Russell MF Wilson

seasoned ranker wrote:

Dial it up wrote:

Good point on his running ability, however I think his tendency to do that leads to his higher sack percentage.

His QB rating this season ranked 12th in the NFL. Of all of the 25 or so QB's that started consistently all year, he is middle of the pack. Romo at 82.7 and Rodgers at 82.6 were in a league of their own, with Wilson at 62.4 for reference.

If you are trying to avoid small sample sizes, why would you elect to speak to this season's rating instead of the more inclusive career ratings?

Because he is a moron. Why wouldn't that be obvious?

seasoned ranker wrote:

Ahhh, you are looking at ESPN's QBR instead, which conveniently doesn't have a career comparison or well documented formula...

"Dial it up" knows the formula. He has said so on another thread and often belittled others who could not locate said formula.

Star wrote:

seasoned ranker wrote:

Ahhh, you are looking at ESPN's QBR instead, which conveniently doesn't have a career comparison or well documented formula...

"Dial it up" knows the formula. He has said so on another thread and often belittled others who could not locate said formula.

It's essentially a more complicated version of the passer rating that adds weight for things like how close the score is, game time remaining, etc. If you would have continued to read on you would see I said that of course I don't care to learn all 10k lines of code but it isn't a secret what the main ingredients to qbr are.

To the guy who I'm debating with (without asking for the opinion of you two numb nuts btw): I used qbr because it is said to add in "clutch" play. The people who love Wilson tend to say he's so great due to his clutch play.

Of course, I did read what you posted. It's nice to see you've begun to come around to the truth and finally abandoned some of the lies you staunchly defended earlier.

You still, however, continue to claim that the main ingredients aren't a secret. Would you mind telling us what they are and linking to a definitive source. Thanks.

( At this point you can expect a few well chosen insults relating to my inability to successfully search for these "well known" ingredients.)

That wasn't me. It was one of my groupies. Of course I know that the QBR has a secret formula and that it is calculated very differently than passer rating. No one outside of a tiny group if ESPN employees has any idea of how it is determined.

Star wrote:

Of course, I did read what you posted. It's nice to see you've begun to come around to the truth and finally abandoned some of the lies you staunchly defended earlier.

You still, however, continue to claim that the main ingredients aren't a secret. Would you mind telling us what they are and linking to a definitive source. Thanks.

( At this point you can expect a few well chosen insults relating to my inability to successfully search for these "well known" ingredients.)

Dude, it was literally the first result that came up in Google.

(At this point you can expect anything other than: "oops my bad, you were right." Instead look for something along the lines of "ESPN isn't a credible enough source for espns own statistic").

Bump for my man Star

I think we ought to dial back every win in the NFL that is due to luck. Lets start with GB being lucky that Bryant didn't make that catch, so should have been Dallas in this gam, no wait, should have been Detroit because Dallas got lucky with the no call, so whats next? If we start this then we should get to a super bowl with no teams. Lucky, lucky, lucky, ... no such thing as luck at this level. Some people make plays and others don't. The only thing that may be lucky is the coin toss, but who knows, they probably have an analysis for this and a plan to call something specific under certain circumstances. Every team in the NFL makes their luck.

Star wrote:

Of course, I did read what you posted. It's nice to see you've begun to come around to the truth and finally abandoned some of the lies you staunchly defended earlier.

You still, however, continue to claim that the main ingredients aren't a secret. Would you mind telling us what they are and linking to a definitive source. Thanks.

( At this point you can expect a few well chosen insults relating to my inability to successfully search for these "well known" ingredients.)

Still awfully quiet around here....

Are you still claiming that you have the formula?

Curiouser wrote:

Are you still claiming that you have the formula?

Are you going to click the link? I pointed out that I don't care to go track down and read 10k lines of code. However, with a 1 second google search I've provided you with a description from the creators themselves of what goes into QBR including the differences between that and the more traditional passer rating.

Now are you going to continue to argue with me or click the link and shut your ignorant mouth?

PS Still waiting for you Star. Funny how you can dish it out and then disappear when you're wrong.

Thanks for the link. I am curious as to what phrase you used that returned that link in 1 second as the top choice.

Of course I read it before I posted previously. Thus my question. You have claimed to know the formula, but it us not contained in that story. That is what I originally asked for in the other thread. I'm still looking.

Curiouser wrote:

Thanks for the link. I am curious as to what phrase you used that returned that link in 1 second as the top choice.

Of course I read it before I posted previously. Thus my question. You have claimed to know the formula, but it us not contained in that story. That is what I originally asked for in the other thread. I'm still looking.

You just asked the same question that I answered in the post above yours.

Here's another decent explanation, granted not as credible obviously.

I don't know why you continue to dodge the question. Or maybe I do. Let's agree that you were wrong when you said you had the formula and also when you described your Googling experience

Fair enough.

Curiouser wrote:

I don't know why you continue to dodge the question. Or maybe I do. Let's agree that you were wrong when you said you had the formula and also when you described your Googling experience

I never said I had 10k lines of code. No shit I didn't read or memorize that. I said I know the main metrics and could google within one second how it's calculated including how it differs from passer rating. I've provided you with two links with one single search. Time to move on.

Dial it up wrote:

Curiouser wrote:

Bump

I just found it. I timed how long it took: 1 minute, 17 seconds.

You can do this, I believe in you.

Here are quotes from the earlier thread. You said you had found the formula. But you didn't.

Then you dodge the question I asked above about your Google search. The only conclusion is that you exaggerated that, too.

Do you wonder why so many here don't like you? You have a lot to offer, but you don't own your mistakes. No one is perfect. Man up and earn some respect.

Curiouser wrote:

Dial it up wrote:

I just found it. I timed how long it took: 1 minute, 17 seconds.

You can do this, I believe in you.

Here are quotes from the earlier thread. You said you had found the formula. But you didn't.

Then you dodge the question I asked above about your Google search. The only conclusion is that you exaggerated that, too.

Do you wonder why so many here don't like you? You have a lot to offer, but you don't own your mistakes. No one is perfect. Man up and earn some respect.

You are 'conversing' with the angry, conservative challenger to our resident liberal, finance-guy narcissist. It is simply not possible for him to understand subtleties or admit mistakes. Completely against his nature.