NFL.com ranks all 57 starting QB's from 2019: Darnold # 26; Trevor Siemian # 55; Luke Falk # 56

[Jetsfan80]

13 hours ago, Mogglez said:

Which should tell you everything you need to know about Football Outsiders.

It tells me they're objective.  They watch every single play and then run the numbers based on what plays are "successful" or not.  They attempt to take emotion completely out of the equation. 

[Jetsfan80]

12 hours ago, Mogglez said:

If they watched this Offensive Line and thought they were anything other than absolutely horrendous, detrimental to the QB, and a massive f'ng problem, then they need their eyeballs checked. 

Thinking some stupid website is, in fact, stupid makes me a homer?  LMFAO.

*EDIT*

The "stupid website" doesn't even back up your claim.  It backs up mine.  The only team with a worse offensive line than us was the Dolphins.

 

Russell Wilson has had an awful offensive line for years now.  I agree that Sam will look better with a competent OL.  But that excuse only can take you so far. 

Sam still throws off his back foot.  Sam still makes some Sanchez-esque throws into coverage.  That stuff needs to get cleaned up.  

[Jetsfan80]

3 hours ago, Jetster said:

Troy Aikman went 1-15 his rookie year. ONE & FIFTEEN! 

Why? Because #1 he was learning to play in the NFL & #2 he didn't have enough talent around him.

What the hell was anyone watching this year? Darnold would get the snap & instantly be pressured. Then you turn to Redzone & watch QBs eating a ham sandwich back there. He did MORE WITH LESS than anyone not named Russell Wilson but Tyler Lockett is better than Robbie Anderson. 

 

For every QB that struggled early in their career then succeeded later, there's about 20 QB's that went on to continue to suck.  

[ChuckkieB]

2020 is the year Darnold either needs to take that next step and become a top 10-12 QB capable of leading his team to the playoffs consistently, or turn into Andy Dalton, the epitome of a QB who is only good enough to keep his job for 7-8 years but never take that leap to the next level. 

Personally, I think Darnold will be way better than Andy Dalton.  

[Jetsfan80]

56 minutes ago, ChuckkieB said:

2020 is the year Darnold either needs to take that next step and become a top 10-12 QB capable of leading his team to the playoffs consistently, or turn into Andy Dalton, the epitome of a QB who is only good enough to keep his job for 7-8 years but never take that leap to the next level. 

Personally, I think Darnold will be way better than Andy Dalton.  

 

But how much better?  Do you place his ceiling and/or your projected future for him in that Top 12 category?  

[ChuckkieB]

3 hours ago, Jetsfan80 said:

 

But how much better?  Do you place his ceiling and/or your projected future for him in that Top 12 category?  

I want to believe that he will be a top 12 QB based on the flashes he's shown over the last two years with a below average roster.  The next year or two will determine if he's what I think he is or Andy Dalton instead.  Andy Dalton syndrome", as I like to call it, is a franchise killer.  Being handcuffed to a guy like Dalton for 8 years with zero results is basically football purgatory.  

[Mogglez]

7 hours ago, Ben Had said:

The fins oline was as bad or worse then the Jets...Fitzpatrick played much better last year than Darnold...Its a had pill for Darnold fans to swallow.

Their line was bad yes.  Fitzpatrick played better?  Not really, no.  Nevermind the fact that I would hope that a 16 year veteran would play better than a kid with less than a full two years worth of games under his belt.

 

[Mogglez]

5 hours ago, Jetsfan80 said:

I don't think these rankings are purely based on 2019 performance.  It's probably more of a "Power Rankings" with a heavy lean on recent performance.  

If that's the case, Fitzpatrick at 17 looks even worse.

5 hours ago, Jetsfan80 said:

It tells me they're objective.  They watch every single play and then run the numbers based on what plays are "successful" or not.  They attempt to take emotion completely out of the equation. 

Honestly, I will admit a mistake here.  Had I known before making that post that the website actually backed up my claim regarding how truly awful the Offensive Line really was, I wouldn't have slammed Football Outsiders.  I was going soley off the word of a poster that obviously didn't read the numbers for himself and made a baseless claim off of it.

5 hours ago, Jetsfan80 said:

 

Russell Wilson has had an awful offensive line for years now.  I agree that Sam will look better with a competent OL.  But that excuse only can take you so far. 

