Of the four QBs in the championship games

[DaveBrown74]

Wait Goff played bad ? How so? And Josh Allen wasn't good? 3TDs and 75 rushing yards in a play off game is bad. But he should have thrown it underneath instead his left tackle bumped into him while trying to throw a TD to an open receiver. 

I wouldn't say "bad" but I wouldn't say great either. He had a number of errant throws (including a wide open TD pass) with minimal to zero pressure on him. He also had an unstoppable running game to lean on, which makes it easier to throw the ball as you're going to face more favorable defensive looks when your RBs are going off. I thought he was ok. He didn't turn it over and he had a solid completion rate. But let's face facts - the Lions jumped all over the 9ers early with their running game, and then they were basically shut out after that. The passing TD to get to 31 total points was made when the game was pretty much over (they would have needed an onside kick to even have a chance of tying it in regulation, and onside kicks hit  5% of the time now or less).

I thought Allen played very well last week but I'm not sure why we're talking about him.

[ozzie]

Disagree. Purdy was a pure winner I'm the second half.

I agree. I thought Purdy was very impressive in the second half. He made plays with both his arm and his legs. I'm sure everyone was counting SF out after the first half, but Purdy would not be denied. He took some big hits too, but just kept on coming and getting the job done.

[MightyGiants]

To add context, I figured it would be worth giving grades


PFF

Purdy- 72.4  (which is a little above average)
Goff- 73.3 (which is a little above average)
Jackon- 61.7 (which is low average)
Mahommes- 86.0 (which is excellent)

QB ratings

Mahommes- 100.5 (good)
Jackson- 75.5 (mediocre)
Purdy- 89.0 (okay)
Goff-  88.8 (okay)

QBR

Purdy-  88.1 (good)
Goff- 59.9 (moderate)
Jackson- 42.9 (mediocre)
Mahommes 91.1 (good)

[uconnjack8]

Rich,

I thought that 42.9 for Jackson was a poor number being that 50 is average on that scale (at least I thought). 

Certainly those of us who thought Jackson did not look good are backed up by these numbers regardless of that label of the grade.  His QBR for the 2023 regular season was 64.7, so definitely not up to his own standards.

[Ed Vette]

Mahomes finally has an elite Defense. When it's all said and done he's going to have something to say about GOAT.

Could not have had a better matchup for the SB this year. Good for the networks, sponsors and the NFL. They couldn't have planned it better. Lol

[MightyGiants]

I know a lot of people disagreed with my assessment (that only Mahommes had impressed), and the others left a lot of plays on the field).  I will clarify that I think you want a QB who has their best performances on the biggest stages (like Eli for example).

[katkavage]

Rich,

I thought that 42.9 for Jackson was a poor number being that 50 is average on that scale (at least I thought). 

Certainly those of us who thought Jackson did not look good are backed up by these numbers regardless of that label of the grade.  His QBR for the 2023 regular season was 64.7, so definitely not up to his own standards.

If you need numbers to tell you what your own experienced eyes can see clearly, there is a problem. These are tough playoff games. This is not a regular season game like Detroit playing Minnesota in game three. These games are about going to the Super Bowl. I thought three of the four QBs rose to the level of the games they were in. Purdy, with his acumen, his swagger in the second half using his legs on big plays, showed what winning QB play is all about. Goff can't run, never could. He needs that great offensive line he has. But yes he might have missed a few when pressured, but he also hit a few receivers in the numbers and they didn't catch them. Are those perfect passes figured into the ratings? Again, I'll say nothing about Mahomes because there is no one better when you need a big play. And even if he struggled most of the game, he will find that big play and get the win for you.

[MightyGiants]

If you need numbers to tell you what your own experienced eyes can see clearly, there is a problem. These are tough playoff games. This is not a regular season game like Detroit playing Minnesota in game three. These games are about going to the Super Bowl. I thought three of the four QBs rose to the level of the games they were in. Purdy, with his acumen, his swagger in the second half using his legs on big plays, showed what winning QB play is all about. Goff can't run, never could. He needs that great offensive line he has. But yes he might have missed a few when pressured, but he also hit a few receivers in the numbers and they didn't catch them. Are those perfect passes figured into the ratings? Again, I'll say nothing about Mahomes because there is no one better when you need a big play. And even if he struggled most of the game, he will find that big play and get the win for you.

Numbers can make sure your eyes aren't playing tricks on you.

[katkavage]

Numbers can make sure your eyes aren't playing tricks on you.

The only numbers I concern myself with is the score.

[uconnjack8]

If you need numbers to tell you what your own experienced eyes can see clearly, there is a problem. These are tough playoff games. This is not a regular season game like Detroit playing Minnesota in game three. These games are about going to the Super Bowl. I thought three of the four QBs rose to the level of the games they were in. Purdy, with his acumen, his swagger in the second half using his legs on big plays, showed what winning QB play is all about. Goff can't run, never could. He needs that great offensive line he has. But yes he might have missed a few when pressured, but he also hit a few receivers in the numbers and they didn't catch them. Are those perfect passes figured into the ratings? Again, I'll say nothing about Mahomes because there is no one better when you need a big play. And even if he struggled most of the game, he will find that big play and get the win for you.

