Matt Moore is easily the MVP

[2413fanphins]

Actually if you like the idea that Matt Moore is performing in a way that's very strongly correlated with winning, indeed you can take solace in that.

i don't ever take solace in losing. dude had over a 90 rating in two games now that we lost. 92.6 against denver, 99.2 against dallas.

we've only won two games out of 8 where he has played lights out, and the defense played lights out. if we have to play lights out across the board, in every game, we aren't going anywhere. it just doesn't happen in the nfl where every unit dominates for a whole game.
also the 140 yards lost on sacks, and 9 fumbles is certainly a huge stumbling block, and certainly not included in the QBR. but as we've already discussed I don't give a rip about QBR.

[rent this space]

Actually dropped passes and errant throws are factored in, in that they diminish one's completion percentage, which is part of the QB rating formula.

Also, there is no reason to think that significant differences exist among quarterbacks in the frequency of sacks and fumbles over the long haul. Consequently, the fact that they aren't accounted for by QB rating is meaningless in terms of its ability to distinguish among quarterbacks in a meaningful way.

Sure they do, insofar as QB rating is a measure of how well the quarterback plays the game. Winning and losing the vast majority of the time do depend on how the quarterback plays.

And you might not be.

Bottom line: although Matt Moore's team may not have won the game Thursday, he personally played in a way that would typically be associated with a record somewhere between 10-6 and 13-3 over the course of a season.

In other words, if you're interested in this team's having a quarterback who can play well enough for the team to one day attain a playoff-caliber record, you can feel good about how Matt Moore played Thursday.

I could be wrong, but I'm personally convinced of my perspective on this issue, so I won't be posting in this thread after this point.

So, teams that win usually have QBs with higher QBRs? Thanks for that profound thought.
Please don't leave the thread, there is so much we can learn from your incredible intelligence... lol

[CRAZYDOLFAN305]

Actually dropped passes and errant throws are factored in, in that they diminish one's completion percentage, which is part of the QB rating formula.

Also, there is no reason to think that significant differences exist among quarterbacks in the frequency of sacks and fumbles over the long haul. Consequently, the fact that they aren't accounted for by QB rating is meaningless in terms of its ability to distinguish among quarterbacks in a meaningful way.

Sure they do, insofar as QB rating is a measure of how well the quarterback plays the game. Winning and losing the vast majority of the time do depend on how the quarterback plays.

And you might not be.

Bottom line: although Matt Moore's team may not have won the game Thursday, he personally played in a way that would typically be associated with a record somewhere between 10-6 and 13-3 over the course of a season.

In other words, if you're interested in this team's having a quarterback who can play well enough for the team to one day attain a playoff-caliber record, you can feel good about how Matt Moore played Thursday.

I could be wrong, but I'm personally convinced of my perspective on this issue, so I won't be posting in this thread after this point.

I'm glad i'm not the only sane one here on this message board. But don't worry they will come out and tell you QB rating is pointless and it doesn't matter, although the rest of the universe uses it as a measuring barometer for how a QB is playing the position.

And even if they don't like those numbers, Moore is currently #11 in ESPN Total QB rating which factors in everything. I want to hear their ****ing excuse now.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[tylerdolphin]

Actually dropped passes and errant throws are factored in, in that they diminish one's completion percentage, which is part of the QB rating formula.

Also, there is no reason to think that significant differences exist among quarterbacks in the frequency of sacks and fumbles over the long haul. Consequently, the fact that they aren't accounted for by QB rating is meaningless in terms of its ability to distinguish among quarterbacks in a meaningful way.

Sure they do, insofar as QB rating is a measure of how well the quarterback plays the game. Winning and losing the vast majority of the time do depend on how the quarterback plays.

And you might not be.

Bottom line: although Matt Moore's team may not have won the game Thursday, he personally played in a way that would typically be associated with a record somewhere between 10-6 and 13-3 over the course of a season.

In other words, if you're interested in this team's having a quarterback who can play well enough for the team to one day attain a playoff-caliber record, you can feel good about how Matt Moore played Thursday.

I could be wrong, but I'm personally convinced of my perspective on this issue, so I won't be posting in this thread after this point.

I get what youre saying and actually agree with you to an extent. Over the long run, QBs with good ratings are generally good QBs and those guys win games. We are only talking about one game though. Its retarded to break down a QBs performace based on just QB rating for one game. There are so many factors it doesnt account for that the eye can in those 4 quarters. I can hold the botched snaps against him. I can hold the red zone failures against him. I know his play didnt reflect his QB rating. Its a direct reason we lost.

Now if Moore put up a 90.0 QBR for the season, I think thats a big enough sample size to where you arent gonna have weird fumbles and such skewing his performace much more than the average QB, so you can use QBR as more of a measuring stick. For one game though...its not all that great. Moore did not have a great game. Not sure how this argument is even going on. He wasnt horrible...but lets be real...he aquandered quite a few opportunities.

[tylerdolphin]

I'm glad i'm not the only sane one here on this message board. But don't worry they will come out and tell you QB rating is pointless and it doesn't matter, although the rest of the universe uses it as a measuring barometer for how a QB is playing the position.

And even if they don't like those numbers, Moore is currently #11 in ESPN Total QB rating which factors in everything. I want to hear their ****ing excuse now.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Thats great...Matt moor has been playing well this season for the most part. Ill gladly admit that. And over a multiple game stretch, QBR is a pretty good barometer for how well he is playing. For one game though, its much better to use your eyes and realize he missed a lot of chances this game and had a very costly turnover. Thats just what happened man. I dont hate Matt Moore at all. Just pointing out that Thursday he was not was good as his QBR indicates for pretty obvious reasons.

