63.1

[purplehaze]

Hey after every game expect purplehaze to post the QB rating of the worst QB in the league. That is all.

[Demi]

[justinkendle]

the only quarterback that might suck more than ponder may be Blane Gabbert, that int he threw to Tamba Hali must of been the dumbest pass i have ever seen. oh ya his passing rating was 30.8 too.

[Funkytown]

See? It could be worse.

[Funkytown]

Would you rather eat your own poop or another person's poop? Mines, because at least I know somewhat what it is composed of.

I like your way of liking at things Funk LOL

Yeah. Something like that.

[King James]

This is an average Ponder game believe it or not. Like usually, today he completes around 60% if passes. Averaged around 8 yard passes. I think the TD-INTS are what probably gave him a 63.1. See last year he had Percy Harvin to make him look good with the YAC. He was getting atleast 11 extra yards after every catch. Making Ponder's 10 yard throws to 20 yard plays. This is why we need Patterson in the game if we're going to do any damage on offense. Im not saying he is the next Harvin but im sure Patterson can collect some good YAC himself.

[Reignman]

Ahh who knows, a completely different path might have worked out for Gabbert. He might have developed some chemistry here. And just think, he's putting up Ponder like numbers without a back like AD. It's too late now though, the Jags have damaged him irreversibly.

[King James]

I think this is one of the thing that ticked me off the most. I have to try not to think about it or else it gets my blood boiling. The fact that Patterson basically had to refuse to come out of the game tells you all you need to know about our coaches. Next week we better throw Patterson at least 3-4 balls and let him work his magic. The guy knows how to run with the ball, and we are desperate for play makers with such an incompetent QB.

The way I see it. We have talent around Ponder for him to succeed a little. As long as he is our QB we will have to make the offense work around him not the other way around. Ponder is not going to be a Brady or Manning who can just sit in the pocket and find a guy open deep downfield. Ponder is the west coast, dink and dunk QB. But yet the coaches sit him in the shotgun or expect him to throw a deep bomb down the field.

For Ponder to succeed, we more screens, check downs, slants, and etc. Ponder completes 65% percent of his passes when throwing 1-10 yards. 46% percent when he tries to throw up to 20 yards. 21 to 30 yards and his percentage is down to 22% percent. He has made a couple of throws beyond that but those were just prayers, not passes that he were confident in. If we want to see passes 30+ yards then we are going to need another QB. Until then we need more short passes to move the ball effectively. I have a feeling the coaches believe Ponder can turn into a gunslinger but that will never happen. He doesn't have the confidence of a gunslinger. Gunslingers take risk. Ponder likes to hold on to the ball too long where he can't hit an open guy in time.

[Just Me]

And just think, he's putting up Ponder like numbers without a back like AD.

63.1 = 30.8?

[VikingHoard]

To be fair, if we're going to look at the worst QB in the league each week, we should look at a little more than just their weekly rating. Ponder may have a 20 point better rating according to however they calculate it, but he also had 2 more turnovers than Gabbert. Also, all the foul-ups in Ponder's stats really were attributable to Ponder. I didn't see any stonehands recievers dropping well-thrown balls out there lowering Ponder's completion percentage. On the contrary, I saw diving, acrobatic catches inflating it. I don't know how much that kind of thing might apply to Gabberts stats (as I didn't watch that game), but it would be something we'd need to look at in order to make an accurate comparison. Also, Brandon Weeden should be in the discussion as well ( he had a 48.4 rating, with 3 interceptions and 1 fumble [Cleveland recovered it though, giving him 1 fewer turnover than Ponder] ).

[smoothoperator]

before the third pick, ponders rating was higher than stafford, cant really be to upset with the third one either as it was a play where we had to go for a first down and the d was in back off coverage. freeman is just as bad if not worse.

[Just Me]

To be fair, if we're going to look at the worst QB in the league each week, we should look at a little more than just their weekly rating. Ponder may have a 20 point better rating according to however they calculate it, but he also had 2 more turnovers than Gabbert. Also, all the foul-ups in Ponder's stats really were attributable to Ponder. I didn't see any stonehands recievers dropping well-thrown balls out there lowering Ponder's completion percentage. On the contrary, I saw diving, acrobatic catches inflating it. I don't know how much that kind of thing might apply to Gabberts stats (as I didn't watch that game), but it would be something we'd need to look at in order to make an accurate comparison. Also, Brandon Weeden should be in the discussion as well ( he had a 48.4 rating, with 3 interceptions and 1 fumble [Cleveland recovered it though, giving him 1 fewer turnover than Ponder] ).

It was 30+ better (Not that it's anything to "brag about" but it was bad enough, so there's no need to make it "worse"). The turnovers (except for the botched hand-off) are calculated in the passer rating, so it should already be accounted for in that number. I'm not disagreeing that the passer rating is not necessarily indicative of good (or bad) play, but it is an objective measure and applied equally to all.

[Mothman]

It was 30+ better (Not that it's anything to "brag about" but it was bad enough, so there's no need to make it "worse"). The turnovers (except for the botched hand-off) are calculated in the passer rating, so it should already be accounted for in that number. I'm not disagreeing that the passer rating is not necessarily indicative of good (or bad) play, but it is an objective measure and applied equally to all.

In that sense, it's fair.

As you said, it's not always indicative of good or bad play. To me, the biggest problem with it is that it places so much importance on TDs and INTs without context. I understand why but it can still be deceptive. For example, a QB can complete 60% of his passes, direct several scoring drives and even throw for the majority of yards on those drives but if the TDs are 1 or 2 yard runs by RBs and the QB throws an INT on a deep "what the heck, let's take a shot" throw at the end of the first half, he's still not going to come out of the game with a very impressive passer rating, despite playing well.

In some instances, the rating is a very accurate representation of performance. In others it's not. There's no perfect rating but I think it's the lack of context that has led to things like ESPN's QBR and other attempts to find a rating that paints a more accurate picture. The problem with those ratings, of course, is that they're more subjective.

[Knoxx]

We really need to address the QB coaches. I don't think it will help to draft a QB till we have coaches that won't ruin a prospect.

[HardcoreVikesFan]

I am crying!


My prediction came true! We had two Ponder threads on the board following the game!