2007 Giants

[Piggy]

Black quarterbacks are not rated by any objective standard at all, thanks for making my point.

If you believe the QBR does not apply to black QBs then how do you suppose it be used to demonstrate their inadequacies?

The QBR is simply another tool in the statistical ammo box that one can use to refute the arguments that a given black quarterback is better than 99% of all starting white quarterbacks, even if he loses more games, throws more INTs, fewer TD passes, fewer completions for less yardage, and takes more sacks.

Tell me in your own words why Vince Young isn't a viable starting quarterback without using statistics.

Perhaps I wasn't clear, but I don't advocate doing away with QB stats. I am speaking of the QB rating system that takes the QB's passes, completions, yardage, TDs & INTs and crunches those numbers via a formula that can cast an unfair shadow on a QB in any given game. The result is being used by caste system apologists to disparage good white QBs and never is it used to judge black QBs.

I do believe using those raw stats gives us a hint about the ability of the QB, but even those stats in and of themselves can't measure the protection and time the QB gets to pass. They can't measure the hurries and the sacks where the protection breaks down. They can't measure interceptions that are tipped by the receivers into the hands of the opposition. They can't measure dropped balls. They can't measure weather conditions and playing with injuries. They can't measure whether INTs actually changed the outcome of the game. They can't measure play changes due to defense reading. But they in and of themselves are much more reliable than the QBR.

I am saying the statistics need to be manipulated in a manner that will reflect the QB as well as can be expected. I don't expect a perfect system, but I would like to see something that measures the overall ability of the QB and not just utilize the passing stats. If nothing else the name of the system should be changed to the "passer rating" as opposed to the QB rating. There're just too many variables that affect the effectiveness and value of a QB. But if passing is all that's going to be gauged by the QBR we need a formula that doesn't skew those stats.

Oh, and Namath was overrated.

I quite agree, but he sure was fun to watch.

 

[jaxvid]

Piggy, that was good stuff, nice analyzing of the QB rating. I had never looked at it too closely and now I know a lot more about it. Thanks!

Concerning interceptions. Many times it's not the QB's fault or is the result of a late game or end of half Hail Mary. Also the yards per pass instead of completion is dumb. And with so many dropped balls the incompletion is not always the QB fault. But no matter the stat, when it comes to the "chosen ones" the treatment will always be the same. God forbid there is ever one with a good QB rating.

 

[backrow]

i think there should be a separate stat for interception off receiver hands and drops shouldn't ideally count towards QB.

 

[Bart]

Perhaps I wasn't clear, but I don't advocate doing away with QB stats. I am speaking of the QB rating system that takes the QB's passes, completions, yardage, TDs & INTs and crunches those numbers via a formula that can cast an unfair shadow on a QB in any given game. The result is being used by caste system apologists to disparage good white QBs and never is it used to judge black QBs.

Well, it may be true tht the QBR could use a little tweaking here and there, but it is a tool as Shogun stated to be used with other measurements of performance. As you have noticed, the problem is not in the rating itself but in the way it is selectively used. If a blackQB has a poor rating apologists introduce new and better criteria which cannot be measured, such as chemistry, on- field persona, the will to win, and a room brightening smile. And if that doesn't work --"He just wins baby."

 

[White Shogun]

If you believe the QBR does not apply to black QBs then how do you suppose it be used to demonstrate their inadequacies?

Maybe I didn't make myself clear. Black quarterbacks are not rated objectively IN THE MEDIA, by any standard, QBR or otherwise.

I said YOU, second person plural form, as in anyone reading the post, could use the QBR as a tool to persuade OTHER PEOPLE that the media does not objectively evaluate black quarterbacks by ANY standard.

Most people when presented with enough evidence can actually come to see that a double standard exists. Many of my friends and co-workers have come to see the truth of this by my explanation of the caste system using statistics, including the QBR. Whether it accurately reflects every single thing one needs to know about a quarterback, many football fans know what the rating is and what it means. Yes, it can probably be improved, but it isn't worthless in evaluating a quarterback's performance on the field.

You didn't answer my question as to how you would describe Vince Young as a horrible quarterback without citing statistics.

If you agree that Namath was over rated but he was sure fun to watch, you must have really liked Michael Vick.

 

[Piggy]

Maybe I didn't make myself clear. Black quarterbacks are not rated objectively IN THE MEDIA, by any standard, QBR or otherwise.

