Reply to Thread New Thread |
![]() |
#21 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#22 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#23 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#24 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#26 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#27 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#28 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#29 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#30 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#32 |
|
Ah! |
![]() |
![]() |
#34 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#35 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#36 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#37 |
|
LMAO. I can't believe that the wrote up an essay trying to defend the stat. QBR is clearly a broken and incomplete statistic. An interception that donks off of some receiver's hands and is picked off should not count against the QB who threw it. On the other hand, factoring in completions, or incompletions, and weighing their importance in relationship to the game situation is just a bit too confusing for me. Just like the previous sentence. |
![]() |
![]() |
#38 |
|
True the Passer Rating stat is outdated and doesn't tell the whole story, but ESPN has been secretive on the formula used to do QBR. Until it is transparent as to how QBR is calculated and statisticians can dissect what QBR accurately shows or what it needs reworking with, the stat cannot be taken seriously.
|
![]() |
![]() |
#39 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#40 |
|
|
![]() |
Reply to Thread New Thread |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|