Encouraging Kyler Murray Trends

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

Oh, come on. I'm providing a statistic that has been used for decades to explain why people are open to the discussion that Kyler isn't the best rookie QB. There isn't a consensus by people that analyze this for a living, and a stat that has been used since before I was born is a valid approach to explain how close all three are.

You want player grades from PFF as your only source or whatever? Fine. Or ESPN's manufactured stat that no one else is allowed to use in broadcasting, and the NFL doesn't use? Fine. I'm sure if passer rating, quarterback rating, or whatever you want to call it was in support of Kyler Murray, it'd be the top stat quoted.

It might be, and it would still be a stupid stat for this argument. Just bc something’s been used for a long time doesn’t make it a good measurement just as just bc ESPN doesn’t let anyone else use their stat doesn’t invalidate it. Ultimately if a given stat doesn’t include all relevant data it’s useless. If this discussion was just “is kyler one of the best rookie passers of all time” I would think that stat would come into play, but kylers impact on the game goes beyond what that stat covers so you have to find a stat that’s more inclusive. So it seems ESPN has a better stat for measurement. Who cares who gets to use it? If it’s consistently applied against everyone and the reasoning behind it is sound it’s a more accurate measurement for this discussion.

 

[Solar7]

It might be, and it would still be a stupid stat for this argument. Just bc something’s been used for a long time doesn’t make it a good measurement just as just bc ESPN doesn’t let anyone else use their stat doesn’t invalidate it. Ultimately if a given stat doesn’t include all relevant data it’s useless. If this discussion was just “is kyler one of the best rookie passers of all time” I would think that stat would come into play, but kylers impact on the game goes beyond what that stat covers so you have to find a stat that’s more inclusive. So it seems ESPN has a better stat for measurement. Who cares who gets to use it? If it’s consistently applied against everyone and the reasoning behind it is sound it’s a more accurate measurement for this discussion.

The question was whether standard analytics and advanced analytics support that Kyler is the much better QB. The standard analytics don't. That's really the end of the comment I meant to make. They place him in a similar and debatable spot. Maybe the advanced ones do. But both don't.

That's all I brought to the table for the argument, and all I was debating.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

The question was whether standard analytics and advanced analytics support that Kyler is the much better QB. The standard analytics don't. That's really the end of the comment I meant to make. They place him in a similar and debatable spot. Maybe the advanced ones do. But both don't.

That's all I brought to the table for the argument, and all I was debating.

Okay, that’s fair. Meaningless imo, but fair.

 

[gimpy]

I quit reading a couple of pages back.

 

[daves]

It can be called both, but calling me out on the semantics of Quarterback Rating vs. Passer Rating is like calling someone out on their spelling of color or colour, they're both right, and my argument was still right.

Wow, you're actually trying to gaslight me when the history of the thread is right here? YOU are the one who called ME out:

You do realize "passer rating" is actually truly called "Quarterback Rating"

And you're still 100% wrong.

Wikipedia: "Passer rating, also known as quarterback rating, QB rating"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passer_rating

Yep, look at the title of the page: "Passer Rating". All this Wiki page (which you realize, could be written by anyone, right?) confirms is that "Passer Rating" is the correct term, but that some people call it quarterback rating - a fact that i explicitly mentioned in my previous reply, but which doesn't make those people correct.

NFL.com: "Quarterback Rating Formula"
http://www.nfl.com/help/quarterbackratingformula
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2001/08/how-does-the-nfl-s-quarterback-rating-system-work.html

These are articles about a way to rate quarterbacks - but they each explicitly state that the measure is a passer rating.

And at the bottom of the page the NFL.com article says, "This same formula can be used to determine a passer rating for any player who attempts at least one pass."

The Slate article asks, "How does the NFL calculate its passer ratings?"

NFL.com stats: Doesn't include QBR, as it is ESPN's proprietary stat
http://www.nfl.com/stats/categoryst...263-s=PASSING_YARDS&d-447263-o=2&d-447263-n=1

Not sure how you think that supports your case - it just has a column called "Rate".

Multiple other sites: Quarterback Rating (not QBR)
https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/player-stat/qb-rating-nfl
http://stats.washingtonpost.com/fb/leaders.asp?range=NFL&rank=039&type=Passing

Yeah, this isn't journalism, this is a web programming intern building a stats page. They're wrong.

