Thank you, you made some great points in your post here. You mentioned making game winning plays, passes, runs, trumps them all. Well that is something the QBR also does calculate too. While it's not perfect it really does give us a better understanding of what QB's are doing the most for the teams. Just like how Bortles is 6 and 3 but they are 6 and 3 mostly because of great defense and run game. He ranks 17th in QBR. That sounds pretty resoundable. Now are they going to win a Super Bowl with a QB like that, probably not. Even Colin Kaepernick ended up making huge plays for his team come playoff time. So Bortles is going to have to do more than just manage a game if they want to do anything come playoff time.

 

I do think you make a good point its hard to judge a QB on stats based off the short term. Would you think it would be fair to look at a QB maybe over a 5 or 10 year span by looking at the QBR during those years? This way it's not just a short term, but a much bigger sample size? QBR seems to be the best indicator we have with all that and does calculate wins, tds, interceptions, game winning decisions, etc. So looking at QB's QBR over a 5 or 10 year period would be a good criteria in determine how good they are don't you think?

 

Well, we have some QBs from the past who are the standard bearers for the position. It would be interesting to test the QBR against what they have done. If the QBR ranks them among the top then I would say the QBR is pretty well devised.

But notice that the QBR is being evaluated against proven winners not the other way around.

 

I'm surprised you didn't include leadership. Does QBR take into account the "it" factor?

 

That's kind of what I've been saying. The "it" factor would be what produces wins and championships. Joe Montana had the "it" factor, for instance. "It" is what helped him win Super Bowls. One, to my disappointment, against the Bengals.

I'm surprised you didn't include leadership. Does QBR take into account the "it" factor?

 

It does take into account clutch plays and situations, and making a play in tough situations. Leading a game winning td drive gets the qb higher points than a td drive at the end when the game is already out of reach. So yes in that instance the "it" factor is kind of included because making those important big time plays does score higher.

Well, we have some QBs from the past who are the standard bearers for the position. It would be interesting to test the QBR against what they have done. If the QBR ranks them among the top then I would say the QBR is pretty well devised.

But notice that the QBR is being evaluated against proven winners not the other way around.

 

 

 

That's kind of what I've been saying. The "it" factor would be what produces wins and championships. Joe Montana had the "it" factor, for instance. "It" is what helped him win Super Bowls. One, to my disappointment, against the Bengals.

 

The it factor is basically included into it as I stated in the post above that I meant to also quote you on. That's why I think the qbr is such a great stat to use to evaluate how effective a qb really is.

If you are measuring the performance of Hall of Fame quarterbacks, it is Super Bowl rings.

 

Many quarterbacks play on teams that do not have the talent to win a Super Bowl. Measure them on wins and losses.

 

How would you have measured the performance of a quarterback like Archie Manning? He played on the worst of worse teams, but has always been considered to be a top quarterback.

Wins+High Leverage Wins=Legend