• Please be aware we've switched the forums to their own URL. (again) You'll find the new website address to be www.steelernationforum.com Thanks
  • Please clear your private messages. Your inbox is close to being full.

The top 15 passer ratings. How many did we play?

The top NFL QB Ratings are

Tom Brady
Matt Ryan
Dak Prescott
Drew Brees
Marcus Mariota
Matthew Stafford
Derek Carr
Kirk Cousins
Ben Roethlisberger
Aaron Rodgers
Brian Hoyer
Sam Bradford
Andrew Luck
Russell Wilson
Philip Rivers

I find it odd we only played two of them this late in the season. Cousins had an off day in the opener and a rookie lit the Steelers up for 35 points. Brady ripped us as usual. So while the Defense is getting better, we really didn't play many top QB so far.

Ike Kelly says: If you are trying to provide a sample size of top 15 QB ratings, give the sample size for each week after Week 1. Then collate the number of top 15 QBs opponents then. Because the sample size changes each week that is played.

Otherwise, all you are providing is a list for one given week. Or basically, incomplete data to base an opinion.
Click to expand...

Well, Ike, the bigger the sample size in games played, the more defined the top 15 passer ratings are. Up next is Buffalo, Cincinnati, Baltimore, and Clevland. So as of right now we will only play 3 of the top 15 QB's in football in 16 games played. WOW. But let's see how they pan out over the 4 games, the list could change if Flacco rates. Wouldn't that make you feel better :)

My point stands, our schedule in terms of playing good QB's has been remarkable thin.
 
Coach said:
The top NFL QB Ratings are

Tom Brady
Matt Ryan
Dak Prescott
Drew Brees
Marcus Mariota
Matthew Stafford
Derek Carr
Kirk Cousins
Ben Roethlisberger
Aaron Rodgers
Brian Hoyer
Sam Bradford
Andrew Luck
Russell Wilson
Philip Rivers

I find it odd we only played two of them this late in the season. Cousins had an off day in the opener and a rookie lit the Steelers up for 35 points. Brady ripped us as usual. So while the Defense is getting better, we really didn't play many top QB so far.



Well, Ike, the bigger the sample size in games played, the more defined the top 15 passer ratings are. Up next is Buffalo, Cincinnati, Baltimore, and Clevland. So as of right now we will only play 3 of the top 15 QB's in football in 16 games played. WOW. But let's see how they pan out over the 4 games, the list could change if Flacco rates. Wouldn't that make you feel better :)

My point stands, our schedule in terms of playing good QB's has been remarkable thin.
Click to expand...

But your point is incomplete. The QB rating is not an all-inclusive stat that shows how good the QB and/or team is. do you, REALLY, think 8 QB's are better than Ben? do you REALLY think Hoyer is a top 15 QB? Look at the two examples I showed, for God's sake. Those are clear examples of why your premise is flawed.

A false premise is an incorrect proposition that forms the basis of an argument or syllogism. Since the premise (proposition, or assumption) is not correct, the conclusion drawn may be in error. However, the logical validity of an argument is a function of its internal consistency, not the truth value of its premises.
For example, consider this syllogism, which involves an obvious false premise:
<dl><dd>
  • If the streets are wet, it has rained recently. (premise)
  • The streets are wet. (premise)
  • Therefore it has rained recently. (conclusion)
</dd></dl>This argument is logically valid, but quite demonstrably wrong, because its first premise is false
 
ark steel said:
But your point is incomplete. The QB rating is not an all-inclusive stat that shows how good the QB and/or team is. do you, REALLY, think 8 QB's are better than Ben? do you REALLY think Hoyer is a top 15 QB? Look at the two examples I showed, for God's sake. Those are clear examples of why your premise is flawed.