I've already posted references that actually explain the origin of the passer rating, e.g. https://www.profootballhof.com/news/nfl-s-passer-rating,
https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/6835090/nfl-total-quarterback-rating-shifts-way-see-position,
https://fancredsports.com/Articles/40-and-fabulous-in-praise-of-passer-rating

... and here's the New York Times noting that "the more technical term is passer rating":
https://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/14/...s-passer-rating-arcane-and-misunderstood.html

... and if you search for mentions of both "passer rating" and "quarterback rating", you're likely to come across a number of articles that point out that it's passer rating, not quarterback rating (e.g. https://www.liveabout.com/how-to-calculate-quarterback-rating-1335452)

But hey, you may think they're all wrong, too. How about some empirical support then? Google nfl "passer rating" and you'll get 1.3 million results. Google nfl "quarterback rating" and you'll get 238,000 results.

Well, enough said. You can keep calling it quarterback rating if you want, but you're only going to risk confusion with the increasingly popular and increasingly relevant "Total Quarterback Rating" or QBR. But don't try to tell me that "'passer rating' is actually truly called 'Quarterback Rating', when in reality it's the other way around.

...dbs

 

[BritCard]

Wow, you're actually trying to gaslight me when the history of the thread is right here? YOU are the one who called ME out:

And you're still 100% wrong.


Yep, look at the title of the page: "Passer Rating". All this Wiki page (which you realize, could be written by anyone, right?) confirms is that "Passer Rating" is the correct term, but that some people call it quarterback rating - a fact that i explicitly mentioned in my previous reply, but which doesn't make those people correct.


These are articles about a way to rate quarterbacks - but they each explicitly state that the measure is a passer rating.

And at the bottom of the page the NFL.com article says, "This same formula can be used to determine a passer rating for any player who attempts at least one pass."

The Slate article asks, "How does the NFL calculate its passer ratings?"


Not sure how you think that supports your case - it just has a column called "Rate".


Yep, they're wrong.

I've already posted references that actually explain the origin of the passer rating, e.g. https://www.profootballhof.com/news/nfl-s-passer-rating,
https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/6835090/nfl-total-quarterback-rating-shifts-way-see-position,
https://fancredsports.com/Articles/40-and-fabulous-in-praise-of-passer-rating

... but hey, you may think they're all wrong, too. How about some empirical support then? Google nfl "passer rating" and you'll get 1.3 million results. Google nfl "quarterback rating" and you'll get 238,000 results.

Well, enough said. You can keep calling it quarterback rating if you want, but you're only going to risk confusion with the increasingly popular and increasingly relevant "Total Quarterback Rating" or QBR. But don't try to tell me that "'passer rating' is actually truly called 'Quarterback Rating', when in reality it's the other way around.

...dbs

I don't really want to insert myself into something and I haven't read the whole argument here but Passer rating and Quarterback rating are not the same thing. Not when it comes to recognized metrics anyway. Maybe you you are just referring to the phrasing?

Passer rating is is a metric that accounts for yards, touchdowns, interceptions, completions and attempts. It's a widely known formula you can find online that anyone can calculate if they want to and it tops out at 158.3.

Quarterback rating (or QBR) is an ESPN metric and as far as I know it's not known exactly what their formula is. QBR includes rushing yards by the QB, in fact many believe it's unfairly weighted towards rushing yards because you see things like Trubisky going top 10.

Personally, I like to use both although the league as a whole seems to much prefer passer rating. ESPN's QBR takes more things into consideration like clutch weighted expected points added, sacks, penalties etc. Passer rating is much more basic and doesn't account for game situation, drops etc

I think you can take something from both, although QBR has more tendency to throw the odd curveball like a Trubisky or Marriota into the top 10 due to rushing.

 

[daves]

I don't really want to insert myself into something and I haven't read the whole argument here but Passer rating and Quarterback rating are not the same thing. Not when it comes to recognized metrics anyway. Maybe you you are just referring to the phrasing?

Hi BritCard, welcome to the board! In one day you've already made quite a few insightful posts.

This started with @Solar7 stating that Kyler Murray "had the lowest quarterback rating of the three. [Jones, Minshew]".

I wasn't sure whether he meant Total Quarterback Rating (QBR) or passer rating, but either way, i responded with, "Actually, Murray had the highest QBR of the three (56 vs. 55 for Jones & 45 for Minshew). The passer ratings, on the other hand, were very close but Murray was lowest (87, vs. 91 for Minshew & 88 for Jones). Passer rating, of course, doesn't take into account game situations, rushing, fumbles, etc."

