Cam posted a qbr yesterday of

[panthers04100]

Just for some perspective, here are two games compared using QBR from PFT.

Aarron Rodgers

26 of 39

396 yards

2 TDs

QBR 82.1.

The Golden Calf of Bristol

4 of 10

79 yards

1 TD

1 Rushing TD

QBR 83.2.

i just looked up tebows game log on espn.com and the game in which he had those stats you just listed his qbr was 39.4. Good job making stuff up.

[rodeo]

i just looked up tebows game log on espn.com and the game in which he had those stats you just listed his qbr was 39.4. Good job making stuff up.

Wow sweetie calm down. Here is a link.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/7081063/nfl-week-5-total-qbr-leaders

[panthers04100]

Wow sweetie calm down. Here is a link.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/7081063/nfl-week-5-total-qbr-leaders

his game long says 39.4 which I think is more accurate. They must of made a mistake with that article. I dunno.

[rodeo]

I think the QBR in that game log leaves out rushing stats.

[Floppin]

his game long says 39.4 which I think is more accurate. They must of made a mistake with that article. I dunno.

They changed their statistic formula, after the fact. It's a constantly fluid algorithm, hence the worthless value as a statistic.

If you actually payed attention to football and statistics you would remember the stink this arose last year - the first year they unveiled the statistic.

[Mother Grabber]

They changed their statistic formula, after the fact. It's a constantly fluid algorithm, hence the worthless value as a statistic.

If you actually payed attention to football and statistics you would remember the stink this arose last year - the first year they unveiled the statistic.

WTF. That's hilarious. How the fug are you supposed to use any statistic, where the criteria for measuring the statistic is constantly in flux. That's just dildos.

[panthers04100]

They changed their statistic formula, after the fact. It's a constantly fluid algorithm, hence the worthless value as a statistic.

If you actually payed attention to football and statistics you would remember the stink this arose last year - the first year they unveiled the statistic.

oh well I guess it's better now then. A 2.0 is just sad.

[Dpantherman]

Qbr is actually a much better indicator of the quarterbacks play than quarterback rating

According to ESPN. They are the only folks that give a poo about QBR.

[Panthers128]

http://espn.go.com/nfl/qbr

Better than Mark Sanchez at least.

If you set it to show the unqualified players, DeAngelo Williams in the wildcat is a superior QB than Brady Quinn and Chad Henne.

Ouch.

[panthers04100]

http://espn.go.com/nfl/qbr

Better than Mark Sanchez at least.

If you set it to show the unqualified players, DeAngelo Williams in the wildcat is a superior QB than Brady Quinn and Chad Henne.

Ouch.

matt cassell and blaine gabbert with a higher qbr. Damn.

[Car123]

They changed their statistic formula, after the fact. It's a constantly fluid algorithm, hence the worthless value as a statistic.

If you actually payed attention to football and statistics you would remember the stink this arose last year - the first year they unveiled the statistic.

his game long says 39.4 which I think is more accurate. They must of made a mistake with that article. I dunno.

WTF. That's hilarious. How the fug are you supposed to use any statistic, where the criteria for measuring the statistic is constantly in flux. That's just dildos.

QBR is different from a qb rating

Perfect QBR score is 100 while a perfect qb rating in 158.3

[SZ James (banned)]

At least he still has a good QB Rating

http://espn.go.com/nfl/statistics/player/_/stat/passing/sort/quarterbackRating