FINAL STATISTICAL COMPARISON

[Sparkey]

Player.....Cmp Att % ATT/G YDS AVG YD/G TD INT +20 +40 Scks Rtng

Rodgers..341 536 63.6 33.5 4,038 7.5 252.4 28 13 48 16 34 93.8

Favre......343 522 65.7 32.6 3,472 6.7 217.0 22 22 40 7 30 81.0


Based upon statistical evidence, it would seem that the Packers made the correct decision regarding the future at their QB position.

[LL2]

Yes, and I think we can give it a rest now.

[Fritz]

Agreed. Particularly since based on the Jets' offseason free-agent acquisitions, which were touted by so many posters as the kind of thing TT ought to have done, Favre supposedly had a more talented team surrounding him.

[cpk1994]

Agreed. Particularly since based on the Jets' offseason free-agent acquisitions, which were touted by so many posters as the kind of thing TT ought to have done, Favre supposedly had a more talented team surrounding him.

Absolutely.

[FritzDontBlitz]

Final statistical comparison that matters:

Jets: 4-12 in 2007, 9-7 in 2008.
Packers: 13-3 in 2007, 6-10 in 2008.

Happy New Year.

[cpk1994]

Final statistical comparison that matters:

Jets: 4-12 in 2007, 9-7 in 2008.
Packers: 13-3 in 2007, 6-10 in 2008.

Happy New Year.3 more wins but no playoffs. If your not in the playoffs the number of wins is inconsequential except for the draft.

[Sparkey]

Final statistical comparison that matters:

Jets: 4-12 in 2007, 9-7 in 2008.
Packers: 13-3 in 2007, 6-10 in 2008.

Happy New Year.

Since what was accomplished last year has no bearing on this years results, then it stands to reason that difference of 6 wins or 9 wins has no meaningful significance if the end result (missing the play-offs) is the same.

[packinpatland]

My New Year's resolution is to think forward and postive.
Comparing and breaking down stats don't serve a constructive purpose. Favre's gone. Rodger's will be healthy, still young and fit next year.
I made my last post regarding Brett Favre in the BF thread.

I'm already looking at next season.
So.........we ready to talk about which month is best for the PR game?
GO PACK GO!!! :pack:

[PlantPage55]

Final statistical comparison that matters:

Jets: 4-12 in 2007, 9-7 in 2008.
Packers: 13-3 in 2007, 6-10 in 2008.

Happy New Year.

Ha ha, I love bullshit like this! It makes me realize that I have been blessed with a good brain in my skull.

[bobblehead]

Final statistical comparison that matters:

Jets: 4-12 in 2007, 9-7 in 2008.
Packers: 13-3 in 2007, 6-10 in 2008.

Happy New Year.

Guy brett replaced...from worst in NFL to playoffs.
Brett...not in playoffs.

By your logic Pennington is better than favre by a long shot.

[sharpe1027]

Final statistical comparison that matters:

Jets: 4-12 in 2007, 9-7 in 2008.
Packers: 13-3 in 2007, 6-10 in 2008.
Miami: 1-15 in 2007, 11-5 in 2008

Pennington for HoF!

Stats can be used to show just about any outcome. There is no absolute correlation between stats, team or individual, and how good any one player is. That is where common sense comes into play.

IMHO, Rodgers was not the main problem with the Packers, but he did have areas that he could improve.

[Gunakor]

Final statistical comparison that matters:

Jets: 4-12 in 2007, 9-7 in 2008.
Packers: 13-3 in 2007, 6-10 in 2008.

Happy New Year.

He was comparing QB's, not teams.

Happy New Year to you as well.

[Patler]

Final statistical comparison that matters:

Jets: 4-12 in 2007, 9-7 in 2008.
Packers: 13-3 in 2007, 6-10 in 2008.

Happy New Year.

...and the Jets were 10-6 in 2006, while the Packers were 8-8. So what?
The Dolphins were 1-15 in 2007 and now are 11-5, using the QB that played many of the games for the Jets in their 4-12 season of 2007. If nothing else it should prove to everyone that even the QBs do not carry the teams by themselves. (If they can, why were the Packers 4-12 in 2005?) In the end, each player is only responsible for his individual performance, and to be successful the team collectively has to have a lot of their players performing well. The QB can have a larger effect on the overall success than many other positions can, but it is never just the QB.

[Lurker64]

IMHO, Rodgers was not the main problem with the Packers, but he did have areas that he could improve.

Not only was he not "the main problem", I don't see how anybody could claim a QB who threw for > 4000 yards, had 28 TD passes (13 INTS), 4 rushing TDs (3 fumbles lost), and finished with a 93.8 passer rating is "a problem" at all.

