Which QB had the better game?

[Ben E Lou]

QB1: 25 for 35 (71.4%), 300 yards, 2 TD, 1 INT. (104.46 QB Rating)
QB2: 20 for 41 (48.8%), 300 yards, 4 TDs, 0 INT. (105.74 QB Rating)

There's going to have to be one place where there's a measure of subjectivity in the Extender formulas, and I suspect that responses to this question will capture what I'm looking for in the last bit of the weightings.

[sovereignstar]

Voting for a tie is a cop out, so I'd choose QB2. Gimme touchdowns or gimme death.

[Ben E Lou]

Oh. And if anyone cares, over a 45-year SP career:

Completion Percentage = 59.84
Yards Per Attempt = 6.702
TD% = 4.239
INT% = 2.906

[sovereignstar]

Which season is better?

400-560 (71%), 4800 yards, 32td, 16int
320-656 (49%), 4800 yards, 64td, 0int

Answers to both questions should be the same.

[Ben E Lou]

Which season is better?

400-560 (71%), 4800 yards, 48td, 16int
320-656 (49%), 4800 yards, 64td, 0int

Answers to both questions should be the same.Heh. It's actually 32 TD and 16 INT. And as weird as it may look to some, that's really the best way to look at it, and it bears out what I'm seeing when weighting stats against long-term FOF data: the TD/INT ratio is huge, huge, huge.

[sovereignstar]

Refresh your browser before quoting!

[Ben E Lou]

Oops!

[Dutch]

QB1: 25 for 35 (71.4%), 300 yards, 2 TD, 1 INT. (104.46 QB Rating)
QB2: 20 for 41 (48.8%), 300 yards, 4 TDs, 0 INT. (105.74 QB Rating)


This really goes back to the Emmitt Smith vs Barry Sanders argument.

25 carries for 125 yards is the same everytime right? 5 yards per carry.

1.) Emmitt Smith rushed for 125 yards on 25 carries, his long was 10 yards, and the Cowboys won the game 35-10.

2.) Barry Sanders rushed for 125 yards on 25 carries, his long was 90 yards, and the Lions lost the game 35-10.

Now why would that be?

In the argument over which game is better, QB2's 4 TD's is important, but 20-41 says there was a lot of punting, and more passes suggest the ground game had a less important role.

QB1 passed for 300 yards and was 70%...that to me says QB1 was moving the chains and if you're moving the chains, you only need 2 rushing TD's to tie the game up, seems reasonable that they got their RB's some good ops.

So the stats question is really, what's more important, moving the chains all game long and getting 2 TD passes and let your running game do the rest or not moving the chains but hitting some long TD strikes and punting more often.

As long as the entire game is of some importance to which individual stat-line was better, I think it equals out and the QB Rating goes to some length to agree. If we go simply by the stat line, I guess 4 TD's is better than 2 TD's and nothing else matters.

[Julio Riddols]

I think the TD-INT ratio is huge, but then there are teams who gameplan to pass a lot in the red zone and there are teams that run a lot. I think there is a very minor difference between these two QB's, but I would take the top one as a piece to a puzzle rather than a guy we just throw out there and hope he completes a few bombs. I think consistency should be rewarded more than opportunism.

[Julio Riddols]

The comparison this brought to mind was a defense that gives up tons of yards but forces lots of turnovers, or a defense that forces a lot of 3 and outs. I'll take the 3 and out defense any day. Consistency wins games.

I think the highest values for a QB rating system should revolve around things like 3rd down conversion %, total TD/total TO, sack %, completion % in relation to ypa, and rushing yards in relation to ypa.

Edit: Removed "wins" as one of my top criteria and changed it to rushing yards- Wins would be influenced by too may outside factors, whereas rushing yards in relation to ypa factors in the QB's effectiveness moving the ball on the ground as well, which I think should definitely have value.

