|
Post by kersting13 on Dec 1, 2016 9:16:47 GMT -8
I had previously started a thread about how great a game Marcus McMaryion had against Arizona the other week.
Someone even researched to find out that it was the highest efficiency rating any OSU QB has had since at least 1999.
This morning I learned that McMaryion's game vs Arizona was the 2nd highest efficiency rating in the NCAA this year, with the only higher rated game being by Marshall QB Chase Litton vs FCS Morgan State. So, it was actually the highest rating for any QB vs an FBS team this season.
(I did not want to resurrect the previous thread because it had diverged into different territory than how great McMaryion was that night).
That's what throwing more TDs than incompletions in a game gets you - one of the most efficient QB games in OSU history, as well as by any QB in college football this year.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2016 9:33:39 GMT -8
I had previously started a thread about how great a game Marcus McMaryion had against Arizona the other week. Someone even researched to find out that it was the highest efficiency rating any OSU QB has had since at least 1999. This morning I learned that McMaryion's game vs Arizona was the 2nd highest efficiency rating in the NCAA this year, with the only higher rated game being by Marshall QB Chase Litton vs FCS Morgan State. So, it was actually the highest rating for any QB vs an FBS team this season. (I did not want to resurrect the previous thread because it had diverged into different territory than how great McMaryion was that night). That's what throwing more TDs than incompletions in a game gets you - one of the most efficient QB games in OSU history, as well as by any QB in college football this year. The problem with the quarterback rating is it overweights statistical anomalies. It's more about efficiency than it is greatness.
|
|
|
Post by kersting13 on Dec 1, 2016 9:47:13 GMT -8
The problem with the quarterback rating is it overweights statistical anomalies. It's more about efficiency than it is greatness. That's why they call it the "efficiency rating" and not the "greatness rating".
|
|
|
Post by orangeattack on Dec 1, 2016 11:51:28 GMT -8
The problem with the quarterback rating is it overweights statistical anomalies. It's more about efficiency than it is greatness. That's why they call it the "efficiency rating" and not the "greatness rating". Whatever you call it, he threw the ball with pinpoint accuracy that night. Nothing astonishing like a 15 yard out on a frozen rope, just very efficient like a point guard with a couple of pretty alley-oops.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2016 13:38:37 GMT -8
The problem with the quarterback rating is it overweights statistical anomalies. It's more about efficiency than it is greatness. That's why they call it the "efficiency rating" and not the "greatness rating". ok then, what was his greatness rating for that game? How about Very Good.
|
|
|
Post by mbabeav on Dec 1, 2016 13:45:26 GMT -8
What was 3M's rating for the Civil War?
He hit 65% of his passes, had a td, and tho only throwing for 101 yards, he also ran for 81, with no int. I don't know if the rushing total figures into his rating, but he did a great job of running the read option and faked many a uck right out of their cleats.
|
|
|
Post by kersting13 on Dec 1, 2016 15:10:52 GMT -8
What was 3M's rating for the Civil War? He hit 65% of his passes, had a td, and tho only throwing for 101 yards, he also ran for 81, with no int. I don't know if the rushing total figures into his rating, but he did a great job of running the read option and faked many a uck right out of their cleats. Pass efficiency rating only measures pass efficiency. His rating was a decent 123.92. It would have been better if he had averaged more than 5 yards per pass attempt. I believe we had only 3 yards passing in the 2nd half. Still, a 123 is significantly better than what any of our other QBs posted for the season. I have quite a hard time reading that McMaryion hasn't won the job for Spring outright, considering both the statistical difference between our QBs, as well as the eyeball test. There's really no comparison.
|
|
|
Post by Tigardbeav on Dec 1, 2016 15:21:38 GMT -8
That's why they call it the "efficiency rating" and not the "greatness rating". ok then, what was his greatness rating for that game? How about Very Good. I looked it up. Greatness approaching awesome sauce
|
|
|
Post by nabeav on Dec 1, 2016 16:18:35 GMT -8
ESPN has a "Total QBR" rating that factors in plays with the legs. McMariyon put up a 70.9 Total QBR vs. Oregon.
Don't ask me how Total QBR is factored. His raw score was actually 77.2, but playing the Ducks dinged him 6.3 points. By comparison, Luke Falk, who also had a Total QBR of 70.9 for his performance vs. Washington gained 19.1 points off his Raw Score for going against Washington. Herbert's total QBR was 65.2 (raw score 57.5). No word on what it would've been in Mundt hadn't Munsoned that last pass.
The best Total QBR of the week: 99.5, Nick Fitzgerald of Mississippi St. 8-17 for 109 yards and 3 TDs passing, 14 carries for 258 and 2 scores rushing.
