Aaron Rodgers - Best 4th Quarter QB In GB In Last Decade ?

[Chevelle2]

NFL.com carries stats on 4th quarter within 7. Let's take a look at that, shall we?

Aaron Rodgers, 2008, 4th quarter behind by 7 or less: 89.4

Brett Favre, 2008: 65.8
Brett Favre, 2007: 74.7
Brett Favre, 2006: 63.9
Brett Favre, 2005: 52.3
Brett Favre, 2004: 80.5
Brett Favre, 2003: 77.5
Brett Favre, 2002: 76.7
Brett Favre, 2001: 79.4
Brett Favre, 2000: 57.1
Brett Favre, 1999: 72.3
Brett Favre, 1998: 94.9
Brett Favre, 1997: 100.8

[Rastak]

NFL.com carries stats on 4th quarter within 7. Let's take a look at that, shall we?

Aaron Rodgers, 2008, 4th quarter behind by 7 or less: 89.4

Brett Favre, 2008: 65.8
Brett Favre, 2007: 74.7
Brett Favre, 2006: 63.9
Brett Favre, 2005: 52.3
Brett Favre, 2004: 80.5
Brett Favre, 2003: 77.5
Brett Favre, 2002: 76.7
Brett Favre, 2001: 79.4
Brett Favre, 2000: 57.1
Brett Favre, 1999: 72.3
Brett Favre, 1998: 94.9
Brett Favre, 1997: 100.8

Id like to see the Favre nut huggers defend this one.


Your fixation on the male anatomy is kind of disturbing....but hey, we all focus on different stuff!

[Administrator]

Chevelle, I understand the point you're trying to make, but please refrain from calling folks names.

This type of post inevitably leads to fights. I won't hesitate to shut it down if it goes there.

FWIW - I think your "statistical analysis" leaves out a few facts.

[Rastak]

In addition Chevelle, those are some interesting numbers. Can you shoot us a link off NFL.com? I couldn't find it but I didn't spend an hour trying to do so either.

[cheesner]

What is the statistical significance level for this analysis?
That is, how many games did this cover for each.

That is, you can probably prove Tavarious Jackson is better than Dan Marino, if you look at games in a dome, in October, when down 14 or more points, in the third quarter, outside temperature is below 40 degrees, on games played before 2 pm.

[pbmax]

I knew I was always right to blame Sherman Lewis. :lol:

This is little statistical evidence that among QBs there are some who consistently outperform their normal expectations late in games. Marino, Elway and Montana were exceptional in any quarter. And since Marino and Elway played a tremendous number of games, there comeback totals look amazing. But this the very issue that has everyone's panties bunched about Rodgers.

So its rebuttal evidence. The real question is how did they perform in the other 3 quarters as well. But no one at JSO wishes to discuss that topic.

[Bretsky]

NFL.com carries stats on 4th quarter within 7. Let's take a look at that, shall we?

Aaron Rodgers, 2008, 4th quarter behind by 7 or less: 89.4

Brett Favre, 2008: 65.8
Brett Favre, 2007: 74.7
Brett Favre, 2006: 63.9
Brett Favre, 2005: 52.3
Brett Favre, 2004: 80.5
Brett Favre, 2003: 77.5
Brett Favre, 2002: 76.7
Brett Favre, 2001: 79.4
Brett Favre, 2000: 57.1
Brett Favre, 1999: 72.3
Brett Favre, 1998: 94.9
Brett Favre, 1997: 100.8

Id like to see the Favre nut huggers defend this one.


Long ago I noted I would not reply to your posts due to reasons I stated then; I broke that vow once and here I am doing it again.

This tone is Bush League

That's all I got; hopefully I don't break my pledge again soon

[Chevelle2]

I apologize for the name calling. I will edit the thread, but honestly, Ive seen far worse here.

[Packnut]

NFL.com carries stats on 4th quarter within 7. Let's take a look at that, shall we?

Aaron Rodgers, 2008, 4th quarter behind by 7 or less: 89.4

Brett Favre, 2008: 65.8
Brett Favre, 2007: 74.7
Brett Favre, 2006: 63.9
Brett Favre, 2005: 52.3
Brett Favre, 2004: 80.5
Brett Favre, 2003: 77.5
Brett Favre, 2002: 76.7
Brett Favre, 2001: 79.4
Brett Favre, 2000: 57.1
Brett Favre, 1999: 72.3
Brett Favre, 1998: 94.9
Brett Favre, 1997: 100.8

Id like to see the Favre nut huggers defend this one.

A simple case of confusion my friend. Wins are the ONLY thing that matters in the NFL. Stats are for Fantasy leagues...............

[Packnut]

And losers...........

[Administrator]

I apologize for the name calling. I will edit the thread, but honestly, Ive seen far worse here.

I have no doubt that you've seen far worse. That isn't the point.