Sam still throws off his back foot.  Sam still makes some Sanchez-esque throws into coverage.  That stuff needs to get cleaned up.  

I completely agree with you.

[bitonti]

19 hours ago, Mogglez said:

I think there's a legitimate argument that Sam was better than Goff and Rivers, and that's not even accounting for the fact that he would probably light it up with their coaches and players.

Agree Rivers was a turnover machine. But then again those dudes didn't miss a month with a social disease 

so I dunno...squaresies? 

 

[Mogglez]

15 minutes ago, bitonti said:

Agree Rivers was a turnover machine. But then again those dudes didn't miss a month with a social disease 

so I dunno...squaresies? 

 

Lol.

Honestly, my biggest problem with the list is kind of what @Jetsfan80 brought up.  It can't decide if it wants to be a power rankings list that takes the whole career into account, or just 2019.  I think if you go off of 2019 alone, there are legitimate arguments for Sam to be higher.  Obviously, if we're taking in careers, he doesn't sniff Rivers.

[Losmeister]

11 hours ago, Mogglez said:

ESPN's QBR is the dumbest stat in sports (Tom Brady was fifth, behind Ryan Fitzpatrick!)

Chris Chase

November 13, 2015 10:22 am

In 2011, ESPN tried to create a better way to rate quarterbacks, as the standard system — a ridiculous, indecipherable QB rating that had, for some reason, a maximum score of 158.3 — was deemed illogical. Enter QBR which is so logical that, entering Week 10, Ryan Fitzpatrick was rated ahead of Tom Brady. Mission accomplished, eh ESPN! So, we dug into that startling finding and other absurdities of the dumbest stat in sports (which is saying something).

1. Prior to Thursday’s game, here were the stat lines for the aforementioned quarterbacks:

So, Fitzpatrick had fewer wins, completions, completion percentage, yards (by almost 1,000!), touchdowns, Y/A, Y/C, QB rating and more interceptions. But his QBR is 76.7, third in the league, while Brady is slumming it at 73.9, good for fifth. Yeah. I don’t know either.

2. When QBR was unveiled to no fanfare in 2011, it required nearly 2,500 words of explanation. As much as one can sum up 2,500 words in one paragraph, this one seemed to hit at the core of QBR:

What underlies QBR is an understanding of how football works and a lot of detailed situational data. What it yields are results that should reflect that. It illustrates that converting on third-and-long is important to a quarterback. It shows that a pass that is in the air for 40 yards is more reflective of a quarterback than a pass that is in the air for 5 yards and the receiver has 35 yards of run after the catch. These premises should sound reasonable to football fans. They come out of a lot of statistical analysis, but they are also consistent with what coaches and players understand.

That’s totally great. But Ryan Fitzpatrick is ahead of Tom Brady, so it’s really, really not.

3. Some other facts, according to QBR, through Week 9:

Ryan Fitzpatrick > Aaron Rodgers

Tyrod Taylor >  Ben Roethlisberger

Jay Cutler > Philip Rivers

Brian Hoyer > Russell Wilson

Ryan Mallett > Cam Newton

Ryan Mallett > Matthew Stafford

Ryan Mallett > Andrew Luck

Ryan Mallett > Joe Flacco

Ryan Mallett > Nick Foles

Ryan Mallett > Sam Bradford

4. The fourth best game of the year, according to QBR, came from Teddy Bridgewater who went 14/18, 153 yards, with one touchdown in a game against the Detroit Lions.

5. This one’s my favorite: The all-time best game in QBR history was when Charlie Batch (!!!) beat Tampa in early 2010. Here’s Batch’s stat line for that game (oh, I love this so much): 12/17, 186 yards, 10.9 avg, 3 TD, 2 INT, 106.5 rating, 99.9 QBR, all in a game in which the Steelers won 38-13! Two interceptions! A blowout! A QB rating that was nice but hardly anything special! And that was almost perfect according to QBR.

6. So in this new-fangled stat that was going to unlock the mysteries of football, a game not normally given to statistical analysis, ESPN of course normalized for defenses right? I mean, it’s one thing to have Tom Brady to throw for 360 yards and 3 touchdowns against the Lions but to do that against the Broncos is much different and much more impressive. That defensive talent is surely taken into account, right? NOPE!

