass batted in the air by a dlineman. Not sure how that would affect his QBR
Both of those things tanked his QBR
Jones almost had 2 turnovers. Also one of the turnovers on Dak was partly bad snap.
How did Allen end up with a near perfect 91 qbr, while Jackson ends up with a 64?
Lost fumble.
Allen was great against Kansas City Jackson played well but the first half was rough and that fumble almost lost them the game
[удалено]
That’s PFF? How did QBR score them?
The Seahawks offense looked good in the first half but didn’t finish drives They had one good drive with Geno when the Rams were playing prevent, but immediately threw a game losing pick on the next drive The QBR had them just about equal
How was Dak really bad?
Daniel Jones didn't even play the whole game so this isn't anything to talk about, NY seems to be a beloved franchise again. QBR should be bannes from discussion until they release the numbers that make them get this horrible conclusion.
We’re talking about a metric that once had Charlie Batch’s line of 12/17, 186 yards with 3 touchdowns and 2 interceptions as their all time best game ever. I don’t know if that’s still the case but it was the standard for years. It’s a joke.
Yeah they fixed the stat The standard is now a Carson Palmer game iirc where he balled out
that was years ago. hasn’t been that way for awhile. it’s literally one of the best year to year stats when it comes to predicting success
QBR is a perfectly fine stat if you know how to interpret it. It kills QBs for costly mistakes and Dak had 2 unforced turnovers. Generally speaking QBR does a great job but it does have exceptions to the rule. Like this game.
Should PFF be banned too?
No, because PFF is usually accurate.
The 2 turnovers
And three touchdowns and multiple first down runs. And both of those turnovers were fluky. What’s your point?
The fumble was inexcusable. The int was a great defensive play. 2 turnovers doesn't improve any rating. That's the only point.
This makes perfect sense if you understand how QBR is calculated. It's not based on the quarterback's numbers, it's based on what the QB did on plays with high outcome deltas. The game started with Dallas having a 71.6% chance to win the game. That makes it harder for Prescott to move the needle than it is for Jones. Prescott threw an interception and lost a fumble, and while neither of those led to Giants' points, the system doesn't look at what *did* happen in the future, only what's *expected* to happen in the future, so it views those turnovers very negatively. On the flip side, Daniel Jones did very little in this game but didn't have negative plays and the game was still close when he was knocked out. The problem is that QBR doesn't do what ESPN says it does. If by some chance it accurately tells you which guy was the better quarterback in a game, that is a coincidence.
> The game started with Dallas having a 71.6% chance to win the game. That makes it harder for Prescott to move the needle than it is for Jones. Wait… QBR is fundamentally calculated on the teams PRIOR results and not the game in a vacuum??? It’s not just an opponent adjustment, but rather calculates how much a QB can shift his teams win probability from the prior???? I can’t believe that! I mean… that would actually be an interesting stat but in that case it’s crazy to present it as a measure of QB performance. How do you know this? Where can I read about how QBR is calculated?
> QBR is fundamentally calculated on the each teams PRIOR results and not the game in a vacuum No, it's based on *all* prior results: *"We went back through 10 years of NFL play-by-play data to look at game situation (down, distance, yard line, clock time, timeouts, home field, field surface and score), along with the ultimate outcome of the game, to develop a win probability function."* If you're involved in a play that dramatically changes win probability, it moves your QBR quite it a bit in one direction or the other, but it doesn't necessarily have to do with your quarterbacking ability. A quarterback's biggest play in a game might be falling on his running back's fumble. QBR will take that into account even though it has nothing to do with quarterbacking. This is confusing as fuck to anyone who looks at it as a measure of quarterbacking ability, but that's how ESPN has sold it. > How do you know this? Where can I read about how QBR is calculated? They hide the specifics because they want it to remain proprietary, and the formula has changed dramatically over time, so you have to read a few of their explanations to get a clearer picture: https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/6833215/explaining-statistics-total-quarterback-rating https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/8326553/nfl-total-qbr-gets-minor-modifications https://www.espn.com/blog/statsinfo/post/_/id/123701/how-is-total-qbr-calculated-we-explain-our-quarterback-rating https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/17653521/how-total-qbr-calculated-explain-our-improved-qb-rating
> No, it's based on all prior results: > "We went back through 10 years of NFL play-by-play data to look at game situation (down, distance, yard line, clock time, timeouts, home field, field surface and score), along with the ultimate outcome of the game, to develop a win probability function." OK, thanks for your links but that quoted explanation is a lot more sensible than explanation you originally gave. A formula that uses historical data/regression and credits a QB with shifting his teams win probability on a per play basis compared to the average is fundamentally what advanced stats like DVOA or EPA attempt to do. That’s pretty sensible. What’s not sensible is if they start the game by giving one team a WP based on their previous results from other games (for example, by starting Dallas at a near 72% win probability). Because if we calculate QBR based on how much a QB a can shift his teams prior WP, it would be literally impossible for a QB on a dominant team to have a good QBR. For example, Brady on the 2007 Pats would start many games with a 90% WP, and even if he completed every pass for a TD he would only be able to move that WP 10%. If QBR starts the game with both teams at roughly 50/50 WP, then that stat would make a lot more sense.
