Holy shit is it bad this year. In the Buffalo game, they give the Bills a gift horse collar call, and then, don’t give the same fucking tackle a flag when Buffalo is on D.
Then, and this pisses me off more, on the next play they flag Buffalo on a bullshit hit to a receiver, which I can only assume is to make up for the fuckign up of the horse collar.
The Refs are god awful this year and it’s annoying. [/quote]
It is ruining my enjoyment of the games. Too many penalties and they are screwing up the calls.
[quote]daltron wrote:
I have never taken ESPN’s QBR seriously, but… According to ESPN, Weeden was the best QB on the field Sunday…
[/quote]
Yeah, that’s a joke. It’s not even funny, just dumb. Which moron said that?
Did they not see the Patriot’s play in that game? They were aware that the Pat’s played Dallas yesterday and that Tom 'Kill Everybody Hard" Brady played yesterday? Like he threw a touchdown while getting hit by Hardy the woman beater?
[quote]daltron wrote:
I have never taken ESPN’s QBR seriously, but… According to ESPN, Weeden was the best QB on the field Sunday…
[/quote]
Yeah, that’s a joke. It’s not even funny, just dumb. Which moron said that?
Did they not see the Patriot’s play in that game? They were aware that the Pat’s played Dallas yesterday and that Tom 'Kill Everybody Hard" Brady played yesterday? Like he threw a touchdown while getting hit by Hardy the woman beater?[/quote]
Saw an article somewhere crying foul of the QBR, couldn’t believe it so I just looked up Weeden’s and Brady’s respective stat pages on ESPN and sure enough somehow Weeden had a better QBR than Brady and Brady had almost the worst QBR out of any team that day…
I mean… I can only assume somebody made a typo… That can’t be right, even with that the craziness that is QBR.
[quote]daltron wrote:
I have never taken ESPN’s QBR seriously, but… According to ESPN, Weeden was the best QB on the field Sunday…
[/quote]
Yeah, that’s a joke. It’s not even funny, just dumb. Which moron said that?
Did they not see the Patriot’s play in that game? They were aware that the Pat’s played Dallas yesterday and that Tom 'Kill Everybody Hard" Brady played yesterday? Like he threw a touchdown while getting hit by Hardy the woman beater?[/quote]
Saw an article somewhere crying foul of the QBR, couldn’t believe it so I just looked up Weeden’s and Brady’s respective stat pages on ESPN and sure enough somehow Weeden had a better QBR than Brady and Brady had almost the worst QBR out of any team that day…
I mean… I can only assume somebody made a typo… That can’t be right, even with that the craziness that is QBR.[/quote]
Just means it’s worthless stat. Weeden didn’t throw a touchdown. How the hell do you get a higher QBR?
I feel bad for Tomsula. Seems like a nice guy. That roster is just plain bad, but it looks worse with rookie HC mistakes. What sucks is this is his first HC gig, but even if they stick with him it will take a while to rebuild and his record/rep will be tagged along with it.
[quote]daltron wrote:
I have never taken ESPN’s QBR seriously, but… According to ESPN, Weeden was the best QB on the field Sunday…
[/quote]
Yeah, that’s a joke. It’s not even funny, just dumb. Which moron said that?
Did they not see the Patriot’s play in that game? They were aware that the Pat’s played Dallas yesterday and that Tom 'Kill Everybody Hard" Brady played yesterday? Like he threw a touchdown while getting hit by Hardy the woman beater?[/quote]
Saw an article somewhere crying foul of the QBR, couldn’t believe it so I just looked up Weeden’s and Brady’s respective stat pages on ESPN and sure enough somehow Weeden had a better QBR than Brady and Brady had almost the worst QBR out of any team that day…
I mean… I can only assume somebody made a typo… That can’t be right, even with that the craziness that is QBR.[/quote]
They are obviously deducting to many points because of sacks.
[quote]daltron wrote:
I have never taken ESPN’s QBR seriously, but… According to ESPN, Weeden was the best QB on the field Sunday…
[/quote]
Yeah, that’s a joke. It’s not even funny, just dumb. Which moron said that?
Did they not see the Patriot’s play in that game? They were aware that the Pat’s played Dallas yesterday and that Tom 'Kill Everybody Hard" Brady played yesterday? Like he threw a touchdown while getting hit by Hardy the woman beater?[/quote]
Saw an article somewhere crying foul of the QBR, couldn’t believe it so I just looked up Weeden’s and Brady’s respective stat pages on ESPN and sure enough somehow Weeden had a better QBR than Brady and Brady had almost the worst QBR out of any team that day…
I mean… I can only assume somebody made a typo… That can’t be right, even with that the craziness that is QBR.[/quote]
They are obviously deducting to many points because of sacks.[/quote]
That’s not the case, no. Not sure what is, but it isn’t that.
[quote]daltron wrote:
I have never taken ESPN’s QBR seriously, but… According to ESPN, Weeden was the best QB on the field Sunday…
[/quote]
Yeah, that’s a joke. It’s not even funny, just dumb. Which moron said that?