I highly doubt you've seen "far worse" in the first post of the thread. Rarely does the OP start the name calling before anyone has even had a chance to respond. That kind of sets an undesirable tone right off the bat, no? Haven't we argued Favre/Rodgers enough?

Also, under your "theory" we can never change this place if the only criteria used to judge a post is that you've seen worse...why does that make your post OK? I'm not buying it.

Thanks for the edit. I do appreciate it.

[gex]

Chevelle, I understand the point you're trying to make, but please refrain from calling folks names.

This type of post inevitably leads to fights. I won't hesitate to shut it down if it goes there.

FWIW - I think your "statistical analysis" leaves out a few facts.

Could there be any other purpose for this thread than to start a flame war.
Pathetic :cry:

[cheesner]

I knew I was always right to blame Sherman Lewis. :lol:

This is little statistical evidence that among QBs there are some who consistently outperform their normal expectations late in games. Marino, Elway and Montana were exceptional in any quarter. And since Marino and Elway played a tremendous number of games, there comeback totals look amazing. But this the very issue that has everyone's panties bunched about Rodgers.

So its rebuttal evidence. The real question is how did they perform in the other 3 quarters as well. But no one at JSO wishes to discuss that topic.
Performing better late in the game was never a trait that I admired. It only tells me that the QB wasn't 'giving it his all' early in the game.

And Elway having the record for come-from=behind-wins? A better QB would not have as many opportunities because his team is seldom behind.

[SnakeLH2006]

Snake is not gonna bash either ARod or Brett as I like both, but those stats are misleading, as ARod seems/seemed more under control (no big chances/throws late) which leads to a better QB rating.

Favre is the GunSlinga eh? He takes heat for his late game non-heroics (INT's) but he really won some games late for us at times. I gotta say, I like Arod and think he'll be great, but that was the biggest rip on Arod last year (too conservative in crunch time with the game on the line). The losses weren't necessarily his fault...mainly the Defense, but hey, he really didn't do much to WIN the game either...looked pretty pansy at times from what Snake and his gameday crew saw. Needs to attack a bit more, but hey...he'll get there someday.

I didn't get the vibe (we are gonna win) with the safe 3 yard passes to the RB's out the flat, vs. "fuck it" let's try to win and make some bombs happen to win this sucker. That makes it exciting and fun to watch.

Rip on Favre all ya want, I really felt we had a chance late in the game for 15 years, cuz he didn't give a rip if he got picked with a min. left if he thought he could win it. It didn't work out alot, but I hope ARod gets a more of a Killer Instinct in 2009 late games down by a TD.

You are down by 7......go out in blaze of glory?..or does the world end with a whimper and not a bang? If you are gonna lose, at least go balls out to win that sucker. That's all. And don't date Jessica Simpson... :roll:

[HarveyWallbangers]

I didn't get the vibe (we are gonna win) with the safe 3 yard passes to the RB's out the flat, vs. "fuck it" let's try to win and make some bombs happen to win this sucker. That makes it exciting and fun to watch.

Rip on Favre all ya want, I really felt we had a chance late in the game for 15 years, cuz he didn't give a rip if he got picked with a min. left if he thought he could win it. It didn't work out alot, but I hope ARod gets a more of a Killer Instinct in 2009 late games down by a TD.

You are down by 7......go out in blaze of glory?..or does the world end with a whimper and not a bang? If you are gonna lose, at least go balls out to win that sucker. That's all. And don't date Jessica Simpson... :roll:

Rodgers took plenty of chances when he had to at the end of games. He threw 2 or 3 late game interceptions down the field. Problem is the defense put him in too many of those situations--many times after he had put the Packers ahead or tied the game in the final 6 minutes.

[th87]

I think the argument here is awfully flawed. What is a 4th quarter comeback anyway?

It seems to be defined as any situation in which a team takes a lead in the 4th quarter PLUS the defense holds the other team until time runs out.

If that's the case, there are two entities in the equation, no? Quarterback and defense. Therefore, the concept of a 4th quarter comeback MUST take into account the performance of the defense after the score to take the lead.

So in using this metric, there have been 42 occurrences in which Brett Favre has helped take the lead, AND the defense has held to close out the game.

And for Rodgers, there have been 6(?) occurrences in which he has helped take the lead or put the team in position to do so, but the defense/special teams did not hold up its side of the bargain.

Therefore, to make this a truly fair comparison, we have to find out how many times Favre has helped take a 4th quarter lead or put the team in position to do so, with say, 5:00 or less to go, regardless of whether we ended up winning the game or not. And then compare it to Rodgers' total. It's the only way to make it an apples to apples comparison.

[Patler]

I think the argument here is awfully flawed. What is a 4th quarter comeback anyway?

It seems to be defined as any situation in which a team takes a lead in the 4th quarter PLUS the defense holds the other team until time runs out.

If that's the case, there are two entities in the equation, no? Quarterback and defense. Therefore, the concept of a 4th quarter comeback MUST take into account the performance of the defense after the score to take the lead.