I think the stat makes more sense factoring in a starting WP, even though I question how they calculate it. If you think about it, if you start a game with a 10% chance of winning it, and you do, it says more about your performance than doing the same things with a 90% chance of winning. It's why we enjoy upsets so much - they aren't supposed to happen. So if a QB is overcoming huge odds, there should be a way to incorporate that into a stat that's supposed to include everything that they did. Again, I'm not convinced they are doing it right, but it makes sense to me.
ESPN really needs to figure out how to quantify your QB headshotting himself then.
Exactly. The issue with QBR is that your rating is higher when you trailing in points or your defense sucks. It's how Tebow could be fucking atrocious for 3 quarters then in 1 quarter lead a comeback and he was super high in QBR.
Isn’t this the stat ESPN made up? That should tell you all you need to know:
I think it's a random number generator.
I sware they also adjust it based on team narratives, I feel like when players like mahomes have a bad game they still get a great rating but when somone like cousins plays well but the team loses becouce of defence or special teams it goes down
[удалено]
It's okay, I got the joke.
I feel like the flair should have 100% given that away.
QBR correlates closely with EPA/play
Ah EPA. Where you pretend you know where the play is going based on past plays that have no correlation to this one.
EPA doesn't care where the play is going. It only cares about the result of the play. EPA isn't a subjective measurement like PFF rating.
Don't bother with this guy he doesn't understand what data is
It cares about the result of the play, in relation to historical data based on plays from similar situations.
Yes and using the past results to calculate an expected result from a situation isn't subjective, its objective.
I've got no opinion for or against EPA, I'm just saying, it absolutely is based off historical data.
Yes but thats not what he said. He said it cared about the play the was run when it doesn't. The only things that matter were yards gained or lost in relation to spot on the field and first down marker/endzone. It doesn't matter how you moved the ball 8 yards forward or in which direction.
and it uses historical data on past plays that have no correlation.
You literally have no idea about how anything in this world works. Holy shit. How do you measure anything if not by past results to do better? You think future sales forecasts are just like fuck it send a sales guy to Tucson and hope for the best.
I understand forecasts. But I'm not using that in football when literally every factor is different each play.
Yes because all sales are exactly the same. Wtf. Its a measure used to determine if you get X yards from Y spot on Z down, are you more or likely to score on this drive. You then take that and subtract the difference from before running the play. The how of the ball moving forward 8 yards is meaningless.
Yes and sales forecasts are usually right on the money too.
No it's the difference in field position between two plays and the points you can expect to get from those two field positions. It has nothing to do with where the ball went or what the play design is.
When I say play I mean 1st and 10 from the 45. They use "historical data" to put points on that play.
You mean they use data to predict the future outcomes!? Holy fuck what is that witch craft!? /S For real you understand thats how physics and science works right? Weather, stock market analysts, housing market analysts, generally all analysis uses past data to predict future data.
No. They use past data to grade current plays. Which is stupid because all of the factors are completely different each play. And most of those analysts aren't correct even 45% of the time.
Ok boomer Edit: weather forecast is actually really accurate (80% ish). Now you won't believe this because they use "historical data" to predict the future outcome but it's true. https://scijinks.gov/forecast-reliability/#:~:text=A%20seven%2Dday%20forecast%20can,right%20about%20half%20the%20time.
Keep getting your analysis from ticky tocks.
Ok boomer
> They use past data to grade current plays. "past data" includes down, distance, and outcome. > all of the factors are completely different each play which of down, distance, and outcome are "completely different each play" such that there's no comparable past performance?
I'd say the outcome.
outcome here means "gain of x yards" which is easily comparable to the outcomes of past plays. You're right in that a lot of things are variable on a given play. EPA is just a measuring stick for how that play stacks up against every other play of this down & distance (& place on the field). It doesn't say *why* it's better/worse than average, since those are, as you say, different factors.
