QB accuracy ratings....

[phillysouljah]

Quote: Originally Posted by Madwolf

I should rephrase that. I know they work, but I'm not convinced there is a difference between Throw Short, Med, and Long. Regardless, there is a marked difference between throwing with Peyton Manning and throwing with lol Clausen.

Try out Colt Brennan or Max Hall. They are very accurate with all the short yardage stuff but throw wild when throwing deep, as is reflected by the fact that their SAC is in the high 80's and their MAC and DAC are like in the 60's.

[Gotmadskillzson]

You can clearly tell the difference between somebody with bad DAC and somebody with good DAC.

[Jarodd21]

Yea you can definitely tell the different between Good QBs and bad.. I play with the USER accuracy on 6 and if you have a bad QB it can be rough.. With good QBs you can do your thing if your USER skills is good with precision passing and directional throwing..

[mjhyankees]

Quote: Originally Posted by phillysouljah

I haven't looked into this much but I have seen QB's with really low DAC completing bombs occasionally so I don't think it's the latter. However, every deep throw from a low accuracy RB or WR seems to be waaaay off. That's a point towards it being based on variation off the target. This may be one of those things, though, where it's a combination of factors that the rating represents and hence the slightly different manifestations in game across the wide spread of ratings.

So you feel the acc rating tells you the % of how far off the ball will be on every throw, not a % of how MANY times the ball will be on target. IOW....his throws are off by 5% every time (say 2 yards) as opposed to 5 of 8 passes being on target.....did I get you right?

[TheDelta]

Quote: Originally Posted by Madwolf

I should rephrase that. I know they work, but I'm not convinced there is a difference between Throw Short, Med, and Long.

I honestly can't tell about Short and Med, I got no idea where the game draws the line between them and the problem is that a lot of short passes are pretty much automatic completions as long as the receiver is open, regardless of throw or catch rating (for example, even a catch 50 RB will catch a screen thrown by a punter as long as he's open)

But DAC definitely matters. If you got a 60 DAC QB his deep throws will be all over the place, while a 90 DAC veteran will pretty much always throw to the receiver (of course he'll still overthrow them often, but with a bad QB, you will throw balls literally to the other side of the field)

[phillysouljah]

Quote: Originally Posted by TheDelta

(for example, even a catch 50 RB will catch a screen thrown by a punter as long as he's open)

I've seen waaaay too many dropped open screens or flat passes to take this as true. And somethings off about the (I can't remember its name) route usually done by a TE where he shoots diagonally towards the sideline. QB's with low SAC love to heave it over the receiver's head.

However, if it were true, what would be the problem? Honestly, a punter SHOULD be able to throw a catchable ball 10-15 feet to an open man who catches it even if the guy does not have NFL receiver hands. That's practically a boring game of catch

[phillysouljah]

Quote: Originally Posted by mjhyankees

So you feel the acc rating tells you the % of how far off the ball will be on every throw, not a % of how MANY times the ball will be on target. IOW....his throws are off by 5% every time (say 2 yards) as opposed to 5 of 8 passes being on target.....did I get you right?

No.

I think we can't know for sure unless someone from EA Tiburon tells us the formula for this and how accuracy ratings play into how the computer determines where a pass will go.

I think it's a combination of the two things you said but it's more about times on target, especially within the relatively narrow range of QB DAC values (which vary from like 60-90something as opposed to the full gamut of 15-90something if you throw in all other positions). That was my intention by my post.

For example, a QB with low DAC throws plenty of passes that are like 20 yards past the receiver but he does often enough throw accurate passes that it can't entirely be a measure of variation off from the target. The fact that some of them are perfect completions indicates there is an element of the ratings representing how many times the ball will be on target.

I was just pointing out that when you're talking extremely low DAC players (like an RB with a DAC of 15), I have never seen an on target deep pass from such players. It seems to be wild every time but those with maybe a 35 DAC seem to be a little less erratic. However, I haven't seen enough such passes nor have I explored this topic, to make any absolute statements about it. It seems like in this case of really low DAC's, it's about how much variation is on the throw, but who knows?

For when it matters (between QB's), it seems the DAC rating is predominately about how on target any given pass will be and then from there, there's an element of how much variation.

But like I said, this is just from casual observation while playing. I haven't tested it.

[TheDelta]

Quote: Originally Posted by phillysouljah

I've seen waaaay too many dropped open screens or flat passes to take this as true. And somethings off about the (I can't remember its name) route usually done by a TE where he shoots diagonally towards the sideline. QB's with low SAC love to heave it over the receiver's head.

I'm not talking about flat routes, only about screens and certain (few) other passes. I can honestly say I've NEVER seen a dropped screen when the RB was open, and I'm using tons of them.

Quote:

However, if it were true, what would be the problem? Honestly, a punter SHOULD be able to throw a catchable ball 10-15 feet to an open man who catches it even if the guy does not have NFL receiver hands. That's practically a boring game of catch

Did I say it shouldn't be like this? The question though was what kind of effect SAC has on the game, all I'm saying is that screen passes don't help us determine that as they seem to be either auto-completions or seem to depend solely on the CIT rating of the HB if he's covered.