There has been a lot of posts and discussion about what to look for when selecting a QB, whether by draft, trade, or FA bid. There's a tendency to want a QB thats rated 90+ by both your own weights and by the Ai default. And many times you pay dearly to get that high rater and keep him on your roster when contract renewal comes around.

At the time I made the big trade deal for QB Davis (91 my weights, 97 Ai default) I was 50/50 about whether or not it was worth the risk, and I'm still not sure after winning the LC. During the playoffs, Davis put up a "sub-par" QB rating of 72, throwing 9 TDs and 9 interceptions over the 4 games. Regular season, he finished 10th among starting QBs with a 79 rating, not bad but not what you would expect from a QB with his rating and all 100's in key attribute levels. Up to now, I thought that a poor performance by a highly rated QB was due to the receiver group not being at or near a high level, the Oline not providing the extra time to throw, and the play selection not being favorable. I use a very similar offense and play selection between all of my teams, so at this point, I know play selection is not a factor.

So, I thought I had QB performance narrowed down to the strength of the receiver group and time to throw based on the effectiveness of the pass rush protection. And maybe that is true generally speaking. I hope this thread will generate a lot of feedback about your QBs and what you have experienced thus far. But, one of the things that I like about MFN, are the exceptions to the rule, players who are over-achievers. Dont know how that happens, especially a lower rated player who plays at a consistent high level throughout a career.

Good example is my starting QB on my UCLA Bruin team in the NCAA league, Ivan "the Terrible" Clyburn. (my weights-70, Ai default - 68). He has a current rating of 94 for the season, which is the first of 3 seasons that the roster and receiver group was not all minimum salary FA's, of which he is also one, 150k per year. He has performed as well or better than Davis in each of his seasons without having a better receiver group or O-line, actually worse.
https://ncaa.myfootballnow.com/player/7

I dont have an answer for it, his high key attribute is arm strength at 89. Pass accuracy is 70, 30 less than Davis. PA is usually considered the #1 key attribute for a QB, but obviously not in this comparative. Anyone have a clue or opinion on this? Maybe its just the "mix", between QB and receiver group attributes?

gameplanning.....ha ha.

seriously though, ive been outta touch with MFN since the release of 4.5 for the most part so my opinions are just that. opinions. so anyway, Arm Strength and Release coupled with Accuracy and Intelligence are the deciding factors for me when looking for a QB. In the end, which is one of the things I like about MFN, elite talent players can perform less than expected and sub par talent can over achieve. Same goes with injuries. You just dont know until the player plays. Ive had super talented QB's who would throws INTs all day long regardless of the WR or OL surrounding him or short/med/long passing ratios. Just happens.

The seemingly low passer ratings (as compared to the NFL so far this season) could simply be due at least in part to the game engine misfiring somehow. There are quite a few QBs in Paydirt whose overall ratings are 85+ - which should qualify for some type of elite status. Yet, the majority of the highest passing ratings in Paydirt last season were in the 80's range. Compare that with the (short) NFL season passing ratings thus far. There are 30 QBs in the NFL, most of them starters, with passing ratings above 90 - some quite a bit above 90.

I'm still waiting for the release of a version of MFN which truly reflects the ratings of the QBs in MFN.

QBR is being depressed because long passes are currently nerfed. QBR is inflated artifically by long passes since long passes increase the YPC, which is key factor in QBR. [This is a good point to remind everyone that QBR was created at a time when throwing the ball was rare.]

For reference, if you don't have it bookmarked [you should have it bookmarked]: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/kirk-cousins-is-not-better-than-joe-montana-so-lets-fix-passer-rating/

Not too sure about that, I went more to the long pass in the Pack playoff run, on an equal basis with short & medium passes. In the LC, there were 12 long pass plays, the Waggle Post was the most effective, 6 times with a whopping 17 yd avg. 11 med passes & 13 short passes. And Ive increased long passing across all of my current teams, with the result being more scoring in general.

You don't understand my post above. Long passes - that is ***** throw beyond 10 yards from the LOS in the game terms - are penalized (unnecessarily) until 0.4.6 comes out.

There are certain long passes that work well but not because they are long passes. For instance, the Waggle Post that you mention throws to the RB more than 50% of the time.

In my current database, that play has the following stats:

32/47 - 68% - 5.5 Median - 13 Standard Deviation - 15.91 Yards/Catch - 10.18 Yards/Play - 76% clean play (no sack/pressure) - 18 completions to RB - 8 completions to WR2

I agree with that seth, thanks for clarifying. The long pass to WRs, where the ball is thrown more than 20 yards is a real rare site, lol. I was basing my statement on the actual play call, and I have increased use of the long pass plays. Will be great if the long pass to WR/TEs is improved in 4.6, like several other issues, but back to the main point of this thread, which is QB evaluation & performance in the current game version, which is what factors count most when it comes to selecting a QB along with resigning or replacing a QB. Sullivan, now with Seattle, ended up being a bad decision to let him go to FA, but his QBR did not justify the salary request at the time, my backup QB had just as good a QBR when starting. And maybe it wasnt a bad decision afterall, he may never have hit the 100 QBR mark with my Packers. But... the same can be said for current Packer QB Davis, who had a 79 QBR during the reg season, good for 10th in rank among starting QBs, in retrospect it may not have been a good trade ito of cost to get him as opposed to a 70/80 rated QB.

Do we even know how MFN calculates QBR? If it’s like most things in MFN it’s not representative of the actual performance. IE winning.

I have a similar case with my QB's. My starting QB Erik Fiorini, who is a 85 ovr QB, is playing way worse than when my other QB Rickey Fisher (79 ovr) was a starter. Fisher was *** in the only game he played in the 4.5 version tho. I miss the 4.4 version :(

It calculates it like the NFL QBR. MFN QBs, right now, play more like Joe Montana than Patrick Mahomes, so that's why the QBR is so weird. Let's see if 4.6 fixes that by removing the long passing nerf.

I'm going to test a spread, deep pass heavy offense in MFN-1.

The other problem I have with MFN is that the stats on the play cards aren't indicative of actual play. I solved that problem by standing up a SQLite DB and downloading every game that me and IoT play.