@Solar7 then stated, erroneously, "You do realize 'passer rating' is actually truly called 'Quarterback Rating' and QBR is just a made-up stat by ESPN that is just meant to confuse people into thinking that's the true Quarterback Rating, right?".

Following that, i've been disputing @Solar7's bogus claim regarding terminology, and others have been arguing against @Solar7's opinion that QBR is somehow less valid than the NFL's passer rating. I disagree with @Solar7 on that aspect as well but plenty of others have been carrying the mantle in that regard.

Cheerio!

...dave

 

[BritCard]

Hi BritCard, welcome to the board! In one day you've already made quite a few insightful posts.

This started with @Solar7 stating that Kyler Murray "had the lowest quarterback rating of the three. [Jones, Minshew]".

I wasn't sure whether he meant Total Quarterback Rating (QBR) or passer rating, but either way, i responded with, "Actually, Murray had the highest QBR of the three (56 vs. 55 for Jones & 45 for Minshew). The passer ratings, on the other hand, were very close but Murray was lowest (87, vs. 91 for Minshew & 88 for Jones). Passer rating, of course, doesn't take into account game situations, rushing, fumbles, etc."

@Solar7 then stated, erroneously, "You do realize 'passer rating' is actually truly called 'Quarterback Rating' and QBR is just a made-up stat by ESPN that is just meant to confuse people into thinking that's the true Quarterback Rating, right?".

Following that, i've been disputing @Solar7's bogus claim regarding terminology, and others have been arguing against @Solar7's opinion that QBR is somehow less valid than the NFL's passer rating. I disagree with @Solar7 on that aspect as well but plenty of others have been carrying the mantle in that regard.

Cheerio!

...dave

Ok, I think I side with you in that case. Sorry Solar7!

I don't think Kyler has been as all out awesome as some fanboys would say. He's had some rough patches. He was not as good as rookie Deshawn Watson for example, not close.

But then I think he was held back by scheme. We played quite conservatively a lot of the time. He had the 4th best downfield passer rating in the league yet made him throw 30 5 yard passes every game.

He was the best rookie QB though for sure.

 

[Solar7]

Hi BritCard, welcome to the board! In one day you've already made quite a few insightful posts.

This started with @Solar7 stating that Kyler Murray "had the lowest quarterback rating of the three. [Jones, Minshew]".

I wasn't sure whether he meant Total Quarterback Rating (QBR) or passer rating, but either way, i responded with, "Actually, Murray had the highest QBR of the three (56 vs. 55 for Jones & 45 for Minshew). The passer ratings, on the other hand, were very close but Murray was lowest (87, vs. 91 for Minshew & 88 for Jones). Passer rating, of course, doesn't take into account game situations, rushing, fumbles, etc."

@Solar7 then stated, erroneously, "You do realize 'passer rating' is actually truly called 'Quarterback Rating' and QBR is just a made-up stat by ESPN that is just meant to confuse people into thinking that's the true Quarterback Rating, right?".

Following that, i've been disputing @Solar7's bogus claim regarding terminology, and others have been arguing against @Solar7's opinion that QBR is somehow less valid than the NFL's passer rating. I disagree with @Solar7 on that aspect as well but plenty of others have been carrying the mantle in that regard.

Cheerio!

...dave

I think we are confused about our argument then. I thought you were still trying to argue that I was wrong in saying that Murray had the lowest passer rating (quarterback rating as I called it, which is still a valid alternate name). If you can accept I wasn't wrong there, and never meant to reference QBR, we're all good. It's super nitpicky to argue about the nomenclature when you know what I mean though, and it's completely called that by analysts and reputable stat websites alike. Also, I doubt the people creating the entire stat grid systems for these sites are merely dumb interns.

Edit: Rereading this I still came off as more of a dick than I meant to. Sorry we bickered so long about that. Definitely not worth it.

 

[gimpy]

Talking about "super nitpicky" .

This all just goes to show that anyone can do and show just about whatever they want with stats.

 

[slanidrac16]

Good Lord enough. Kyler is pretty good.

 

[Krangodnzr]

Do you actually ever crunch the numbers on this stuff or just go with what you feel? Look at the past 5 years, with me being pretty generous to some first rounders here... The numbers get even worse with receivers taken in the top ten, where just one can be deemed a success, and he doesn't even play for his original team.

