Has Jake actually been underrated? Perusing passer rating.

[Snake]

Not sure you could classify me as a dullard but I was encouraged to see some offense. It was actually more (for me) a feeling of being happy for him. I always felt he was thrown to the wolves too soon and under bad leadership. He had his shot and blew it and probably was the backup for too long but the guy had talent that I feel was never realized. I cannot pin blame on him or the staff but it was really a shame to see him fail.

I am glad you included Weinke's name here. Otherwise I would not be able to tell if you were talking about him or Jake Delhomme.

Payton Manning and Big Ben were both thrown to the wolves and they seemed to have success. I will agree Weinke had talent but that does not always translate to a good QB. David Carr and Alex Smith are a perfect example of that.

[guyinchesapeake]

"A lot of those QB's you named rarely even threw the ball, almost all of them had great running games, and almost all of them had great defenses, so their QB ratings didn't even mean much."

There is SOME truth in that. But, most teams in the 1960s, with the exception of the Packers and Browns (and the Bears, simply because they had Sayers), did not have great running attacks. All championship teams had good defenses, then as now. If you look at stats of QBs back then throwing for lots of yards in a given game, they usually won those games. A 300 yard game today can quite often mean a loss, because that team is playing catchup. I think the following excerpt from a post is more accurate:

"Those of you who don't like the stat because the ratings of guys like Aikman, and Unitas aren't great compared to modern day quarterbacks are missing the point. You can't compare quarterbacks from different eras because the rules have changed significantly to benefit receivers and ultimately quarterbacks. Passer rating stats are very relavent comparing quarterbacks of the same era since they played under the same circumstances and with the same rules. Back in Staubach's day defenders could mug receivers and bump them all the way down the field. Not today though."

That is absloutely true, and well stated. One must always compare the eras. The field has changed, field position rules have changed (after a missed FG the ball used to be automatically placed at the 20, so it often served the purpose of a punt that became a touchback) and a slew of other changes that have all been put in place to facilitate the offense at the expense of the defense.

But the bigger point is missed: the rating system does not reflect success or failure of the team involved. A QB can have a high rating for a game even though his team was killed. And remember, the QB ratings offered are for all time. So, even though the argument is valid that the eras aren't reflected, the old timers are still not allowed to be part of the equation. That is wrong. I always believe the 'cream will always rise', that a great player from one era can play in another, in MOST cases. Obviously, an all star O-lineman who weighed 240 pounds in 1958 might not be able to play O-line today, simply because of his size, not talent. Cornerbacks who made their 'bones' via the bump and run might not be CBs in todays game, but I'll bet most can play in the defensive backfield none the less. But the QB rating system as it is presntly comprised does not serve a historical purpose. I'll grant that it might give SOME criteria for judging a QB's perfromance, but the intangibles have to be rated as well. Success, in the way of a QB'ds winning percentage, is a viable means for that.

[mantal]

"A lot of those QB's you named rarely even threw the ball, almost all of them had great running games, and almost all of them had great defenses, so their QB ratings didn't even mean much."

There is SOME truth in that. But, most teams in the 1960s, with the exception of the Packers and Browns (and the Bears, simply because they had Sayers), did not have great running attacks. All championship teams had good defenses, then as now. If you look at stats of QBs back then throwing for lots of yards in a given game, they usually won those games. A 300 yard game today can quite often mean a loss, because that team is playing catchup. I think the following excerpt from a post is more accurate:

"Those of you who don't like the stat because the ratings of guys like Aikman, and Unitas aren't great compared to modern day quarterbacks are missing the point. You can't compare quarterbacks from different eras because the rules have changed significantly to benefit receivers and ultimately quarterbacks. Passer rating stats are very relavent comparing quarterbacks of the same era since they played under the same circumstances and with the same rules. Back in Staubach's day defenders could mug receivers and bump them all the way down the field. Not today though."

That is absloutely true, and well stated. One must always compare the eras. The field has changed, field position rules have changed (after a missed FG the ball used to be automatically placed at the 20, so it often served the purpose of a punt that became a touchback) and a slew of other changes that have all been put in place to facilitate the offense at the expense of the defense.

But the bigger point is missed: the rating system does not reflect success or failure of the team involved. A QB can have a high rating for a game even though his team was killed. And remember, the QB ratings offered are for all time. So, even though the argument is valid that the eras aren't reflected, the old timers are still not allowed to be part of the equation. That is wrong. I always believe the 'cream will always rise', that a great player from one era can play in another, in MOST cases. Obviously, an all star O-lineman who weighed 240 pounds in 1958 might not be able to play O-line today, simply because of his size, not talent. Cornerbacks who made their 'bones' via the bump and run might not be CBs in todays game, but I'll bet most can play in the defensive backfield none the less. But the QB rating system as it is presntly comprised does not serve a historical purpose. I'll grant that it might give SOME criteria for judging a QB's perfromance, but the intangibles have to be rated as well. Success, in the way of a QB'ds winning percentage, is a viable means for that.

Great Post! Absolutely beautiful...

[Fireball77]

One thing that does seem to be common in the QBR is if you look at the situational stats, you notice what seems to be obvious, which is most guys have a far far worse QBR in losses than in wins career wise. So it could have some correlation to W-L. Exactly what, I don't know. But the numbers are there.

[Seamonk]

Honestly, The only purpose I see for a QB Rating is so someone's numbers don't look so bloated. For example a QB can throw 4 TDs and 1 INT in a game. People could look at this and say he's an awesome QB due to the TD:INT ratio. However what if he only threw 5 passes in the game? It's there to provide value to yards, completion percentage, and TD:INT ratio all at once using some complicated formula. Essentially, it's for people who place heavy value in the statistics of the game. And As such, different people will hold different weights on those statistics.

