Final Ultimate Quarterback Efficiency Rating 2009

Author's Blog Note: This Blog origionally appeared as a hugely successful thread, successful like the career of Ben Roethlisberger, currently the most efficient quarterback in the NFL at winning Super Bowls. It first appeared on February 9th 2010 at 10:44am as a poll, results of which at blog posting time posted at the bottom. It has been corrected for a few minor errors that did not affect the ultimate outcome of this calculation, notably that Big Ben is #1.

Author's note: I have been patiently awaiting the season's end to present you with this gem, enjoy!

This thread presents the Final Ultimate Quarterback Efficency Rating for the end of the 2009 NFL Season. Since it is concerned only with the ultimate goal of the NFL Season, winning the Super Bowl, it will only deal with quarterback efficiency in that, the single most important regard. It will not deal with silly performance stats such as YPA or total yardage, or any other non ultimate stat that are also the product of team efforts just as much as Super Bowl wins. The F.U.Q.E.R. is calculated the following way:

The F.U.Q.E.R.= (Total number of Super Bowl wins - total number of Super Bowl losses)*16 games/games played
The higher the number, the better the QB. This shows the QB's true efficiency at getting the job done.
(Note: for negative F.U.Q.E.Rs take the absolute value, the smaller the number, the worse the QB)

However, there is also another, much easier calculation that will get you roughly the same results, but without the same high degree of accuracy. The Earned Actuals Sorted Yearly Final Ultimate Quarterback Efficiency Rating is that amazing metric.
This is known as the E.A.S.Y. F.U.Q.E.R The E.A.S.Y. F.U.Q.E.R. is calculated as follows:

E.A.S.Y. F.U.Q.E.R. = (Total number of Super Bowl wins - total number of Super Bowl losses)/years played
The higher the number, the better the QB.
(Note: for negative E.A.S.Y. F.U.Q.E.Rs take the absolute value, the smaller the number, the worse the QB)
This is intended to be a fast and loose calculation and often is just used to get an idea, not true rate differences.

Finally there is a third F.U.Q.E.R calculation for those too feebleminded to appreciate the utter shame and ignominy of losing a Super Bowl. For these people in order to soothe their wimpy squemishness, losses have been removed so that it will be easier on their poor little tear ducts.
This calculation is known as the Simple F.U.Q.E.R, which is calculated as such:

Simple F.U.Q.E.R. = (Super Bowl wins / years played)
Once again, The higher the number, the better the QB.

Now since only quarterbacks who have positive net Super Bowl wins are even cabable of having a relevent F.U.Q.E.R., only they, and those with a negative F.U.Q.E.R (Just to make fun of them) will be mentioned. All Zero F.U.Q.E.R.s will not be mentioned as they are complete ZEROS.

Again please note negative F.U.Q.E.R.s are not directly comparable to positive F.U.Q.E.R.s, they are listed only to note their ineptness.

Here are are eligible current participants and pertinent stats:

Brett Favre- games 313 seasons 19 SBWon 1 SBLost 1
Kurt Warner- games 137 seasons 12 SBWon 1 SBLost 2
Tom Brady- games 147 seasons 10 SBWon 3 SBLost 1
Jake Delhomme- games 105 seasons 11 SBWon 0 SBLost 1
Donovan McNabb- games 164 seasons 11 SBWon 0 SBLost 1
Ben Roethlisberger- games 97 seasons 6 SBWon 2 SBLost 0
Matt Hasselbeck- games 165 seasons 11 SBWon 0 SBLost 1
Peyton Manning- games 210 seasons 12 SBWon 1 SB Lost 1
Rex Grossman- games 41 seasons 7 SBWon 0 SBLost 1
Eli Manning- games 96 seasons 6 SBWon 1 SBLost 0
Drew Brees- games 128 seasons 9 SBWon 1 SBLost 0

And here are their 3 F.U.Q.E.R.s:

The F.U.Q.E.R.s (best to worst)
#1 Ben Roethlisberger 0.329
#2 Tom Brady 0.217
#3 Eli Manning 0.166
#4 Drew Brees 0.125

(Complete Zero - ineligible) Brett Favre, and Peyton Manning.