So in using this metric, there have been 42 occurrences in which Brett Favre has helped take the lead, AND the defense has held to close out the game.

And for Rodgers, there have been 6(?) occurrences in which he has helped take the lead or put the team in position to do so, but the defense/special teams did not hold up its side of the bargain.

Therefore, to make this a truly fair comparison, we have to find out how many times Favre has helped take a 4th quarter lead or put the team in position to do so, with say, 5:00 or less to go, regardless of whether we ended up winning the game or not. And then compare it to Rodgers' total. It's the only way to make it an apples to apples comparison.

Does the original post have anything at all to do with comebacks? I don't think so. It is simply a look at the QB's performance in the 4th quarter when his team is behind by 7 or less. I don't interpret it to have anything at all to do with whether they won the game or not. So, in that regard it is an apples to apples comparison for what it states, how the QB performs (by QB rating calculation) when his team is behind by 7 or less in the 4th quarter. No outside factors are needed. How the defense or special teams performed is not needed, because it changes nothing the way I interpret the data presented.

[SkinBasket]

Therefore, to make this a truly fair comparison, we have to find out how many times Favre has helped take a 4th quarter lead or put the team in position to do so, with say, 5:00 or less to go, regardless of whether we ended up winning the game or not. And then compare it to Rodgers' total. It's the only way to make it an apples to apples comparison.

Until you start regarding how much time the various offensive lines gave the QB, the quality of the WRs, how much the defense had to account for whatever RB was in the game, and the quality of the opposing pass defenses...

It's almost like there's no real way to compare the two. Almost. And maybe doing so is a fruitless exercise no matter what numbers, impressions, or recollections anyone might have.

[Patler]

What is the statistical significance level for this analysis?
That is, how many games did this cover for each.

That is, you can probably prove Tavarious Jackson is better than Dan Marino, if you look at games in a dome, in October, when down 14 or more points, in the third quarter, outside temperature is below 40 degrees, on games played before 2 pm.

In fairness to the original post, it is not a far fetched or extreme set of factors. It is a season by season analysis of their QB rating when playing with the team down by 7 or less in the fourth quarter. I would expect that the number of games in which those conditions applied would be high in some seasons and low in others. It seems to address a fairly direct question:

What is the QB's rating when his team is within one score of a tie or lead in the 4th quarter?

That is a fairly direct, and I would argue at least somewhat relevant set of conditions for looking at a QB's performance. It's not necessarily overly significant, but at least relevant. Does he perform well (as determined by QB rating) when under pressure in the 4th quarter?

I think it does point out one thing that some of us have argued about last season. Much has been made of "Rodgers failures" late in games. Many have pointed out that Rodgers did his job many times, but other aspects of the team failed. This data would seem to support that. I'm not suggesting that he never failed, but many times he did what he had to and the ultimate result was do to others not doing what they should have done.

[Patler]

Chevelle, I understand the point you're trying to make, but please refrain from calling folks names.

This type of post inevitably leads to fights. I won't hesitate to shut it down if it goes there.

FWIW - I think your "statistical analysis" leaves out a few facts.

Admin: I'm going to let you have it here a little! :lol:

What's the point in criticizing his statistical analysis without justifying your criticism? You belittle it by putting the term in quotes (carrying an inference that it is not really a statistical analysis) and you say it leaves out facts. Why not tell us what facts you believe are omitted? Otherwise, you are simply criticizing the post based on the poster, the exact type of thing you are asking us to refrain from doing. It adds nothing to the discussion, yet carries the weight of the Administrators authority.

You stated, "FWIW". Without support of the statement, I would suggest the comment from you was worth absolutely nothing. :oops:

[MJZiggy]

Joe got Patlerized! It means you're official now.

[th87]

I think the argument here is awfully flawed. What is a 4th quarter comeback anyway?

It seems to be defined as any situation in which a team takes a lead in the 4th quarter PLUS the defense holds the other team until time runs out.

If that's the case, there are two entities in the equation, no? Quarterback and defense. Therefore, the concept of a 4th quarter comeback MUST take into account the performance of the defense after the score to take the lead.

So in using this metric, there have been 42 occurrences in which Brett Favre has helped take the lead, AND the defense has held to close out the game.

And for Rodgers, there have been 6(?) occurrences in which he has helped take the lead or put the team in position to do so, but the defense/special teams did not hold up its side of the bargain.

Therefore, to make this a truly fair comparison, we have to find out how many times Favre has helped take a 4th quarter lead or put the team in position to do so, with say, 5:00 or less to go, regardless of whether we ended up winning the game or not. And then compare it to Rodgers' total. It's the only way to make it an apples to apples comparison.

Does the original post have anything at all to do with comebacks? I don't think so. It is simply a look at the QB's performance in the 4th quarter when his team is behind by 7 or less. I don't interpret it to have anything at all to do with whether they won the game or not. So, in that regard it is an apples to apples comparison for what it states, how the QB performs (by QB rating calculation) when his team is behind by 7 or less in the 4th quarter. No outside factors are needed. How the defense or special teams performed is not needed, because it changes nothing the way I interpret the data presented.

