QUARTERBACK RATING: A BOGUS STATISTIC James Joyner points to a thorough debunking of passer rating, the stat the NFL invented to try to quantify quarterback production by Mike Tanier. Joyner's comments illustrate the absurdity of referencing the stat:
I recall as a kid, 30-odd years ago, when Cowboys quarterback Danny White was in exactly the same position as Rodgers is now. Upon the 1500th attempt, he was the number one quarterback in NFL history, supplanting his predecessor, Roger Staubach. Nobody thought it was true. Within a few weeks, a kid named Joe Montana supplanted White and nobody believed that, either. Until a decade or so later, when they did.
Some of the greatest quarterbacks every –Stabubach, Unitas, Bradshaw — are blips on the QB ranking scale, ranking so far beyond today’s mediocre QBs that it’s not even funny. But quarterback is, alone among the so-called “skill positions,” unmeasurable by a single stat. People have a sense of who’s great and who’s not, but there really isn’t a widely used stat that works. Passer Rating is an index, but a complicated one that doesn’t really make any sense.
Keep all this in mind when Joe Buck and Troy Aikman gush about how great the two quarterbacks are on the field in Dallas next sunday.no comments
PATRIOTS FANS PLIGHT Like Lyford, I skipped the Conference championships on Sunday last. And despite the close locale of the coming Super Bowl, I'll pay far too little attention to the NFL's grand spectacle. The problem with Jets-Steelers is that there is no rooting interest and therefore little motivation to watch. Sure, the Jets lost, but they lost to America's Most Wanted quarterback, which leaves a mighty bad taste in one's mouth. Not quite as horrible the accolades the Jets ladled on the Ben, but still. On the NFC side the Packers are the least objectionable choice, but still, the two teams that ended New England's quest for title number one makes for minimal interest.
Here's to baseball!no comments
OCCAM'S RAZOR STRIKES AGAIN Everyone has an explanation, but few see the reason. Andrew Luck's decision to stay at Stanford is easier to understand when one considers that there is no guarantee that their will be an NFL season in 2011. With a defined benefit (room and board and a top-notch education) that is irrevocable, why would Luck depart for the probability of being locked out without the ability to either play football and thus maintain his skills or continue his education - Stanford is pricey after all? The smart play is staying in school.no comments