Jump to content

The better Rookie: Mark Sanchez or Eli Manning?


cferraro

Recommended Posts

compare comp %, ypa, td and int to the average season in 1970, convert to a number between 0-2.375 (0 for garbage, 1 for matching the 1970 average, 2 for matching the record circa 1970), these numbers are added together, times by 100 and divided by 6.. so 1's across the board, an exactly average performance by 1970 standards is a 66.7, 2's across the board, which would be equaling 1970 league records across the board would be 133, and the perfect score is 158.3, which would be record breaking performances across the board..

I know this because a few years ago i recalced every QB's ratings for a few years based on the current years averages and records up to that year.. Just to better compare apples and oranges..

9cyPFQbgCqwv1sv3SONNnbrGo1_500.jpg

NERD!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure you can a t-shirt with this online...

ima fat

Maybe you two loverbirds can wear "i'm with stupid" shirts for your next romantic stroll down the jax peir for funnelcakes and ben n jerries

31GFaeNPQgL._SL500_SS100_.jpg41-Jg%2B5-x8L._SL500_SS100_.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Note, Matt Ryan (statistically) had the best season in the SB era of any starting rookie QB.

Ryan, in his 1st 3 games was 34/64 (53%) for 511 yards, 2 TDs, 2 INTs, and a 95.7 QB Rating

Note, Ryan's QB rating is so high because he had 2 outstanding games and 1 awful game in his 1st 3.

That is a passer rating of 77. You can't average his 3 passer ratings to come up with 95.7. He had more attempts in the one awful game than he had in the 2 good games.

EDIT... I should have read the rest of the thread before doing the math....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

compare comp %, ypa, td and int to the average season in 1970, convert to a number between 0-2.375 (0 for garbage, 1 for matching the 1970 average, 2 for matching the record circa 1970), these numbers are added together, times by 100 and divided by 6.. so 1's across the board, an exactly average performance by 1970 standards is a 66.7, 2's across the board, which would be equaling 1970 league records across the board would be 133, and the perfect score is 158.3, which would be record breaking performances across the board..

I know this because a few years ago i recalced every QB's ratings for a few years based on the current years averages and records up to that year.. Just to better compare apples and oranges..

For me if the guy can throw the ball and have someone on the same team catch the ball on a consistent basis, he looks like a good QB.

That QB rating crap is like baseball sabermetrics, sometimes it's just over Analyzing. HOF'r Joe Namath's QB rating is 65.5, but to us he's a god.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me if the guy can throw the ball and have someone on the same team catch the ball on a consistent basis, he looks like a good QB.

That QB rating crap is like baseball sabermetrics, sometimes it's just over Analyzing. HOF'r Joe Namath's QB rating is 65.5, but to us he's a god.

Right. But people are stuck on it, which is part of what I was after. A way of normalizing the ratings over time. The "average QB" is no longer one that rates 66.7, due in part to rules changes and the rise of the WCO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is a passer rating of 77. You can't average his 3 passer ratings to come up with 95.7. He had more attempts in the one awful game than he had in the 2 good games.

EDIT... I should have read the rest of the thread before doing the math....

Be careful.. smart people make klecktard angry and distrusting

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me if the guy can throw the ball and have someone on the same team catch the ball on a consistent basis, he looks like a good QB.

That QB rating crap is like baseball sabermetrics, sometimes it's just over Analyzing. HOF'r Joe Namath's QB rating is 65.5, but to us he's a god.

It's actually called the QB efficiency rating, and back in the old days of the AFL, efficiency was not critically important. Lot's of inc's and int's back then. It was more about overall production, like the way Namath became the league's first (and still Jets' only) 4000 yard passer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kleck is fat and clingy... so it makes sense he would be attracted to you.

:rim:

Bergen, what QB calculator did you use?

I went online and I tested Sanchez' numbers and rather getting 87.7 (which it is) I got a much higher number.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bergen, what QB calculator did you use?

I went online and I tested Sanchez' numbers and rather getting 87.7 (which it is) I got a much higher number.

a = (((Comp/Att) * 100) -30) / 20

b = ((TDs/Att) * 100) / 5

c = (9.5 - ((Int/Att) * 100)) / 4

d = ((Yards/Att) - 3) / 4

a, b, c and d can not be greater than 2.375 or less than zero.

QB Rating = (a + b + c + d) / .06

Formula from Prime Computing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

a = (((Comp/Att) * 100) -30) / 20

b = ((TDs/Att) * 100) / 5

c = (9.5 - ((Int/Att) * 100)) / 4

d = ((Yards/Att) - 3) / 4

a, b, c and d can not be greater than 2.375 or less than zero.

QB Rating = (a + b + c + d) / .06

Formula from Prime Computing

A=49/83=.5903614 *100 = 59.03614 - 30 = 29.03614 /20 = 1.4518072

B= 4/83= 0.048192771 *100 = 4.8192771 /5 = 0.963855422

C= 2/83 = 0.024096386 *100 = 2.4096386 9.5-2.4096386= 7.090361446

/4 = 1.772590361

D=606/83=7.301204819 - 3 = 4.301204819 /4 = 1.075301205

(A+B+C+D)/ .06 = 5.263554217/ .06 = 87.72590361

Link to comment
Share on other sites

a = (((Comp/Att) * 100) -30) / 20

b = ((TDs/Att) * 100) / 5

c = (9.5 - ((Int/Att) * 100)) / 4

d = ((Yards/Att) - 3) / 4

a, b, c and d can not be greater than 2.375 or less than zero.

QB Rating = (a + b + c + d) / .06

Formula from Prime Computing

If you smell something bad, it's Bergenjet because he's the sh-t!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...