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Dec 1, 2016 16:43:37 GMT -8
My guess is you'd have to go back several/many, perhaps many many, seasons for 3M's Arizona efficiency rating not to be a top 5 single game rating at the FBS level. It was a very good passing performance.
|
|
|
Post by blackbug on Dec 1, 2016 17:09:50 GMT -8
1 negative about 3M in the Civil War game was he just never got into a rhythm throwing accurately in the second half. I kid! Throwing 3 passes 1 for 3 and 3 yards in a half of football is a measure of almost nothing. I thought it was awesome how the team ran it down the ucks throat in the second half making it so 3M only attempted 3 passes in that half. I heard one comment about how he was a little inaccurate in the 1st half with the inferred thought that it was corrected in the 2nd half. We will never know how accurate 3M would have been in that 2nd half and I am perfectly happy with that. Just thought it was ironic that almost no passes were attempted, but the offense moved so the quarterback was effective in all aspects in the 2nd half is the thought.
|
|
|
Post by kersting13 on Dec 1, 2016 21:49:26 GMT -8
My guess is you'd have to go back several/many, perhaps many many, seasons for 3M's Arizona efficiency rating not to be a top 5 single game rating at the FBS level. It was a very good passing performance. You would have to go back to 2011, where McMaryion's rating would have been the 6th best rated game of the year. You also have to go back to 2012 to find a game where a QB had a better rating against a "Power 5" conference school. Senior USC QB Matt Barkley had a 300+ rating vs the sh!tshow that was the 2012 Colorado Buffaloes. Anyhow, McMaryion's game vs Arizona was the highest rated QB game vs a Power 5 conference school in the last 4 seasons. And he's still not considered a lock as the #1 QB in Spring even though his closest competitor was ranked last in the NCAA in pass efficiency when McMaryion took over.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2016 14:38:57 GMT -8
My guess is you'd have to go back several/many, perhaps many many, seasons for 3M's Arizona efficiency rating not to be a top 5 single game rating at the FBS level. It was a very good passing performance. You would have to go back to 2011, where McMaryion's rating would have been the 6th best rated game of the year. You also have to go back to 2012 to find a game where a QB had a better rating against a "Power 5" conference school. Senior USC QB Matt Barkley had a 300+ rating vs the sh!tshow that was the 2012 Colorado Buffaloes. Anyhow, McMaryion's game vs Arizona was the highest rated QB game vs a Power 5 conference school in the last 4 seasons. And he's still not considered a lock as the #1 QB in Spring even though his closest competitor was ranked last in the NCAA in pass efficiency when McMaryion took over. why should anybody be a "lock"? I would be surprised and disappointed if the coaching staff pronounced 3M a lock at this point, based on the sample size. It's a team game and i am glad if the beav coaches recognize that good, even great individual performances happen because of the team performance and not the other way around.
|
|
|
Post by kersting13 on Dec 2, 2016 14:54:49 GMT -8
why should anybody be a "lock"? I would be surprised and disappointed if the coaching staff pronounced 3M a lock at this point, based on the sample size. It's a team game and i am glad if the beav coaches recognize that good, even great individual performances happen because of the team performance and not the other way around. I'm just saying McM ought to be locked in as #1 for Spring, which I think is pretty conservative. Why should anyone be a lock? Because in 6 games starting one looked (and stats agreed) terrible, while one looked pretty good AND posted the highest QB rating vs a power 5 school by ANYONE in the NATION in 4 years. The logic here doesn't feel too hard to follow. We all realize football is a team game, but there were GLARING statistical and non-statistical differences between the two in 6 games each. Sorry, but football is NOT baseball - a "sample size" of half a season each is as good a set up as you're going to get to compare QBs.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2016 15:06:21 GMT -8
why should anybody be a "lock"? I would be surprised and disappointed if the coaching staff pronounced 3M a lock at this point, based on the sample size. It's a team game and i am glad if the beav coaches recognize that good, even great individual performances happen because of the team performance and not the other way around. I'm just saying McM ought to be locked in as #1 for Spring, which I think is pretty conservative. Why should anyone be a lock? Because in 6 games starting one looked (and stats agreed) terrible, while one looked pretty good AND posted the highest QB rating vs a power 5 school by ANYONE in the NATION in 4 years. The logic here doesn't feel too hard to follow. We all realize football is a team game, but there were GLARING statistical and non-statistical differences between the two in 6 games each. Sorry, but football is NOT baseball - a "sample size" of half a season each is as good a set up as you're going to get to compare QBs. I'm just saying McM ought to be locked in as #1 for Spring, which I think is pretty conservative. Here let me do this for you: McM, if healthy will be the first guy taking snaps Spring Ball 2017. That's a lock. It doesn't mean he starts in the fall but that's not what you are asking for, i guess.
|
|