Negative F.U.Q.E.R.s (worst to best)
#1 Matt Hasselbeck 0.969
#2 Donovan McNabb 0.975
#3 Rex Grossman 0.390
#4 Jake Delhomme 0.152
#5 Kurt Warner 0.117

E.A.S.Y. F.U.Q.E.R.s
#1 Ben Roethlisberger 0.333
#2 Tom Brady 0.200
#3 Eli Manning 0.166
#4 Drew Brees 0.111

(Complete Zero - ineligible) Brett Favre, Kurt Warner, and Peyton Manning.

Negative E.A.S.Y. F.U.Q.E.R.s (worst to best)
#1 Matt Hasselbeck 0.091 tie
#1 Donovan McNabb 0.091 tie
#1 Jake Delhomme 0.091 tie
#4 Rex Grossman 0.143

Simple F.U.Q.E.R.s
#1 Ben Roethlisberger 0.333
#2 Tom Brady 0.300
#3 Eli Manning 0.166
#4 Drew Brees 0.111
#5 Peyton Manning 0.083
#6 Kurt Warner 0.083
#7 Brett Favre 0.052

So, out of all the eligible F.U.Q.E.R.s, Ben Roethlisberger is the best, the most efficient at getting the job done. It really isn't hard to see,so E.A.S.Y. F.U.Q.E.R.s shows Ben to be the best as well. And even for you brain damaged people who think losing the Super Bowl doesn't matter, you can see, Simple F.U.Q.E.R.s, Ben is still the best, do you get it now?

Note for idiots: All stats including wins are team efforts, so don't waste your pea brained wits saying, "but Championships are team stats" because that means you are too dumb to live.

What do you think?

Poll results as of March 11, 2010:

9% said "Awesome"
1% said "Great"
2% said "Cool"
35% said "Potato Salad"
9% said "Hilarious"
19% said "meh"
11% said "Solomon=Genius"
and
13% chose Other (Please Explain)

(Author's note: the"bad Joke" is that he is considered one of the greatest of all time, not that he wasn't any good at all. This Blog was originally a thread posted 2/2/10)

John Elway - the Bad Joke.

Are Elway fans nuts, or deluded?

As most of you are aware John Elway is the most over rated Quarterback in the history of the Universe. Some people are overcome with some of the stats that he accumulated in his 80 years playing football, much in the same way Brett Favre has accumulated such stats, but except Brett isn't a Pansy. But hey let's be fair, let's not talk about subjective things like him throwing interceptions in the Super bowl and coming off the field smiling like the d cells in his butt plug were just recharged. Let's look at the stats, and just so we can edit out most of the longevity based garbage, let's just look primarily at averages and rates.

But first, one total based comparison.
Horseface had 300 TDs and 226 INTs (87 more than Montana despite playing in nearly the same years and the same # of years) in his career, and if you add them together, and divide his TDs into that you will find that it is 57%, that means he was almost exactly as likely to throw the ball to an opponent as he was to score a TD. That's pretty impressive.

OK, in awe yet? How about we look at Piano Key Mouth's career stats in relation to the QBs this past season, and see how awesome John L-way (L is for Loser) stacks up.

JE* - YPA 7.1 - compares to 2009 Jason Campbell 7.1 whoa, as productive as Campbell
JE - Comp% 56.9 - compares to 2009 Marc Bulger 56.7 ha-ha, as accurate as Bulger.
JE - 31 att/game - compares to 2009 Joe Flacco 31.2 oh-no, as prolific as Flacco.
JE - 220 yd/game - compares to 2009 David Garrard 224.8 yessss, as productive as Garrard.

(* JE= Horseface, er, I mean John Elway)

An amazing passer rating of 79.9 - compares to 2009 Matt Ryan 80.9

JE's longest pass ever was 86yds - Four players in 2009 alone had one at least that long, and 1 was JaMarcus Russell. That's right, JaMarcus Russell, ha-ha!

Bbbbuuuuuut, you can't compare career numbers to those guy's 1 season numbers. Fine, so which active NFL player's (we'll call him Player X) career numbers most closely resemble Horseface's career numbers you might ask?