Sorry, I should've clarified. My last post is a cut and paste from another board, in which they are discussing Rodgers' ability to come back in games.

The post in particular is a criticism of the general belief that Rodgers can't close out games (as Packnut also appears to imply here). However, if one wants to compare to Favre's comeback ability, the above-mentioned adjustment needs to be made.

As far as the original post, I agree that no other variables are necessary, and it does definitively show that Rodgers performs well in the 4th quarter. However, there will be the Administrators and the Packnuts that will attempt to rebut these statistics by going back to the "Yeah, but he can't win" angle, and it is for them that the previous post is aimed. Sorry if that was confusing.

[pbmax]

I apologize for the name calling. I will edit the thread, but honestly, Ive seen far worse here.

To do my best Woodie interpretation here: Good man for taking other viewpoints into consideration.

But can you post a link any of the stats above? Do all plays in the fourth quarter count in this analysis once the conditions are met in the fourth quarter? Or is it just plays that occur while this condition was true in the 4th?

[bobblehead]

Christ almighty you have all become a bunch of panty wastes. I mean the nut huggers and the TT leg humpers as well. Have we really reached the point where a little name calling gets the teachers tone and the finger wagging?

Don't get me wrong, if chevelle had lead with Bobblehead you fucking nut hugging ARod slurping prick, that would have been personal and uncalled for (not that I would have been bothered by it). But he ended with a general jab...no biggie.

So...in conclusion all you oversensitive panty waste girly men (and girly girls) get over it. I hope ty responds by calling me a name so I can show people how an adult reacts. See, ty and I raz all the time, but then we can come back and agree on something 2 posts later. Grow up everyone, and don't get your panties in a bunch over a little razzing.

[falco]

http://www.screentrek.com/images/clint-eastwood-gran-torino12.jpg

[falco]

Caption:

Bobblehead and Ty teach the forum how to interact with each other.

[Administrator]

Admin: I'm going to let you have it here a little! :lol:

What's the point in criticizing his statistical analysis without justifying your criticism? You belittle it by putting the term in quotes (carrying an inference that it is not really a statistical analysis) and you say it leaves out facts. Why not tell us what facts you believe are omitted? Otherwise, you are simply criticizing the post based on the poster, the exact type of thing you are asking us to refrain from doing. It adds nothing to the discussion, yet carries the weight of the Administrators authority.

You stated, "FWIW". Without support of the statement, I would suggest the comment from you was worth absolutely nothing. :oops:

:P Ok, lets explain this one. My comment was directed at the OP's intended meaning of his statistical analysis. As you so eloquently stated there is nothing wrong with the statistics as presented. Where we differ is that the statistics don't support the OP's conclusions. As I read it, the OP was implying that all things equal, the Green Bay Packers should want Rodgers behind center as opposed to Favre. If that is the intended conclusion, I do believe he is missing many things to make that justification.

I think you have to look at the other "team" personnel, the defense, the coaching, the strength of schedule, and the play calling and game plan. Those are all significant factors in how the QB is able to perform the job.

Then, you also need to include the intangibles. What kind of relationship does the QB have with his teammates? Does he make you want to strive for your best and do the impossible? What about luck?

All those things impact the "success" or "failure" of a QB. I would say that all QB's in the NFL have the talent to "make it". But most don't succeed because of all of the other factors that go with the pure "talent" of an NFL QB.

Personally, I think we've got the QB we need to field a decent team, as compared to the over-the-hill 39/40 year old Brett Favre (which is the commonly stated only other option - which I also disagree with). I don't disagree with the OP or with you on that one. I just disagree with how the OP reached his conclusion, and I disagree with the "tone" used to convey said conclusion.

You can "let me have it" anytime you'd like. :wink:

[SkinBasket]

I hope ty responds by calling me a name so I can show people how an adult reacts.

You can keep hoping, but he's banned until August or something, so I don't think he'll be calling you anything.

Names: Nut hugger. :oops: :oops: :oops:


Does that fill the void?

[Brando19]

I hope ty responds by calling me a name so I can show people how an adult reacts.

You can keep hoping, but he's banned until August or something, so I don't think he'll be calling you anything.

Names: Nut hugger. :oops: :oops: :oops:


Does that fill the void?

Ty is banned?

[Rastak]

I hope ty responds by calling me a name so I can show people how an adult reacts.

You can keep hoping, but he's banned until August or something, so I don't think he'll be calling you anything.

Names: Nut hugger. :oops: :oops: :oops:


Does that fill the void?

Ty is banned?


Yup.

[falco]

How could you not have noticed??? :shock: :shock: :shock:

[pbmax]

As I read it, the OP was implying that all things equal, the Green Bay Packers should want Rodgers behind center as opposed to Favre. If that is the intended conclusion, I do believe he is missing many things to make that justification.

