stats (career qb ratings)

stats (career qb ratings)

Post by Kenneth J Ruggie » Sat, 19 Oct 1991 00:00:00


        Even though they don't tell the whole story, someone asked for the
statistics of some of the top quarterbacks.  Unfortunately, I only have SOME
statistics.  I have them up until 1987..that's all, so I will only include
UNACTIVE quarterbacks in the listing.  And, please remember that qb ratings do
NOT tell the whole story...there are many things not factored in...such as
quick release (sacks), running ability, etc...

        The following is taken from a book (NFL team report), so if there are
any mistakes, don't flame me..they're taken directly from the book.  

Player           YRS      ATT      COMP    CMP%    YARDS    TD    INT    RATE

Roger Staubach    11     2958      1685    57.0    22700   153    109    83.4
Danny White       11     2546      1517    59.6    19068   142    112    83.2
Sonny Jurgensen   18     4262      2433    57.1    32224   255    189    82.6
Len Dawson        19     3741      2136    57.1    28711   239    183    82.6
Ken Anderson      16     4475      2654    59.3    32838   197    160    81.9
Dan Fouts         14     5240      3091    59.0    40523   244    227    80.9
Bart Starr        16     3149      1808    57.4    24718   152    138    80.5
Fran Tarkenton    18     6467      3686    57.0    47003   342    266    80.4
Joe Theismann     11     3301      1877    56.9    23432   152    122    79.0

        Well, there they are.  #'s 1-9 career...that's the best I can do.
About what was previously mentioned, other factors, if you consider running
abilities...Roger Staubach is also the best scrambler on the list.  I believe
he gained 300+ yards a year on the ground on the average.  They didn't call him
'Roger the Dodger' for nothing...

        As for Joe Montana and Dan Marino, I can only supply compiled
statistics up until the '87 season.  For those who still want them :

Player            YRS     ATT      COMP    CMP%    YARDS    TD    INT    RATE

Dan Marino         4     2050      1249    60.9    16177   142     67    95.2
Joe Montana        8     2878      1818    63.2    21498   141     76    91.2

        Remember...these usually deteriorate once a qb gets into the waning
stages of his career...however, we still have yet to find out whether Montana
can drop a notch or not...he may not be human after all ;^)

Ken Ruggiero
University at Buffalo
GO ROGER!!

 
 
 

stats (career qb ratings)

Post by Kenneth J Ruggie » Sat, 19 Oct 1991 03:25:00


Quote:


>[.... stuff deleted .....]

>>Player           YRS      ATT      COMP    CMP%    YARDS    TD    INT    RATE

>>Roger Staubach    11     2958      1685    57.0    22700   153    109    83.4
>>Danny White       11     2546      1517    59.6    19068   142    112    83.2
>>Sonny Jurgensen   18     4262      2433    57.1    32224   255    189    82.6
>>Len Dawson        19     3741      2136    57.1    28711   239    183    82.6
>>Ken Anderson      16     4475      2654    59.3    32838   197    160    81.9
>>Dan Fouts         14     5240      3091    59.0    40523   244    227    80.9
>>Bart Starr        16     3149      1808    57.4    24718   152    138    80.5
>>Fran Tarkenton    18     6467      3686    57.0    47003   342    266    80.4
>>Joe Theismann     11     3301      1877    56.9    23432   152    122    79.6
>I don't know what the formula for the rate is, but from the above numbers I
>don't see why Roger is rated higher than Fran. Apparently the rate is very
>sensitive to interception rate:

>       yds/yr  comp%  td%   int%    (td%=td/att, int%=int/att)

>Roger   2064     57   5.17  3.68
>Fran    2611     57   5.29  4.11    

        Yards per year?  You've got to be kidding me!  This is where you went
wrong.  Try yards per attempt :

        Roger    7.67
        Fran     7.27

NOW, the difference shows a bit better...

Quote:
>Joe Huber

        Ken Ruggiero
        GO ROGER!!

 
 
 

stats (career qb ratings)

Post by Joseph B Hub » Sat, 19 Oct 1991 01:51:16



[.... stuff deleted .....]