With this rating, we have intentionally not adjusted for opponents. This doesn’t mean that we won’t adjust for opponents as we use it but that we want QBR to be flexible for many purposes, and keeping opponents’ strength out gives us that flexibility.

Translation: “We didn’t know what to do with this and we already have a system that is making a decent Charlie Batch game our best game ever, so just get off our backs already.”

7. With Fitzpatrick playing a usual mediocre game on Thursday in a Jets loss, he actually moved below Brady, one of the sadder development of the NFL season.

8. I don’t blame QBR for being horrible. I blame football for being a game that’s not like baseball. There are too many moving parts to rate a quarterback on a great game — his offensive line, speed of receivers, tipped balls, drops, closing speed of corners, situational passes, down-and-distances, etc. It’ll never work. But good on ESPN for trying. Just realize when you’ve failed and pull the plug on this idiocy.

More "fairness" lmfaooooo.

Total QBR is a joke, thrown out there by ESPN for the sake of being different, and regurgitated by people that have no idea what they're talking about to fit their ridiculous agendas (ex. ESPNs garbage, click-bait writers).

ridicule what is beyond you, i get it...

all yds are equal, all ints are equal, all tds are equal...      a scale that goes to 152 fir a perfect game is the gold standard....

[Losmeister]

10 hours ago, jgb said:

Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. It truly is fascinating that so many believe never changing one's position is an admirable quality.

 

btw its "A foolish consistency..."

hold your ground when truth is on your side   #copernicus

[Warfish]

[Losmeister]

so mogglez, what stat(s) do YOU rely on on to try to anayalyuze QB play...what do YOU think is valid???

for me qbr at least makes it sensible...  a scale from 0-100 where 50 is avg...   plays are weighted to situation....

be all and end all...  nothing is.,.,.       but you can measure in mm or inches...as long as its consistent...

 

 

[Mogglez]

17 minutes ago, Losmeister said:

ridicule what is beyond you, i get it...

all yds are equal, all ints are equal, all tds are equal...      a scale that goes to 152 fir a perfect game is the gold standard....

Lmfao. 

"I have zero answer to any of those massive mistakes that you just listed, so I'm gonna say that the system is beyond you"

[Mogglez]

8 minutes ago, Losmeister said:

so mogglez, what stat(s) do YOU rely on on to try to anayalyuze QB play...what do YOU think is valid???

for me qbr at least makes it sensible...  a scale from 0-100 where 50 is avg...   plays are weighted to situation....

be all and end all...  nothing is.,.,.       but you can measure in mm or inches...as long as its consistent...

 

 

It's a combination of a couple of stats.  Passer rating.  Yards per attempt and yards per completion.  Completion percentage.  TD-Turnover ratio.  Not some stupid system that has Charlie Batch playing the greatest game of all time. 

You talk about how you can measure with a system that is "consistent" while defending Total QBR, which is anything but consistent.

[Losmeister]

3 minutes ago, Mogglez said:

Passer rating.  Yards per attempt and yards per completion.  Completion percentage.  TD-Turnover ratio.  My own two eyes.  Not some stupid system that has Charlie Batch playing the greatest game of all time. 

You talk about how you can measure with a system that is "consistent" while defending Total QBR, which is anything but consistent.

so you like and understand "passer rating"    sure it "looks better" for Sam 60 is more than 40...but...80 outta 152 is ...what?? 

explain the scale and how it works, please.

TD/INT ratio is a fave of mine.

[Mogglez]

Just now, Losmeister said:

so you like and understand "passer rating"    sure it "looks better" for Sam 60 is more than 40...but...80 outta 152 is ...what?? 

explain the scale and how it works, please.

TD/INT ratio is a fave of mine.

First off, the highest attainable passer rating is 158.3, not 152.  Second, It's not the number you should be looking at, given that the career leader in Passer Rating (Aaron Rodgers) is at 102.4, and, as far as the regular season goes, no one has attained a perfect rating for a single season (that has reached a minimum threshold).  Sam's QB rating this wasn't horrific at 84.3.

TD-Turnover ratio is a good stat, glad we agree there.  This is an area that Sam has to clean up.