[shouright]

I get what youre saying and actually agree with you to an extent. Over the long run, QBs with good ratings are generally good QBs and those guys win games. We are only talking about one game though. Its retarded to break down a QBs performace based on just QB rating for one game. There are so many factors it doesnt account for that the eye can in those 4 quarters. I can hold the botched snaps against him. I can hold the red zone failures against him. I know his play didnt reflect his QB rating. Its a direct reason we lost.

Now if Moore put up a 90.0 QBR for the season, I think thats a big enough sample size to where you arent gonna have weird fumbles and such skewing his performace much more than the average QB, so you can use QBR as more of a measuring stick. For one game though...its not all that great. Moore did not have a great game. Not sure how this argument is even going on. He wasnt horrible...but lets be real...he aquandered quite a few opportunities.

I'll post again since someone is showing some flexibility in their thinking on the issue and is demonstrating the kind of attitude that leads to a productive discussion. That wasn't present prior to my last post.

I agree that if you restrict your analysis to one game, QB rating is much less an indicator of the quality of a QB.

However, if Matt Moore plays the way he did against Dallas for an entire season, the team is still going to lose games that are not unlike the Dallas game.

Again, the QB rating he had against Dallas is associated with a 10-6 to 13-3 record (i.e., 3 to 6 losses), not perfection.

The good thing is that he played in a way that's associated with a playoff-caliber record for a season. I don't think we need to hold him to the standard of playing in a way that's associated with an undefeated season.

If he had a 99.5 QB rating for an entire season, we would still be likely to lose 3 to 6 games, possibly because he would make the same kinds of mistakes he made against Dallas.

But we would also likely WIN 10 to 13 games that season.

My only point is that there was nothing about the Dallas game that should make one think Matt Moore can't be our quarterback of the future.

You may think that for other reasons, but you shouldn't think that based on the Dallas game alone in my opinion.

[tylerdolphin]

I'll post again since someone is showing some flexibility in their thinking on the issue and is demonstrating the kind of attitude that leads to a productive discussion. That wasn't present prior to my last post.

I agree that if you restrict your analysis to one game, QB rating is much less an indicator of the quality of a QB.

However, if Matt Moore plays the way he did against Dallas for an entire season, the team is still going to lose games that are not unlike the Dallas game.

Again, the QB rating he had against Dallas is associated with a 10-6 to 13-3 record (i.e., 3 to 6 losses), not perfection.

The good thing is that he played in a way that's associated with a playoff-caliber record for a season. I don't think we need to hold him to the standard of playing in a way that's associated with an undefeated season.

If he had a 99.5 QB rating for an entire season, we would still be likely to lose 3 to 6 games, possibly because he would make the same kinds of mistakes he made against Dallas.

But we would also likely WIN 10 to 13 games that season.

My only point is that there was nothing about the Dallas game that should make one think Matt Moore can't be our quarterback of the future.

You may think that for other reasons, but you shouldn't think that based on the Dallas game alone in my opinion.

Yea, generally speaking, a guy with a 90 QBR rating will get a few more TDs given the same scenarios. Matt Moore himself has proven that he is capable of that in other games...he just didnt get it done for whatever reason on Thursday (maybe coaching, missed a receiver, just had one of those days, who knows). But yeah, youre right that this game by itself doesnt say much about his future. Honestly, the guy has far exceeded just about everyones expectations this year. Im hoping we address QB early in the draft and give Matt moore another whirl at least until the young guy is ready. If Moore shows that he can be the guy, thats great. Great problem to have. If he shows himself to be average, ride him for a while until the young guy is ready then trade him. Its a win/win. Honestly, Im not sure he can sustain the QBR he has been putting up the last 4 weeks, but if he does then thats great.

[Vaark]

Well for the time being he's done considerably better than Henne has performed and better than Orton (god forbid Ross hadn't stepped in on that fiasco). Whether MM gets better or worse, remains to be seen, but personally I'd rather have him starting than the above 2 and Sanchez ... and maybe even Ryan Fitz for starters.

Everyone can piss and moan about him, lamenting the passing of their heartthrob Henne, but the fact is undeniable that at the end of the day, Moore provides the best opportunity to win (although I suspect some of the pissers&moaners are complaining exactly on account of that reality.

[tylerdolphin]

Well for the time being he's done considerably better than Henne has performed and better than Orton (god forbid Ross hadn't stepped in on that fiasco). Whether MM gets better or worse, remains to be seen, but personally I'd rather have him starting than the above 2 and Sanchez ... and maybe even Ryan Fitz for starters.

Everyone can piss and moan about him, lamenting the passing of their heartthrob Henne, but the fact is undeniable that at the end of the day, Moore provides the best opportunity to win (although I suspect some of the pissers&moaners are complaining exactly on account of that reality.

Absolutely Moore gives us our best shot. Hes been pretty damn good the last 4 weeks when you add everything up.

And I pretty much gave up on Luck after the 1st win. Zero chance that sorry *** Colts team wins 2 games.At this point Im just hoping Matt Moor has another Chiefs/Bills level game against the Jests and puts the last nail in their playoff run. That will somewhat salvage the season for me.

[rent this space]

Has any QB available in the offseason had a better year than Moore?