A false premise is an incorrect proposition that forms the basis of an argument or syllogism. Since the premise (proposition, or assumption) is not correct, the conclusion drawn may be in error. However, the logical validity of an argument is a function of its internal consistency, not the truth value of its premises.
For example, consider this syllogism, which involves an obvious false premise:
<dl><dd>
  • If the streets are wet, it has rained recently. (premise)
  • The streets are wet. (premise)
  • Therefore it has rained recently. (conclusion)
</dd></dl>This argument is logically valid, but quite demonstrably wrong, because its first premise is false
Click to expand...

Hoyer was off to a good start until hurt. Any list used you can claim is incorrect.

So let's do this, come up with your own top 15 QB's. List them here. Then we'll see how many we played. And please do not put Flacco or Dalton on that list! My point which will stand is we haven't played many of them, and other teams, in general, have played more.

With the data coming from you, it will be modus tollens! Or you can argue with yourself, which would be rather funny, You're move...I'll check back in to see if your game.
 
Last edited:
Your stats are skewed.

Here are the top most prolific passers.

http://www.nfl.com/stats/categoryst...263-s=PASSING_YARDS&d-447263-o=2&d-447263-n=1

Cousins is 3rd, with over 3,800 passing yards.
Dalton is 4th.
Flacco is 8th.
Manning is 14th, and you claimed he was this just terrible, horrid QB. He has more yards than Ben does.

You act like we have only played the very worst QBs in the NFL and that is just not true.

Oh wait, I only left the best QB to ever play off that list: Brady. Yea, we haven't played any good QBs this season.
 
Last edited:
Coach said:
Hoyer was off to a good start until hurt. Any list used you can claim is incorrect.

So let's do this, come up with your own top 15 QB's. List them here. Then we'll see how many we played. And please do not put Flacco or Dalton on that list! My point which will stand is we haven't played many of them, and other teams, in general, have played more.

With the data coming from you, it will be modus tollens! Or you can argue with yourself, which would be rather funny, You're move...I'll check back in to see if your game.
Click to expand...

So what is your point? Do you think anyone here thinks our defense is great or something? Probably just so you can say Davis sucks or something. Kind sad really if that is the case.
 
POP said:
Thank God I took a major that didn't require that class. It ended my one buddy's stab at a degree and almost thwarted my nephew's, who took it three times.
Click to expand...

Man, I SWEATED through that class and walked into the final with cold chills ... Was lucky to get a C - and not have to retake it as it was among the classes I took my last semester. Kept putting it off because of the horror stories (and they were all true ... lol).
 
SteelBuckeye said:
Man, I SWEATED through that class and walked into the final with cold chills ... Was lucky to get a C - and not have to retake it as it was among the classes I took my last semester. Kept putting it off because of the horror stories (and they were all true ... lol).
Click to expand...

It is known to be brutal, just so glad I avoided ALL math for entire college career. I aced my entrance tests on math and chose a major and minor that required no math, chemistry, etc.
 
Coach said:
Hoyer was off to a good start until hurt. Any list used you can claim is incorrect.

So let's do this, come up with your own top 15 QB's. List them here. Then we'll see how many we played. And please do not put Flacco or Dalton on that list! My point which will stand is we haven't played many of them, and other teams, in general, have played more.

With the data coming from you, it will be modus tollens! Or you can argue with yourself, which would be rather funny, You're move...I'll check back in to see if your game.
Click to expand...

Except that the whole point is that, the QB rating, regardless of how you rank them, does NOT determine anything other than, well, anything. I showed you some outside of the top 15 that had pretty good ratings in games other than against the Steelers (there were some with better ratings against the Steelers, too). A thinking person might consider this more rational discussion than using the season QB rating as some sort of all-in stat.

We know your game is to discredit the team's Defense, just like last year the mantra was "we faced 7 back up QB's!!", it now must change since that hasn't happened this year. Something else must be up. "We faced only 2 top QB with ratings QB's in the top 15!". The stat you are using doesn't reinforce the conclusion we know you want to reach. Hence, the "False Premise" definition.

The next 4 in your "top 15" are Dalton, Kessler, Smith, and Tannehill. I think we played all four. But if Dalton is 16th why would "And please do not put Flacco or Dalton on that list" apply? Dalton is 0.4 QB Rating behind #15, for ***** sake.

