Football question

[WTSooner]

Don't like QBR, the same holds true for QB Rating.

Take the first 4 games and the last one against Bama, average those, and Mateer is sitting around 4-6 in the SEC. Right by Simpson and Reed, and ahead of Manning.

The way some of you talk about Mateer, I'd hate to see what you'd say about a truly bad QB like Arnold.

 

[Eielson]

It was making winning plays and rushing for 74 yards and 2 TDs vs Michigan

All I'm saying is his throwing stats, even before injury, left a lot to be desired. He wasn't in the heisman race because of his throwing stats. It was because we beat 2 top 25 teams at the time

52 carries for 176 yards. Those are his rushing numbers for the 4 games in question. A lot of key runs that helped, but that's not earth-shattering, and even if it was, I don't see why it matters if we got 12 yards on a pass play vs run. It's still 12 yards.

There are so many things that make QBR a better statistics than a simple stat from 1973 like passer effiency, with rushing being only one of them, which is relatively small in this case. Though passer efficiency also clearly went down after injury, so take your pick.

 

[SoonerDutch]

I can see some pushback on QBR if looking specifically at ”passing” but again relying on completion % or TD/INT ratios is just as bad IMO since it’s unadjusted for context/competition. But again, criticizing a more encompassing stat as meaningless to the discussion about QB play because it’s broad seems like a fool’s errand.

If people want to trash Mateer’s mechanics, I mean go ahead (they clearly can be improved and are not textbook) although I think the consensus from the media and scouts is higher than “bad.” He’s also undeniably on the short-end of what one would want as a QB.

But again, still think he’s the best option OU had at QB given the market and their overall roster needs (which is the most important question IMO).