This is a follow up to this post
. If you haven't yet, read that first.
So quite a bit of discussion has opened up in the original post about the Efficiency Rating only taking into account the passing efficiency, and in today's College Football world, quarterbacks are much, much more than that.
In this post I'll take a closer look at the current efficiency rating and how it turned out last year in terms of ranking the quarterbacks, as well as taking a stab at my own Quarterback Efficiency Rating, which will hopefully take into account the broader, tangible aspects of a quarterback's game.
Last Season's ResultsTop Ten in Passing Efficiency - 2008
|1||Sam Bradford, Oklahoma||SO|| 180.84||10.02||1
|2||David Johnson, Tulsa||SR|| 178.69||8.9||2
|3||Colt McCoy, Texas||JR|| 173.75||8.07||6
|4||Tim Tebow, Florida||JR|| 172.37||8.23||5
|5||Zac Robinson, Oklahoma St.||JR|| 166.84||7.43||9
|6||Mark Sanchez, Southern California||JR|| 164.64||8.29||4
|7||Chase Clement, Rice||SR|| 163.92||8.31||3
|8||Graham Harrell, Texas Tech||SR|| 160.04||7.97||7
|9||Case Keenum, Houston||SO|| 159.91||7.96||8
|10||Chase Daniel, Missouri||SR|| 159.44||7.11||10|
*Rank is only out of these ten players
(For comparison's sake, Pat White's QER was a 6.3)
Most of the names on the list are pretty obvious ones. The who's who of College Football Quarterbacks last year. Bradford, McCoy, Tebow, Robinson, Sanchez, Harrell, and Daniel all had phenomenal seasons and were in the spotlight of College Football because of it.
Johnson, Clement, and (to an extent) Keenum, however, weren't mentioned too much. They don't play at high-profile programs, and don't play against Grade-A competition, but you can't make an argument that they had great seasons. is David Johnson a better quarterback than McCoy, Tebow, and Sanchez? Almost certainly not. He is a good passing quarterback, however, and his rating shows that.Key Players Not in Passing Efficiency Top 10
Maybe a bit of a stretch to call White, Desormeaux and Edelman "Key Players", but there's a method to my madness. Edelman, Desormeaux, and White had the 11th, 32nd, and 52nd highest rushing
yards per game, respectively.
Obviously this didn't suddenly make them some of the best quarterbacks in the nation, as none of the three were invited to the Heisman Ceremony, but it's just an example of the aspects of the game that Passing Efficiency doesn't take into account.
Quarterback Efficiency Rating?
So if Passing Efficiency isn't a great way to evaluate the overall quality of a quarterback, what other ways are there?
Well.. there aren't too many.
So I took a stab at my own Quarterback Efficiency Rating. It has its flaws but it's a more comprehensive, all-encompassing look at what a quarterback does and evaluates them based on a multitude of other statistics, beyond just passing.Quarterback Efficiency Rating
(Completions) + (Passing Yards x 0.5) + (Passing Touchdowns x 50) +
(Interceptions x -25) + (Rushing Yards x 0.5) + (Rushing Touchdowns x 50)
(Rushing Attempts) + (Passing Attempts)
In this formula, not only is the best possible rating just over 100 (no one would ever realistically reach over 100, or even close to 100) for an easier analysis of the rating, but a pocket passer:
26/32, 280yds, 3 TDs (QB Rating: 9.875)
Has a comparable rating to a dual threat or even a running quarterback:
14/21, 150yds, 1 TD, 10att, 96yds, 2 TDs (QB Rating: 9.26)
There's no arguing that, in this example, the pocket passer had a better game, but at least with the QER they were about on the same level, whereas the Passing Efficiency Rating would have given the pocket passer a 185.7 rating, and the dual threat quarterback a 142.4.
Again, not perfect. But neither is the Passing Efficiency Rating. It might not make it into NCAA Recordkeeping, but it might help us
in the bloggosphere rate quarterbacks on more than just their passing
________________That's all for this installment of Behind the Numbers, please feel free to let me know if you have any constructive advice for the QER. Thanks for reading!