[Ben E Lou]

I think the highest values for a QB rating system should revolve around things like 3rd down conversion %, total TD/total TO, sack %, completion % in relation to ypa, and rushing yards in relation to ypa.Not everything is as intuitive as one might think. Their ypa and completion percentages aren't terribly far off of the norms. However, TD% and INT% for the second guy are off the charts, and that's the issue here. Season-long sample sizes make far more sense than one-week ones, because you won't find guys like these. What's happening here is that we naturally look at QB2 and think "sample size", that he just got lucky on some big plays, but had a "bad" day otherwise. We "know" that no QB is going to throw 64 TDs and 0 INTs in a season, so we dismiss it. However, in a dispassionate formula with a similar number of attempts, QB2's performance is going to win hands-down, and here's why:

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cols="5" frame="void" rules="none"> <colgroup><col width="88"><col width="55"><col width="47"><col width="60"><col width="58"></colgroup> <tbody> <tr> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" align="center" height="17" width="88">
</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" align="center" width="55">CMP%</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" align="center" width="47">YPA</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdnum="1033;0;0.0" align="center" width="60">TD%</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" align="center" width="58">INT%</td> </tr> <tr> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" align="center" height="17">LEAGUEAVG</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="59.838" sdnum="1033;0;0.000" align="center">59.838</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="6.702" sdnum="1033;0;0.000" align="center">6.702</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="4.239" sdnum="1033;0;0.000" align="center">4.239</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="2.906" sdnum="1033;0;0.000" align="center">2.906</td> </tr> <tr> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" align="center" height="17">QB1</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="71.4285714285714" sdnum="1033;0;0.000" align="center">71.429</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="8.57142857142857" sdnum="1033;0;0.000" align="center">8.571</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="5.71428571428571" sdnum="1033;0;0.000" align="center">5.714</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="2.85714285714286" sdnum="1033;0;0.000" align="center">2.857</td> </tr> <tr> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" align="center" height="17">QB2</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="48.7804878048781" sdnum="1033;0;0.000" align="center">48.780</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="7.31707317073171" sdnum="1033;0;0.000" align="center">7.317</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="9.75609756097561" sdnum="1033;0;0.000" align="center">9.756</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="0" sdnum="1033;0;0.000" align="center">0.000</td> </tr> <tr> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" align="center" height="17">QB1var</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="0.193699178257486" sdnum="1033;0;0.00%" align="center">19.37%</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="0.278935925310142" sdnum="1033;0;0.00%" align="center">27.89%</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="0.348026825733832" sdnum="1033;0;0.00%" align="center">34.80%</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="0.0168125061449219" sdnum="1033;0;0.00%" align="center">1.68%</td> </tr> <tr> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" align="center" height="17">QB2var</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="-0.184790805092449" sdnum="1033;0;0.00%" align="center">-18.48%</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="0.0917745703867066" sdnum="1033;0;0.00%" align="center">9.18%</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="1.30150921466752" sdnum="1033;0;0.00%" align="center">130.15%</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="1" sdnum="1033;0;0.00%" align="center">100.00%</td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

Even if we say "TDs and INTs barely matter. It's all about the YPA and CMP%," and weight these 75% for CMP% and YPA, and 25% TD% and INT%, QB2 *still* comes out on top. Weight the four variances equally, and it's not even close. I think the issue here is that it's difficult to look objectively at what QB2 did. A passing formula can't assume what else may or may not have happened with the running game. I've seen FOF games where a QB puts up numbers like QB1, and the running game only comes through with 50 or 60 yards and less than 3ypc.

[Hammer]

I think TDs are overrated as a means of evaluating QB performance. QB1 for me, without any question.

[gstelmack]

I would rather have a QB with a lower completion percentage but who doesn't throw picks than someone with a higher percentage and does.

[sovereignstar]

I think TDs are overrated as a means of evaluating QB performance. QB1 for me, without any question.

So you don't think a 64td/0int QB is very valuable? Don't you think your team's record would be pretty doggone good with those numbers?

[Raiders Army]

I would rather have a QB with a lower completion percentage but who doesn't throw picks than someone with a higher percentage and does.

I agree with you to a certain extent, however in the above instance...

What if the first QB threw a pick and it was returned for 0 yards to their opponent's 30? The chances of a field goal at that point are slim (if that team is on the say, 40) and a punt might only move them back to the 20. An INT at that point wouldn't matter as much.

QB1: 25 for 35 (71.4%), 300 yards, 2 TD, 1 INT. (104.46 QB Rating)
QB2: 20 for 41 (48.8%), 300 yards, 4 TDs, 0 INT. (105.74 QB Rating)

There's going to have to be one place where there's a measure of subjectivity in the Extender formulas, and I suspect that responses to this question will capture what I'm looking for in the last bit of the weightings.
Unless you're looking for an opinion based on stats, this poll is worthless without looking at the game logs. QB2 could've killed more drives than QB1. QB2's WRs could have gained huge YAC, thus inflating his stats and that has nothing to do with the QB.

