But if the pass was "more perfect", maybe not drawing the WR deeper into coverage, it wouldn't have been intercepted. There are some interceptions that aren't the QBs fault. But just hitting the WRs hands isn't enough to determine that.
It should be like in baseball scoring where there's a subjective element to it. Some interceptions can be ruled against the QB and others not.
I've also wanted passing stats to stop measuring pass completions behind the line of scrimmage as being included in the QBs passing yards. Tom Brady made a living on those short passes that go for big yardage. Compared to a generation ago, it's not really reflective of how well a QB passed the ball.
Same goes for those little forward dump passes that are just glorified hand offs. They shouldn't count in the passing stats.
Like I said, perfect world yes, but the vast majority of people can't tell who's at fault for an incomplete pass. In fact in some cases only the offense knows, because they know the playcall and where the receiver was supposed to be. Even deep balls, most fans have no clue how they work. "That ball was nowhere near the receiver, terrible throw!" when in fact it was the receiver looking over the wrong shoulder and getting himself twisted around that screwed the play. The ball was perfectly placed. Or all the folks who think the QB is a hero for throwing a TD when in fact it was the receiver high pointing between double coverage that saved the QBs butt from a pick.
This is why when people are deciding who is the best, they can't just go by stats. They have to watch the games. "Jordan Williams is the best rookie because he has so many tackles." Go watch him whiff hard on his assignment on Janarion Grant's punt return TD this year. There's no stat for that. I wish that there was but only the coaches can really grade those things and they are not about to make their numbers public.
League keeps track of knockdowns, fumbles, and quarterback sacked. Only quarterback sacked shows up in the league pdf probably because quarterbacks get all the attention.
A few years ago when the stats were taken down (and everybody wrongly thought the CFL just wanted to hide the numbers from the public), Steve Daniel said the league wanted to update the system and make the stats more accessible to the public. That project was going to take multiple years. Since then, the pandemic hit and the league experienced budget cuts. So, I am not sure if tables you see today is what Steve Daniel envisioned or if the stats are in the work-in-progress state that may or may not ever be completed.
Derek Taylor creates his own stats for numbers not provided by the league. One is yards after contact for running backs. Another one is actual points scored by the field goal kicker compared to expected. Taylor also counts interceptions dropped and considers that number when evaluating quarterbacks.
League does list some sort of efficiency rating for receivers, but I know nothing about how it is calculated. I think the number is for efficiency and would know for sure if there was a legend explaining the abbreviations. Also listed is INT which I believe is intercepted passes intended for that receiver.
Existing stats do give the passing efficiency for passes attempts over 20+ yards. My favorite number for 2021 is Cody Fajardo passing rating for passes over 20 yards. Michael Reilly, Zach Collaros, Jeremiah Masoli, Trevor Harris, Vernon Adams, and Caleb Evans were all over 100. Cody Fajardo was just 6.4.
If the more detailed stats are going to remain in pdf form, the league should make them more easily available.
For those who wonder who would want such numbers, the answer would be potential bettors and fantasy football players.
I agree. I'm just saying that as it stands right now, the QB is always at fault, statistically, for an incomplete, regardless of the circumstances. For fairness, I would like a separate category for each receiver's drops. Just like the QB, any pass thrown where the receiver got at least one hand on the ball without catching the ball and without having to dive would be considered a drop. That's just a first take on the idea, but you get my point.