I can't see him being the starter again in 2015. If me I go with Fitz if he's healthy. We have a better chance to win this year with him. No more developmental BS. This isn't the FXFL.
"When the formula was first created, a 66.7 rating indicated an average performance, and a 100+ rating indicated an excellent performance.[3] However, passing performance has improved steadily since then and in 2008 the league average rating was 83.2.[4]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passer_rating
So naive looking at QB rating to determine how good a quarterback is. Can't think for yourself? Default to QB rating lol. _
This doesn't help the case. It doesn't matter what the creators of the stat had in mind when they were making the formula; we only care about what's happening in reality. If the other 31 QB's in the NFL were all posting 120 passer ratings and Geno had a 66.7, he wouldn't be 'average' just because that's what the formula intended to standardize, he'd be atrocious because he was almost 60 points below all of the other quarterbacks. As the other poster mentioned, the average passer rating for NFL quarterbacks has typically hovered around high 80s to low 90s in recent years, Geno posting in the 70s is thus below average.
Yes, that's exciting ... except if you go to last year's statistics and look up passer rating ... the middle ground between the 16th best QB and the 17th best QB is 89.8. That's a league-average starting quarterback rating. 16. Joe Flacco 91.0 17. Jay Cutler 88.6 ... 29. Geno Smith 77.5
Did you drop out of school? You just dismiss all facts and knowledge, unless you thought of it yourself. Your motto seems to be "screw the facts, just listen to what I have to say just because I said so". Derp.
No, actually what that would mean, in your example, is that there are 31 elite franchise QB's in the NFL, and one average QB. Elite, average, or poor are not functions of the quality of the pool of QB's in the league at any given time; they are objective measures, they indicate a certain absolute quality for the player. In other words. 45 TD, 7 INT, 4500 yards passing is always elite, regardless of how many QB's post those kinds of stats in a given year. And 16 TD, 27 INT with 2500 yards passing is always piss poor, even if the top QB's in a given year post stats like that. I know that, technically speaking, that's not how you define a mathematical average. But in sports, when you talk about a player being an "average QB", you are talking about the quality of the play of that QB, regardless of how the other 31 QB's are doing at that given point in time. I know the game has changed some over the years, but roughly speaking, you can tell when you're watching an average QB, even if you know nothing about the rest of the QB's in the league.
No, adjectives like "average" are always relative. By its own nature, it must be relative because average is more specifically the arithmetic mean of a data sample. You can't say that an observation is "average" if it is simultaneously a low outlier. The words "elite", "average" and "poor" are all relative terms that require you to take the other observations into account. I think you're getting confused with ESPN's Total QBR (a bullshit stat). It is standardized so that the average QBR is always the same, so a rating of 50 can always be considered "average" no matter how the other quarterbacks in the league are performing.
I changed my post above to answer your first objection.....basically, when we use terms like "average" or "elite" in sports to describe a player, we are not talking about mathematical average (mean), or statistics. Throwing 5 touchdowns in a game is always outstanding, regardless of how many other QB's did the same thing that week. And why do you call ESPN's Total QBR a "bullshit stat"? Isn't that an objective, unbiased, scientific measure of the quality of play of a QB in a given year?
I understand that in theory 5 touchdowns should always be an 'outstanding' feat but the league is so dynamic that you can't assume constancy like that. So many factors change overtime, like the rules defending QBs/receivers, defensive and offensive schemes and even the ball size. An 'average' QB performance now is drastically better than what it was decades ago.
That's true. ..... I think we're splitting hairs here a little bit. Ultimately I think we're all speaking the same language when we describe these QB's. Of course people will have different opinions on players, but I think we understand the terminology we use to describe them for the most part.
You couldn't throw a dead cat and not hit one of my post graduate degrees. I don't need to boast about being top 5 in my HIGH SCHOOL class because, while incredibly impressive, it is also incredibly embarrassing that that use what you can brag about. You're a sheep that can't think for himself. Go google something to back up the position you can't defend for yourself, child. _
You should do some research on ESPN's "QBR". It is anything BUT objective, unbiased and scientific. Having said that, your concept of "unbiased" differs from every other adult football fan and your understanding of the term "scientific" is LOLworthy. _
Once again, nothing but empty insults .... but when you say that ESPN's QBR is "anything BUT objective, unbiased, and scientific", your use of caps there really drives your point home, shouting at me will talk some sense into me lol! Nevermind that you don't even give one reason to support what you say....are you in the hot air balloon business? You claim you have "post graduate degrees", but how did you get those degrees....by ignoring the "talking points" of your professor "elders" and just making up your own opinions about everything? I mean, if you just recited the facts that your professors fed you, then that makes you nothing but a sheep too, according to your logic. Opinions that are not supported by facts are meaningless, everyone knows that. And there's really no such thing as an "original opinion" when you think about it, because every opinion is based on something...but when you don't explain your opinions and just hurl empty insults and declarations, then that's the very definition of blowing hot air. Which is pretty much all you do on this board Stokes. And if that's not bad enough, you have the nerve to insult others who actually form educated opinions and back up their claims with something substantial. For someone who claims to have "Post graduate degrees", you sure don't act like it.
Judging by QBR Smith was the 29th worst out of 30 rated QBs last year. Period. Bottom Line. Not even close to average. His good games in no way outnumbered his bad ones. He'll obviously get his shot again this year but just shut up trying to prove he was any good the last 2 years because he wasn't. http://espn.go.com/nfl/qbr