Did they not see the Patriot’s play in that game? They were aware that the Pat’s played Dallas yesterday and that Tom 'Kill Everybody Hard" Brady played yesterday? Like he threw a touchdown while getting hit by Hardy the woman beater?[/quote]
Saw an article somewhere crying foul of the QBR, couldn’t believe it so I just looked up Weeden’s and Brady’s respective stat pages on ESPN and sure enough somehow Weeden had a better QBR than Brady and Brady had almost the worst QBR out of any team that day…
I mean… I can only assume somebody made a typo… That can’t be right, even with that the craziness that is QBR.[/quote]
They are obviously deducting to many points because of sacks.[/quote]
That’s not the case, no. Not sure what is, but it isn’t that.
[/quote]
I like the idea of having more points awarded in an evaluation of a qb based on how important the completion is. But, if the qb is completing his passes in critical drives of the game, but is not making a first down…who gives a fuck about that completion and it shouldn’t carry much weight at all.
[quote]daltron wrote:
I have never taken ESPN’s QBR seriously, but… According to ESPN, Weeden was the best QB on the field Sunday…
[/quote]
Yeah, that’s a joke. It’s not even funny, just dumb. Which moron said that?
Did they not see the Patriot’s play in that game? They were aware that the Pat’s played Dallas yesterday and that Tom 'Kill Everybody Hard" Brady played yesterday? Like he threw a touchdown while getting hit by Hardy the woman beater?[/quote]
Saw an article somewhere crying foul of the QBR, couldn’t believe it so I just looked up Weeden’s and Brady’s respective stat pages on ESPN and sure enough somehow Weeden had a better QBR than Brady and Brady had almost the worst QBR out of any team that day…
I mean… I can only assume somebody made a typo… That can’t be right, even with that the craziness that is QBR.[/quote]
They are obviously deducting to many points because of sacks.[/quote]
That’s not the case, no. Not sure what is, but it isn’t that.
[/quote]
Why do you say that?
[/quote]
I know that they have like 6-9 categories (which each category having it’s own contributing factors), and one of the categories is sacks, but based on other players’ QBR’s (taking about the same amount of sacks or more, and the same amount of yardage loss or more) it doesn’t seem likely that would cause the dramatic drop in points (my guess a min of 25-30). The easiest comparison would be Russel Wilson and his QBR against his stats and sacks/sack yardage.
[quote]mbdix wrote:
I like the idea of having more points awarded in an evaluation of a qb based on how important the completion is. But, if the qb is completing his passes in critical drives of the game, but is not making a first down…who gives a fuck about that completion and it shouldn’t carry much weight at all.
[/quote]
Yep, +1. I understand the need to weigh fourth quarter combeback drives “more”, but at the same time what penalty is there for getting in the hole in the first place? The standard QB rating is far from perfect (doesn’t take into account sacks, QB runs/TD’s, etc) but IMO it seems to be the best single evaluation of performance that we have (especially compared to QBR which is way too damn complicated and intricate for its own good).
[quote]mbdix wrote:
Weeden is 0-11 in his last 11 starts in the NFL[/quote]
I still remember people saying he was going to be the Brown’s savior…
I know developmental leagues like NFL Europe were expensive, but I think the QB position is the perfect example of what happens when you only have 1 player at a position for (hopefully) an entire season. Sitting with a clipboard and learning the game can be valuable, but non-starters need reps. Obviously NFL teams will want backups to be on their roster and not in another league, but even if there was a third tier of QB’s in a development league then that would benefit the NFL. I mean, it’s extremely telling the state of non-starting QB’s when there really isn’t even one legit backup that isn’t signed.
[quote]daltron wrote:
Sitting with a clipboard and learning the game can be valuable, but non-starters need reps. Obviously NFL teams will want backups to be on their roster and not in another league, but even if there was a third tier of QB’s in a development league then that would benefit the NFL. I mean, it’s extremely telling the state of non-starting QB’s when there really isn’t even one legit backup that isn’t signed.[/quote]
I certainly don’t disagree but it’s the getting reps versus 1st-team defenses that it ultimately comes down to. After all, there’s a reason that the “career backup” tag exists.
In the NFL, where EVERYONE is fast, even processing/reading the defense correctly isn’t enough. The best QBs will often “throw a receiver open” or simply pick a (perceived) mismatch and “trust” their receiver to go and make a play.
Really, it just speaks to how difficult it is to be a legit franchise QB at the pro level. Cause there’s less than 20 of 'em right now and that’s kinda how its always been.
[quote]mbdix wrote:
Weeden is 0-11 in his last 11 starts in the NFL[/quote]
I still remember people saying he was going to be the Brown’s savior…
I know developmental leagues like NFL Europe were expensive, but I think the QB position is the perfect example of what happens when you only have 1 player at a position for (hopefully) an entire season. Sitting with a clipboard and learning the game can be valuable, but non-starters need reps. Obviously NFL teams will want backups to be on their roster and not in another league, but even if there was a third tier of QB’s in a development league then that would benefit the NFL. I mean, it’s extremely telling the state of non-starting QB’s when there really isn’t even one legit backup that isn’t signed.[/quote]
I think and hope that with rookie salary caps that eventually teams will swing back to getting developmental QBs and sitting them. But I still also believes that the owners and fans are creating this by no HC is safe in their jobs any more. No HC’s are given time to turn the rosters and develop their system. Used to HC’s would have at least 5 years to turn a team around. Now you have a year or two and then you are booted. Its a shame cause with some time some players could develop.
I don’t know? I have always felt if you think you have your future qb, play him. If a qb went to a developmental league he would probably be facing less talent than in college. Put him in and let him learn from who he is going to be facing. Nothing will prepare them more than putting them into the fire.