Think through the point you are trying to make. For example, you show Baltimore played 4 of the top rated QB's.

Carr: Best QB rating for any game this year 123.40 vs.....Baltimore. Baltimore lost.
Cousins: Has had 7 games with 97+ ratings. Against Baltimore, he had 85.4. Against the Steelers he had 72.7 (poo-poo'ed as an off day by him and team, though) Baltimore lost.
Ben: Very poor outing by Ben (although if we want to look for excuses, he was coming off of an injury) with his third lowest rating of the season. Baltimore won.
Dak: Having a phenominal rookie season. 10 of 12 games he has a 100+ rating. His best was 141.8 vs Cleveland. Second best was 127.2...vs Baltimore. Baltimore lost.
 
POP said:
Thank God I took a major that didn't require that class. It ended my one buddy's stab at a degree and almost thwarted my nephew's, who took it three times.
Click to expand...

SteelBuckeye said:
Man, I SWEATED through that class and walked into the final with cold chills ... Was lucky to get a C - and not have to retake it as it was among the classes I took my last semester. Kept putting it off because of the horror stories (and they were all true ... lol).
Click to expand...

*******
 
Coach said:
Well, Ike, the bigger the sample size in games played, the more defined the top 15 passer ratings are. Up next is Buffalo, Cincinnati, Baltimore, and Clevland. So as of right now we will only play 3 of the top 15 QB's in football in 16 games played. WOW. But let's see how they pan out over the 4 games, the list could change if Flacco rates. Wouldn't that make you feel better :)

My point stands, our schedule in terms of playing good QB's has been remarkable thin.
Click to expand...

While Ark gave a nice explanation in how you provide a conclusion to you statement, lets make this simpler for you to understand, in regards to your QB list.

This list you are using is not static, it is fluid in where QBs are after each week played. Therefore your conclusion is wrong, because your data is incomplete. What one QB rating for one week is may be different for another opponent on a different week. You can't use Brady for weeks 1 - 3 because he was suspended. Therefore, your top 15 for those weeks would not include him. But, allowed another player to be included for those three weeks. This list you use changes week to week, and you have to account for this variation if you are going to compile raw data into a format that measures the value data 1-15, through each week played. So simply get your list of top 15 QBs for each week 1 - 13. Then calculate accordingly how your point stands.

Oh, by the way.....please enthrall us with your acumen in how this list was formulated. Because there are many different categories as to list "good" (ambiguous as that term is) QB's in competition. We won't even discuss tendencies analysis or situational outcomes for productivity.


Sent from my iPad using Steeler Nation mobile app
 
Last edited:
So let's do this, come up with your own top 15 QB's. List them here. Then we'll see how many we played. And please do not put Flacco or Dalton on that list! My point which will stand is we haven't played many of them, and other teams, in general, have played more.

With the data coming from you, it will be modus tollens! Or you can argue with yourself, which would be rather funny, You're move...I'll check back in to see if your game.

ark steel said:
Except that the whole point is that, the QB rating, regardless of how you rank them, does NOT determine anything other than, well, anything. I showed you some outside of the top 15 that had pretty good ratings in games other than against the Steelers (there were some with better ratings against the Steelers, too). A thinking person might consider this more rational discussion than using the season QB rating as some sort of all-in stat.

We know your game is to discredit the team's Defense, just like last year the mantra was "we faced 7 back up QB's!!", it now must change since that hasn't happened this year. Something else must be up. "We faced only 2 top QB with ratings QB's in the top 15!". The stat you are using doesn't reinforce the conclusion we know you want to reach. Hence, the "False Premise" definition.

The next 4 in your "top 15" are Dalton, Kessler, Smith, and Tannehill. I think we played all four. But if Dalton is 16th why would "And please do not put Flacco or Dalton on that list" apply? Dalton is 0.4 QB Rating behind #15, for ***** sake.

