John Beck Fares Well, By The Numbers

AP Image

This summer, amidst great fanfare, ESPN unveiled its QBR rating system to replace the confusing quarterback rating system.

Now we have a brand new, shiny, (confusing) quarterback rating system.  And according to that system, John Beck was pretty alright yesterday.

As I noted yesterday, Beck turned in the second-highest Redskins (archaic) quarterback rating of the season.  Today, we learned via ESPN NFC East Blogger Dan Graziano’s piece, that Beck turned in the third-highest Redskins (shiny) quarterback rating of the season.  Not only that, but he was 12th-highest in the league yesterday.

This is the added analysis by Graziano:

The Washington Redskins changed starting quarterbacks this week, going with John Beck after Rex Grossman threw those four interceptions the week before. And while they lost to the Carolina Panthers, Beck was more or less adequate in the loss. He posted a Total QBR of 45.7, which is slightly below average but good for 12th among the 26 quarterbacks whose Sunday performance the new stat evaluated.

The worst number on his ledger is the “Sack EPA,” due to the three sacks he took. That number is minus-3.7, and only Matt Moore, Tim Tebow and Charlie Whitehurst fared worse in that category. Beck’s best number is his “Rush EPA” of 2.5 — a sign of his ability to make plays with his legs. Only Carolina’s Cam Newton added more potential points with his legs than did Beck among NFL quarterbacks on Sunday.

Pretty good stuff for his first showing in four years, and it shows support for the decision that the coaches made in turning to Beck.  Rex Grossman started out the season with a sixth-best 75.9 rating, before dropping precipitously over the next four weeks, to a dead-last 9.4 rating against the Eagles.

This is a positive direction for the team, and something that Beck will look to build on next week against the Bills.

0 thoughts on “John Beck Fares Well, By The Numbers

  1. This year we have two choices: adequate, and, bad; of the two I’ll take adequate. At least adequate doesn’t cost us games, it may not WIN us games, but it shouldn’t cost us games.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s