JE - YPA 7.1 - compares to Player X's 6.7
JE - Comp% 56.9 - compares to Player X's 57.0
JE - 31 att/game - compares to Player X's 31.4
JE - 220 yd/game - compares to Player X's 209.5
JE - 4.1%TD - compares to Player X's 4.5%
JE - 3.1%INT - compares to Player X's 3.2%

A pretty close match, wouldn't you say? So who is this Elway clone who with Elway numbers should be lighting up the league and causing everyone to forget Brady and Manning and take notice?

Eli Manning, the man who defines mediocrity in the NFL.

Bbbbuuuuuut Elway was clutch!!

Really? let's see how well he clutched the ball.

In the 8 years of his career that they kept track of QB fumbles, he had 76, or an average of 9.5 per year, if he would have done likewise in the first 8 years of his career (when he was younger, so in reality it would probably be higher) that would have been around 152 fumbles. That would put him 3rd in NFL history in dropping the ball, just 1 fumble behind Dave Krieg, and 9 behind Warren Moon, the leader in dropsies.
 
OK, OK, I am so mean and I hate Elway, damn straight, I'm an AFC guy and I'll never forgive him for losing all those Super Bowls, but I will give him his due. The one thing that I believe Elway was one of the best of all time at was scrambling. The dude should have been a RB with his 4.4 average rush, and 7 seasons of multi rushing TDs, and he could extend a play like no one this side of Steve Young. Oh, that's when he wasn't getting sacked 516 times for over 2.15 miles (3785yds).

You can delude yourself that this 3 time Super Bowl loser has any place in discussions of the best of all time, but I sure won't.

Was he good?, yes, great?, maybe, but one of the best of all time? No chance.

 

Elway is...

The Choices and % were as of 2/12/10:
 A) a Big Loser-11% B) a Loser-3% C) a mostly Loser-3% D) a bit of a Loser-2% E) He was OK-34% F) meh-7% G) I'd rather have Potato Salad-13% and H) He didn't totally suck-28%

(Author's note: this was originally posted as a NFL Main Board thread on 10/7/09, but is being reposted here with the update of SB44)

THE DEFINITIVE CHAMPIONSHIP LIST

This is the definitive championship list. It was put together to for once and for all silence the whining about ancient championships against the Trojans and the Spartans and the Hitites, etc. It shows the state of the NFL and the value of winning the championship in the years that they occured. This value is calculated from the level of competing teams in the league as compared to the 32 team league today. It does not count AAC, or AFL Championships. Why? Because they are not the NFL. It does not count NFL "championships" from 1920-1932 because there was no game deciding the outcome, so they don't count. They are worth zero, and although the Giants, Packers and Bears fans may complain, no fans of the Akron Pros, Cleveland Bulldogs, Canton Bulldogs, Frankford Yellow Jackets, or Providence Steam Rollers are going to object. Why? Because obviously those teams like the championships from those years are utterly unimportant as they have no real value. So those just flat out don't count.

From 1933-1965 championships count at the fraction of competition they faced in their league that year compared to the current 32 team league level of competition. For example, there were 10 teams in the NFL in 1933, so that championship counts for 10/32 (0.313) of 1 championship. There were only 9 teams in'35 and '36 and only 8 teams in '43, so those would count for 0.281, 0.281 and 0.250 value respectively.

Calculation Examples

Steelers 0.813 + 0.813 + 0.875 + 0.875 + 1 + 1 = 5.376
Cowboys  0.813 + 0.875 + 0.875 + 0.875 + 0.938 = 4.376
Packers  0.281 + 0.313 + 0.313 + 0.438 + 0.438 + 0.438 + 0.750 + 0.781 + 0.938 = 4.69

The Definitive Comprehensive Championship Equivalents List:

1  Steelers - 5.376
2  Packers  - 4.690
3  Cowboys  - 4.376
4  49ers    - 4.375
5  Giants   - 3.782
6  Redskins - 3.251
7  Patriots - 2.969
8  Bears    - 2.815
9  Raiders  - 2.625
10 Colts    - 2.563
11 Broncos  - 1.876
12 Rams     - 1.657
13 Dolphins - 1.626
14 Browns   - 1.594
15 Lions    - 1.406
16 Eagles   - 1.032
17 Saints  - 1.000
17 Bucs     - 1.000
19 Ravens   - 0.969
20 Chiefs   - 0.813 (tie)
20 Jets     - 0.813 (tie)
22 Cards    - 0.313

Tied at 23rd place: Bengals, Chargers, Jaguars, Texans, Bills, Titans, Vikings, Falcons, Seahawks, and Panthers.

