They are! And I've pointed out a couple leaks in QB rating as a statistic. I believe that ERA for instance, is a good way to measure a pitcher's overall performance in baseball, but I don't believe that QB rating is as good a metric as ERA is, in baseball.
Let's take a play. The passer to this point in the game, which is in the late fourth quarter, with the passer's team down three scores, needs to convert a third down. They need two yards. 'Passer throws to receiver for three yards, and the receiver runs out of bounds. Here are the passing stats after this crucial first down.
26 Attempts
16 Completions
260 Passing Yards
2 TDs
0 INTs
For a rating of 120.6 truncated.
If you think that because of that crucial third-down conversion, that the passer rating rose a little bit, you'd be wrong; the rating went down, due to the key third-down conversion being a completion of only three yards. The rating dropped a point! from 121.6 rounded, down to 120.6. Unbelievable! It's because QB rating doesn't figure in third- or fourth-down conversions at all, never mind late in the fourth quarter, down three scores.
Also, now consider this. Next play, from the ten, passer throws right to a defender in the endzone, but the defender tips the ball up in the air, and an unintended receiver catches the ball for the TD. Rating now goes up, from 120.6 up to 133.2 truncated.
The passer threw what in baseball would be graded two ways---as a ball first-and-foremost, and as a WP (wild pitch) or maybe HBP (hit batsman, or hit by pitcher). It is certainly not something that will improve the pitcher's ERA, as it shouldn't, at best it would not hurt it, if there is nobody on base, and it's not strike three or ball four. But in the QB rating, such a pass is greatly rewarded.
There are tons of other easily imagined scenarios which show the inherent silliness of the QB rating. I love statistics. QB rating is a very limited metric, not only because there are things it just doesn't measure, but also because what it does measure promotes illogical behavior in quarterbacks who are trying to improve their own rating, even if, and maybe especially since, QBs are only doing it subliminally, because they keep track of their rating, but they don't consciously understand how a QB could increase their rating, while simultaneously decreasing the chances their team wins games.
It's impossible to not credit Graham. Montana's better than Brady in SBs. Manning until his last two years was better than Brady in the tournaments. And Brady's Pats have qualified for the tournament 14 of the 15 tries he's made, only missing, the season right after his first ring, 2002. That's right, he was playing quarterback for NE in 2002.
Brady is always in the discussion. He was in, even back when he lost to NYG to go 18-1 for that season. That was ten years ago, and he's been in the discussion for 10 years with most people who've watched and really followed the NFL.
'Just sayin.'
If a QB goes from 400 attempts for 2400 yards, to 400 attempts for 3600 yards (a 50% improvement), they can afford to throw 12 interceptions before their QB rating would drop lower than when they threw for only 2400 yards. 12 interceptions! That's how important YPA is, in the QB rating metric. I reject that that makes any sense. The passer should be penalized more than that, for throwing that many picks. Unless maybe, this makes up for getting an interception, after hitting the receiver in stride, and in the hands: and in the bread basket, but the receiver instead tips it right into the hands of a defender. It would have added a completion, yards, and a TD, but instead, it adds only an attempt, plus an interception, and the QB rating drops, but not as much as it should, if the interception is legitimately the fault of the passer. Maybe it all works out in the long-term, but some of these snapshots make the QB rating statistic, ridiculous.
Weren't they like 8th from the bottom in pts allowed last year? So you might want to wait and see when they play someone who can stop someone.