I think you have to look at the other "team" personnel, the defense, the coaching, the strength of schedule, and the play calling and game plan. Those are all significant factors in how the QB is able to perform the job.

Then, you also need to include the intangibles. What kind of relationship does the QB have with his teammates? Does he make you want to strive for your best and do the impossible? What about luck?
Instead of coming up with reason why he could be wrong, how about some actual facts or analysis?

The OP post is quite clear on what he thinks the stats mean. Statistically speaking, 2008 Aaron Rodgers was better than the previous 10 or so Favre years in the 4th Quarter when down by a score.

As for your points, they nearly all go in Rodgers favor. His defense stunk worse than we have seen in almost 20 years (the Slowik year might be the exception, also possible Rhodes/Thomas). The Special Teams fell to well below average. His offensive line was not as effective as Favre's were in 8 out of those ten previous seasons. I have nothing on strength of schedule for you off the top of my head (perhaps you could check for us?), but my guess in that in 10 years, Favre has faced worse and still had the lower rating.

As for coaching and play calling, no one on this board is qualified enough to reach a quantitative analysis. We are lucky if the Game Day thread manages not to botch a game clock analysis before halftime.

And intangibles. Oy vey.

The original post contained a troublesome shot at people likely to have an opposing viewpoint. It was unnecessary. The poster also removed it (and at least he didn't use "haters" or "lovers"). I think we can live with someone who posts actual information, takes a needless shot, and admits and corrects the error.

But there are others who stopped by just to complain, not discuss anything. Those are the type of posts that need to end. Except for Patler. Patler can post about his flower garden and I would probably learn something. :lol:

[Patler]

Admin: I'm going to let you have it here a little! :lol:

Blah, blah blah...Unnecessary material delete!

:P Ok, lets explain this one. My comment was directed at the OP's intended meaning of his statistical analysis. As you so eloquently stated there is nothing wrong with the statistics as presented. Where we differ is that the statistics don't support the OP's conclusions. As I read it, the OP was implying that all things equal, the Green Bay Packers should want Rodgers behind center as opposed to Favre. If that is the intended conclusion, I do believe he is missing many things to make that justification.

I think you have to look at the other "team" personnel, the defense, the coaching, the strength of schedule, and the play calling and game plan. Those are all significant factors in how the QB is able to perform the job.

Then, you also need to include the intangibles. What kind of relationship does the QB have with his teammates? Does he make you want to strive for your best and do the impossible? What about luck?

All those things impact the "success" or "failure" of a QB. I would say that all QB's in the NFL have the talent to "make it". But most don't succeed because of all of the other factors that go with the pure "talent" of an NFL QB.

Personally, I think we've got the QB we need to field a decent team, as compared to the over-the-hill 39/40 year old Brett Favre (which is the commonly stated only other option - which I also disagree with). I don't disagree with the OP or with you on that one. I just disagree with how the OP reached his conclusion, and I disagree with the "tone" used to convey said conclusion.

You can "let me have it" anytime you'd like. :wink:

You seem to be jumping to a lot of conclusions. The original post contains no analysis. The subject of the string poses a question and the post presents a list of data. Nothing more. It's there for us to evaluate/analyze.

You also seem to have reached some conclusions about me supporting some position (I'm no sure what it is) that you deduced from the original post. So far I have defended the data, not any conclusion from it, because I don't think the data gives much of a comparison. However, the data is what it is and can be compared without worrying about the other factors. My reasoning:

1. I don't think QB rating is a very good evaluator. It is impacted too significantly by a couple things. If you really want to see it, run some hypotheticals with a QB who marches his team 80 yards through the air, but with the TD scored on a one yard run from the back, and another who has an offense that grinds it out mostly on the ground but he throws a 5 yard TD at the end.
9/15 for 80 yds 0 TDs = 74.3
3/5 for 15 yds and 1 TD = 104.1
Was the second performance really that much better? I don't think so. In both cases the offense scored, but in one the drive relied on the QB, in the other the passes were a change-up to the ball control drive.

2. Having years and years of data on Favre can show trends, averages, etc. A single year on Rodgers could be an anomaly. We don't know yet.

3. However, even given #2 above, Rodgers year, based on the accepted evaluator of QB rating, (accepted by some at least) compared very favorably to Favre's individual yearly performances the last 10 years.

4. As for all the extraneous factors you listed and implied, they are not that relevant. If you start worrying about that stuff, then why not consider whether the receivers have generally good hands, or have the dropsies? What about the weather each game they played? What about if the game or games came when Rodgers had his bum shoulder, or Favre his broken thumb? The whole idea in considering sports stats is that these things wash over time. Sometimes they help, sometimes they hinder; but every player faces them. Its a known and accepted variable that is ignored, generally, when looking at individual performances over time.

Heck, we compare batting averages without worrying which pitchers they faced, and the home parks for homerun hitters are given only passing thought most of the time. Yet hitters parks and pitchers parks do exist and a homerun hitter on a team in a real pitchers park suffers because of it.

