Dave Hansen
09-29-2010, 11:14 AM
Through 10 games into my initial SP season I decided to look at the 5 top QB's in the league based upon their current QB rating. And yes, I know that the sample size is not very large, but just setting that fact aside, I would appreciate any insights into the following data.
QB RATING REC DROPS PASS DEF% PASS RUSH%
*(72/72) ATL 97.8 12 42.3(3) 22.0(25)
*(59/59) SEA 94.1 11 51.0(12) 20.4(23)
*(45/45) DEN 93.9 16 37.8(1) 16.5(5)
*(78/78) SEA 89.7 11 51.0(12) 20.4(23)
*(98/98) CAR 89.0 24 70.4(28) 19.7(19)
Note: My scout is rated very good wrt QB's.
The ATL QB leads the league with a rating of 97.8. My scout rates him as 72/72. From looking at ATL's team summary page their receivers have 12 drops between them (all related to just the QB in question, no back up effects).
Under the opponent's summary section for team ATL, the QB has faced the 3rd easiest pass def % in the league (42.6) and the 25th easiest (or 7th hardest) pass rush % (22.0).
Given this background/explaination of the data, here is what jumps out at me.
The CAR QB who is rated at 98/98 "only" has the 5th best rating in the league at 89.0. While the DEN (45/45) and SEA (59/59) are rated 2nd and 3rd repectively. This observation led me to gather the above info.
Why such a descrepancy vs. a 98/98 rated QB? Is the CAR QB over rated, having a "bad year", game randomness factor or some combination of all?
OR...is it the competition/defenses he has been facing through 10 games coupled with his receivers having dropped a lot of balls year to date play a major role?
Besides the drop balls, the pass defense % of 70.4 or the 5th "hardest" to throw the ball successfully against is significantly higher than the other 4 QB's have faced. The CAR QB hasn't had an easy time either against the opponents pass rush %.
IMO...I would say the 98/98 QB is doing "good" given the challenges he has had to face.
I realize there are a lot of factors that go into evaluating performance and that is what makes the sim fun and challenging, but I am trying to develop my skills in this area to become a better GM. Eventually I would like to join a MP league without being a total "newbie":D
Comments appreciated.
TXS
QB RATING REC DROPS PASS DEF% PASS RUSH%
*(72/72) ATL 97.8 12 42.3(3) 22.0(25)
*(59/59) SEA 94.1 11 51.0(12) 20.4(23)
*(45/45) DEN 93.9 16 37.8(1) 16.5(5)
*(78/78) SEA 89.7 11 51.0(12) 20.4(23)
*(98/98) CAR 89.0 24 70.4(28) 19.7(19)
Note: My scout is rated very good wrt QB's.
The ATL QB leads the league with a rating of 97.8. My scout rates him as 72/72. From looking at ATL's team summary page their receivers have 12 drops between them (all related to just the QB in question, no back up effects).
Under the opponent's summary section for team ATL, the QB has faced the 3rd easiest pass def % in the league (42.6) and the 25th easiest (or 7th hardest) pass rush % (22.0).
Given this background/explaination of the data, here is what jumps out at me.
The CAR QB who is rated at 98/98 "only" has the 5th best rating in the league at 89.0. While the DEN (45/45) and SEA (59/59) are rated 2nd and 3rd repectively. This observation led me to gather the above info.
Why such a descrepancy vs. a 98/98 rated QB? Is the CAR QB over rated, having a "bad year", game randomness factor or some combination of all?
OR...is it the competition/defenses he has been facing through 10 games coupled with his receivers having dropped a lot of balls year to date play a major role?
Besides the drop balls, the pass defense % of 70.4 or the 5th "hardest" to throw the ball successfully against is significantly higher than the other 4 QB's have faced. The CAR QB hasn't had an easy time either against the opponents pass rush %.
IMO...I would say the 98/98 QB is doing "good" given the challenges he has had to face.
I realize there are a lot of factors that go into evaluating performance and that is what makes the sim fun and challenging, but I am trying to develop my skills in this area to become a better GM. Eventually I would like to join a MP league without being a total "newbie":D
Comments appreciated.
TXS