I said YOU, second person plural form, as in anyone reading the post, could use the QBR as a tool to persuade OTHER PEOPLE that the media does not objectively evaluate black quarterbacks by ANY standard.

Most people when presented with enough evidence can actually come to see that a double standard exists. Many of my friends and co-workers have come to see the truth of this by my explanation of the caste system using statistics, including the QBR. Whether it accurately reflects every single thing one needs to know about a quarterback, many football fans know what the rating is and what it means. Yes, it can probably be improved, but it isn't worthless in evaluating a quarterback's performance on the field.

I'm sorry! My mistake! Please forgive my tendency to try and see the forest while being too close to one tree. If you can use the present QBR to make your case against the caste system, I have no problem with that. But I firmly believe if they accept the QBR as evidence, they are simply assuming the system has no flaws and are accepting it on faith. Else they would question you about it's short-comings. However, I was referring to how the "powers that be" are using the QBR system. It, IMHO is a tool in their hands used to "make" or "break" QBs.

You didn't answer my question as to how you would describe Vince Young as a horrible quarterback without citing statistics.

Again forgive my lack of comprehension. I suppose I took for granted you understood that I would use whatever stats I could get to prove my point since I said I wasn't advocating doing away with statistics. I do not see a need to use the QBR. However without stats one, IMHO would have a difficult time making a case for even the best QB.

Out of 34 rated QBs Vince Young is: tied for 25th in TDs; 21st in completion percentage; 28th in yds per pass; 30th in yds per game; 5th in most interceptions; tied for 28th in passes more than 20 yds.

I could figure several other things to support my case, but if they can't see the above stats show he's way below average in these vital areas, I doubt they'll listen to anything else.

If you agree that Namath was over rated but he was sure fun to watch, you must have really liked Michael Vick.

Actually, I have never watched Michael Vick that I remember. I stopped watching black dominated sports about 15 years ago. I just got back to watching SOME NFL games at the insistence of a friend. If I get a chance I will watch the Colts, Giants or Packers because of the Mississippi connection of all of the QBs of those teams. But unless Vick played against them in the past year, I have seen him.

So I can't really compare Vick with Namath. From what I've read and know I think any such comparison would be apples and oranges. While I agree that Namath is overrated I think every "idol" be it in sports, movies or whatever is overrated. At least by someone! Bear Bryant said Namath was the best athlete he ever coached. Some think he was the greatest QB ever. While I think he was quite good, I don't think he is in the top 10 QBs. Some do! To me that's overrated.

I enjoyed watching Namath drop back and seemingly without even fully pulling his arm back, "effortlessly" lauch those "perfect" spirals 40 yds only to be snatched out of the air by the ever dependable duo of receivers, "Sauer and Maynard." I believe if Joe hadn't had that dynamic tandem he would have been hard put to accomplish much of what he did passing.

David Gerrard is the fourth "best" QB as per the QBR. He is one of only 4 QBs that have a QBR over 100.0. He's the only QB without an interception and it's 13 weeks into the NFL regular season. I assume you don't think he is the fouthr best QB in the NFL, but a lot lower. If I assume correctly, how would you explain to someone he's not that good?

 

[White Shogun]

Piggy, thanks for the clarification. I apologize for the attitude I displayed in my posts. In my experience, those who post here and attempt to refute the idea that statistics are worthless are generally rabid supporters of the 'explosive, fun to watch, incredibly gifted' black athletic quarterbacks. I see that you're not advocating dumping statistics altogether, rather that the QBR could be modified to better reflect how well a quarterback actually performs.

As for Gerrard, like you said I wouldn't limit my argument solely to the QBR. I'd point out his lack of TD production. But the fact is he hasn't thrown an INT all season and that is remarkable, in my book. You're right, I don't think he is the 4th best quarterback in the league but he isn't throwing games away, either. If you're talking purely performance, I'd rather have him starting than for me than several quarterbacks in the league right now. But in a perfect world, he wouldn't even be on my roster.

 

[White Shogun]

i think there should be a separate stat for interception off receiver hands and drops shouldn't ideally count towards QB.

I agree with this wholeheartedly. They track errors in baseball, it would be easy enough for them to put an INT on the wide receiver rather than the quarterback. They should have a separate stat for dropped passes and another for INT's.

The Harris INT of Romo in last night's game was a perfect case in point. He hit T.O. square in the chest with the ball. T.O. completely fumbled the catch and knocked it up into the air, resulting in the INT for Romo, who in truth had nothing to do with that pass being intercepted.