Quote:

>Player           YRS      ATT      COMP    CMP%    YARDS    TD    INT    RATE

>Roger Staubach    11     2958      1685    57.0    22700   153    109    83.4
>Danny White       11     2546      1517    59.6    19068   142    112    83.2
>Sonny Jurgensen   18     4262      2433    57.1    32224   255    189    82.6
>Len Dawson        19     3741      2136    57.1    28711   239    183    82.6
>Ken Anderson      16     4475      2654    59.3    32838   197    160    81.9
>Dan Fouts         14     5240      3091    59.0    40523   244    227    80.9
>Bart Starr        16     3149      1808    57.4    24718   152    138    80.5
>Fran Tarkenton    18     6467      3686    57.0    47003   342    266    80.4
>Joe Theismann     11     3301      1877    56.9    23432   152    122    79.0

>    Well, there they are.  #'s 1-9 career...that's the best I can do.
>About what was previously mentioned, other factors, if you consider running
>abilities...Roger Staubach is also the best scrambler on the list.  I believe
>he gained 300+ yards a year on the ground on the average.  They didn't call him
>'Roger the Dodger' for nothing...

Fran Tarkenton may not have gained as many rushing yards as Roger, but Fran
was the best I have ever seen at scrambling to avoid sacks while staying alive
**in the backfield**. Fran routinely completed passes after being chased
around by defensive lineman. I think Roger and Fran were of a different
mindset:  Roger turned sacks into gains by rushing out of the pocket; Fran
turned sacks into gains by avoiding tacklers in the backfield and passing
downfield to his recievers.

I don't know what the formula for the rate is, but from the above numbers I
don't see why Roger is rated higher than Fran. Apparently the rate is very
sensitive to interception rate:

       yds/yr  comp%  td%   int%    (td%=td/att, int%=int/att)

Roger   2064     57   5.17  3.68
Fran    2611     57   5.29  4.11

--
Joe Huber

Dept. of Mech. Egr.          |  "It's not a hundred percent efficient,
Iowa State University        |   but nothing ever is."

 
 
 

stats (career qb ratings)

Post by Joseph B Hub » Sat, 19 Oct 1991 05:58:25



Quote:

>(Joseph B Huber) writes...


>>[.... stuff deleted .....]

>I don't know what the formula for the rate is, but from the above numbers I
>>don't see why Roger is rated higher than Fran. Apparently the rate is very
>>sensitive to interception rate:

>>       yds/yr  comp%  td%   int%    (td%=td/att, int%=int/att)

>>Roger   2064     57   5.17  3.68
>>Fran    2611     57   5.29  4.11    

>    Yards per year?  You've got to be kidding me!  This is where you went
>wrong.  Try yards per attempt :

Well, if you wanted to trash my yds/yr idea, you could have used yds/cmpl
too!
                yds/att   yds/cmpl

Quote:
>    Roger    7.67       13.47
>    Fran     7.27       12.75

>NOW, the difference shows a bit better...

So Roger gains about 2ft more per pass, still pretty close.

It is hard to compare Roger and Fran statistically because Fran played for
7 more years than Roger. Some have suggested here that performance drops off
in the waning years of a QB's career. Does that mean that Fran was awesome for
his first 11 or 12 years and then dropped off, or that Roger's stats would have
decreased had he played for 18 years. I don't know

It would have been interesting to see if Roger could have maintained his
numbers for 7 more years.......

--
Joe Huber

Dept. of Mech. Egr.          |  "It's not a hundred percent efficient,
Iowa State University        |   but nothing ever is."

 
 
 

stats (career qb ratings)

Post by Robert Blum » Sat, 19 Oct 1991 06:30:22


|>
|>   Even though they don't tell the whole story, someone asked for the
|> statistics of some of the top quarterbacks.  Unfortunately, I only have SOME
|> statistics.  I have them up until 1987..that's all, so I will only include
|> UNACTIVE quarterbacks in the listing.  And, please remember that qb ratings do
|> NOT tell the whole story...there are many things not factored in...such as
|> quick release (sacks), running ability, etc...

Another thing about the stats is that they are just a linear combination of
various statistical subcategories.  That is,

rating = a0 * completion % + a1 * touchdown % + etc...

Depending on the opinion of the person who selected the vector [a0...aN],
you would get different ratings.  Who is to say the relative importance of
toucdowns, interceptions, completion, yardage, etc?  These are all subject
to debate.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Senior Software Engineer               | 2121 Allston Way, Berkeley, CA 94704
Teknekron Communications Systems, Inc. | (510) 649-3759

 
 
 

stats (career qb ratings)

Post by nod siv » Sun, 20 Oct 1991 00:23:48

Quote:
>It is hard to compare Roger and Fran statistically because Fran played for
>7 more years than Roger. Some have suggested here that performance drops off
>in the waning years of a QB's career. Does that mean that Fran was awesome for
>his first 11 or 12 years and then dropped off, or that Roger's stats would have
>decreased had he played for 18 years. I don't know

My position is that both QBs were great, and I could care less about who
is "greatest."  I just wanted to comment on the above.  Roger Staubach played
less years because he was stuck in the Navy in the *beginning* of his
career.  They kept him for four years after the Navy Academy, so he got
off to a late start in the NFL.