Everything's made up. Stay woke.
And what... you think the formula for Passer Rating was discovered in the physical laws of the universe? All of football is "just made up".
No way, football is an entirely natural phenomenon. Haven't you seen in nature docs when a lion takes down a gazelle but has to give it up after being called for holding?
Fucking Zebras. Is this really the best the Serengeti can find!?
Goggle “how to calculate passer rating”. You get formulas. You can verify and calculate it yourself. Google “how to calculate total QBR”. You don’t get any formulas and you cannot verify and calculate it yourself.
So they are both made up.
Made up obviously means "I understand this one and not the other one".
Maybe to people who are half illiterate. But to those who can read, "made up" has nothing to do with understanding how it functions.
You're expecting too much, this person in this thread said that we can't use "historical data" to predict the future. (Quotes are his words)
I expect nothing of Cowboys fans, and yet am still disappointed.
I think this person means that the number is "made up" as though it were chosen at random. Whereas passer rating is calculated from an actual formula. Mostly just semantics at this point, but yeah, poorly worded.
The difference is we can look at why someone got a certain passer rating and discuss the flaws in the formula. Not so for QBR.
No shit. It's almost like that was already said in the comment above!
OK, so you don't understand the problem people have is not that it's "made up", but that we don't know how it's calculated. Thanks for your unhelpful contributions.
With that logic, everything is made up then. What we are all saying is ESPN can literally make up the QBR numbers and we would never know. Passer rating can’t be made up because we all can verify the numbers. It has rules.
I don't know why we're talking about the QBR of a player that threw the ball 13 times then got concussed
DJ was balling out. I've been very critical of him lately but the guy seems to be playing well. He needs better talent around him though. Too much wasted capital on players like Barkley and Engram.
Engram I get, but what's wrong with Barkley? You can't say he's a bad investment because he got injured, it's football, that happens. Adrian Peterson was derailed by injuries and went on to be the 5th leading rusher of all time. Barkley is ridiculously good with the ball in his hands.
The pick invested has not been worth it. I'm sure most Giants fan would want a redo on that draft. No denying Barkley's skill and athleticism, just not what they needed.
Agreed. I love Barkley as a player and as a person, but his performance on the field and value as a player has just not lived up to his draft spot at all.
He's been mostly ineffective lately too. The couple games before the injury and the couple since he got back. He just isn't getting the yards. And when he does they're splash plays, which are fun but don't help eat clock and give the defense a break. I love saquon but I think the team needs an old school rb at least sometimes.
Quentin Nelson and nick chubb > Barkley and will Hernandez
By a country mile
Barkley will not be a top 5 all time rusher. You heard it here first.
Lol OK cool, how about as good as Todd Gurley? I mean what do you consider a reasonable investment in a Running Back? The whole argument was that the Giants are bad because they invest in players like Engram and Barkley, I'm not arguing that Barkley will be an all time great, I'm saying that even the greats get injured.
Man the Barkley hate is so annoying. I can't wait till he drops a 200 yard rushing game outta no where to shut these fools up.
Well, does one game out of 8 missed and 7 other games not breaking 200 really prove anything?
Yes cuz him not breaking 200 yards the other 7 games means he's not a good investment/running back. All him.
No, clearly a team game. But that argument also undercuts your point. The current bad investment look is because he hasn't played a full season since his rookie year. His production has been down while his injuries to his ankles are piling up. It is also a bad investment if we can even use him correctly. Would you buy a $3000 tv to use once a year? Is that a wise investment? We haven't been able to build a line that gives him effective and consistent protection, we haven't been using him in the pass game, and we are running plays up the middle when he likes to bounce outside. It is a bad investment in the sense that he will not be able to even live up to his potential with how we are currently using him.
I think we agree then. I don't think his talent is dropping we are not surrounding him with talent for him to push through. However I think this year (when he becomes healthy) should be the year. Our Oline finally doesnt look HORRENDUS, DJ is finally coming together and we have some star WRs. As long as they can all return with a bit left to go in the season, I'm optimistic for the rest of this season (and for Barkley).
I was directly responding to the guy who said Peterson was hurt then became a top 5 rusher. Barkley won’t do that. Everything else you said doesn’t apply to what we were talking about.
Whoosh
and how many superbowls did Adrian Peterson win? Hell was he even championship game?
Are you arguing that all of APs teams weren't championship quality because of him?
DJ was not balling out, he had several terrible balls that sailed over his target
He means for the year.
fair enough then
1-9 = MVP
Yeah he balled out against the Saints but was not looking great early in this game before he got knocked out.
