Chad Henne and the Total QBR

Use your ← → (arrows) to browse

ESPN charted football games in detail over the past three years (2008 thru 2010) with AdvancedNFLStats.com and FootballOutsiders.com given credit for assisting in the charting of data.

Here are the top ten (10) Total QBR for a given year during the period (2008-2010):

   1.  2009  —  Peyton Manning  (IND)  —  82.3
   2.  2008  —  Peyton Manning  (IND)  —  79.7
   3.  2009  —  Drew Brees  (NO)  —  77.2
   4.  2010  —  Tom Brady  (NE)  —  76.0
   5.  2008  —  Matt Ryan  (ATL)  —  72.6
   6.  2008  —  Chad Pennington  (MIA)  —  72.3
   7.  2009  —  Philip Rivers  (SD)  —  71.8
   8.  2008  —  Jay Cutler  (DEN)  —  71.3
   9.  2009  —  Matt Schaub  (HOU)  —  71.0
 10.  2009  —  Aaron Rogers  (GB)  —  69.7

No surprise that Peyton Manning has the top two — in fact, his 2011 Total QBR is #11.  What is a surprise — Tom Brady is only on the Top 10 list once along with Matt Ryan, Jay Cutler, and Matt Schaub.  I think it is no surprise to PhinPhanatics that the 2008 performance of Chad Pennington is #6.

So, where is the performance of Chad Henne and the Total QBR?

   52.  2009  —  Chad Henne  (MIA)  —  51.1 
   77.  2010  —  Chad Henne  (MIA)  —  41.4

The important thing to note from Henne’s performance is the regression from 2009 to 2010 and the sub par performance in 2010 that we all know about.  The 2010 performance is largely indicative of all his sacks, interceptions, and fumbles — especially, in the fourth quarter.

Other notable ratings include:

   47.  2009  —  Carson Palmer  (CIN)  —  53.2
   48.  2009  —  Kyle Orton  (DEN)  —  52.9
   55.  2008  —  Tyler Thigpen  (KC)  —  50.8
   61.  2010  —  Ryan Fitzpatrick  (BUF)  —  48.7
   62.  2010  —  Mark Sanchez  (NYJ)  —  47.4
   63.  2010  —  Carson Palmer  (CIN)  —  46.7
   64.  2010  —  Colt McCoy  (CLE)  —  46.6
   65.  2010  —  Kyle Orton  (DEN)  —  46.6

So, we now have a different QB rating to look at.  ESPN plans to highlight this in their stats.  I think it is good because the max rating is 100, rather than some max esoteric number that hardly anyone understands.  Also, I think it is good because the Total QBR takes into account when negative plays (sacks, interception, fumbles) take place.

What do you think?

Use your ← → (arrows) to browse

comments powered by Disqus