Thoughts On HC Mike McCarthy's Purge Of Packer Coaches. What makes any sense?

[mraynrand]

Some people will argue in the opposite for Sherman/Farve. Rodgers and MM are linked together in success. Saying one would be bad without the other is short sighted and cherry picking to prove your own point.

Their development is linked. Rodgers would be successful elsewhere. Stubby would likely be successful elsewhere, depending on whether the QB and personnel he was molding had sufficient inherent talent.

The conundrum is that very very few QBs will be successful because of some system when they themselves are awful, regardless of coach. The Woodbuck mistake (and those like him here and elsewhere) is always to think that Rodgers is an independent creation, who dropped into Stubby's lap fully formed and competent. Both developed together and as that happened, Stubby made adjustments to accommodate Rodger's skills, and Rodgers became highly proficient in the offense Stubby constructed with him. I have no problem believing Stubby couldn't do the same for the next QB prospect, and that Rodgers couldn't go to another team and adapt to and alter their scheme to be successful, limited of course by his now relatively old NFL body.

[George Cumby]

Their development is linked. Rodgers would be successful elsewhere. Stubby would likely be successful elsewhere, depending on whether the QB and personnel he was molding had sufficient inherent talent.

The conundrum is that very very few QBs will be successful because of some system when they themselves are awful, regardless of coach. The Woodbuck mistake (and those like him here and elsewhere) is always to think that Rodgers is an independent creation, who dropped into Stubby's lap fully formed and competent. Both developed together and as that happened, Stubby made adjustments to accommodate Rodger's skills, and Rodgers became highly proficient in the offense Stubby constructed with him. I have no problem believing Stubby couldn't do the same for the next QB prospect, and that Rodgers couldn't go to another team and adapt to and alter their scheme to be successful, limited of course by his now relatively old NFL body.

Right, look at most of the great championship teams, there is almost always a dynamic synergy between HC and QB. It's not always tea and crumpets, the relationship is complex, multi layered and nuanced. Starr and Lombardi, Landry and Staubach, Noll and Bradshaw, Montana and what's his name (ugh, my memory), johnson and Aikman, etc. if Rodgers had been drafted early in the first and thrown into action his rookie year, he'd be another example of a Tedford QB that couldn't cut it in the NFL.

[woodbuck27]

Their development is linked. Rodgers would be successful elsewhere. Stubby would likely be successful elsewhere, depending on whether the QB and personnel he was molding had sufficient inherent talent.

The conundrum is that very very few QBs will be successful because of some system when they themselves are awful, regardless of coach. The Woodbuck mistake (and those like him here and elsewhere) is always to think that Rodgers is an independent creation, who dropped into Stubby's lap fully formed and competent. Both developed together and as that happened, Stubby made adjustments to accommodate Rodger's skills, and Rodgers became highly proficient in the offense Stubby constructed with him. I have no problem believing Stubby couldn't do the same for the next QB prospect, and that Rodgers couldn't go to another team and adapt to and alter their scheme to be successful, limited of course by his now relatively old NFL body.

This isn't a woodbuck27 mistake or 'a mistake' by any other Packerrat or (Green Bay Packer knowledgeable fan) that see's all things Packers and 'the forest for the trees'.

This is the TRUTH:



This Graph indicates a Green Bay Packers MM/Aaron Rodgers Led Offense, now in a CLEAR Free Fall.

[Zool]

This isn't a woodbuck27 mistake or 'a mistake' by any other Packerrat or (Green Bay Packer knowledgeable fan) that see's all things Packers and 'the forest for the trees'.

This is the TRUTH:



This Graph indicates a Green Bay Packers MM/Aaron Rodgers Led Offense, now in a CLEAR Free Fall.

Well then I say this data clearly shows that Rodgers is in decline and can no longer cut it at the NFL level despite what the coaches are doing to help him.

Or ,since Rodgers calls most of the plays at the line, his ability to call plays that put them in scoring position is severely lacking.

Or, lets grab some sack numbers and say his inability to escape pressure is what is causing the down tick in production.

See, I can use the available data to support a completely different opinion. Data does not equal fact. Data is just data.

[woodbuck27]

Well then I say this data clearly shows that Rodgers is in decline and can no longer cut it at the NFL level despite what the coaches are doing to help him.

Or ,since Rodgers calls most of the plays at the line, his ability to call plays that put them in scoring position is severely lacking.