Think through the point you are trying to make. For example, you show Baltimore played 4 of the top rated QB's.

Carr: Best QB rating for any game this year 123.40 vs.....Baltimore. Baltimore lost.
Cousins: Has had 7 games with 97+ ratings. Against Baltimore, he had 85.4. Against the Steelers he had 72.7 (poo-poo'ed as an off day by him and team, though) Baltimore lost.
Ben: Very poor outing by Ben (although if we want to look for excuses, he was coming off of an injury) with his third lowest rating of the season. Baltimore won.
Dak: Having a phenominal rookie season. 10 of 12 games he has a 100+ rating. His best was 141.8 vs Cleveland. Second best was 127.2...vs Baltimore. Baltimore lost.
Click to expand...

Is asking for you to list the top 15 QB's to in your opinion too much? I guess so, your one move away from checkmate and you know it!

I'll ask one more time for you to produce it.

Also, this is not my list, I can find others. The common theme, we have played less top QB's in comparison to most teams. It's as simple as that.
 
Last edited:
Well, Ike, the bigger the sample size in games played, the more defined the top 15 passer ratings are. Up next is Buffalo, Cincinnati, Baltimore, and Clevland. So as of right now we will only play 3 of the top 15 QB's in football in 16 games played. WOW. But let's see how they pan out over the 4 games, the list could change if Flacco rates. Wouldn't that make you feel better :)

My point stands, our schedule in terms of playing good QB's has been remarkable thin.

Ike Kelly said:
While Ark gave a nice explanation in how you provide a conclusion to you statement, lets make this simpler for you to understand, in regards to your QB list.

This list you are using is not static, it is fluid in where QBs are after each week played. Therefore your conclusion is wrong, because your data is incomplete. What one QB rating for one week is may be different for another opponent on a different week. You can't use Brady for weeks 1 - 3 because he was suspended. Therefore, your top 15 for those weeks would not include him. But, allowed another player to be included for those three weeks. This list you use changes week to week, and you have to account for this variation if you are going to compile raw data into a format that measures the value data 1-15, through each week played. So simply get your list of top 15 QBs for each week 1 - 13. Then calculate accordingly how your point stands.

Oh, by the way.....please enthrall us with your acumen in how this list was formulated. Because there are many different categories as to list "good" (ambiguous as that term is) QB's in competition. We won't even discuss tendencies analysis or situational outcomes for productivity.


Sent from my iPad using Steeler Nation mobile app
Click to expand...

The link

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/stats/b...me=ToDate&qualified=1&sort=49&old_category=QB

I took the top 15 QB's from it. It's called a QB rating, while not perfect the best players are often at the top and the worst at the bottom.

The data given was from 12 games played. Yes, it can change week to week, but what's your point. So can your weight. I'm talking as of right now based on the QB's rating we haven't played many top QB's.

That is the fact. When someone has to go way off target, to me is enforced my point as they do not ever dare debate it.

But just for you, I can re-create this thread when the season is over as the sample ( 16 games ) will be even bigger, and I might. :)
 
Coach said:
Is asking for you to list the top 15 QB's to in your opinion too much? I guess so, your one move away from checkmate and you know it!

I'll ask one more time for you to produce it.

Also, this is not my list, I can find others. The common theme, we have played less top QB's in comparison to most teams. It's as simple as that.
Click to expand...

I don't need to produce it because, regardless of what it includes, how many we played does not lead to the conclusion you want to reach.

What is simple is that, once again, you take a stat about which you think you understand some implications, and show that you, indeed, do not. Instead of just taking a statistic, think about the things that go into it. Does it, really, tell the whole story? Typically, one stat will not do so.

Here is a stat for you: The team is 7-5 with a decent shot at winning the division. In the end, they may falter. If they falter, you can come back and crow all you want about how you've been telling us all along that the D just isn't good enough.
 
ark steel said:
I don't need to produce it because, regardless of what it includes, how many we played does not lead to the conclusion you want to reach.
.
Click to expand...

