Football question

No one in their right mind is taking Jackson Arnold over mateer if they were offered swap for swap right now.

Qbr
Wbr
Or
PBR
 
One has Mahomes as the 2nd best QB in the league. The other has him 14th, behind Jacoby Brissett. I'll let you decide where he is more accurately ranked. This is NFL too where the level of competition in schedules is way more balanced than college.
 
BCSooners said:
One has Mahomes as the 2nd best QB in the league. The other has him 14th, behind Jacoby Brissett. I'll let you decide where he is more accurately ranked. This is NFL too where the level of competition in schedules is way more balanced than college.
Click to expand...
the one that has mahomes 2 also has dak 1

Looking at the rankings, I'd say passer rating is more accurate for ranking nfl qbs this year.
Chiefs haven't been great

www.espn.com

NFL Conference Passing Stat Leaders, 2025 Regular Season - ESPN

ESPN is the place for NFL stats! Discover the Offense Passing stat leaders of the 2025 NFL Regular Season.
www.espn.com www.espn.com
 
Let's see what ChatGPT has to say:



Which is the better measurement of quarterback performance, QBR or Passer Rating?

ChatGPT said:​

In short: QBR is the better measurement of quarterback performance — but the full answer depends on what you want to measure. Here’s a clear breakdown.

✅​

  • Total QBR (ESPN) is a more complete, context-adjusted measure of a QB’s overall impact on winning.
  • NFL Passer Rating is a very limited, outdated, and context-free statistic that only measures passing efficiency.
For evaluating overall quarterback play, QBR is better.

🏈​

Total QBR was designed to fix the limitations of Passer Rating. It incorporates:

✔ 1.​

QBR weighs plays based on:

  • Down & distance
  • Game situation
  • Score
  • Opponent strength
A 12-yard completion on 3rd-and-10 counts far more than a 12-yard completion on 3rd-and-20 during garbage time.

✔ 2.​

It separates:

  • Receiver YAC
  • Protection quality
  • Play design
This means it attempts to isolate what the quarterback actually contributed.

✔ 3.​

QBR includes:

  • Scrambles
  • Designed QB runs
  • Sacks
  • Fumbles
  • Penalties attributable to the QB
Passer Rating ignores all of these.

✔ 4.​

  • QBR: 0 to 100
  • Passer Rating: 0 to 158.3, a weird historical artifact with no intuitive meaning.

🏈​

Passer Rating only looks at:

  • Completion %
  • Yards per attempt
  • TDs
  • INTs
It ignores:

  • Running
  • Sacks
  • Fumbles
  • Pressures
  • Game context
  • Garbage time padding
  • Difficulty of throws
  • Expected points
So a QB can get a high passer rating by throwing screens all day.

📊​

Passer Rating is:

  • Consistent across eras (sort of)
  • Simple to compute
  • Widely understood historically
For quick comparisons within the passing game only, it still has some value.

⭐​

If you want to evaluate how well a QB actually played and how much they contributed to winning, use QBR.
If you want a simple snapshot of pure passing efficiency, use Passer Rating.

If you want, I can also break down EPA/play, which many analysts (especially in analytics circles) consider even better than QBR for evaluating QB performance.
 
daqman said:
they're both bad qb's. not much difference between the two.
Click to expand...
That's kinda like saying a pitcher with a 5.0 ERA isn't different than a pitcher with an 8.0 ERA because they're both bad, despite clear evidence that they're 3 runs worse over the course of a game. That's not a justification for ignoring drastic differences.
 
BCSooners said:
One has Mahomes as the 2nd best QB in the league. The other has him 14th, behind Jacoby Brissett. I'll let you decide where he is more accurately ranked. This is NFL too where the level of competition in schedules is way more balanced than college.
Click to expand...

There are definitely issues with QBR, but I can't understand why anybody would use passer rating over it, outside of simply not knowing the difference.

One of my bigger gripes with QBR is that it doesn't account well for supporting cast including playcaller. Brock Purdy was #1 and then dropped 8-10 spots after injuries to key players last season. It's a great stat to track how somebody performed, but doesn't necessarily tell you who is truly better.

So one could argue that Mateer has a better playcaller and his WRs are healthier, but Arnolds Auburn stats put a dagger in that hypothesis. Arnold has had a year to develop, better playcaller, and WR talent we drooled over, yet he only cut the gap in half. He went from 16th in the SEC to 15th and still trails Mateer considerably.
 
Eielson said:
That's kinda like saying a pitcher with a 5.0 ERA isn't different than a pitcher with an 8.0 ERA because they're both bad, despite clear evidence that they're 3 runs worse over the course of a game. That's not a justification for ignoring drastic differences.
Click to expand...

no...it's kinda like saying rosie odonnell and whoopie goldberg are both ugly...
and you trying to convince everyone one is actually prettier based on some silly stat
 
Eielson said:
That's kinda like saying a pitcher with a 5.0 ERA isn't different than a pitcher with an 8.0 ERA because they're both bad, despite clear evidence that they're 3 runs worse over the course of a game. That's not a justification for ignoring drastic differences.
Click to expand...
i don't think a qbr of 57 is a drastic difference than a qbr of 67. Especially considering the experience factor

neither one is acceptable for what OU needs.
If it was we wouldn't have gotten rid of arnold because he showed high qbrs at the end of the year.

Bottom line is both metrics have flaws. A qb can have a high qbr but be a really bad passer
 
SoonerBounce13 said:
i don't think a qbr of 57 is a drastic difference than a qbr of 67. Especially considering the experience factor

neither one is acceptable for what OU needs.
If it was we wouldn't have gotten rid of arnold because he showed high qbrs at the end of the year.

Bottom line is both metrics have flaws. A qb can have a high qbr but be a really bad passer
Click to expand...

Yes of course, no criteria is perfect -- I have said as much on this page of this thread. But what do you propose we use instead? Eye test of casual basketball fans is the absolute worst criteria being discussed currently.

A QBR difference of 57 vs 67 is the difference 78th vs 46th best in the country. Going from 67 to 77 takes you from 46th to 20th. Add another 10 to QBR and you go from 20th to top 5.

A QBR improvement of 10 is a big difference. A difference of 20 is astronomical, which is what we're talking about. Arnold's QBR was 47 last year, which was dead last in conference.

If you want to debate if Mateer is good enough for our program, sure, I get that. But if you want to say that Arnold was comparable last year to Mateer, then you're simple ignoring all data in front of you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
Question for the Board
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
BoulderSooner
BoulderSooner
C
Terminate Men's Basketball until a New Stadium Built
Replies
12
Views
1K
cowboysooner
C
O
Is This Rock Bottom For the Program?
8 9 10
Replies
183
Views
12K
AnotherSoonerInTX
A
Sooner04
A Rainy Night in Fort Worth
2 3
Replies
51
Views
5K
mict085
mict085
J
Realistic timeline on transfers
Replies
9
Views
4K
WichitaSooner
W
Back
Top