# Quarterback Rating Does Ray deserve to be higher other start

Quarterback Rating Does Ray deserve to be higher other starters, or should Dickenson or Burris or Glen have a higher QB rating? Should win factor into the calculations.

The current rating system, does not factor into consideration, the play calling and/or wins should it. Maybe it shouldn't be called Quarterback rating at but Passing Rating, because, it certianly isn't fair to team like the bombers who have a great running back that scores touchdowns, or a quarterback who will sneak one in.

Perhaps the math needs to slant a bit more on the touchdowns and less on the yards. That could make the ratings a bit more weighted towards winning. I saw the rating somewhere before, but have forgotten it. It looked reasonable at the time.

The QB rating is fine.

It isn't meant to define a QB's career.

Just give insight into his passing ability.

Having said that, maybe the QB rating isn't fine.

The only thing that needs to be added is Fumbles + Sacks.

Ray should not be as high as he is due to his Turnovers.

Glenn should be higher because how many TD's are being run in.

There should be some way of showing that the QB drove the team 75 yards down the field, the the ball got ran across the goal-line.

Key thing is Ray is not the best QB atm. it is actually Glenn.

"no no no, Glenn isn't that good blah blah blah" sorry, Glenn is driving the team down the field + getting the ball into the endzone, yes Charlie has ran 4 in from within 10 yards but those were all passing drives that just got punched in by the RB.

ALSO
the CFL should be keeping track of drops, I'd really like to see how many Drops each QB suffers because I know Glenn suffered 8-9 in his last game which is a huge shot the his QB rating(Passing % + yards).

I'm sure other QB's have also suffered drops which hurt them.

I don't think anyone is trying to say the QB rating system is the be all and end all in defining the ability of a QB.
Anymore than rushing or receiving yards are the only ways to measure other players.
But it is a useful package that allows easy comparison of a number of the key aspects of the QB position.
And something else to keep in mind, is that such stats bear out better over longer periods (more games).
A QB that is consistant and effective over a season or several seasons will also have better ratings.
But the numbers from two games, as we have right now, can be greatly skewed by one good/bad performance.
Ricky Ray's rating was very high after game 1 because of the 5 TD passes.
While Glenn played great, he did not have any TD passes.
If both QBs play game 3 the way they played #2, I think you will see Glenn surpass Ray, which will then more accurately reflect the performance level of all 3 games.

As for drops or long drives, again, over time, if QBs are having long drives, that will be reflected in the yardage they accumulate, and completion %.
Drops are a little tougher as lousy receivers can hurt the numbers. And the reverse is true as well.
Yet again it is safe to say if a QB is good, he is placing the ball where his receivers will catch them, so he can make ordinary receivers look better.
And as all receivers drop passes, I suspect the difference over a long enough period is minimized.

So I think the key is to recognize the limitations of any group of statistics, and not place too much value on trends from two games....

Arius, this is where you and I would agree. To call something a quarterback rating, it should be rating all of the quarterbacks rating. If not it is just a passing rating and I still think Int. should be rated significantly higher and/or equal to a Touchdown.

As for your stats argument that it works out in the long term, look at Ray stats from last year, sorry he once again did better then a number of starters who had better records then him.

Quarterback rating is fine but I agree that more games are a more reliable measure and fumbles could be as bad as interceptions. Running ability is already included under rush yards for individuals. Drops by receivers or incomplete passes are counted under completion percentage. However sacks shouldn't be included because that may be the fault of offensive line. Also wins shouldn't count because winning is a team product. Quarterbacks shouldn't receive credit or blame when not on field and not involved in defense or special teams.

That is simple. Because Ray, despite the Esk record, was the best QB in the league.
Ray was the All-star QB last year.
And the int/TD ratio is a strong component of the ratings. You think ints should count more, others will disagree.
I think as a ratio, it works pretty well now.
The ratings arenâ€™t perfect, but they are there so you can compare QBs, not make final judgement.

I think the QB rating is fine, but I wouldn't mind seeing sacks included. True, it may be the fault of the O-Line, but it can't all be placed on them.
[/quote]

The QB rating is essentialy a QBs passing rating, and is the best way to generally assess how effective a quarterback is at passing. Check it at the end of the season, take a look how each QB is ranked, and you'll more than likely have to agree with it. I think it's a very great stat for the CFL to have.