Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 66

Thread: QB dept. : " QBR : Fitzpatrick dominates Sanchez " ~ ~ ~

  1. #1
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    dunwoody, ga ! !
    Posts
    13,529
    Post Thanks / Like

    QB dept. : " QBR : Fitzpatrick dominates Sanchez " ~ ~ ~

    > [url]http://espn.go.com/blog/afceast/post/_/id/31218/qbr-fitzpatrick-dominates-sanchez[/url]

  2. #2
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,247
    Post Thanks / Like
    LOLOLOLOLOLOL That ranking isn't totally F-ed Up

    Mcnabb was 7-15 for 39 Yards, 1 TD and 1INT and he is ranked ahead of Sanchez who was:
    26-44 335 Yards, 2 TDs and 1 int

    Yet, they have Mcnabb ranked higher than Sanchez.

  3. #3
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    2,651
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    142
    [QUOTE=kelly;4140510]> [url]http://espn.go.com/blog/afceast/post/_/id/31218/qbr-fitzpatrick-dominates-sanchez[/url][/QUOTE]

    I don't know anything about ESPN's new rating system. But right off the bat, "Clutch Weight EPA" looks like a misnomer. How can Fitzpatrick, who played in a blowout, have a "Clutch Weight EPA" of 5.5 while Sanchez was a -3.9. What does that measure? How clutch does a guy need to be if his team is coasting all game, versus a guy who has to come from behind down 14 in the 4th quarter?

  4. #4
    Jets Insider VIP
    Board Moderator

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    27,210
    Post Thanks / Like
    According to ESPN's QBR, McNabb played a better game yesterday than Sanchez, and McNabb had a whopping total of....39 passing yards :confused:

    Cool stat bro :rolleyes:

  5. #5
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,247
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=rbstern;4140538]I don't know anything about ESPN's new rating system. But right off the bat, "Clutch Weight EPA" looks like a misnomer. How can Fitzpatrick, who played in a blowout, have a "Clutch Weight EPA" of 5.5 while Sanchez was a -3.9. What does that measure? How clutch does a guy need to be if his team is coasting all game, versus a guy who has to come from behind down 14 in the 4th quarter?[/QUOTE]

    Maybe it has to do with 3rd down efficiency. Who knows, its system that has mcnabb ahead of Sanchez after their performances in week 1. :zzz:

  6. #6
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    9,759
    Post Thanks / Like
    none of these rankings take into account the number of blitzes a qb has to deal with, whether the game is nationally televised, how good the opponent is, how a qb deals with pressure when the other team scores, etc. i'd rather win.

  7. #7
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    dunwoody, ga ! !
    Posts
    13,529
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Buzzsaw;4140545]According to ESPN's QBR, McNabb played a better game yesterday than Sanchez, and McNabb had a whopping total of....39 passing yards :confused:

    Cool stat bro :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]for the record :
    I don't put much " stock " in ESPN's QBR.
    i just posted it as an " fyi " ;)



    :rockon:

  8. #8
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Lima Zulu
    Posts
    6,564
    Post Thanks / Like
    You had me (puking) at ESPN.

  9. #9
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    8,532
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=kelly;4140510]> [url]http://espn.go.com/blog/afceast/post/_/id/31218/qbr-fitzpatrick-dominates-sanchez[/url][/QUOTE]

    It's not a good 1 game sample size stat. I don't even know if it is good for 16 games as it is too confusing and no one knows how it is calculated. I still prefer old-school passer rating. Sanchez was around 90, which tells you he threw the ball well. I don't need a formula to weight the clutchness of a performance for me, I have my own eyes thank you very much

  10. #10
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,376
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=kelly;4140577]for the record :
    I don't put much " stock " in ESPN's QBR.
    i just posted it as an " fyi " ;)



    :rockon:[/QUOTE]

    There is no "FYI"...you're a click bot.

    We don't need links to your bullsh*t articles. Stay in Denmakistan....

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,988
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE]Sanchez's mistakes led to the fourth-lowest QBR (17.6)[/QUOTE]

    Maybe it had something to do with him coming up short down by 7 twice in the fourth Quarter. Then coming up short in the 2 minute drill tie game. Then coming up short again on the 32 yard line needing to make it an easier fg?