2019 thus far:
1st: 2 drafted, 1 "hit" (Marquise Brown)
2nd: 7 drafted, 4 "hits" (Deebo Samuel, AJ Brown, Mecole Hardman, DK Metcalf)

2018:
1st: 2 drafted, 2 "hits" (DJ Moore, Calvin Ridley)
2nd: 6 drafted, 2-3 "hits" (Courtland Sutton, Christian Kirk, DJ Chark - Washington has potential too)

2017:
1st: 3 drafted, 0 "hits" - most alarmingly, 3 were taken in the top 10.
2nd: 3 drafted, 2 "hits" (Curtis Samuel, Juju Smith-Schuster)

2016:
1st: 4 drafted, 1 maybe "hit" (Will Fuller)
2nd: 3 drafted, 2-3 "hits" (Michael Thomas, Tyler Boyd, counting Shepard here)

2015:
1st: 6 drafted, 1 "hit" (Amari Cooper, and he doesn't even play for his team anymore. Not gonna count DeVante Parker or Breshad Perriman for a few select good games over 5 years)
2nd: 3 drafted, 0 "hits"

5 year numbers:
1st: 17 drafted, 5 "hits" - 29% success rate.
2nd: 22 drafted, 10-12 "hits" - 45-54% success rate.

5 year numbers? Why not 10? From my perusal of a 10 year number, the 1st round picks look better and better.

I'd also debate that using last drafts numbers as hits is laughable, and maybe even 2018 as well.

If a player is good for only ONE SEASON, is that a "hit"?

 

[CardsSunsDbacks]

5 year numbers? Why not 10? From my perusal of a 10 year number, the 1st round picks look better and better.

I'd also debate that using last drafts numbers as hits is laughable, and maybe even 2018 as well.

If a player is good for only ONE SEASON, is that a "hit"?

Also if a player was only bad for one season, would that be a miss? I agree that the numbers should at a minimum not include players that were rookies this year.

 

[Solar7]

5 year numbers? Why not 10? From my perusal of a 10 year number, the 1st round picks look better and better.

I'd also debate that using last drafts numbers as hits is laughable, and maybe even 2018 as well.

If a player is good for only ONE SEASON, is that a "hit"?

Do you want to crunch the numbers then? Go pull the ten year. I only did 5 because I was running out of steam.

Also if a player was only bad for one season, would that be a miss? I agree that the numbers should at a minimum not include players that were rookies this year.

Go ahead and do it too. I mean, the 2nd round in 2019 has some immediate performers. But it doesn’t matter too much - most of the 1st round receivers in recent years haven’t been that good.

 

[Krangodnzr]

Do you want to crunch the numbers then? Go pull the ten year. I only did 5 because I was running out of steam.



Go ahead and do it too. I mean, the 2nd round in 2019 has some immediate performers. But it doesn’t matter too much - most of the 1st round receivers in recent years haven’t been that good.

Maybe its because.....there have been like 4 bad WR drafts in a row?

I already did go back Solar. If you did the same, you would run into the Watkins/Julio/AJ draft. You'd run into a few that clearly demonstrate what I'm talking about.

But you rest on your laurels of the 2019 draft...where literally all of those guys might be poopy 4 years from now.

 

[Krangodnzr]

Jeudy, Lamb, Ruggs, Shenault Jr., and Higgins might all be 1st round picks this year.

I expect with current trends, there is a strong possibility of a run on WRs in round one this year.

 

[Solar7]

Maybe its because.....there have been like 4 bad WR drafts in a row?

I already did go back Solar. If you did the same, you would run into the Watkins/Julio/AJ draft. You'd run into a few that clearly demonstrate what I'm talking about.

But you rest on your laurels of the 2019 draft...where literally all of those guys might be ****** 4 years from now.

Oh, yeah, they might be **** in four years, but if I say that about Kyler, I’ll get lambasted.

Feel free to ignore 2019 man, the numbers still don’t back up what you say. Watkins isn’t a “hit” at all. The evidence is that WR in the 1st is not a 50% chance.

I do think Jeudy and Lamb will be pretty damn good. I really like both guys. Where the roster stands today, I don’t want them over the gaping holes at other positions. Maybe we solve everything in free agency and can afford the luxury. Maybe Keim kills it and has a great free agency period. But he’s sucked, and I’m not upgrading at one position to leave the other played by an undrafted rookie or street free agent.