[Patler]

But there are others who stopped by just to complain, not discuss anything. Those are the type of posts that need to end. Except for Patler. Patler can post about his flower garden and I would probably learn something. :lol:

Thanks! (But are you implying I dropped by just to complain??? :lol: :lol: )

[MJZiggy]

Does this mean your flower garden is a mess? :P

[Administrator]

Patler,

i don't know what you believe about this, and it wasn't really relevant to my point. I do believe that the OP had a point to make that wasn't supported by his statistics.

I completely agree that Rodgers might be an anomaly, and he might be the real deal, but any way you look at it, we have to wait for more game experience to know that.

I support Rodgers very much, and am glad he's our QB.

As to the rest of the 'intangibles' I think they're relevant. I also think they're impossible to measure. But, at the end of the day, we need at least two, maybe three more years before any comparisons to Favre will truly have meaning. Right now it is all speculation, with just enough in the way of statistics to give people two things - hope and ammunition.

[Brando19]

Patler,

i don't know what you believe about this, and it wasn't really relevant to my point. I do believe that the OP had a point to make that wasn't supported by his statistics.

I completely agree that Rodgers might be an anomaly, and he might be the real deal, but any way you look at it, we have to wait for more game experience to know that.

I support Rodgers very much, and am glad he's our QB.

As to the rest of the 'intangibles' I think they're relevant. I also think they're impossible to measure. But, at the end of the day, we need at least two, maybe three more years before any comparisons to Favre will truly have meaning. Right now it is all speculation, with just enough in the way of statistics to give people two things - hope and ammunition.

Was Patler just Adminized?

[Administrator]

Was Patler just Adminized?

Nah, we're probably 90% in agreement. I just think the intangibles are bigger than he does, and he's a total numbers guy. I'm not a numbers guy, at all. that's why I went into IT, because I didn't want to deal with numbers.

[mraynrand]

Christ almighty you have all become a bunch of panty wastes. I mean the nut huggers and the TT leg humpers as well. Have we really reached the point where a little name calling gets the teachers tone and the finger wagging?

Don't get me wrong, if chevelle had lead with Bobblehead you fucking nut hugging ARod slurping prick, that would have been personal and uncalled for (not that I would have been bothered by it). But he ended with a general jab...no biggie.

So...in conclusion all you oversensitive panty waste girly men (and girly girls) get over it. I hope ty responds by calling me a name so I can show people how an adult reacts. See, ty and I raz all the time, but then we can come back and agree on something 2 posts later. Grow up everyone, and don't get your panties in a bunch over a little razzing.

Look Bobble - it's Panty WAIST. not WASTE, ya stupid MORON!! WTF, is your head not attached properly or what??

[Fritz]

Was Patler just Adminized?

Nah, we're probably 90% in agreement. I just think the intangibles are bigger than he does, and he's a total numbers guy. I'm not a numbers guy, at all. that's why I went into IT, because I didn't want to deal with numbers.


I'm not sure I'd agree that Patler is really "a total numbers guy." Certainly he uses numbers and facts as his starting points, but I've never felt he was slavish to numbers. In fact, his post above, in which he questions the validity of the QB rating, supports my assertion.

And I would like to know if he has a flower garden, and if he does, how it's doing and what types of flowers he has in it. In the Romper Room, of course.

[Patler]

Patler,

i don't know what you believe about this, and it wasn't really relevant to my point. I do believe that the OP had a point to make that wasn't supported by his statistics.

I completely agree that Rodgers might be an anomaly, and he might be the real deal, but any way you look at it, we have to wait for more game experience to know that.

I support Rodgers very much, and am glad he's our QB.

As to the rest of the 'intangibles' I think they're relevant. I also think they're impossible to measure. But, at the end of the day, we need at least two, maybe three more years before any comparisons to Favre will truly have meaning. Right now it is all speculation, with just enough in the way of statistics to give people two things - hope and ammunition.

Well, you should know what I believe about this NOW, because I gave it to you in a series of numbered paragraphs!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:

I agree with most of this. The best that can be said for Rodgers right now is that we have no reason to think that he won't be the QB in GB for the next 10 years. He performed as well as anyone should have hoped he would. He should get better for the next several seasons as he gains experience and confidence. If he does, the Packers will be in very good hands.

I enjoyed Favre's years a lot, but it really was time to make the change because of where Rodgers was at. He needed to start playing.

Just think what a mess this off season would have been if Favre had not "retired" last season? Transitions from icons who want to hang on get very messy in every sport. It's good for the Packers to have that behind them.

[Patler]

Does this mean your flower garden is a mess? :P

Fair to middling. Better than some, but not a showpiece! No time! Waste too many hours typing responses on here with just two fingers!! :lol: :lol:
If I ever learned to type, I could have a decent landscape!