You won't produce it, not because you can't but because you're buried if you do. Game over, and I'll respect you more if you play along. If someone says hey coach and I see it, I'll reply. If I ask you to do the same, you balk.

The one thing you are right about is I think the D is not good enough unless the offense scores a lot of points, or we play non top 15 type of QB's.
 
Coach said:
You won't produce it, not because you can't but because you're buried if you do. Game over, and I'll respect you more if you play along.
Click to expand...

you are deranged.

Coach said:
The one thing you are right about is I think the D is not good enough unless the offense scores a lot of points, or we play non top 15 type of QB's.
Click to expand...

The funny thing about this is that most of us don't disagree with this. In fact, Spike has been saying, since last season, I think, that the Offense needs to score 40 points a game to win. The problem is, your "proof" that the D isn't good enough, isn't what you think it is.

If you were the type of poster that would say "this is interesting, even though it, really, doesn't mean much", no one would ride your *** so hard. Instead, you skip around from stat to stat trying to "prove" something. Unfortunately, like Vis has found out several times, a lot of us aren't dummies. There MAY be some correlation, at times, but it still isn't what you think it is.

During last season or the off-season, you had a thread about the RZ D needs improved. Want to know who is #1 in RZ D, as of right now? Same team that is #2 in ppg. That sounds like acceptable Defensive results, doesn't it? Instead of being happy about the improvement, you have to find reasons it doesn't matter. Cousins had a bad game, the QB's we play haven't been good enough, blah, blah, blah.

We've only lost 1 game where the Offense scored more than 16 points. In today's NFL where most games feature a team that scores 21 or more points, your Offense can't be scoring 16 points. The D with the best ppg is Seattle with 16.2. (steelers are 7th, btw, with 19.7. Of course, we are feasting on ****** QB's, I guess.

Again, when you look at QB rating Rivers is 15th with 93.0. There are three QB's, which we have played, whose QB rating is within .5 of that rating. I'd say Dalton, and Smith are, easily, better than Hoyer, overall.
 
From the completely useless: off the top of my head my opinion of the top 15 in order would be...

Roethlisberger, Cheater McCheatsalot, Rodgers, Brees, Prescott, Carr, Ryan, Stafford, Rivers, Wilson, Cousins, Manning, Luck, Alex Smith and Winston.

We played McCheatsalot (held him below his normal pt. total), Prescott (Zeke cost us that game, Prescott was ok), Cousins (didn't do ****), Manning (didn't do ****). That's 4 of 14 since we can't play Ben or almost 29%. A team plays 13 of 32 for almost 41%.

Guess we've played under our share of my top 15 mostly because Luck dodged the Steel curtain which would've brought our total up to 36%.

Whew! This exercise really opened my eyes! Just kidding...complete sarcasm as you simply play the teams on your schedule.
 
Suppose you played 3 games and all three games the QB lit your D up with 120+ QB ratings. Based, mostly on the results of them tearing your D to shreds, they have decent games elsewhere, they are the top 3 QBs. You played the top 3 QBs!! The fact that you are the REASON they are top three is irrelevant, I guess?
 
So many things would have to go into any QB rating system to make it more of an accurate representation. None of these stats currently takes into account the skill level of the defenses played in determining a number rating. A guy can play 12 of the bottom 16 Ds in the league and have a better number facing the softer competition than a guy who has faced say 9-10 of the top 16 Ds over the course of the year.

So the bottom feeder QB playing the weak schedule (weak Ds) rates better than the guy in a tough defensive division playing last years 1 seeds vs the guy playing last years 4 seeds. None of these stats factors when a QB is missing his 2nd, 3rd and 4th wideouts for a game/games. Losing a RB and making the team more one dimensional creates yet another immeasurable. Do we throw out the garbage time stats a QB racks up because his team is down 3-4 TDs late in the game and it is basically 7-7 drills? So many factors not represented in stats.

Stats are like brothers in law...they lie.
 