 

[Piggy]

Piggy, that was good stuff, nice analyzing of the QB rating. I had never looked at it too closely and now I know a lot more about it. Thanks!

Thank you for taking the time to study what I've written. I think the QBR does not give an acceptable rating for most QBs and those that put "faith" in should delve into its inner "non-workings" before they relegate a QB to the nether region.

I see the QBR similar to the fiat currency that is in vogue in the USA today.It's not real money and is backed by nothing except the people's "faith" that it is real money. As long as the people believe it's real money, it'll pass as such. They can use that pseudo-money to rate a person's worth if they think his worth comes from this system. Eventually this phony system must reach the end of it's pretentiousness, because it's backed by nothing tangible. It is created out of thin air and so being it inflates. Something can only be inflated so far before it goes bust. When this happens the people will no longer trust it and the system collapses. But by the time this happens the damage has been done and those that instigated this ruse on the people have gotten what they wanted and the people whose value was based upon how much they were invested in the system find their value has decreased quite significantly.

When the QBR was first implemented in the NFL in 1973 66.7 was considered a median score, but the league score was 61.2. This was in line with the 1960 score of 61.0 and the 1970 season when the AFL merged with the NFL. The QBR that season was 62.5. As the QBR began to be used as an instrument to judge QBs and therefore affect their pay, prominence and criticism QBs began doing what was necessary to pad their score. Thusly, by 1980 the league QBR had risen to 72.3. This meant the original bogie of 66.7 was no longer a suitable measurement to indicate the "average" NFL QB. Therefore the bogie had to be raised. Else most QBs would be "above average." And that's not possible. QBs were under pressure to keep up with the inflation and they continued to exploit the QBR to cover their derrieres. Thus the never ending upward rise of the QBR bogie and the struggle to manipulate it in order to "measure up."

By the first four years of the 21st century (2000-2003) the cumulative QBR for the NFL for those four years was 78.9. For 2004 it was 80.9.This year the league is running at about an 85.3 clip. As you can see the QBR has steadily risen. It's like inflation! Do you really think the QBs of today are 20+ pts better than the QBs in 1973 or 1960? Neither do I! What have the QBs done to raise their QBR? They've cut their interception rate from 1 interception in every 19 attempts in 1973 to 1 interception in every 32 attempts in 2006? They've upped their completion percentage from 52% in 1973 to 60% in 2006. Adjusting the 1973 QBR pass completion percentage and interception total to the equivalent of those stats in 2006 will give almost the same QBR.

Are today's QBs that much more accurate than 1973's QBs? Of course not! They simply throw shorter and safer passes. This can be ascertained by checking the yds per completion per game for both years. 1973 averaged approximately 11.2 yds per completion. 2006 averaged 10.7 yds per completion. While this is very close the 2006 QBs had to complete 8% more passes to get as close as they did. Had the QBs of 1973 completed 60% of their passes they would have averaged 16% more yardage per game.

On the average, today's QBs don't take the long shot as much as those QBs did. It's made the game a bit more boring now as compared to then IMHO. Those QBs were willing to take more chances because they were not controlled by the NFL version of an industrial management control plan.

Concerning interceptions. Many times it's not the QB's fault or is the result of a late game or end of half Hail Mary. Also the yards per pass instead of completion is dumb. And with so many dropped balls the incompletion is not always the QB fault. But no matter the stat, when it comes to the "chosen ones" the treatment will always be the same. God forbid there is ever one with a good QB rating.

There is one! Randall Cunningham! He's in the top ten career QBR leaders.

 

[jaxvid]

I like your information about the QBR but I think the cause of rating inflation can also be attributed to other things besides a desire on the part of QB's wanting to pad their stats. To me the reason for the change is due to a couple of factors.

Yes there are a lot shorter passes being thrown, but I think the reason is due to the purging of the white powerback from the game. Teams used to pound out 3 and 4 yards with strong white running backs. But those players are gone now or not used. Instead a quick dump off to a black wide reciever or running back is used to gain that kind of yardage.

There are less interceptions because white players have been purged from the defensive backfield. Look at how many interceptions the few white safeties rack up. Put those guys at cornerback too and passes will be getting picked off all of the time. Black corners are horrible, when they're not out of position or missing tackles they're dropping the passes thrown right to them.

I won't argue that stat inflation is caused by salary incentives but I think this is a case of the game changing the numbers, not the numbers changing the game.