Just looking at the statline, I'd have to say QB1...but the game logs would reveal enough information to make a better decision.

[st.cronin]

QB 2. Yards/att is close, and he has a much lower int rate. That's really all you need to know.

[Raiders Army]

Another case for QB1: what if he was moving the chains and the RB took the TDs instead of the QB? Then the TD to INT ratio would look vastly different.

[Ben E Lou]

Unless you're looking for an opinion based on stats, this poll is worthless without looking at the game logs. QB2 could've killed more drives than QB1. QB2's WRs could have gained huge YAC, thus inflating his stats and that has nothing to do with the QB.I am looking to see responses based 100% on stats, yes. As far as YAC, the QB does play a part in it in FOF, and I suspect a pretty significant part.

[Ben E Lou]

Dola:

Thinking this through more (and especially from looking at the RB data) I'm definitely keeping 1st downs in the mix for passing/rushing/receiving. I started last night thinking to remove them.

[Raiders Army]

I am looking to see responses based 100% on stats, yes. As far as YAC, the QB does play a part in it in FOF, and I suspect a pretty significant part.

How so? Is it that the QB hits the open receiver (avoids the double-team) and thus there are more YAC?

[Ben E Lou]

How so? Is it that the QB hits the open receiver (avoids the double-team) and thus there are more YAC?Not sure about that, but it's known both by the documentation and by experience that the QB's Accuracy rating is a part of the YAC calculation.

[sovereignstar]

Column AG: Passing Accuracy - ability to connect with receivers in full stride, maximizing their ability to gain yardage after the catch.

[sovereignstar]

rofl

[gstelmack]

I've seen too many "incompletion, incompletion, 15-yard completion" sequences to ignore the 55% completion rate / high yardage guys in FOF.

[Hammer]

So you don't think a 64td/0int QB is very valuable? Don't you think your team's record would be pretty doggone good with those numbers?


Well, let me explain myself further. Firstly I never said throwing 0 interceptions isn't valuable.

Take 2 identical plays, at different positions on the field.

Play 1: A QB throws an 8 yard TD pass.
Play 2: A QB throws an 8 yard pass, WR tackled at the 35 yard line.

They both did the same thing, executed the same play. The QB did not perform better in play 1 than in play 2, yet he gets rewarded as if he did.

To be accurate you also need to gauge YAC. If a QB throws a screen and the WR runs 80 yards for a TD, the QB didn't really throw a TD at all.

[Daimyo]

I voted for QB1 on the assumption that with that kind of efficiency you have to assume someone else on the team is getting TDs so the 4-2 advantage QB2 has isn't that important.

On closer inspection though I'd say the interception edge gives it to QB2 by a very small margin (5%?)... Int% generally correlates pretty well (inversely) to completion percentage. A QB throwing four TDs without an interception despite completing less 50% of his passes probably extremely rare. :) That's what makes this comparison so difficult IMO.

[Yoda]

I am going to vote QB 1. Why?

For me, it's mostly the completion percentage. Sure he threw an int, when the other guy didn't, but taking a closer look at the numbers, he had 5 more completions in 6 less passes. That's more plays with a positive effect.

Also, how many more times did QB2's team punt? Seems to me that QB1's team is moving the ball more consistantly. Where as QB2's team, would spend more time with 'dead' plays.

Put another way. QB1's team got 5 more completions (positive plays) with 6 less pass attempts, meaning that QB1's team ran the ball on those 6 plays.

Give me QB1 any day of the week, month or year.

[Yoda]

As for the interception issue, to me (and I know very few if any will share this opinion), a punt is like an int in that it's a change of possession. In that respect, QB1's team is going to have less overall changes of possession than QB2's team.

[Yoda]

Another point, in YPA; 8.57 is a pretty big difference from 7.31....

QB1 is gaining more positive from less plays than QB2, and more efficently.

