Calculate NFL quarterback passer rating from completions, attempts, yards, touchdowns, and interceptions. Includes component breakdown and historical comparisons.
About passer rating
NFL passer rating ranges from 0 to 158.3. It combines completion percentage, yards per attempt, touchdown percentage, and interception percentage.
Elite Performance
Pro Bowl caliber performance
Each component is capped between 0 and 2.375 (max)
To achieve a perfect 158.3 rating, you need:
The NFL passer rating formula was adopted in 1973. It has been criticized for not accounting for sacks, rushing, or game context.
NFL passer rating is a statistical measure that evaluates quarterback passing performance by combining four key metrics into a single number. Developed in 1973 by Don Smith of the Pro Football Hall of Fame, the formula was adopted by the NFL as its official measure of quarterback efficiency and has remained unchanged for over 50 years.
The rating scale runs from 0 to 158.3, with higher numbers indicating better performance. A rating around 80-85 represents league average in the modern era, while anything above 100 is considered excellent.
The unusual maximum of 158.3 (rather than a round number like 100 or 150) results from the formula's mathematical structure. Each of the four components maxes out at 2.375, and when combined through the formula, the theoretical maximum lands at exactly 158.333... This wasn't a deliberate design choice—it's simply where the math ends up given the constants used in the formula.
The passer rating formula evaluates four aspects of passing performance. Each component is calculated separately, capped between 0 and 2.375, then combined.
This component rewards accuracy. The baseline of 0.3 (30%) represents a minimum competent level—anything below contributes nothing. A completion rate of 77.5% or higher maxes out the component at 2.375.
Yards per attempt captures both accuracy and the ability to throw downfield. The baseline of 3 yards per attempt represents minimal production. Reaching 12.5 yards per attempt maxes the component.
This measures scoring efficiency. Unlike the other components, there's no baseline to subtract—touchdowns are purely positive. A touchdown rate of 11.875% (roughly one TD every 8-9 attempts) hits the 2.375 ceiling.
Interceptions hurt the rating. The formula starts at the maximum 2.375 and subtracts based on interception frequency. Throwing zero interceptions keeps the full 2.375. An interception rate of 9.5% drops the component to zero.
After capping each component between 0 and 2.375, they're summed, divided by 6, and multiplied by 100 to produce the final rating.
The 2.375 cap prevents extraordinary performance in one area from compensating for weaknesses elsewhere. Without caps, a quarterback throwing only deep touchdowns could achieve an artificially inflated rating despite poor completion percentage.
The cap also reflects diminishing returns—the difference between 8 and 9 yards per attempt matters more than the difference between 14 and 15.
Despite different formulas, each component has equal maximum impact on the final rating:
| Component | Max contribution | To reach max |
|---|---|---|
| Completion % | 39.58 points | 77.5%+ |
| Yards/Attempt | 39.58 points | 12.5+ |
| TD % | 39.58 points | 11.875%+ |
| INT % | 39.58 points | 0% |
This equal weighting is intentional—the formula's designers believed all four aspects of passing were equally important to overall performance.
To achieve a 0.0 passer rating, a quarterback would need to complete fewer than 30% of passes, average under 3 yards per attempt, throw no touchdowns, and have an interception rate above 9.5%. This is exceptionally rare—even most backup quarterbacks in blowout losses manage ratings above 20.
A perfect 158.3 requires hitting the 2.375 ceiling on all four components simultaneously:
| Statistic | Threshold for max |
|---|---|
| Completion % | ≥ 77.5% |
| Yards per Attempt | ≥ 12.5 |
| TD % | ≥ 11.875% |
| INT % | 0% |
In practice, this means a quarterback needs to complete over three-quarters of passes, average a first down with every throw, score a touchdown roughly every eight attempts, and throw zero interceptions. Achieving all four in a single game with meaningful volume is extraordinarily difficult.
| Rating | Interpretation | Typical context |
|---|---|---|
| 120+ | Elite | Career-best performance |
| 100-119 | Excellent | Pro Bowl caliber game |
| 90-99 | Above average | Quality starter |
| 80-89 | Average | League average starter |
| 70-79 | Below average | Struggling or limited role |
| 60-69 | Poor | Likely benched or injured |
| Under 60 | Very poor | Backup in difficult situation |
Rule changes favoring passing offenses have inflated average passer ratings over time. What counted as excellent in the 1970s would be merely average today:
| Era | League average | "Elite" threshold |
|---|---|---|
| 1970s | ~65 | 85+ |
| 1980s | ~75 | 90+ |
| 1990s | ~80 | 95+ |
| 2000s | ~82 | 100+ |
| 2010s | ~88 | 105+ |
| 2020s | ~90 | 108+ |
When comparing quarterbacks across eras, raw passer rating is misleading. A 95 rating in 1985 represented a better relative performance than a 95 rating in 2023.