 

[Jetstream Green]

Jeudy, Lamb, Ruggs, Shenault Jr., and Higgins might all be 1st round picks this year.

I expect with current trends, there is a strong possibility of a run on WRs in round one this year.

QB is the only position where I think you draft for need early because they are so hard to come by, and we already have one in place. You draft in the top ten for a pro bowler and possible all pro because regardless of need, those guys make a hug difference. If we are drafting and Okudah is there and you have him ranked as being a possible Sherman or Peterson type compared to what the others offer from different positions, you draft him. If you think a guy like Jeudy is another Julio Jones in comparison to lesser comps at other positions, you draft him. The only position which has to be really off the charts to draft is running back since they have such a short shelf life, and I do not see such a phenom in this draft

 

[Krangodnzr]

Oh, yeah, they might be **** in four years, but if I say that about Kyler, I’ll get lambasted.

Feel free to ignore 2019 man, the numbers still don’t back up what you say. Watkins isn’t a “hit” at all. The evidence is that WR in the 1st is not a 50% chance.

I do think Jeudy and Lamb will be pretty damn good. I really like both guys. Where the roster stands today, I don’t want them over the gaping holes at other positions. Maybe we solve everything in free agency and can afford the luxury. Maybe Keim kills it and has a great free agency period. But he’s sucked, and I’m not upgrading at one position to leave the other played by an undrafted rookie or street free agent.

I actually think Keim can build a short term winner here. I do. Hes done it before.

What I worry about is that Keim is going to build an unsustainable team, one that loses two players and it's right back to mediocrity.

The problem the Cardinals face is that they are going to have to rely on more expensive free agents to turn it around. That's a crappy way to build a team.

I'm not saying that WRs are a 50/50 hit in the first round. I'm saying the first round is still the best round to find a WR.

 

[Krangodnzr]

QB is the only position where I think you draft for need early because they are so hard to come by, and we already have one in place. You draft in the top ten for a pro bowler and possible all pro because regardless of need, those guys make a hug difference. If we are drafting and Okudah is there and you have him ranked as being a possible Sherman or Peterson type compared to what the others offer from different positions, you draft him. If you think a guy like Jeudy is another Julio Jones in comparison to lesser comps at other positions, you draft him. The only position which has to be really off the charts to draft is running back since they have such a short shelf life, and I do not see such a phenom in this draft

I agree. Draft the best player at a position of need or a need that will arise in the near future.

 

[TheCardFan]

I agree. Draft the best player at a position of need or a need that will arise in the near future.

100%. We need impact players.

Sucks to think about where we would be with 1st round players actually contributing.

 

[Solar7]

I actually think Keim can build a short term winner here. I do. Hes done it before.

What I worry about is that Keim is going to build an unsustainable team, one that loses two players and it's right back to mediocrity.

The problem the Cardinals face is that they are going to have to rely on more expensive free agents to turn it around. That's a crappy way to build a team.

I'm not saying that WRs are a 50/50 hit in the first round. I'm saying the first round is still the best round to find a WR.

You and I aren’t far off. I’m not so convinced the first round is the best spot to find a WR though. I’d love to add someone proven, rather than watching Jeudy or Lamb put up 500 yards and not adapt to the NFL yet.

 

[daves]

I don't think Kyler has been as all out awesome as some fanboys would say. He's had some rough patches. He was not as good as rookie Deshawn Watson for example, not close.

But then I think he was held back by scheme. We played quite conservatively a lot of the time. He had the 4th best downfield passer rating in the league yet made him throw 30 5 yard passes every game.

He was the best rookie QB though for sure.

Agreed, completely. I think Kingsbury deliberately held Murray back to some extent, knowing that 2019 was not going to be a Super Bowl year.

...dave

 

[Chris_Sanders]

Agreed, completely. I think Kingsbury deliberately held Murray back to some extent, knowing that 2019 was not goinggoing to be a Super Bowl year.

...dave

It's a fact

 

[Dr. Jones]

Agreed, completely. I think Kingsbury deliberately held Murray back to some extent, knowing that 2019 was not goinggoing to be a Super Bowl year.

...dave

It's a fact

He said as much as often as he could......

Also...... Comparing Murray to Watson is fool-hearty at this point. Watson had so many more college snaps it's foolish to think he wouldn't be ahead. Still...... Kyler finished his first year and isn't hit nearly as much. Time will tell.