There, you now have been given Wisdom.

Things I Hate and Why. (In no particular order of importance)

1.) Fish and seafood - if we were supposed to eat this crap, we would live in the same enviroment. We didn't evolve to eat this, how many Lions do you see snacking on seals?
2.) Ties in sports - Especially scoreless ties. That's one of the things that makes soccer not a sport. Ties, so lame, like kissing your sister.
3.) Soccer - So much running around kicking each other in the shins then flopping down and acting like you have epilepsy, all for a 1-0 win. Yecchh!
4.) Thin skinned idiots - Especially ones on this site who "warn" people. Go cry in your closet if you are offended, or grow a pair and speak up for yourself. I know a lot of girls with more of a pair than you warn monkeys.
5.) Hard core religious nuts - I have no problem with people of faith, but if I want to hear about it, I'll ask. Otherwise, shut the (negative afterworld stereotype) up.
6.) Hard core atheists - If your slave-ish devotion for secularism were any better than religious extremists, people wouldn't think you are all such huge moralless bags of slime.
7.) The Baltimore Ravens - Don't get me wrong, they are a good team and I respect their team. That said, this is one of the biggest collection of villianous scumbags outside of felonious Dallas and Cinncinati.
8.) General Idiots - The Constitution may give you a Right to free Speech, but it doesn't make your inane ramblings worth listening to. Think about it before you go all diarrhea of the mouth on others, you are wasting our time.
9.) The weather "down south" - Really, how did your ancestors who moved there, wipe the sweat and bugs off their sun damaged skin and think, "Hey, this is a good place to live"
10.) Fire ants - Bugs suck in general, but these bastiches go out of their way to give you a bad day. Why have a yard if your choices are to cover it in chemicals or pave it over with concrete?
11.) People who can't drive in the rain - It's WATER for pete's sake, not liquid teflon or cooking oil. You don't need to drive like a 90 year old grandmother with Alzheimers just because the humidity is up.
12.) Non-Heinz Ketchup - First of all, if it says catsup, instead of ketchup, don't eat it. When someone says "to sup" they mean eat, and cat is well, a cat. So who wants to eat cat food, besides old cat ladies? Let me make this clear, there is only one ketchup, Heinz. Everything else is sweetened tomato abortion.
13.) People who believe in ghosts - Either these people are just chicken-shXX, or they are stupid. Not one single solitary shred of evidence has pointed to their existence. No scientific theory worth anything has any place for this nonsense. The only reason we hear of them is because weak minded idiots have active imaginations.

In this Blog I will list my picks for the best caption to each of the 5 photos Joe posts, I'm not doing compilations. I will not include myself as this would be unfair to all of you lesser minds (kidding, kidding, relax OK?) Now this is in no way meant to be authoritative, in fact no scoring will be counted by me at all. Nor is this meant to be disparaging to Shuless Joe's picks, but simply that I have a different sense of humor than he does and I am not constrained by picking the clean ones, just as long as they aren't profane and comply with the TOS, otherwise they'll be pulled and not by me. Innuendo is great, euphemisms wonderful, out and out profanity, ahh, no. Also, I don't have a lot of time, so I don't know if I'll be able to keep up, or whether or not I'll get bored sooner rather than later (so don't go yammering like we do to Joe when he doesn't post winnners promptly) but we'll see how it goes.

