That part I think is ridiculous. Even though they are basically impossible to quantify, I like the idea of incorporating some of these things. It would take an unbiased person watching every snap of every QB, so I dont know how realistic that is. But how much pressure a QB faces for his throw is a serious factor in how he's evaluated. Knowing how far passes traveled in the air is also a great tool for evaluation. It would be nice to know how many QB's live off screens, vs airing the ball downfield. Its pretty much what PFF does, and everyone worships them. However, without any explanation of who decides what is a lot of pressure vs what isnt, than this statistic really doesnt work. If I knew that there was a committee of former players and coaches getting together and evaluating each play from each QB at the end of the season, I would really be interested. There is plenty of potential for this statistic, but ESPN wont put the time and resources into perfecting it, thats for sure.
It's still incredibly biased. What if you had NO downfield threats and your backs were LT, Keith Byers and Marshall Faulk. You're going to penalize the QB? What if your QB holds the ball WAY too long and therefore is constantly under pressure, but a guy like Peyton who gets the ball out in 2.2 seconds flourishes. You going to penalize him but reward the ball holder? It's way too subjective. _
The first point is a good one. Keep in mind, I have no clue how to incorporate any of this into any kind of formula. But the second point is exactly why there would need to be multiple football minds watching every snap. If you're going to assign values based on what your watching, that would have to be included and universally agreed upon. Actually in my mind, it isnt much different than a player's scouting report. Those are basically formulas based on all of these subjective factors. Maybe thats what they should consider QBR instead of a statistic lol. They'd probably get less backlash.
OMG what a waste of time has been put into this subject when the very easy answer is win the SB & U R a winner. Never win the SB & U R a loser.
Do 4th quarter TD's mean more than 1st quarter ones regardless of the score? If so then it's completely and utterly ridiculous. That would be giving more "Clutch Factor" to garbage time scores by a team trailing by 3 touchdowns against a prevent defense than it would to a QB driving down the field and setting the tone with a touchdown on the opening drive of the game. Which of those is more "Clutch"?
I get the general notion that lead changing TD's that end up being the winning margin obviously tend to occur during the fourth quarter, Very rarely during the first. Hence I get the broad attempt to define a 4th Quarter TD as more clutch. But it's too broad a definition. Not only for the case you cite. The 4th quarter is 15 minutes long. A Td scored early in the fourth is not so clutch even if there's only a one score lead than one toward the end of the quarter that does not leave much time for the opponent to score. A truly clutch Td that we all would recognize as such is a relatively rare thing, I think. The classic case is one where your team is behind, you have possesion but if you don't convert, you're not likely to get the ball back. Score or lose, in other words. Cases that have less pressure than that might still be ones where there is real pressure, but less pressure means less clutch. Imo it's the rare 4th quarter score that fits the classic case.
And a clutch 50 yard throw in the last minute where the WR gets tackled at the 1 and sets up an easy 1 yard rushing TD gets less credit than a 1 yard TD throw that was preceded by a clutch 50 yard run. It's extremely biased and subjective. _
Great! Let's trade him while his stock is high. We might be able to get a CFL team to give us a $50 gift certificate to Arby's. Maybe.
You mean "Passer rating", right? Because Geno's QBR last year was 35.4 (which was 32nd in the league - out of 33 players who qualified). Geno's 77.5 Passer Rating was good enough for 29th in the league (again, out of 33 players that qualified). If 32nd and 29th out of 33 players isn't "terrible", what is?
A) I didn't provide the statistic, I just commented on it. B) "Terrible" is a subjective opinion that is valid no matter what the answer is. You think it's terrible, apparently. I think it's expected, given his relative short time in the league, the surrounding offensive (pun intended) cast, and the lack of turnovers created on defense. C) All this looking back seems pointless and hateful, unless your objective is simply to denigrate Smith... Oh right. I get it. That IS your only objective....
There is simply no coherent statistical argument to be made on Smith's behalf. It's all cherry picking, which might make a self-deluded Smith Fan feel good, but as an argument made to others is just plain obnoxious.
Again, how about keeping the focus on you? I think it's fair to say that you don't have any authority or psychological bonafides to judge what my feelings are. Nor really is it any of your business. And, when your "go to" argument is " you have man love", pulled out whenever the faulty premise of your argument is critiqued, perhaps you should examine why you should care about what another man's feelings are. This is a football discussion board, not a closet homo support group (probably where you should go to release your own not-so-latent homosexual feelings). You're on a Jets board, so, using your logic we can assume that you're man-loving 53 men (oh, right, 52 men). Personally, I feel this validates the argument that closet homosexuality knows no fidelity.
So your statistical arguments are NOT cherry picking?! There actually ARE valid statistical arguments in support of Smith: the (negative) ranking of the OL; the (negative) ranking of the receivers group; Smith's (top-10) QB ranking over his last 8 games.
a broken clock is right twice a day too. if the NFL season were 1 game long, maybe then geno would have had a good season. unfortunetly for him and us, the season is 16 games long, and over that duration he sucked and couldnt duplicate that performance or even come close. that game was an anomaly, and while no other QB had a perfect day, plenty consistently had good or great days. geno was not one of them
it does take a miracle to make a bad qb succeed. and no, sanchez was not a successful QB. winning is a team accomplishment, not an individual one. he is a quarterback not a starting pitcher. the jets made the playoffs inspite of him. 2009 was among the worst seasons ever by a qb making it to a championship game. and we only made the playoffs cause teams decided to rest players late in the year and we smartened up and decided to run the ball more. Sanchez also took over a team i playoff contention and played extremely poorly, turning it over a ton, and helping cost that team a shot at the playoffs Mark sanchez was the worst player on the jets offense in '11 and '12. other then brian winters geno was the worst player on offense last season. our skill players were lacking, but the QB was the bigger issue. you cant have the worst starter in football and expect to have a good passing game. Why would any jets fan be a fan of a guy who has been nothing but terrible? id root for a Green player if he didnt throw tons of interceptions
Biggest Geno apologist and excuse maker on the board. It's pretty evident something more than fandom is going on. It's ok. _
None of it is Geno's fault. It's his online. His OC. The lack of talent around him. Not Geno. No, never. _
There are always going to be fans of individual players over the team, this is just the latest incarnation. They should really just own it. _
Actually, he wasnt much better after the Harvin trade: 100-176, 1169 yardsm 7 TD, 6 INT and a QB rating of 75.9 he was actually slightly WORSE statistically after the harvin trade (77.5 QB rating on the season; 75.9 after the harvin deal)
I would argue that over the last few games, Smith was certainly not terrible. NOr was he only terrible in his first year. You're certainly welcome to look only at the negatives, which is really the modis operande of the Smith Haters. But, Smith was a rookie in 2013 and led the team to 8 wins as the starting QB. So, clearly, terrible wouldn't be an accurate assessment of his performance in those 8 games, you know, if winning is a factor in assessing QB play. In 2014, over the last 8 games or so, Smith's ratings were favorable against 20 or more starting QBs. so, again, NOT terrible; in fact, GOOD. In the end, I think the Smith haters should really examine why they ignore all the other deficiencies on the offense (and defense) and come up with absurdly inaccurate arguments like "Smith has been nothing but terrible" when there are prominent statistics that show how ignorant these opinions are.