Coach said:
Well, Ike, the bigger the sample size in games played, the more defined the top 15 passer ratings are. Up next is Buffalo, Cincinnati, Baltimore, and Clevland. So as of right now we will only play 3 of the top 15 QB's in football in 16 games played. WOW. But let's see how they pan out over the 4 games, the list could change if Flacco rates. Wouldn't that make you feel better :)

My point stands, our schedule in terms of playing good QB's has been remarkable thin.



The link

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/stats/b...me=ToDate&qualified=1&sort=49&old_category=QB

I took the top 15 QB's from it. It's called a QB rating, while not perfect the best players are often at the top and the worst at the bottom.

The data given was from 12 games played. Yes, it can change week to week, but what's your point. So can your weight. I'm talking as of right now based on the QB's rating we haven't played many top QB's.

That is the fact. When someone has to go way off target, to me is enforced my point as they do not ever dare debate it.

But just for you, I can re-create this thread when the season is over as the sample ( 16 games ) will be even bigger, and I might. :)
Click to expand...

So I can weigh? That's a fact? Coach, again no ill will towards you at all, but you are so in over your head that you are embarrassing yourself. "Way off target...enforced my point....do not ever dare debate it"? Lol. This isn't a debate, you think it is, but you are just plain flat out wrong in your data analysis. Compiling a list and making an opinion about that list is fine, but make sure your opinion is correlated to the data, otherwise you are just stating numbers and commenting on them with out rationalization.

You even admit you can change your data week to week, but asks what's the point?! You just proved yourself you are takin a sampling of data and using it to justify a entire calculation. The point is each week of this list, rated with imperfect analysis gives you 15 QBs. That means each week there are potentially different QBs on that list. Some stay, some fall off, some reach. The fact is the statistical tendency of your list is not set at one week in sum. It's set with all weeks in sum.

You want to bump your chest at thin air, feel free to. But you look foolish doing so.

If you want to really discuss Defensive efficiency relevant to QBs, do a true assessment with measurements from DVOA standard, which is a WEIGHTED assessment adjusted weekly and identifies the defensive values at a given period (or week). But, by all means just scrabble all list together and say this proves Coach's (fill in the bank) and make yourself feel better.


Sent from my iPad using Steeler Nation mobile app
 
Ike Kelly said:
So I can weigh? That's a fact? Coach, again no ill will towards you at all, but you are so in over your head that you are embarrassing yourself. "Way off target...enforced my point....do not ever dare debate it"? Lol. This isn't a debate, you think it is, but you are just plain flat out wrong in your data analysis. Compiling a list and making an opinion about that list is fine, but make sure your opinion is correlated to the data, otherwise you are just stating numbers and commenting on them with out rationalization.

You even admit you can change your data week to week, but asks what's the point?! You just proved yourself you are takin a sampling of data and using it to justify a entire calculation. The point is each week of this list, rated with imperfect analysis gives you 15 QBs. That means each week there are potentially different QBs on that list. Some stay, some fall off, some reach. The fact is the statistical tendency of your list is not set at one week in sum. It's set with all weeks in sum.

You want to bump your chest at thin air, feel free to. But you look foolish doing so.

If you want to really discuss Defensive efficiency relevant to QBs, do a true assessment with measurements from DVOA standard, which is a WEIGHTED assessment adjusted weekly and identifies the defensive values at a given period (or week). But, by all means just scrabble all list together and say this proves Coach's (fill in the bank) and make yourself feel better.


Sent from my iPad using Steeler Nation mobile app
Click to expand...

You miss the point. SLOWLY STATED.....We haven't played many good QB's and other teams have faced more. I'm using the QB rating system, but there are others. I'll offer you what Ark balked on. List your own top 15 QB's. And I'll still show you other teams have played more of them.

If you have to micro-analyze looking for an out on the given facts your grasping for straws that really don't stand out.

However, if you want to see Cousins QB rating in week #1, go for it. He was awful and would not rate in the top 15, and he's one of the three top QB's we played season to date using the QB rating system by the NFL.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top