Current stats that measure QBs are inefficient. Since they don't have 500 at bats like baseball players do, I don't think it's fair to assume that all the luck involved will equal out.

Dropped passes should count as catches.

Long passes that are essentially jump balls should be awarded equal value regardless of whether or not they happen to be caught by the WR (or intercepted by the DB). The stat should be similiar to a pass/fail in that either the pass was put in the right position (where it's more likely to be caught by the WR or dropped than intercepted).

balls that are thrown away to avoid a sack should not be considered "incomplete"

balls that are swatted away or "almost" intercepted should count the same as one that does in fact get intercepted.

there should be some type of penalty for missing a wide open receiver. either by throwing it poorly or by not seeing him at all.

sacks that result from the qb holding it on too long should be different than sacks via a good pass rush.

incomplete passes based on a good pass rush should be less detrimental than other incomplete passes.

yards after the catch should not be nearly as valuable as yards gained before the catch (actually, "up to the catch" probably makes more sense). But, there should be some way to penalize the qb for throwing a ball that should have led the receiver and allowed him to gain more yards but couldn't b/c the ball was thrown short.

if a qb throws a 7 yard pass on 3rd and 12, those yards have little value. its value should be decreased by a lot.

The mobility of a qb should be measurable in something other than yards gained. There is value in avoiding a rush, rolling out, and still being able to make the play.

there should be a measurable stat of pocket poise.

balls swatted at the line seem (un)lucky. i may be wrong on that.

i assume playaction "fakeness" and being able to audible is immeasurable.

anything bad that happens b/c a qb is being hit as he releases is probably not the qbs fault. unless he stayed in the pocket too long.

ignore all stats that occur after the game is a blow out.


[that beer run by miller light was pretty funny. i wonder if all this miller light vs. bud light bashing is much like republicans vs democrats. as long as they are talking about each other, the idea of a third party micro brewery is unheard of]

Ok, i think i covered everything. Well, except for the obvious problem of a Qb's success is so heavily dependent on things such as the offensive line, wide receivers, defense he's playing against, weather conditions, game conditions, etc. In short, since I imagine we are at least 5 years (probably 10) away before anyone starts tracking advanced stats, i imagine it's futile to try and evaluate qbs. Keeping track of yards, ints, and tds is like measuring rbis in baseball. I'll still hold true to my belief that Phil Simms was as good a qb as Montana, but didn't have the environment around him to trully shine.