Rams Fans United - Los Angeles Rams Fan Discussion Forum

cool article by "the sporting news" on JG's record setting game.. happy for the man

https://www.sportingnews.com/us/nfl/new ... 513920cd26

maybe the best game ever for a qB .... nevertheless he DIDN'T have a perfect passer rating.

in my book, it doesn't count as a perfect game

It was a great offensive gameplan by the Lions. Run the ball and don't force anything. I was impressed.

Their uniforms and helmet were a complete mess though.

BobCarl wrote:maybe the best game ever for a qB .... nevertheless he DIDN'T have a perfect passer rating.

in my book, it doesn't count as a perfect game

That's because the guys who developed that QB rating formula are idiots.

I learned the QB formula from a nerd about 40 years ago.

It's completion % times 100 + 2.5
+ (Yards per attempt times 5 )
+ (TD percentage times 100; times 4)
Minus (Int percentage times 100, times 5)

then the total times 5; divided by 6. Try it on any QB's game. It comes out every time if it's under 158.3. Take Stafford last Sunday....

20 of 29 (.689655172 X 100 = 68.9655172) + 2.5 = 71.46551724
224 yds / 29 att = 7.724137931 X 5 = 38.62068966 + 71.46551724 = 110.0862069
0 TD / 29 att = 0 X 100 = 0 + 110.0862069
Minus 1 int / 29 att (.03448275862 X 100 = 3.448275862 X 5 = 17.24137931) = 92.84482759 X 5 = 464.22413799 divided by 6 = 77.37 or 77.4 which is exactly what his rating happened to be.

The kicker is, it can't be higher than 158.3, which is ridiculous. Goff's numbers came out to 190. But why is the perfect number 158.3? Because some idiot came up with it.

Say a guy completes 20 pass attempts without an incompletion. 100%
He had 250 yards passing. 12.5 yds/att.
His team scores 42 points on 6 rushing TDs.
How isn't that a perfect game? He didn't throw an incompletion. He drove his team to the end zone 6 times. But he didn't throw a TD pass because his running backs scored 6 times? The minimum for perfection is a TD% of 11.9 (Goff's was 11.1). Ridiculous.

It's like saying a pitcher can get 27 consecutive outs without a hit, walk or error by his team mates but if he doesn't strike out 9 (1 per inning), it's not a true perfect game. Dumb.

Some examples of disproportionate ratings:
Bob Griese (SB8) 6 of 7 for 73 yards, 0 TD, 0 int = 110.1 rating
Warner (SB34) 24 of 45 for 414 yards, 2 TDs, 0 Int = 99.7 rating
Yeah, okay.

PARAM wrote:The minimum for (offensive) perfect (rating) is a TD% of 11.9 (Goff's was 11.1).

It's like saying a (defensive) pitcher can get 27 consecutive outs without a hit, walk or error by his team mates but if he doesn't strike out 9 (1 per inning), it's not a true perfect game

Footballs thrown by an offensive player and baseballs thrown by a defensive player .... It is hard to get a valid comparison with apples and oranges.

One has to redefine/reconfigure the offensive passer rating system (or move the goalpost) to give Goff a perfect rating.

Though some of the benchmarks for a passer rating seem arbitrary, nevertheless I agree that there has to be a fixed minimum.

We could move the goalposts on the proverbial orange (baseball) and define a perfect game where a pitcher has to throw 9 immaculate innings. But no pitcher has ever thrown even two immaculate innings in one game. Apples and oranges ... gotta love em.

I will say this: Goff had an immaculate completion %

BobCarl wrote:Footballs thrown by an offensive player and baseballs thrown by a defensive player .... It is hard to get a valid comparison with apples and oranges.

Actually it's not. It's about what constitutes perfection. There are no artificial parameters for a pitcher being perfect. 27 up, 27 down. Period.

As far as the rating formula, in an attempt to compensate for over valuing completion percentage and yards per attempt, they've limited the max to 158.3 and then added parameters like a minimum yards per attempt and minimum TD %. It's math and the math says Goff's rating was 190.

For one, the yards per attempt many times speaks more to the receiver's ability to get yac than the QB's 'level of perfection'.

For instance a guy's formula starts the same with 10 for 10 as a guy with 18 for 18.

Which is more impressive (to you)?

10 for 10, 125 yards, 2 TD, 0 Int (Perfect)

or

18 for 18, 360 yards, 2 TDs, 0 Int (Not perfect)

I know which one I'd be more impressed with. And without the artificial parameters applied (minimum yds/att or minimum TD% or maximum of 158.3) the latter has the higher rating (205.8 to 204.1). Go figure.