Among quarterbacks with at least 1,500 career attempts:
| Rank | Player | Career rating | Attempts |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Aaron Rodgers | 104.5 | 7,500+ |
| 2 | Patrick Mahomes | 103.3 | 3,500+ |
| 3 | Russell Wilson | 101.7 | 5,500+ |
| 4 | Tom Brady | 97.2 | 12,000+ |
| 5 | Peyton Manning | 96.5 | 9,300+ |
The gap between modern and historical quarterbacks largely reflects era differences rather than skill differences.
Over 80 quarterbacks have achieved a perfect 158.3 in a single game with at least 10 attempts. Notable performances:
Some historically bad performances with at least 15 attempts:
Even elite quarterbacks occasionally produce terrible ratings in difficult games.
The formula captures pure passing statistics but misses important context:
| Factor | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| Sacks | A quarterback who holds the ball too long hurts the offense but isn't penalized |
| Rushing | Dual-threat quarterbacks contribute value not captured in the rating |
| Drops | Receiver errors penalize the quarterback unfairly |
| Throwaways | Smart plays to avoid turnovers count as incompletions |
| Game situation | Garbage-time stats count equally with clutch moments |
| Defensive quality | Playing weak defenses inflates numbers |
| Air yards vs YAC | A screen pass for 50 yards looks the same as a 50-yard bomb |
Sacks don't appear anywhere in the passer rating formula. A quarterback who takes eight sacks while completing passes at a high rate will have a good passer rating but may have hurt his team significantly. This blind spot is one of the formula's most criticized aspects.
A quarterback trailing by 30 points in the fourth quarter faces soft prevent defenses. Easy completions and yards accumulated in these situations boost passer rating without reflecting meaningful performance. The formula treats all yards and touchdowns equally regardless of game state.
Modern analytics have developed metrics addressing passer rating's limitations:
ESPN's Total Quarterback Rating (0-100 scale) incorporates:
Unlike passer rating, QBR can penalize quarterbacks for sacks and reward them for rushing.
ANY/A includes sacks and weights touchdowns and interceptions based on their actual point values. League average is around 6.0.
EPA measures how each play changes the offense's expected points. A 5-yard completion on 3rd and 15 hurts expected points (likely punt coming), while a 5-yard completion on 3rd and 4 helps significantly. EPA captures context that passer rating ignores entirely.
Defense-adjusted Value Over Average compares each play to league average for similar situations, adjusting for opponent quality. A quarterback shredding a weak defense gets less credit than one succeeding against an elite unit.
College football uses a completely different passer rating formula with a scale of 0 to unlimited (theoretically). The NCAA formula:
A 150+ rating in college is excellent, while the same number in the NFL would be near-perfect. When evaluating draft prospects, never compare college and NFL passer ratings directly.
Passer rating works best for evaluating consistency over a full season with significant volume. A 95 rating over 500 attempts tells you something meaningful—the quarterback performed above average across a wide variety of situations.
For single games, passer rating provides a quick summary but needs context. A 120 rating in a 40-7 win differs from a 120 rating in a 28-27 comeback victory. The number alone doesn't capture the narrative.
When comparing quarterbacks across eras, use era-adjusted passer rating or simply compare how far above league average each quarterback performed. Raw numbers favor modern players unfairly.
Passer rating correlates reasonably with fantasy production since both emphasize touchdowns and yards. However, rushing production (not captured in passer rating) can make dual-threat quarterbacks undervalued by the metric.
Game stats:
Step 1: Calculate ratios
Step 2: Calculate components
Step 3: Apply caps (all components between 0 and 2.375—none exceeded)
Step 4: Final rating
This represents an excellent performance—above average in every category with only one turnover.
NFL passer rating remains the league's official efficiency metric despite its age and limitations. Understanding what it measures—and what it doesn't—helps interpret the numbers correctly:
For a quick read on quarterback efficiency, passer rating still works. For deeper analysis, combine it with context and newer metrics.