    Whats really funny is after this game people were starting threads boasting how great Sanchez was. WOW what low ****ing expectations for a top 5 pick in his third year. He did jack **** for almost the whole first half and then got 7 at the end. So is that good for you? A td a half and you dolts brag about it. ****ing pathetic.

  12. #12
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    2,199
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Magnus;4140735]Maybe it had something to do with him coming up short down by 7 twice in the fourth Quarter. Then coming up short in the 2 minute drill tie game. Then coming up short again on the 32 yard line needing to make it an easier fg?

    Whats really funny is after this game people were starting threads boasting how great Sanchez was. WOW what low ****ing expectations for a top 5 pick in his third year. He did jack **** for almost the whole first half and then got 7 at the end. So is that good for you? A td a half and you dolts brag about it. ****ing pathetic.[/QUOTE]

    You just love to look stupid don't you?

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,988
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Sanchise;4140741]You just love to look stupid don't you?[/QUOTE]

    Actually "sanchise" this article proves I am the smart one. I pointed out how he wasn't great that game and how he came up short and needed Revis and ST to make the comeback for him. Everyone bashed me for nitpicking but look at this, an impartial rating system that analyzes the game agrees with me how shocking. :rolleyes:

    PS: a 17 is awful with a 50 being avg. I said he was up and down but not great in any stretch. This was worse then even I said.
    Last edited by Magnus; 09-12-2011 at 05:41 PM.

  14. #14
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    2,199
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Magnus;4140754]Actually "sanchise" this article proves I am the smart one. I pointed out how he wasn't great that game and how he came up short and needed Revis and ST to make the comeback for him. Everyone bashed me for nitpicking but look at this, an impartial rating system that analyzes the game agrees with me how shocking. :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

    The same system that says McNabbs 7/15 39 yard performance was better than Sanchez's? That's one helluva system they got :confused:. Go bury your head in the sand, you continue to make a fool of yourself.

  15. #15
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    4,515
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Magnus;4140754]Actually "sanchise" this article proves I am the smart one. I pointed out how he wasn't great that game and how he came up short and needed Revis and ST to make the comeback for him. Everyone bashed me for nitpicking but look at this, an impartial rating system that analyzes the game agrees with me how shocking. :rolleyes:

    PS: a 17 is awful with a 50 being avg. I said he was up and down but not great in any stretch. This was worse then even I said.[/QUOTE]

    In all due respects, you truly are an a-hole in addition to being a troll. This stat is meaningless. The only stat that counts is who got the "W" (for win dumba$$).

    If a QB who throws for 39 yards in a game is rated than a QB who ranks in the top 5 QB performances this past week in terms of yardage, than you are more of a dumba$$ than I give you credit for.

  16. #16
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    dunwoody, ga ! !
    Posts
    13,529
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan;4140715]There is no "FYI"...you're a click bot.

    We don't need links to your bullsh*t articles. Stay in Denmakistan....[/QUOTE]
    come on PlumberKhan ,
    tell us what YOU really think :P

  17. #17
    All League
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    3,201
    Post Thanks / Like
    His old style passer rating(88.7) was better than 12 of his games last year. I say we chalk it up as "improved". :yes:

  18. #18
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    dunwoody, ga ! !
    Posts
    13,529
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=jxc;4140847]His old style passer rating(88.7) was better than 12 of his games last year. I say we chalk it up as "improved". :yes:[/QUOTE]
    agreed.
    as long as mark " continues to improve " . . .
    we will continue to make the playoffs ;)


    :rockon:

  19. #19
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    5,584
    Post Thanks / Like
    All of the Sanchez hate is getting a little tired. Guy has 2 new primary WR's, both of whom are old and probably over the hill yet they want to see a miracle from him. He is improving and that is all we can ask for at this point.

  20. #20
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    dunwoody, ga ! !
    Posts
    13,529
    Post Thanks / Like
    Updated : Sept. 14, 2011

    Jets' scheme leaves Sanchez suffering
    QB won't last too long if Gang keeps bringing painful new meaning to 'Ground & Pound'

    > [url]http://espn.go.com/new-york/nfl/story/_/id/6967194/new-york-jets-mark-sanchez-survive-gang-protect-him[/url]

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us