                                        me

 
 
 

stats (career qb ratings)

Post by Jeff Marte » Sun, 20 Oct 1991 00:33:08

Quote:

>My position is that both QBs were great, and I could care less about who
>is "greatest."  I just wanted to comment on the above.  Roger Staubach played
>less years because he was stuck in the Navy in the *beginning* of his
>career.  They kept him for four years after the Navy Academy, so he got
>off to a late start in the NFL.

And Staubach was a backup for awhile, behind Craig Morton.  When
Morton was traded to Denver, it wasn't at all clear Staubach was
better than Morton, just that he was good enough and with a tremendous
supporting cast, Mark Malone would've looked good enough for Dallas
fans to be voting for him this week...

Staubach:  better than average QB + excellent supporting cast + well
coached team = reputation for greatness.

--

 
 
 

stats (career qb ratings)

Post by Ronnie Townse » Sun, 20 Oct 1991 13:40:11


A lot of stuff deleted...

Quote:

>So Roger gains about 2ft more per pass, still pretty close.

>It is hard to compare Roger and Fran statistically because Fran played for
>7 more years than Roger. Some have suggested here that performance drops off
>in the waning years of a QB's career. Does that mean that Fran was awesome for
>his first 11 or 12 years and then dropped off, or that Roger's stats would have
>decreased had he played for 18 years. I don't know

Actually, I beleive Fran Tarkenton struggled very early in his career and was
awesome later as his savvy increased and he got out of New York and back to
a good team.

Quote:

>It would have been interesting to see if Roger could have maintained his
>numbers for 7 more years.......

Roger started his career at the age of 27, having done his five year hitch
in the Navy. He retired at 38 and I can almost guarantee he could not have
played at his level for even five more years. Of course it is interesting to
note that he was the top rated passer in the league his last two years! Who
knows, he was always in great shape and if not for his penchant for getting
concussions, might have been the Nolan Ryan of QB's.

Ronnie T.

 
 
 

stats (career qb ratings)

Post by Randy Willia » Tue, 22 Oct 1991 23:18:45


|> Player           YRS      ATT      COMP    CMP%    YARDS    TD    INT    RATE
|>
|> Roger Staubach    11     2958      1685    57.0    22700   153    109    83.4
|> Danny White       11     2546      1517    59.6    19068   142    112    83.2
|> Sonny Jurgensen   18     4262      2433    57.1    32224   255    189    82.6
|> Len Dawson        19     3741      2136    57.1    28711   239    183    82.6
|> Ken Anderson      16     4475      2654    59.3    32838   197    160    81.9
|> Dan Fouts         14     5240      3091    59.0    40523   244    227    80.9
|> Bart Starr        16     3149      1808    57.4    24718   152    138    80.5
|> Fran Tarkenton    18     6467      3686    57.0    47003   342    266    80.4
|> Joe Theismann     11     3301      1877    56.9    23432   152    122    79.0
|>
|>
|>   Well, there they are.  #'s 1-9 career...that's the best I can do.
|> About what was previously mentioned, other factors, if you consider running
|> abilities...Roger Staubach is also the best scrambler on the list.  I believe
|> he gained 300+ yards a year on the ground on the average.  They didn't call him
|> 'Roger the Dodger' for nothing...
|>
|>   As for Joe Montana and Dan Marino, I can only supply compiled
|> statistics up until the '87 season.  For those who still want them :
|>
|> Player            YRS     ATT      COMP    CMP%    YARDS    TD    INT    RATE
|>
|> Dan Marino         4     2050      1249    60.9    16177   142     67    95.2
|> Joe Montana        8     2878      1818    63.2    21498   141     76    91.2
|>
|>   Remember...these usually deteriorate once a qb gets into the waning
|> stages of his career...however, we still have yet to find out whether Montana
|> can drop a notch or not...he may not be human after all ;^)
|>
|> Ken Ruggiero
|> University at Buffalo
|> GO ROGER!!

Here is what I have as of 1990.

Player    YRS   Att   Comp  Cmp%  Yards    TDs  Int  Rating
Marino     8    4181  2480  59.3  31,416   241  136  88.5
Montana   12    4579  2914  63.6  34,998   242  123  93.4

Montana has the highest career rating of all-time at the
end of 1990.  Dan Marino is number 2.
--

SAS Institute Inc. Cary, NC

 
 
 

stats (career qb ratings)

Post by Randy Willia » Tue, 22 Oct 1991 23:54:12

|> It is hard to compare Roger and Fran statistically because Fran played for
|> 7 more years than Roger. Some have suggested here that performance drops off
|> in the waning years of a QB's career. Does that mean that Fran was awesome for
|> his first 11 or 12 years and then dropped off, or that Roger's stats would have
|> decreased had he played for 18 years. I don't know
|>
|> It would have been interesting to see if Roger could have maintained his
|> numbers for 7 more years.......