[Fritz]

This is an interesting point. There is little evidence to suggest that if the Packers had - possibly "again" - agreed to have Favre come back that Favre wouldn't have retired-unretired again this season. Imagine going through all of the crap from last year, then have Favre come back, then have him retire, then have him want to come back again. Two years of utter mess in a row - ugh. I'm so glad that's over.

It was time for Rodgers to play. We'll see how it plays out, but I am hopeful and feel he can be a very good QB - maybe even Steve Young to Favre's Montana.

[mraynrand]

Was Patler just Adminized?

Nah, we're probably 90% in agreement. I just think the intangibles are bigger than he does, and he's a total numbers guy. I'm not a numbers guy, at all. that's why I went into IT, because I didn't want to deal with numbers.


I'm not sure I'd agree that Patler is really "a total numbers guy." Certainly he uses numbers and facts as his starting points, but I've never felt he was slavish to numbers. In fact, his post above, in which he questions the validity of the QB rating, supports my assertion.


Patler used numbers to demonstrate that numbers can be deceiving. A delicious irony, methinks.

[mraynrand]

And I would like to know if he has a flower garden, and if he does, how it's doing and what types of flowers he has in it. In the Romper Room, of course.

I beg your pardon, Patler never promised you a rose garden.

[Waldo]

I don't think QB rating is a very good evaluator. It is impacted too significantly by a couple things. If you really want to see it, run some hypotheticals with a QB who marches his team 80 yards through the air, but with the TD scored on a one yard run from the back, and another who has an offense that grinds it out mostly on the ground but he throws a 5 yard TD at the end.
9/15 for 80 yds 0 TDs = 74.3
3/5 for 15 yds and 1 TD = 104.1
Was the second performance really that much better? I don't think so. In both cases the offense scored, but in one the drive relied on the QB, in the other the passes were a change-up to the ball control drive.

One of the major components of QB rating is YPA. 15 throws in a single drive is A LOT. I believe the longest single drive the Pack had last year was a 16 play drive. 5.3 YPA is really not all that good (YPA tends to be constant and a good indicator of QB performance even if the offensive philosophy isn't). Keep the 80 yards, but change the x/y to reflect a completion % of 65%+ and a YPA of 7+ and the change to the QB rating should be quite significant for the positive.

I believe the stats came from here:
http://www.nfl.com/players/aaronrodgers/situationalstats?id=ROD339293
however the interpretation of the stat is incorrect, as it is performance in the 4th when the QB is ahead or behind by 7 or less.

[Patler]

I don't think QB rating is a very good evaluator. It is impacted too significantly by a couple things. If you really want to see it, run some hypotheticals with a QB who marches his team 80 yards through the air, but with the TD scored on a one yard run from the back, and another who has an offense that grinds it out mostly on the ground but he throws a 5 yard TD at the end.
9/15 for 80 yds 0 TDs = 74.3
3/5 for 15 yds and 1 TD = 104.1
Was the second performance really that much better? I don't think so. In both cases the offense scored, but in one the drive relied on the QB, in the other the passes were a change-up to the ball control drive.

One of the major components of QB rating is YPA. 15 throws in a single drive is A LOT. I believe the longest single drive the Pack had last year was a 16 play drive. 5.3 YPA is really not all that good (YPA tends to be constant and a good indicator of QB performance even if the offensive philosophy isn't). Keep the 80 yards, but change the x/y to reflect a completion % of 65%+ and a YPA of 7+ and the change to the QB rating should be quite significant for the positive.

Waldo, it was a hypothetical to demonstarte a point. Sure 15 attempts is a lot, and 5.3 YPA is low, but the other half of the hypothetical is even worse, 3.0 YPA, yet the QB rating is much higher.

What affects the calculation too significantly in my opinion, is a TD pass. Keeping all the other numbers the same, give the first guy a TD and his rating jumps from 74 to 97. (If you change the attempts and completions to 10/6 for 80 yards and 0 TDs, the rating increases to only 85). Take the TD away from the 2nd guy and his rating drops from 104 to 65.

When evaluating a QB's effectiveness in a comeback situation, it doesn't matter whether he engineers a drive with a winning TD pass or a drive with a winning TD run. My hypothetical should demonstrate that while each of the QB's was successful in the drive, one relied much more on the QB's passing ability, the other much more on the run blocking and runner. Using QB rating is just not an effective evaluation of the situation, in my opinion. That is what the hypothetical was designed to demonstrate.

[Patler]

I believe the stats came from here:
http://www.nfl.com/players/aaronrodgers/situationalstats?id=ROD339293
however the interpretation of the stat is incorrect, as it is performance in the 4th when the QB is ahead or behind by 7 or less.

You are probably correct about that. If he used the "4th Quarter within 7" numbers, which it appears he did, it would be ahead or behind. Using the QB rating to compare is even worse in that situation, in my opinion, because when you are ahead you aren't trying to do the things that lead to higher QB ratings. You are doing the things that tend to lead to lower QB ratings.

