Jump to content

Jets vs. Chiefs - Game Thread


Recommended Posts

 
  • Replies 129
  • Created
  • Last Reply
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

I'm usually the one that complains about the ESPN QBR rating, but I'm here to complain about the traditional quarterback rating. How in the world can you throw 20 for 44, 188 yards with a 4.3 yards per attempt average and six interceptions with no touchdowns and still get 18.2? I really think you should get a zero for that. The obvious answer is because he attempted 44 passes and "only" got six of them intercepted. It is something to do with the high volume of passes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
 

I'm usually the one that complains about the ESPN QBR rating, but I'm here to complain about the traditional quarterback rating. How in the world can you throw 20 for 44, 188 yards with a 4.3 yards per attempt average and six interceptions with no touchdowns and still get 18.2? I really think you should get a zero for that. The obvious answer is because he attempted 44 passes and "only" got six of them intercepted. It is something to do with the high volume of passes.

About passer rating:

 

It's made up of four "tests" with a minimum number of 0 and a maximum number of 2.375. The four tests get added together, and then that total is multiplied by 16.667.

If you complete anywhere between 0% and 30% of your passes, you get zero points on that test.

If your average yards per pass attempt is less than 3, you get zero points on that test.

If you register no touchdown completions, you get zero points on that test.

If you register one touchdown for roughly every 10.5 pass attempts, you get zero points on that test.

 

A qualified 0.0 Passer Rating is extremely uncommon. Because nothing less than a zero is added from each of the four tests, a quarterback has to complete an unusually low percentage of passes for an unusually low amount of yards. If he gets as much as one passing touchdown, the Passer Rating will be higher than 0.0. There also aren't a ton of quarterbacks that will throw an interception once out of every ten passes.

 

That being said, you can see a stat line with 6 interceptions and know that you can skip Passer Rating altogether.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

About passer rating:

 

It's made up of four "tests" with a minimum number of 0 and a maximum number of 2.375. The four tests get added together, and then that total is multiplied by 16.667.

If you complete anywhere between 0% and 30% of your passes, you get zero points on that test.

If your average yards per pass attempt is less than 3, you get zero points on that test.

If you register no touchdown completions, you get zero points on that test.

If you register one touchdown for roughly every 10.5 pass attempts, you get zero points on that test.

 

A qualified 0.0 Passer Rating is extremely uncommon. Because nothing less than a zero is added from each of the four tests, a quarterback has to complete an unusually low percentage of passes for an unusually low amount of yards. If he gets as much as one passing touchdown, the Passer Rating will be higher than 0.0. There also aren't a ton of quarterbacks that will throw an interception once out of every ten passes.

 

That being said, you can see a stat line with 6 interceptions and know that you can skip Passer Rating altogether.

Thanks. It was a rhetorical question questioning the rating (to be fair since I always the QBSR Rating), but it's good to have it broken down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'm watching the game right now on NFL gameplay. There was a play were Ware appeared to have scored a TD, but it was reversed, and the Jets got the ball at the twenty-yard line. I didn't understand that call at all, and it wasn't discussed that much. I understand them not counting it as a TD, but don't understand why the Jets got the ball back. Even if it was third down I don't understand it. 

 

I'm guessing you all may have already discussed this, I've only read the last few pages of this thread. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'm watching the game right now on NFL gameplay. There was a play were Ware appeared to have scored a TD, but it was reversed, and the Jets got the ball at the twenty-yard line. I didn't understand that call at all, and it wasn't discussed that much. I understand them not counting it as a TD, but don't understand why the Jets got the ball back. Even if it was third down I don't understand it. 

 

I'm guessing you all may have already discussed this, I've only read the last few pages of this thread. 

If a ball is fumbled out of the end zone it is a touch back and placed at the 20. He was losing possession but the ball was inside the pile on so basically he fumbled the ball out of the end zone. Though bizarre and frustrating, it was the correct call

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If a ball is fumbled out of the end zone it is a touch back and placed at the 20. He was losing possession but the ball was inside the pile on so basically he fumbled the ball out of the end zone. Though bizarre and frustrating, it was the correct call

Correct call under the rule, but I agree that it's a bad rule.  If the ball is fumbled out of bounds at the one, the team retains possession.  If it's advanced one more yard before going out, the other team gets the ball at the twenty.  Too much difference for a ball fumbled in the corner.  In this example, if Ware had not reached for the pylon, the Chiefs might have retained the ball at the six inch line.  I'd like to see the rule changed to giving the team back the ball where the fumble occurs.  If Ware started to fumble at the three, give the ball back to the Chiefs there unless the Jets recover it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Correct call under the rule, but I agree that it's a bad rule.  If the ball is fumbled out of bounds at the one, the team retains possession.  If it's advanced one more yard before going out, the other team gets the ball at the twenty.  Too much difference for a ball fumbled in the corner.  In this example, if Ware had not reached for the pylon, the Chiefs might have retained the ball at the six inch line.  I'd like to see the rule changed to giving the team back the ball where the fumble occurs.  If Ware started to fumble at the three, give the ball back to the Chiefs there unless the Jets recover it.

Or instead of changing the rule on fumbles and touchbacks, maybe he should just hold on to the ball the next time.

 

That being said, if the ball is knocked out of a player's possession by the ground after contact by an opposing player, the play is blown dead. I'm not sure why the ground can't force a fumble, but a pylon can. I strongly believe that if there was no pylon, Ware would have held onto the ball as he hit the ground out of bounds. The pylon's there to help the officials do their job, but in this case, the pylon finished off the defensive stop started by Marcus Gilchrist. Following contact by Gilchrist, Ware reestablished a firm grip on the ball as he was airborne, and only when his elbows flexed underneath the upper plane of the toppled pylon did the ball come loose. The rule that allowed that should be changed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
 

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
  • Create New...