Honestly, the only thing a QB needs to do to help their team win is to pass the ball when needed, and not fug up. That's essentially what we need Delhomme for and in most of the games he's started, that's held true.

[Fireball77]

Also to get the team in the correct play @ the LOS, which since 2007 he has had responsibility for. Can't overrate that ability. Fans can't really measure it either. Only coaches can.

[panthers55]

Also to get the team in the correct play @ the LOS, which since 2007 he has had responsibility for. Can't overrate that ability. Fans can't really measure it either. Only coaches can.

Exactly. Recognizing the defense and calling the right play at the line to take advantage of the matchups. Problem for most of us though is that we don't really know what they called so we see the result of the play, good or bad.

Coaches and players know what is going on and they seem largely content with what they have. I guess I will defer to their greater knowledge and sit back and wait for the results.

[pstall]

Count me in. As somebody already pointed out, the fantasy geeks go crazy over the QB's that throw for a lot of yardage whether it equals winning or not. Hell, it even happened here a few years ago when Weinke threw for big yardage against the Giants in a losing effort. A lot of people just ignored his mistakes and the fact that he lost, and proclaimed him better than Delhomme because he threw it 50 times and had about 400yds passing. That kind of thinking is just foolish.

Correct which is why more and more teams are taking the Moneyball approach.

They are building their own metrics and tendenancies that fantasy guy isn't focusing on.

There was an awesome fantasy site that I forgot the name of but they had great stuff like time of poss and how it relates to a teams D RESTING. I thought that was an interesting take.

And they extended it out to WHEN the D gets to rest.

[rippadonn]

QUARTERBACK WINNING PERCENTAGES (at start of 2008 season, min. 10 starts)

Reg. season Postseason Total Pct.

Tom Brady 86-24 14-3 100-27 .787

Philip Rivers 25-7 2-2 27-9 .750

Ben Roethlisberger 39-16 5-2 44-18 .710

Tony Romo 19-7 0-2 19-9 .679

Kyle Orton 12-6 0-0 12-6 .667

Donovan McNabb 73-39 7-5 80-44 .645

Peyton Manning 105-55 7-7 112-62 .644

Brett Favre 160-93 12-10 172-103 .625

Rex Grossman 19-11 2-2 21-13 .618

David Garrard 19-11 1-2 20-13 .606

Jake Delhomme 38-27 5-2 43-29 .597

Vince Young 17-11 0-1 17-12 .586

Damon Huard 14-10 0-0 14-10 .583

Brad Johnson 71-51 4-3 75-54 .581

Matt Hasselbeck 57-39 4-5 61-44 .581

Kurt Warner 48-37 5-2 53-39 .576

Tarvaris Jackson 8-6 0-0 8-6 .571

Eli Manning 30-25 4-2 34-27 .557

Derek Anderson 10-8 0-0 10-8 .556

Brian Griese 42-36 0-0 42-36 .538

Carson Palmer 32-29 0-0 32-29 .525

Marc Bulger 38-34 1-2 39-36 .520

Mark Brunell 78-72 5-5 83-77 .519

Drew Brees 47-43 1-2 48-45 .516

Chad Pennington 32-29 2-3 34-32 .515

Trent Green 56-56 0-2 56-58 .491

Jeff Garcia 52-53 2-4 54-57 .486

Todd Collins 10-10 0-1 10-11 .4762

Kyle Boller 20-22 0-0 20-22 .4762

A.J. Feeley 7-8 0-0 7-8 .467

Kerry Collins 67-82 3-3 70-85 .452

Gus Frerotte 37-44-1 0-2 37-46-1 .446

Charlie Batch 22-28 0-0 22-28 .440

Chris Simms 7-8 0-1 .4375

Matt Leinart 7-9 0-0 7-9 .4375

Jay Cutler 9-12 0-0 9-12 .429

Parick Ramsey 10-14 0-0 10-14 .417

Jon Kitna 46-65 0-2 46-67 .407

Anthony Wright 8-11 0-1 8-12 .400

Jason Campbell 8-12 0-0 8-12 .400

Chris Redman 4-6 0-0 4-6 .400

Josh McCown 12-19 0-0 12-19 .387

Alex Smith 11-19 0-0 11-19 .367

Joey Harrington 26-50 0-0 26-50 .342

J.P. Losman 10-21 0-0 10-21 .323

Kelly Holcomb 8-16 0-1 8-17 .320

Charlie Frye 6-13 0-0 6-13 .316

Matt Schaub 4-9 0-0 4-9 .308

Billy Volek 3-7 0-0 3-7 .300

David Carr 23-56 0-0 23-56 .291

Bruce Gradkowski 3-8 0-0 3-8 .273

Brooks Bollinger 2-8 0-0 2-8 .200

Ken Dorsey 2-8 0-0 2-8 .200

Maybe this can shed some light....

[rippadonn]

Jake is number 11 on the list, above some names some of you are crying for.

[Doc Holiday]

So any statistical measure that doesn't agree with your ignorant and frankly ludicrous ideas is simply bullpoo, correct?

didn't you know only facts and statistics that help his argument are true, everything else is a bunch of lies from the BJDJSA.

[Doc Holiday]

Jake's overall career Winning percentage after last season is .618

[AKPantherFan]

orton should not be allowed on that list.

[AKPantherFan]

+ you should compare QB's with at least 25 games.