Or, lets grab some sack numbers and say his inability to escape pressure is what is causing the down tick in production.

See, I can use the available data to support a completely different opinion. Data does not equal fact. Data is just data.

OK Zool !

What do you prefer the 2011 Season Packer Offense or the 2015-16 Season Offenses?

Twist those FACTS around Zool.

[Zool]

OK Zool !

What do you prefer the 2011 Season Packer Offense or the 2015-16 Season Offenses?

Twist those FACTS around Zool.

Both, unless I can find stats that support my current feeling, then I’ll pick neither.

[SudsMcBucky]

This isn't a woodbuck27 mistake or 'a mistake' by any other Packerrat or (Green Bay Packer knowledgeable fan) that see's all things Packers and 'the forest for the trees'.

This is the TRUTH:



This Graph indicates a Green Bay Packers MM/Aaron Rodgers Led Offense, now in a CLEAR Free Fall.

Help me understand this graph. For 2017, you have an AR/MM led offense averaging 20 pts per game. I calculate 26.8 pts/game.

[mraynrand]

Help me understand this graph. For 2017, you have an AR/MM led offense averaging 20 pts per game. I calculate 26.8 pts/game.

And 30.6 for 2013. But Woody isn't interested in presenting an objective view, just cherry picking to fit his narrative. Hmmm..what does that remind me of...

[Joemailman]

Help me understand this graph. For 2017, you have an AR/MM led offense averaging 20 pts per game. I calculate 26.8 pts/game.

The graph indicates ppg for the whole season. It was 27 ppg when Rodgers started, but 20 ppg overall. By AR/MM led offense, I assume they mean since 2009. Not sure why they didn't include 2008.

[mraynrand]

The graph indicates ppg for the whole season. It was 27 ppg when Rodgers started, but 20 ppg overall. By AR/MM led offense, I assume they mean since 2009. Not sure why they didn't include 2008.

yes we know this. The Graph is deliberately inaccurate.

[SudsMcBucky]

The graph indicates ppg for the whole season. It was 27 ppg when Rodgers started, but 20 ppg overall. By AR/MM led offense, I assume they mean since 2009. Not sure why they didn't include 2008.

Ok, but your graph is specifically titled an AR/MM led offense. That's NOT accurate.

[Joemailman]

Ok, but your graph is specifically titled an AR/MM led offense. That's NOT accurate.

Wait a minute. When did it become MY graph?

[woodbuck27]

Ok, but your graph is specifically titled an AR/MM led offense. That's NOT accurate.

That Graph wasn't created by anyone here at Packerrats.com. That Graph comes from an outside of Packerrats source.

Of course, that Graph for Seasons 2013 and 2017 would look differently, if it was draw to specifically determine the MM and Aaron Rodgers led Packer 'O'.

The Packer 'O' performs much better with Aaron Rodgers behind Center.

[ThunderDan]

That Graph wasn't created by anyone here at Packerrats.com. That Graph comes from an outside of Packerrats source.

And yet somehow, someone posted it on Packerratd. A misleading/mislabeled graph. Then that person at Packerrats said that proved that the Packer O with AR is slipping,

I wonder who that was?

[woodbuck27]

Help me understand this graph. For 2017, you have an AR/MM led offense averaging 20 pts per game. I calculate 26.8 pts/game.

That Graph was used from a source and is accurate in terms of how the Packers Total Offense Performed in 2017 and back to the 2009 Season.

It's not calculated then drawn specifically (just for games that Aaron Rodgers) played.

From PRO FOOTBALL Reference the 2017 Season:

Points For: Total Points at 320 (20.0/g) or Ranked 21st in the NFL.


https://www.pro-football-reference.c...s/gnb/2017.htm

[mraynrand]

It's not calculated then drawn specifically (just for games that Aaron Rodgers) played. Of course, that Graph for Seasons 2013 and 2017 would look differently, if it was draw to specifically determine the MM and Aaron Rodgers led Packer 'O'.

Exactly. There is no free fall for MM/AR led offense as you asserted from the start. You just got this one wrong.

[mraynrand]

This Graph indicates a Green Bay Packers MM/Aaron Rodgers Led Offense, now in a CLEAR Free Fall.[/COLOR]

This is Woodcock's exact quote; his interpretation of the graph. The point isn't so much the inaccuracy of the graph (that is whether the graph was meant to be misleading or not), but how that inaccuracy leads to guys like woodblock drawing incorrect conclusions.