PNFL Ratings - We agree on

[Mitch-Oilers]

For those not on the group chat, yesterday we were discussing the pass short/pass medium issue. Dean made a great point saying we need to go back to the original PNFL ratings when QBs had a MAX of 99 IN and 90 DI.

I agree, we should consider going back to the original PNFL ratings scale in 1998. Here are the Top 15 QBs in QBR along with their ratings in ST, IN and DI.

[Jerry-Redskins]

Disagree. We did extensive testing to get INT's in line without overly hurting % percentage. No reason to revisit since we did the deep study in my opinion. People never consider the second order of effects. Lets also stop trying to change rules when some need to just learn to win in the construct we have and not change the league to their capability

[Mitch-Oilers]

Disagree. We did extensive testing to get INT's in line without overly hurting % percentage. No reason to revisit since we did the deep study in my opinion. People never consider the second order of effects. Lets also stop trying to change rules when some need to just learn to win in the construct we have and not change the league to their capability

@Jerry

Don't worry, I only posted this info to get Dean fired up based on a conversation on the podcast and Whatsapp yesterday.

It is interesting how much lower the ratings were and how much higher the QBRs were back then.

[Steve-LA Chargers]

No aST over 94? Maybe we are placing too much emphasis on 95 or 96 ST.

IN clearly doesn't matter that much like I have been saying. Young, Elway and Bledsoe with those high INs still had low QBRs?

Maybe EN mattered more? or AG? or even HA?

[Justin-Chicago]

No aST over 94? Maybe we are placing too much emphasis on 95 or 96 ST.

IN clearly doesn't matter that much like I have been saying. Young, Elway and Bledsoe with those high INs still had low QBRs?

Maybe EN mattered more? or AG? or even HA?

Or coaching

[Mitch-Oilers]

No aST over 94? Maybe we are placing too much emphasis on 95 or 96 ST.

IN clearly doesn't matter that much like I have been saying. Young, Elway and Bledsoe with those high INs still had low QBRs?

Maybe EN mattered more? or AG? or even HA?

Or coaching

@Justin

It's never the coaches fault. Ha!

[Mitch-Oilers]

No aST over 94? Maybe we are placing too much emphasis on 95 or 96 ST.

IN clearly doesn't matter that much like I have been saying. Young, Elway and Bledsoe with those high INs still had low QBRs?

Maybe EN mattered more? or AG? or even HA?

@Steve

One thing to keep in mind is the ratings CBs, particularly SP, was kower then too.

[Matt-Jacksonville]

No aST over 94? Maybe we are placing too much emphasis on 95 or 96 ST.

IN clearly doesn't matter that much like I have been saying. Young, Elway and Bledsoe with those high INs still had low QBRs?

Maybe EN mattered more? or AG? or even HA?

@Steve

One thing to keep in mind is the ratings CBs, particularly SP, was kower then too.

That is probably your answer. If the ratings for the CBs were lower, that played a bigger part than the QB ratings.

[Barney - Vikings]

Agree with Jerry. Right now points scored is in line with the NFL and most games are close. There will always be second order effects to any change. The league right now is by far the best that I’ve ever experienced in my 25 years of playing this game.
Tread very carefully with rule changes would be my suggestion.

[Donovon-Steelers]

And what were the WR ratings back then as well comparatively? Will also impact the QBR as the DB ratings would.