[greenwichjetfan]

14 hours ago, Mogglez said:

Total QBR is a totally laughable "stat" that no one on this planet worth listening to takes seriously.

Been fighting this battle on here for what feels like ages. No one metric will ever suffice, and looking at various datapoints individually is generally the best way to tell a story, but even if you wanted one overriding metric, total QBR is garbage. Straight up. Anyone who still touts it as a legit metric is proving why their opinion should be ignored; not because of their views on any QBs, but because they use that metric to qualify their views. 

The best part of all of this is that those 3 or 4 posters could just as easily use DYAR, DVOA, AY/A or NAY/A to achieve their end-result of trashing Darnold, but none of those acronyms are as simple to pronounce say as "QBR".

[Losmeister]

22 minutes ago, Mogglez said:

First off, the highest attainable passer rating is 158.3, not 152.  Second, It's not the number you should be looking at, given that the career leader in Passer Rating (Aaron Rodgers) is at 102.4, and, as far as the regular season goes, no one has attained a perfect rating for a single season (that has reached a minimum threshold).  Sam's QB rating this wasn't horrific at 84.3.

TD-Turnover ratio is a good stat, glad we agree there.  This is an area that Sam has to clean up.

Like I said..   its a bot of mental gymnastics...  a scale from 0-158???   WTF?

As for perfection, of course, no one should ever reach it FOR A SEASON. Neither for QBR. 

ANd , btw, you say 84.4 isnt horrific....still 26th in the league...   so, its pretty sh*t, actually. 

80-something sounds like a good grade you;d get on a scale of 0-100.   But outta 158 its barely over the halfway mark.

YPA/YPC   all decent...   you look these up and Sam will be near the bottom. 

And please dont start in with the " in the last 4 games he was a top 5" QB nonsense...   

 

[Jetsfan80]

43 minutes ago, greenwichjetfan said:

The best part of all of this is that those 3 or 4 posters could just as easily use DYAR, DVOA, AY/A or NAY/A to achieve their end-result of trashing Darnold, but none of those acronyms are as simple to pronounce say as "QBR".

Suffice it to say that none of the metrics available make Sam look particularly good.  I think even under ideal circumstances Sam will demonstrate he's about an average or slightly above average QB. 

The good news is you can win quite a few games with average/slightly above average QB play.  The bad news is that one day pretty soon we're going to have to pay him, and he won't be willing to get paid like an average/slightly above average QB.  

[joewilly12]

Are some here just to argue with everyone. 

[jgb]

1 hour ago, Losmeister said:

btw its "A foolish consistency..."

hold your ground when truth is on your side   #copernicus

Thanks. And there is nothing wrong with sticking to your guns, but mocking one for changing one's opinion as a point of weakness is about the most foolish thing I can think of.

[Losmeister]

7 minutes ago, jgb said:

Thanks. And I was referring to those that act as if changing one's mind is a point of weakness. Sometimes you're right, sometimes you're wrong. But refusing to ever change your view is by definition "foolish."

and being stubborn when you are wrong(foolish) is the definitiono f small mindedness.

[jgb]

Just now, Losmeister said:

and being stubborn when you are wrong(foolish) is the definitiono f small mindedness.

We've gotten too philosophical for me lol.

 

[Mogglez]

2 hours ago, Losmeister said:

Like I said..   its a bot of mental gymnastics...  a scale from 0-158???   WTF?

As for perfection, of course, no one should ever reach it FOR A SEASON. Neither for QBR. 

ANd , btw, you say 84.4 isnt horrific....still 26th in the league...   so, its pretty sh*t, actually. 

80-something sounds like a good grade you;d get on a scale of 0-100.   But outta 158 its barely over the halfway mark.

YPA/YPC   all decent...   you look these up and Sam will be near the bottom. 

And please dont start in with the " in the last 4 games he was a top 5" QB nonsense...   

 

Which is exactly why I said that it's a MULTITUDE of numbers when making an analysis, not just one simple number.

Second, it's rated 26th because the list of passer ratings (as per NFL.com) includes players that didn't even make 10 starts (Flacco, Stafford, Foles, etc.), which is, again, why I said that you have to go by a certain threshold.  84.3 isn't fantastic by any stretch of the imagination, however, it isn't this sh*t number you're making it out to be.  Same goes for YPA/YPC, where Sam would finish near the top 15 if you made the threshold more than 10 starts, so no he wouldn't be at the bottom.