*steps off box and goes back to ASP.NET project*

[Chubby]

qb2 easily

[bulletsponge]

no brainer, QB2

it seems everyone here is forgeting that hes scoring 2X more often than QB1, and isnt turning it over to boot. QB1's team will have to score 2 td's on the ground with fewer opportunities due to INT's, just to catch up to the QB2. i personally think TD passes are the most overrated stat in football, but if he can throw no INT while the other guy throws 1 a game thats huge.

if 1 qb throws 16 int a year and another throws 32, i dont think anyone here would argue that the 32 int guy is better, but thats the same difference as these 2 guys are doing. ohh and comp % is overrated also

[Raiders Army]

Column AG: Passing Accuracy - ability to connect with receivers in full stride, maximizing their ability to gain yardage after the catch.
Thanks!
no brainer, QB2

it seems everyone here is forgeting that hes scoring 2X more often than QB1, and isnt turning it over to boot. QB1's team will have to score 2 td's on the ground with fewer opportunities due to INT's, just to catch up to the QB2. i personally think TD passes are the most overrated stat in football, but if he can throw no INT while the other guy throws 1 a game thats huge.

if 1 qb throws 16 int a year and another throws 32, i dont think anyone here would argue that the 32 int guy is better, but thats the same difference as these 2 guys are doing. ohh and comp % is overrated also

You're really magnifying things off this one game. I don't think that a QB who throws one INT in one game is going to throw one in every single game that season. Just like I don't think that he'll throw 2 TDs every game either.

The other thing is that you magnify the INTs, but you don't magnify the completions. Let's say each QB makes 480 Pass Attempts during the year. QB1 will complete 343 passes and QB2 will complete 234 passes. That's over a hundred more passes. Finally, if you are completing almost 22% more of your passes than another QB, then is it overrated? I could see completing 5% more being overrated, but 22%?

[gstelmack]

22% isn't that big a deal if the higher-accuracy guy is completing lots of dump-offs and the lower-accuracy guy is hitting bombs regularly. I got so ticked during my first two seasons of WOOF watching my QBs hit 2 yard dump-offs on 3rd-and-10...

[st.cronin]

I am familiar with a "quick and dirty" way of evaluating passing games, which ignores tds and simply calculates yds/att, giving a penalty of 50 yards for each interception.

QB 1 = 7.14
QB 2 = 7.32

Remember, that nethod ignores td passes - if it rewarded td passes, qb 2 would have a substantial edge.

[sovereignstar]

You're really magnifying things off this one game. I don't think that a QB who throws one INT in one game is going to throw one in every single game that season. Just like I don't think that he'll throw 2 TDs every game either.

You're losing touch of what this thread's purpose is. I multiplied everything by 16 to magnify what I feel is an advantage on QB2's one game performance. I'm not trying to tell the future here.

[Daimyo]

22% isn't that big a deal if the higher-accuracy guy is completing lots of dump-offs and the lower-accuracy guy is hitting bombs regularly. I got so ticked during my first two seasons of WOOF watching my QBs hit 2 yard dump-offs on 3rd-and-10...
That doesn't seem to be the case here though... QB1 is averaging 8.6 yards per attempt.

[BradS]

At this point I'll take either one of them.

[Noop]

This depends on what happened. Lets say in the first half QB 2 had a few drops or couldn't complete anything on the defense. Then in the second half the other teams FS and CB both go out because of injury. Then he lights it up...

Real life I take QB1
In FOF QB1 but I would consider QB2

[Raiders Army]

You're losing touch of what this thread's purpose is. I multiplied everything by 16 to magnify what I feel is an advantage on QB2's one game performance. I'm not trying to tell the future here.

Okay. Thanks for reeling me in!

And are you bulletsponge?

[sovereignstar]

Meeeoooooowwwwwww. Posting past your bedtime? :)

Didn't know that someone needed to quote me for me to reply to them, which you did anyways...

[Raiders Army]

Actually I was posting past my bedtime. ;)
Ah, I was looking at bullet's message but forgot about yours further on up. That's why I was confused.

[bulletsponge]

im bullet, not soverign :)

[revrew]

I don't see the single game vs. whole season as comparable at all. Any QB with 64 TDs and 0 INTs would be a god. 0 Ints is a big deal over a whole season.

But in a single game, give me the 70% completion percentage and 2TDs over <50% and 4 TDs any day. The 70% means you're converting 3rd downs, you're OWNing time of possession, you're keeping the other team's offense off the field. You're more likely to win games, average score, 21-13. A 40% guy may be getting you 28 points, but as much as your defense is on the field, figure the other team is going to give you a run for your money. Its not all about TDs; it's all about winning. 70% and 2 TDs gives you a better chance of winning than 40% and 4.