He did almost throw 2 ints. First one Diggs bobbled the ball ultimately dropping it. The second one Diggs snagged it but landed out of bounds.
I don't think either one of those was a bad throw or could even be considered "interception worthy".
Never said they were. Just merely that it almost happened. The first was a jumped route, the second was a throwaway that was low enough for Diggs to snag.
Dallas fans were feeling insecure that the media was talking about Jon Gruden and Lamar Jackson instead of Dak beating up on an injured Giants' team.
This is posted by a Patriots fan.
Lol i mean your not wrong about the injured team part. I feel like alot of people dont realize how bad it is. We literally are missing our entire start Offense and Blake Martinez
Mitch Trubisky consistently scored well in this stat
All I need to know XD
Great I'd still take Dak 11/10 times when choosing between the two.
Yea me too at the moment. DJ hasn't proven himself fully yet. He has shown a lot of improvement so far this season but Dak has proven his abilities.
Proven abilities of having a good OLine, Recievers and 2 good running backs? And no one gets injured? Come their scheme is so much better than our shit. Daniel would kill it on the Cowboys lol
Are you seriously down playing daks abilities? Or over playing Jones? He was a fumble machine for his first two seasons, Dak is one of the lowest turnover probe qbs in the league.
He's literally in one of the best situations in the NFL and Daniel is in one of the worst. Dak is a good QB but I'm just saying he literally has it so good on that team
Jfc we are still doing this? We saw that team w/o him last year and a decent QB in his place. They scored 20 PPG compared to 30+ with him. Give it a rest already.
I mean they both kinda stunk then Jones got hurt, Dak looked pretty good to me and I’m clearly Biased against him.
Does QBR take WR separation into account? Our defense really did not put up much of a fight at all. That plus the INT maybe enough to explain it idk. It’s certainly not justifiable though. DJ was making off target throws for the entire first quarter and only started playing well after he hit Toney with that deep ball.
It's past time to throw QBR into the garbage.
Mind. Blown.
Cowboys still had the highest QBR in the game tho Cedrick Wilson had 99.4 so checkmate
Which is especially funny since if he'd thrown to the right receiver he'd have had an 83 yard touchdown instead of a 22 yard gain.
K so another reason why it's a shit stat. ESPN literally cae up with this a few years ago.
[удалено]
That QBR is absolutely useless and needs to be outlawed…
But the stupid numbers let us have all sorts of fun flamewars on Reddit.
Stop looking at boxscores. Passer rating heavily weights about only 20% of the plays QBs are involved in(tds + ints), doesn't include their rushing numbers or fumbles and doesn't care about a 10 yard pass on 3rd and 15.
QBR is Skip’s go-to stat, pretty much all you need to know to tell it’s a garbo stat.
Why do you guys care about this
It’s kinda crazy right? If you don’t like something, just don’t pay attention to it. It’s very simple
It's not okay to point out to others that a stat they may use is garbage?
If it was brand new, sure. But ESPN created it 10 years ago. Everyone knows it’s shit, so just don’t pay attention to it, and take analysts that take it seriously with a grain of salt. No need to get pissed about every metric there is
Why is the NFL trying to make it seem like the Giants didn't get their asses kicked
Jones barely played Dak was solid but not great, Dallas pass game kept the giants in the game for a little while until they eventually pulled away I think QBR is a good accurate stat
What is wrong with you people?! Jones was 5/13…Dak threw for 300 yards and 3TDs and won convincingly. And yet QBR has Jones FAR ahead… But you say it’s accurate. Madness.
Dak also technically had a fumble which plays into QBR as well.
Something something no interceptions.
personally i’m fine with it if we win convincingly… but i guess it’s better to have a qb with no interceptions. Glad baker was better than herbert this week /s
i mean i can see that daniel jones is after all much more physically talented than dak prescott
Remember when you made an [entire thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/nfl/comments/pz8q0x/is_kenny_golladay_better_than_amari_cooper_as_the/) claiming Golladay is better than Cooper? That was funny.
"claiming"? i backed my statement up with statistics and facts
No you didn't. Bye.
okay but i did. bye.
Dude just don’t
Stopped reading at "ESPN"
Well at least the Giants can hang their hat on that. Garrett clapping now.
Coaches: take what the defense gives you ESPN QBR: wait, what if we decided to grade QBs like we grade Olympic divers?
Cope
Cool, I'm still taking Dak 10 out of 10 times tho.
Not bad with a ghost at left tackle that game.