3rd.  I didn't start that, nor do I plan on starting with that.  I've already said a number of times that he needs to be more consistent.

Finally, none of these numbers take into account that we have the 31st ranked O-line in the league, or how our skill position players absolutely sucked, and so on.  You can call them excuses all you want, it plays a role in how your QB performs.  Again, if he plays like this when conditions are more than adequate, it's time to draft a new one.  Simple.  I agree with that.

[Losmeister]

58 minutes ago, Mogglez said:

Which is exactly why I said that it's a MULTITUDE of numbers when making an analysis, not just one simple number.

Second, it's rated 26th because the list of passer ratings (as per NFL.com) includes players that didn't even make 10 starts (Flacco, Stafford, Foles, etc.), which is, again, why I said that you have to go by a certain threshold.  84.3 isn't fantastic by any stretch of the imagination, however, it isn't this sh*t number you're making it out to be.  Same goes for YPA/YPC, where Sam would finish near the top 15 if you made the threshold more than 10 starts, so no he wouldn't be at the bottom.

3rd.  I didn't start that, nor do I plan on starting with that.  I've already said a number of times that he needs to be more consistent.

Finally, none of these numbers take into account that we have the 31st ranked O-line in the league, or how our skill position players absolutely sucked, and so on.  You can call them excuses all you want, it plays a role in how your QB performs.  Again, if he plays like this when conditions are more than adequate, it's time to draft a new one.  Simple.  I agree with that.

Agree that multiple #'s needa be considered...  and I have, in the past, pointed out that Sam is middle of the pack in expected complete %...

which is is the exact area where Tannehill went wayyy  beyond his larger body of work to get his best season in.

I see Sam as a middle of the pack guy...   with forays into top ten performance, and forays into the lower end (whcih is currently his avererage) 

in the end we shall see. great kid. not the elite talent that all the hype was about.

[Mogglez]

13 hours ago, Losmeister said:

Agree that multiple #'s needa be considered...  and I have, in the past, pointed out that Sam is middle of the pack in expected complete %...

which is is the exact area where Tannehill went wayyy  beyond his larger body of work to get his best season in.

I see Sam as a middle of the pack guy...   with forays into top ten performance, and forays into the lower end (whcih is currently his avererage) 

in the end we shall see. great kid. not the elite talent that all the hype was about.

Good to see we can finally find some middle ground here.

I still think that there is massive potential for Sam, however, it's up to him and him alone to reach it.  I fully expect Douglas to be able to build around him.  There will be no more excuses after that.

[Losmeister]

2 hours ago, Mogglez said:

Good to see we can finally find some middle ground here.

I still think that there is massive potential for Sam, however, it's up to him and him alone to reach it.  I fully expect Douglas to be able to build around him.  There will be no more excuses after that.

so i was thinking of Sam and the best i could come with is  certain qb. all the quotes below seem like they are made here every day...

we sold the farm for andy dalton, guys.

"...looked capable when his support system allowed it. And like he has just as often,....faltered when it didn’t."

 familiar with falling apart on national TV. 

Throughout his career,... has been an average quarterback, a legitimate MVP candidate, and a punch line. And while his play has vacillated slightly, he’s more or less been the same quarterback through it all. What’s changed are the players and coaches that the ....have put around him

the perfect quarterback litmus test—a case study in the passer whose success or failure is almost entirely dictated by his surroundings.

But even in those early years,....play hinted at just how crucial quality conditions would be to his success. He was terrible when pressured 

All of this may seem like a litany of excuses to absolve....of blame, but it’s not meant that way. Both his problems in the past—especially in high-leverage moments—and his limitations are impossible to ignore. The point in laying out the swings in ....support system is to illustrate the fact that more than maybe any other quarterback,..... has been dependent on his surroundings. Which isn’t an indictment. If placed in the same circumstances, about half the quarterbacks in the NFL would perform better than ..... has—and about half would perform worse. Finding a quality quarterback is undeniably crucial to a team’s success, but too often, the quarterback’s agency in that process can be overstated. 

https://www.theringer.com/nfl/2019/10/3/20896664/andy-dalton-cincinnati-bengals-quarterback-litmus-test