[SirClintonPortis]

Originally Posted by Mechanix544

This thing is too open to opinion. I think you lose too much in translation, and with 4 different people, you get 4 different ratings. I just think that the regular Quarterback rating is fine. I mean, if your QB had a game of over 80, he did well. If its 95 or over, he did damn well. and if its over 110, then he rocked the shit.

Like I said, this doesnt take into account responsibility for sacks, and for fumbles, two of the biggest things a quarterback does other than throw and make reads. Just a little too unsure of the whole process in which they get the numbers. The regular rating works for me, its an easy overall barometer, and you dont have to wait a full day so a panel can "look through the tape and make their determinations." The old rating is not perfect by any stretch, but I think I like it a little better, maybe its the comfort factor and Im just not used to the QBR, but something is telling me that I'll prefer the old tried and true method over this new one when it comes down to it. Its nice to have another gauge, but I prefer the old one.

The old passer rating is turrible and in need of its own Lucas Critique. Four factors go into its calculation. Completion %, Yards/att, TD/att, and INT/att. It ignores a shitload of data. Actually, once you think about it, it's basically fantasy football scoring except it has completion percentage and the weights are different for each category.