Same with comparing RBs. Give me a guy that nets 5 a carry consistently and racks up the first downs over Barry Sanders' 3-and-out, 3-and-out, 50 yard scamper. Sanders was electric, but Smith won games. It isn't all about the numbers; it's all about the W's.

[MIJB#19]

Qb1 looks familiar... :D

[sovereignstar]

I don't see the single game vs. whole season as comparable at all.

IF

x > y

THEN

16x > 16y

[MIJB#19]

It seems far-fetched to me to think a QB can keep up with turning 20% of his completions into touchdowns, and still make you win games. For a one game performance, QB2 looks nice, but QB1's production sound much more likely to be on par with his per game average. QB2 sounds like being part of a very hit or miss offense. The real question comes down to when and where the incomplete passes fell for QB2. Did the QB go 5 for 20 in the first half and come back strong to turn around a losing game? Did the defense get familiar with the QB's offense and make him go 5 for 20 in the second half? Did he fail a lot of long bombs on 1st and 2nd downs, but still convert on 3rd downs?

QB1's numbers seem to tell a much clearer story of the game. The QB was connecting all game long, made one mistake and either stalled in the red zone a lot or handed off the 3rd and 4th TD (or additional turnovers) to his running back.

In the end, for me it comes down to the guy who's team is winning the most games.

[QuikSand]

I honestly think that the whole *debate* here is a sort of psychological phenomenon at work. We're asked to form an opinion, and candidly, it's more fun to take a side when faced with two fairly extreme options.

Bottom line is, while having very different components (deliberately), it seems to me that these two guys are pretty close in overall effectiveness. That's what the conventional passer rating tells us, and I think just about any reasonable overall formula probably should say the same thing.

[Narcizo]

I would rather have a QB with a lower completion percentage but who doesn't throw picks than someone with a higher percentage and does.

Put bluntly like that I think most people would have a hard time disagreeing. However I think that the avoid interception ability is massively overvalued. I'd rather have a quarterback who moves the chains and throws the odd pick over the quarterback who throws safely all the time and forces his team to punt a lot. Interceptions aren't the end of the world if your offence is working ok otherwise. Not being able to move the chains is.

[Julio Riddols]

I think ultimately it comes down to the type of team you want to run. I prefer QB1 for his consistency, regardless of the INT he threw.. But I can see why someone would want the 2nd QB. He threw 4 TD's. I think their values would be pretty similar based on their individual performances, but in the context of a game, might not be even close. Either way, with the data we are given, the QB Rating formula is a pretty good measuring stick. I just think rushing yards need to be added on somehow.

[Synovia]

So you don't think a 64td/0int QB is very valuable? Don't you think your team's record would be pretty doggone good with those numbers?



I do, but he'd never do that. The fact that he threw 4 in one game doesn't mean he'll throw 4 in every game.


When I see stat lines like QB2, in the NFL, generally the team lost. <50% for 300+ yards generally means your team had lost the game by halftime.

[sovereignstar]

I do, but he'd never do that. The fact that he threw 4 in one game doesn't mean he'll throw 4 in every game.


When I see stat lines like QB2, in the NFL, generally the team lost. <50% for 300+ yards generally means your team had lost the game by halftime.

The point went the other way. You missed it.

[jbergey22]

Id take QB2's game but I have a feeling QB1 is the better quarterback.

I dont think QB2 would be able to put up that kind of 4/0 TD/Int ratio over time being this inaccurate.

Reminds me a a debate baseball people have a lot about runs/rbis as compared to some more advanced stats.

[miked]

I vote Johnstone.

[Koprnkc]

I would have to question where QB1 got his completions and yards. Was a large percentage of completions between the 20's? Once inside the redzone is that when the incompletions and INT occurred?

Everyone assumes that he threw for 2 Tds and a RB punched in additional TDs. But if he threw a Pic, thus costing his team a scoring chance and or failed to convert in the redzone and his team had to settle for field goals, then in my opinion he did not perform as well as QB2.

[Synovia]

and or failed to convert


I think its much more likely that QB2, with the sub 50% completion percentage, failed to convert first downs.