 

[Piggy]

Piggy, thanks for the clarification. I apologize for the attitude I displayed in my posts. In my experience, those who post here and attempt to refute the idea that statistics are worthless are generally rabid supporters of the 'explosive, fun to watch, incredibly gifted' black athletic quarterbacks. I see that you're not advocating dumping statistics altogether, rather that the QBR could be modified to better reflect how well a quarterback actually performs.

No apology necessary! I took no offense to anything you said. I quite understand your suspicious nature. There is a good reason for it. I have seen some of the pretenders that have come on here and other groups to feign being of the same ilk as the founders of those groups, but actually are, what is known by many as "trolls" or "agent provacateurs." One of the reasons, IMHO white people find themselves in the predicament they're in is because they were not vigilant over the years.

They were lulled to sleep and their priority changed from survival to compromise. The caste system in football is simply an effect of an overall attempt by the enemy of whites to destroy them. Yes, there are a lot of traitors on the enemy's side. So I applaud you in making sure I am what I present myself to be. True vigilance never takes a rest!

As for Gerrard, like you said I wouldn't limit my argument solely to the QBR. I'd point out his lack of TD production. But the fact is he hasn't thrown an INT all season and that is remarkable, in my book. You're right, I don't think he is the 4th best quarterback in the league but he isn't throwing games away, either. If you're talking purely performance, I'd rather have him starting than for me than several quarterbacks in the league right now.

There are many factors that go into the results of a QB. Even the stats themselves don't always present the overall picture. Your note of the lack of TDs by Garrard is true. Also if you will compare when he faces a very good defense his numbers are very low.

For example, when he played the Colts he was 8/12 but only for 72 yds. While he had no INTs, he also didn't have a TD. Remove one screen pass that went for 22 yds and he would have had a grand total of 50 yds that game. Not exactly mind-boggling.

Most of his passes were short and the yds gained were as a result of the receiver running. I think the QBR should measure passes from the line of scrimmage to the point of reception. That way we can see if the passer is actually passing the ball or simply tossing it a few yds. If a QB throws a screen five yds behind the line of scrimmage, take five yds from his total yds passing.

If the receiver runs ninety yds then he, not the QB should get the credit for the yds from the point of reception. IMHO this would result in a much more accurate stat than what we see now.

A screen pass that results in an eighty yd TD should not be considered an 80 TD pass IMHO. When I see or hear of a QB having a long TD pass, my mind's eye sees a bomb. As you know, that's not always the case.

If the QB isn't passing into coverage very much or lofting long bombs he cuts his INTs way down.

But in a perfect world, he wouldn't even be on my roster.

On this, we are in total agreement!

 

[Piggy]

...
I won't argue that stat inflation is caused by salary incentives but I think this is a case of the game changing the numbers, not the numbers changing the game.

I don't think the numbers can be changed without changing the game. Back when the NFL was majority white, the CPR gave a decent result in gauging QBs because the system wasn't being manipulated to produce higher results, for the most part. But when some "enterpizing" caste proponent realized how to get drastic results, emphasis was put on the stats (INTs & completion percentage) that mattered the most for this end. I believe that the introduction of the black QB into the game was the catalyst for this manipulation.

 

[Liverlips]

Was it me or did the Giants start a white man on defense today? If so, that makes 8 whiteys starting for Coughlin.

 

[backrow]

Craig Dahl didn't actually start but ended up playing more than Johnson at free safety.

 

[referendum]

Whats the latest with Dahl? He is up there in tackles, and seems to be playing a lot. Is he on the verge of starting. It would be nice if he could begin the reintegration process for the Giants Defense.

 

[Thrashen]

"Whats the latest with Dahl? He is up there in tackles, and seems to be playing a lot. Is he on the verge of starting. It would be nice if he could begin the reintegration process for the Giants Defense."

As of now Dahl is listed as a backup SS to the legendary James Butler. You're right, though, it seems like the coaching staff likes having Dahl on the field. He's good in run support and seems to always be around the ball. BTW, he's listed at his true posistion of CB on NFL.com. The Giants also let Chase Blackburn (LB #57) play alot during the game due to an injury to Pierce (who's nothing special).

If the Giants would eventually start these two guys on D, we'd have just as much a reason to root for them as the Packers.

 

[Liverlips]

Yeah, Giants started 8 whites last night. That puts them right behind the Packers (10), Pats (9) and Saints (9). Is it a coincidence that all these teams are playoff teams while the Dolphins, who start 2 whites, are celebrating their first win?