Sometimes our eyes can get focused on a one or two big plays that stick in our mind and overshadow other plays that may have contributed to winning or losing in a less glaring way.

And I would say for two of the three metrics that Rich posted, the perfect passes are included.  I have never been a fan of QB rating because it only looks at very basic data (completion %, TDs, INTs), unlike QBR that has a much more in depth look at every play.

I don't know, but wouldn't be surprised if one of the halftime adjustments that was made for SF was telling Purdy to look to run when he saw man coverage.  Those runs btw, are part of both QBR and PFF's ratings. I was surprised Purdy's QBR was as high as it was because of the way the 1st half played out. 

[MightyGiants]

Sometimes our eyes can get focused on a one or two big plays that stick in our mind and overshadow other plays that may have contributed to winning or losing in a less glaring way.

And I would say for two of the three metrics that Rich posted, the perfect passes are included.  I have never been a fan of QB rating because it only looks at very basic data (completion %, TDs, INTs), unlike QBR that has a much more in depth look at every play.

I don't know, but wouldn't be surprised if one of the halftime adjustments that was made for SF was telling Purdy to look to run when he saw man coverage.  Those runs btw, are part of both QBR and PFF's ratings. I was surprised Purdy's QBR was as high as it was because of the way the 1st half played out. 

Matt,

QB ratings are still considered by NFL teams.  I play quite a bit with numbers and sorting QBs by QB rating will almost always push the elite ones to the top.

[katkavage]

Sometimes our eyes can get focused on a one or two big plays that stick in our mind and overshadow other plays that may have contributed to winning or losing in a less glaring way.

And I would say for two of the three metrics that Rich posted, the perfect passes are included.  I have never been a fan of QB rating because it only looks at very basic data (completion %, TDs, INTs), unlike QBR that has a much more in depth look at every play.

I don't know, but wouldn't be surprised if one of the halftime adjustments that was made for SF was telling Purdy to look to run when he saw man coverage.  Those runs btw, are part of both QBR and PFF's ratings. I was surprised Purdy's QBR was as high as it was because of the way the 1st half played out. 

I agree, but after watching football for over fifty years, I think you can get an idea of who is playing well and who isn't without looking at numbers. And we have to remember these QBs got their teams to where they are. That cannot be minimized. There are intangibles that can't be measured.

[MightyGiants]

https://x.com/danorlovsky7/status/1752058903288828016?s=20

[DaveBrown74]

I know some people hate stats and don't want to hear about them much less talk about them, but all they are is a numerical expression of what a player has done on the field. I think sometimes they get over-mystified, and then people throw their hands up and just angrily dismiss them out of hand. They're just data on a player. Nothing more. But if I'm evaluating a player, I like knowing what he has done on the field, myself.

I have always been a fan of QB rating. No stat is perfect by any means, and like the others it has its flaws, but by and large I find it useful over a large enough sample size. If you look at the components of QB rating, it is all stuff that any reasonable fan would care about.

Obviously, like with any statistic, you cannot simply look at it in isolation without considering multiple contextual factors (caliber of supporting cast, system the QB plays in, opponents, etc), but overall of a broad sample of data I think it gives you a solid picture of how efficient and productive a QB has been with his passing. Obviously, it does not incorporate running, but everyone understands that, and it's not difficult to do a separate analysis of what a QB contributes with his legs.

Passer rating has been around for a while, but I would argue it was ahead of its time when it came out.

[MightyGiants]

I know some people hate stats and don't want to hear about them much less talk about them, but all they are is a numerical expression of what a player has done on the field. I think sometimes they get over-mystified, and then people throw their hands up and just angrily dismiss them out of hand. They're just data on a player. Nothing more. But if I'm evaluating a player, I like knowing what he has done on the field, myself.

I have always been a fan of QB rating. No stat is perfect by any means, and like the others it has its flaws, but by and large I find it useful over a large enough sample size. If you look at the components of QB rating, it is all stuff that any reasonable fan would care about.

Obviously, like with any statistic, you cannot simply look at it in isolation without considering multiple contextual factors (caliber of supporting cast, system the QB plays in, opponents, etc), but overall of a broad sample of data I think it gives you a solid picture of how efficient and productive a QB has been with his passing. Obviously, it does not incorporate running, but everyone understands that, and it's not difficult to do a separate analysis of what a QB contributes with his legs.

Passer rating has been around for a while, but I would argue it was ahead of its time when it came out.

While I was watching the games, I was playing with the stats of the top QB draft prospects.  I added up their QB rating, QBR, PFF offense grade and subtracted their PFF pass-blocking grade, receivers, and running grade (I am thinking of modifying this) to get a better feel for their true college production.

I appreciate that in the draft, it's about physical traits/mental makeup, scouting their play on the field, and their production, but there are a lot of commercials in an NFL game, and I was just interested in who had the most production.

Now I want to back test it with previous drafted QB to see if there is value in what I did.