Leave Kirk Alone!

Yeah I wasn't implying that it's not a Kirk problem. Just seems odd he never forces it down field till not doing so is no longer an option. Kirk is to adverse to taking it at the other team otherwise. I agree you can't fix this because you can't take the 3rd option out of the play and Kirk is too set in making it his quick 2nd.   

The irony. Kirk has a game winning FG drive against the worst team in the NFL and you are good with that. He puts up 11 points fewer than the AVERAGE number of points the Lions have given up this year, and that is saving the game?

IMO Ibelieve we are sticking thru Kirk thru next season, unless Mond is crushing the stuff in practice. Let the new coach, if there is one, evaluate Mond while having Kirk there to ease the transition. Kirk is the best QB we have had in some time and we are stuck paying him regardless so further development of Mond behind Kirk seems the .way to go. Like Zim, Kirk has peaked here already and isnt the answer going forward, but what do I know Funky?

Yeah the traditional QB rating is severely outdated. How outdated?

1960 to 1970? Are you kidding me lol? You just need to look at this chart to see what I mean. The average TD/INT ratio and QB rating every year since 1960.


As you can see, both categories have steadily increased every year. Up until 1983, the NFL threw more INT's than TD's. Comp pct is another main factor in the rating and these days it pretty much rewards the checkdown charlie.

And I haven't even touched upon the "variables" they use. Which you'd swear they just pulled out of their ass.

2.375? Why? It's the max value in each of the 4 categories, and that's how you get the odd max rating of 158.3. 2.375 x 4 = 9.5 ... and for whatever reason, you divide that by 6 and multiply by 100 lol. Just why? 4 categories, but you divide by 6? If you make the max 2.5 in each category and multiple by 10, boom, you achieve the same thing except you end up with a 0-100 rating system, which makes a little more sense at least.

Because everyone knows rushing leads to winning, duh.

Oh boy, you're trying to open all the worm cans aren't you? I got a whole post around here somewhere about it ESPN's Total QBR Abortion, so I don't want to rehash the entire thing, but the gist of it is, a regular Joe can't do his own QBR stuff at home. If I want to put together my own chart, I can't include a QBR, so why rely on it anywhere else?

The QBR gets things right, like a 0-100 scale, and it takes into consideration more variables, but then it gets it wrong by making a lot of those variables subjective. Oooo boy, yeah you never want to hear "subjective" when you're talking about stats.

Each play is rated based on the context of the game, so a 10 yard pass in the 1st quarter is weighted differently than a 10 yard pass in the 4th. I would argue, if you completed more 10 yard passes in the 1st quarter, you don't have to complete as many 10 yard passes in the 4th.

Does it though? You think Checkdown Charlie is better this year than last? The only thing Kirk is doing better this year than last is he has fewer INT's, but that's more a product of his risk adverse style. Last year he was more aggressive. Is aggressiveness a variable in the QBR? It should be.

I came up with my own rating system that takes more variables into consideration, and it's based on league averages so essentially QB's are graded by their peers. But because the league is constantly changing, I avoided the same mistake the NFL made and used era based variables. Which simply means I only use the average stats from the prior 3 seasons. It was originally just 1 season, but then 2013 Peyton Manning happened and threw everything out of whack. I wanted to avoid crazy anomalies too. You don't want to use too big of a period because the league changes too quickly, so I settled on 3.

What that means is, a QB who has a 75 rating in 1970 is comparable to a QB with a 75 rating in 2020. It's a 0-100 system, but it's possible to end up with a negative, and to go over 100 in extreme circumstances. For example, in my system, a QB who is 2/2 for 198 yards and a 2 TD's will have a rating of 102.84 while a QB who is 1/1 for 99 yards and a TD will have 101.42. 3/3 for 297 and 3 TD's, might be 104.26. In other words, consistency good is rewarded while consistently bad is penalized. 0/1 with a pick is -0.43 and 0/2 with 2 picks would be -0.86. And it's all in the math, so no subjectivity required.

The more interesting thing I've been able to do with it is project a players stats as if he had played in another era. I've post examples around here before to compare QB's from different era's.

For example, taking Peyton Manning's, 2013 stat line:

YEAR   G   W-L-T  CMP  ATT   PCT   YDS   AVG  TD INT   RATE
2013  16  13-3-0  450  659  68.3  5477  8.31  55  10  115.1

Would've projected to this in 1974:

1974  14  11-3-0  252  430  58.5  3379  7.86  32  12   96.7

In the context of era, both lines are equally impressive, aka identical.

BTW, the ratings above are NFL ratings. Based on my rating system, that 2013 line for Manning would have been a 94.60 (out of 100) in passing alone, and 93.31 when you factor in rushing, sacks, and fumbles.

Sooooo, I hope that helps clear things up.

Its a bad analogy because Kirk throughout the season shows he is mentally and physically capable of every pass in the book. He actually does sh*t out there that is dazzling, he's not Ragu from Piggly Wiggly. That said, he's missing the secret ingredient to the sauce, there's something not quite right, its like the lasagna recipe that Marie gave Debra in Everybody Loves Raymond but she sabotaged the key ingredient by giving Debra a bottle of tarragon with a basil label on it. This dude has tarragon in his lasagna, he'll never win a Super Bowl, and I stand by that.

Tarragon can really F up your sauce!!!  If you don't have time to cook good sauce you can satisfy your guests with a store bought jar of RAO'S Tomato Basil.