Here are the stats on the Hall of Fame QBS the first 8 years.

Player       Att   Comp   Yds    Pct   TD   Int   Rate
Baugh        1375   761   9228   55.4   83  101   65.7
Blanda        962   435   5852   45.2   48   67   52.7
Bradshaw     2019  1088  13279   53.9   93  118   65.4
Dawson       1061   599   8231   56.5   87   59   85.6
Graham       2201  1224  19771   55.6  148  110   87.4
Griese       2014  1081  14309   53.7  114  103   74.0
Jurgensen    1492   809  12573   54.2  100   86   80.7
Layne        2095  1017  14489   48.5  114  131   63.4
Luckman      1171   604  11504   51.6  100   75   87.8
Namath       2605  1306  20099   50.1  126  143   69.3
Starr        1546   789  11230   51.0   66   75   68.9
Staubach     1723   977  13304   56.7   83   73   79.9
Tarkenton    2613  1418  20222   54.3  163  126   80.3
Title        2056  1105  15341   53.7  103  120   70.3
Unitas       2621  1410  20834   53.8  167  125   81.4
Van Brocklin 1632   879  14009   53.9   98  106   75.7
Waterfeld    1617   813  11849   50.3   98  127   62.0

As for Montana and Marino (again the first 8 seasons)

Montana      2878  1818  21498   63.2  141   76   91.2
Marino       4181  2480  31416   59.3  241  136   88.5
--

SAS Institute Inc. Cary, NC

 
 
 

stats (career qb ratings)

Post by Ronnie Townse » Tue, 22 Oct 1991 23:15:14


Quote:

>>My position is that both QBs were great, and I could care less about who
>>is "greatest."  I just wanted to comment on the above.  Roger Staubach played
>>less years because he was stuck in the Navy in the *beginning* of his
>>career.  They kept him for four years after the Navy Academy, so he got
>>off to a late start in the NFL.

>And Staubach was a backup for awhile, behind Craig Morton.  When
>Morton was traded to Denver, it wasn't at all clear Staubach was
>better than Morton, just that he was good enough and with a tremendous
>supporting cast, Mark Malone would've looked good enough for Dallas
>fans to be voting for him this week...

>Staubach:  better than average QB + excellent supporting cast + well
>coached team = reputation for greatness.

Jeff, you're obviously delerious... First of all, Mark Malone couldn't QB
Florida State over East Southwestern Northern Louisiana State on a consistent
basis. Do you remember who the starting WR's were in Roger's first years in
the league? How about the running backs? (This one may be easier.) Roger
made tremendous plays and had the athletic ability to take matters into his
own hands (or feet) if need be. If the man who retired with Roger's record
in both the regular season and the playoffs not to mention the highest rated
passer of all time when he quit is just "above average" then somebody's rating
system is flawed. All those comeback wins, all those playoff wins, two SB wins,
an incredible regular season record... Many people also forget that if not
for an injury to Roger in a divisional playoff, the Vikings would have had to
endure one less loss in the Super Bowl. The Cowboys had spanked the Rams in the
first round of the playoffs but lost Roger to a leg injury and would up losing
to the Vikes 27-10 in the NFC championship with "Mark Malone" at quarterback.
The Vikings went on to go belly up against the Raiders in the SB that year...
or was that the year they went belly up to the Dolphins?

Ronnie T.

 
 
 

stats (career qb ratings)

Post by Stewart Brod » Sat, 26 Oct 1991 18:58:44


Quote:

>|>[stuff deleted]
>rating = a0 * completion % + a1 * touchdown % + etc...
>Depending on the opinion of the person who selected the vector [a0...aN],
>you would get different ratings.  Who is to say the relative importance of
>toucdowns, interceptions, completion, yardage, etc?  These are all subject
>to debate.

Although it would be more difficult to calculate, surely it would be
fairer to multiply each of the ratings for a particular game by the
effectiveness of the oppositions defence in that area. Every defense is
rated from 1 to 28 - so TD passes should be affected by the rating of
the pass defense of the opposition etc. etc.

(This is fair but hell to calculate I think, so we had better stick with
the current formula for now)

Stewart Brodie

Dept. Electronics & Computer Science, Southampton University, UK.