Yes, Rodgers can get better and he will, almost certainly, but 30 TDs and 4000 passing yards is good for any QB, whether you're a first year starter or a 10-year veteran. If you're expecting more than that, you really have unrealistic expectations for quarterbacking.

Rodgers had a good year, the team did not.

[denverYooper]

IMHO, Rodgers was not the main problem with the Packers, but he did have areas that he could improve.

Not only was he not "the main problem", I don't see how anybody could claim a QB who threw for > 4000 yards, had 28 TD passes (13 INTS), 4 rushing TDs (3 fumbles lost), and finished with a 93.8 passer rating is "a problem" at all.

Yes, Rodgers can get better and he will, almost certainly, but 30 TDs and 4000 passing yards is good for any QB, whether you're a first year starter or a 10-year veteran. If you're expecting more than that, you really have unrealistic expectations for quarterbacking.

Rodgers had a good year, the team did not.

Yep. 4th in yards, 4th in TDs, 6th in rate. Not too shabby.

[sharpe1027]

IMHO, Rodgers was not the main problem with the Packers, but he did have areas that he could improve.

Not only was he not "the main problem", I don't see how anybody could claim a QB who threw for > 4000 yards, had 28 TD passes (13 INTS), 4 rushing TDs (3 fumbles lost), and finished with a 93.8 passer rating is "a problem" at all.

Yes, Rodgers can get better and he will, almost certainly, but 30 TDs and 4000 passing yards is good for any QB, whether you're a first year starter or a 10-year veteran. If you're expecting more than that, you really have unrealistic expectations for quarterbacking.

Rodgers had a good year, the team did not.

To be fair, you can't have it both ways. His "individual" statistics are not individual in any true sense of the word. They are a direct result of the players and system around him.

Of course, there is no way that he can put up those type of numbers without consistently making the correct reads and throws. So, his individual numbers are more directly related to his performance than the teams record.

Still, the team had problems, and Rodgers is part of the team. I am not about to give him a pass simply because he had good stats. The entire team deserves a swift kick in the ass.

[channtheman]

Final statistical comparison that matters:

Jets: 4-12 in 2007, 9-7 in 2008.
Packers: 13-3 in 2007, 6-10 in 2008.

Happy New Year.

This argument is bullshit and it pisses me off every time I see or hear it.

2004 Jets: 10-6
2005 Jets: 4-12
2006 Jets: 10-6
2007 Jets: 4-12

As you can see the Jets have flip flopped their record over the past few seasons and their turn around this year should come of no surprise. In fact, I think the Jets were losing games because of Brett, especially near the end. How you can still argue this is beyond me.

[cheesner]

It takes receivers to catch the passes. It takes an OL to pass block. It takes a running game to keep the defenses honest. It takes a defense to keep the score low so your offense doesn't have to do too much. It takes good special teams so you have better field position. It takes . . . .

There are so many variables, you can argue to you are blue in the fingers and you will never sway anyone from the position they currently have. There are reasons on both sides of the fence to draw conclusions one way or the other. It is just too complex of an issue to draw any definite comparisons.

In my opinion, AR played better overall than BF. If BF was our QB this season, we would have likely won an extra game or two based on his leadership. I would rather have the youngster in a wasted season gaining valuable experience than to have BF at the helm. BF did what he has for the last 1/2 of his career. Played great most of the season, and then played very poorly towards the end of the season. I think the game just wears on him and he is nearly disinterested by the end of the season.

[oregonpackfan]

My New Year's resolution is to think forward and postive.
Comparing and breaking down stats don't serve a constructive purpose. Favre's gone. Rodger's will be healthy, still young and fit next year.
I made my last post regarding Brett Favre in the BF thread.

I'm already looking at next season.
So.........we ready to talk about which month is best for the PR game?
GO PACK GO!!! :pack:

Amen!

[Sparkey]

I did not post the statistical comparison to rip on a player or do the "see I told you so" routine. I posted them because there were many posters on this board that wanted to wait until the end of the year to see of TT & MM made the right move for the future of the franchise.

Based on how Rodgers played and his age and the potential that he improves as he gains experience, I believe that the right decision was made for the future of the Green Bay Packers.

Add in the fact that many did not think Rodgers could even make it through three games, much less a full season, and there is reason to be optimistic about the Packers. It is said, finding a top level qb is the hardest thing to do in the NFL. See (Dolphins, 49ers, Bears, Raiders) for examples of teams struggling to do what Green Bay has done.

Packer fan since 1973! Go Pack Go!