The caption contest link : http://www.sportsline.com/mcc/blogs
/view/5814983

Big Ben vs. Eli Manning, or why Big Ben is an elite QB and Eli is not (Part 1)

Don't get me wrong, I DO like Peyton Manning, I like the Giants, and I don't think Big Ben has of yet proven he is the next Steve Young, when I say elite, I mean out of active QBs in the game today.
So, Big Ben vs Eli huh? To the mental equivalent of the great unwashed they seem similar. Each was a 1st round 2004 pick, both are about the same age and height, both won a conference championship, and both won a SB mainly on the rest of their team's performance. No real difference right? WRONG!!!
They are as different as night and day.
They have both started a similar number of games, but the differences are significant.
Ben has won 45 and lost 20 (.692) Eli won 34 and lost 28 (.548)
(abbreviated B & E respectively hence)
Career passer rating B 92.5 E 73.4
Career Completion percentage B 63.2 E 54.7
Career Yd/reception B 8.1 E 6.3
Career TD% B 5.8 E 4.3
Career INT% B 3.8 E 3.5 Ben's figure is inflated by the 4.9% crash year- 3.5 IS average for Eli
Playoff winning % B 71.4 E 66.6
Let's also look at consistency by year
In 2004 Ben had 8 games at >100 passer(1 at 158.0:0.3 from perfect) and had 1 games at <60 passer rating
In 2004 Eli had 2 games at >100 passer and had 4 games at <60 passer rating (1 at 16.9)

In 2005 Ben had 7 games at >100 passer (1 at 158.3 perfect)and had 3 games at <60 passer rating (including SB)
In 2005 Eli had 3 games at >100 passer and had 4 games at <60 passer rating (& 1 at 62.2)

In 2006 Ben had 5 games at >100 passer and had 5 games at <60 passer rating (accident abberration year)
In 2006 Eli had 3 games at >100 passer and had 4 games at <60 passer rating

In 2007 Ben had 7 games at >100 passer and had 0 games at <60 passer rating
In 2007 Eli had 5 games at >100 passer (2 in playoffs) and had 4 games at <60 passer rating

B27>100 9<60 41% of his games played at >100 passer rating 13% less than 60
E13>100 12<60 20% of his games played at >100 passer rating 19% less than 60

All this show that Ben has consistently performed at a high level with very few bad games. Eli has been wildly inconsistent and has had about as many bad games as good. Ben's numbers compare to Peyton and Brady (except yardage due to the run 1st Steeler philosophy) and Eli's compare to Brian Greise and Phillip Rivers.

Why judge things?

You may have heard the expression "If you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything"

 What does it really mean, and is it important?

One of the current cultural mental diseases going around these days is moral relativism. This is the liberal philosophy that equates things that are not equal simply because they are the same class of thing. This is the philosophy that places the same value on a culture that advocates blowing one's self up in order to kill other people, with one that put a man on the moon.

Years ago, the word "discriminate" used to have a positive meaning. It meant being able to tell the difference between things that were not the same. They used to refer to someone who knew the best wines, cigars etc. as someone who had discriminating taste, and this was a compliment. The left has hijacked the word to go with their philosophy of moral relativism. They teach "nothing is better than anything else" and "don't judge things". Repeated exposure to this "it's all good" has left a large number of people incapable of making a judgment. Since everything is equal, how can you decide?

****WARNING -AN ULTIMATE TRUTH WILL BE REVEALED BELOW ******

There is no such thing as equal. Equal is a man made concept entirely, and not entirely without its uses (which I'll get to later) Nothing in reality is equal to anything else. No two people are equal (they all have different abilities and flaws). Men and women are not equal (just open your eyes and look at them and you can see the differences). Not even two hydrogen atoms are equal; they occupy two different locations and therefore are not equal. You could even say abstractly that 2 and 2 are not equal since one "2" is said or imagined first and compared to a second "2"

Ok so nothing is equal, what's your point, you might ask? Well realizing that means that some things have more value in different contexts or situations than other things. Learning to evaluate these positives and negatives is what gives us the ability to make judgments and choose things as better or worse. The use that equality has, is in the attempts to treat people as equal even though they cannot be.

Such is the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. It allows us to choose, but also makes us responsible for those choices.

That is how I can know the Steelers are Great and the Browns are not.