Truth is, there really is no natural way to classify a QBs game as perfect, because there can always a guy better (more perfect?) than a guy with a perfect rating.

10 for 10, 125 yards, 2 TD, 0 Int = 158.3 rating (without parameters 204.1)
15 for 15, 188 yards, 3 TD, 0 Int = 158.3 rating (without parameters 205.8)

I definitely harbor no ill will for Jared. He was in a bad situation in LA with a HC who was impatient to win with a QB of his choosing. Being traded to Detroit worked for both him and Stafford. If the Rams can't make the SB this will be Jared's best chance to get his ring. He's deserving of one.

I'm a Rams fan but hope Goff proves his doubters wrong. I was very happy when the Ram's drafted him. It wasn't his fault the Rams scraped the team around him in 2019 forcing him to play behind a scrub OL. Yet to his credit he never soured on his team mates and continued to produce winning seasons.

To show how fickle the media is they blamed Goff for 2019's debacle but not Stafford for 2022 even though they were based upon the same issue, i.e. bad OL.

So good for Jared for proving his doubters wrong.

PARAM wrote:As far as the rating formula, in an attempt to compensate for over valuing completion percentage and yards per attempt ...

What value should completion percentage have?

I don't believe that it has to be 100%, however I think there should be a minimum number of passes, and I think it should be at least 15 if not 20.

And yards per attempt? .... your YAC argument is valid. Should the "yards" part exclude the YAC? or should there be some ratio of the two?

BobCarl wrote:What value should completion percentage have?

I don't believe that it has to be 100%, however I think there should be a minimum number of passes, and I think it should be at least 15 if not 20.

And yards per attempt? .... your YAC argument is valid. Should the "yards" part exclude the YAC? or should there be some ratio of the two?

It's simply a formula that needs tweaking. The most important tweak is throwing out the arbitrary "perfect 158.3" number. Completion percentage IS important. Yards per attempt IS important. YAC can sometimes be a WR making moves OR a QB throwing him open and in stride. TD passes are important and not throwing the ball to the opponent is important. I'm not opposed to any of that. I'm opposed to the arbitrary "perfect rating" of 158.3. In other words, what did they deduct (and how did they deduct) off of Goff's rating to give him a 155.8 instead of a 158.3? Goff's was actually 190. The problem is if you use the QB rating formula, many guys come out higher than the 158.3 so why limit it to that? So they can say it was a "perfect game"? I'd be fine with "any QB above 150 without an incompletion or pick is considered to have a "perfect game" but use the actual rating derived from the formula. I wonder, if a guy ends up with a 158.3 rating by whichever way they arbitrarily figure to deduct whatever for a TD% lower than 11.5 or a yards per attempt lower than 12.5 from his actual rating and his team loses, it's really not "a perfect game" is it? Maybe he could have found another WR or two open in the end zone and won the game to be "more perfect". This need to refer to a good QB rating as "perfect" is silly. A passing TD counts the same as rushing TD....6 points, so why 'penalize' the QB because his team has a good run game?

PARAM wrote:It's simply a formula that needs tweaking. The most important tweak is throwing out the arbitrary "perfect 158.3" number. Completion percentage IS important. Yards per attempt IS important. YAC can sometimes be a WR making moves OR a QB throwing him open and in stride. TD passes are important and not throwing the ball to the opponent is important. I'm not opposed to any of that. I'm opposed to the arbitrary "perfect rating" of 158.3. In other words, what did they deduct (and how did they deduct) off of Goff's rating to give him a 155.8 instead of a 158.3? Goff's was actually 190. The problem is if you use the QB rating formula, many guys come out higher than the 158.3 so why limit it to that? So they can say it was a "perfect game"? I'd be fine with "any QB above 150 without an incompletion or pick is considered to have a "perfect game" but use the actual rating derived from the formula. I wonder, if a guy ends up with a 158.3 rating by whichever way they arbitrarily figure to deduct whatever for a TD% lower than 11.5 or a yards per attempt lower than 12.5 from his actual rating and his team loses, it's really not "a perfect game" is it? Maybe he could have found another WR or two open in the end zone and won the game to be "more perfect". This need to refer to a good QB rating as "perfect" is silly. A passing TD counts the same as rushing TD....6 points, so why 'penalize' the QB because his team has a good run game?

So, this is the argument that ESPN made when they came up with their QBR rating. Maybe it's more than just a tweak, since they did this with the intent of completely replacing the passer rating formula.

But the sports world has not universally adopted QBR the way ESPN intended. People still use passer rating. And some use both.

If you're going to continue to compare performances between different seasons, then keeping the formula the way it is, complete with its warts, has some merit.

Interesting that this topic has generated so much interest here, for a quarterback who doesn't even play for the Rams.