That page of the stats is interesting, but it never seems to have exactly what I am looking for. This is a good example. It has "4th quarter within 7" and it has "Ahead" "Ahead 1-8" "Behind" "Behind 1-8" etc., but it doesn't breakdown the 4th quarter by the ahead or behind categories. It would be real interesting if it did.

[Waldo]

I don't think QB rating is a very good evaluator. It is impacted too significantly by a couple things. If you really want to see it, run some hypotheticals with a QB who marches his team 80 yards through the air, but with the TD scored on a one yard run from the back, and another who has an offense that grinds it out mostly on the ground but he throws a 5 yard TD at the end.
9/15 for 80 yds 0 TDs = 74.3
3/5 for 15 yds and 1 TD = 104.1
Was the second performance really that much better? I don't think so. In both cases the offense scored, but in one the drive relied on the QB, in the other the passes were a change-up to the ball control drive.

One of the major components of QB rating is YPA. 15 throws in a single drive is A LOT. I believe the longest single drive the Pack had last year was a 16 play drive. 5.3 YPA is really not all that good (YPA tends to be constant and a good indicator of QB performance even if the offensive philosophy isn't). Keep the 80 yards, but change the x/y to reflect a completion % of 65%+ and a YPA of 7+ and the change to the QB rating should be quite significant for the positive.

Waldo, it was a hypothetical to demonstarte a point. Sure 15 attempts is a lot, and 5.3 YPA is low, but the other half of the hypothetical is even worse, 3.0 YPA, yet the QB rating is much higher.

What affects the calculation too significantly in my opinion, is a TD pass. Keeping all the other numbers the same, give the first guy a TD and his rating jumps from 74 to 97. (If you change the attempts and completions to 10/6 for 80 yards and 0 TDs, the rating increases to only 85). Take the TD away from the 2nd guy and his rating drops from 104 to 65.

When evaluating a QB's effectiveness in a comeback situation, it doesn't matter whether he engineers a drive with a winning TD pass or a drive with a winning TD run. My hypothetical should demonstrate that while each of the QB's was successful in the drive, one relied much more on the QB's passing ability, the other much more on the run blocking and runner. Using QB rating is just not an effective evaluation of the situation, in my opinion. That is what the hypothetical was designed to demonstrate.

I do think that it is at least decently fair in evaluating though, QB passes are tough throws.

6/10 80 yd, 0 TD, 85 rating
3/5 15 yd, 1 TD, 104 rating

The first guys 8.0 ypa is pretty good. But his completion % isn't that great, especially for later in a game where the defense might be playing the long ball and clock squeeze moreso than a coverage that would work for 4 quarters. At best he picked up 6 first downs by throwing it, but more likely something like 4. A QB's job gets much more difficult in the red zone, TD passes are the toughest ones of all.

The second guys ypa is terrible. However his completion % is the same as the first guy. He isn't driving the ball as far down the field, and the stats look like dumpoffs. 1-2 first downs is the most likely number. But he did complete a TD pass, which is a more difficult throw than any the first guy made.

One thing about rating, is isn't that great for evaluating performance at the micro level. Rating doesn't know whether that is one drive, or a QB that went 300/500 for 1,500 yards and 100 TD's, with 0 ints, over a season, as the sample size increases, rating gets better and better.

In fact, NFL.com doesn't even list the rating for QB's that fail to throw at least 14 passes/gm on average (224 over a 16 game season), as the stat was never really meant to be used to evaluate at the micro level, as at the micro level there is no relationship between TD:Int, something that must be established for the formula.

At the micro level, IMO the best measure is YPA, that tends to be the only performance indicator that runs true through almost any sample size, at least down to the drive level. With YPA, your sample data shows QB1 to be drastically superior to QB2. It overshoots a bit though IMO, as the TD cannot be ignored.

[pbmax]

But there are others who stopped by just to complain, not discuss anything. Those are the type of posts that need to end. Except for Patler. Patler can post about his flower garden and I would probably learn something. :lol:

Thanks! (But are you implying I dropped by just to complain??? :lol: :lol: )
Not at all. But since I was essentially complaining about non-contributing posts (not trolling, but not advancing the thread), I felt I needed to get you an exception for your critique of the admonishment. :D

[Patler]

I do think that it is at least decently fair in evaluating though, QB passes are tough throws.

6/10 80 yd, 0 TD, 85 rating
3/5 15 yd, 1 TD, 104 rating

The first guys 8.0 ypa is pretty good. But his completion % isn't that great, especially for later in a game where the defense might be playing the long ball and clock squeeze moreso than a coverage that would work for 4 quarters. At best he picked up 6 first downs by throwing it, but more likely something like 4. A QB's job gets much more difficult in the red zone, TD passes are the toughest ones of all.

The second guys ypa is terrible. However his completion % is the same as the first guy. He isn't driving the ball as far down the field, and the stats look like dumpoffs. 1-2 first downs is the most likely number. But he did complete a TD pass, which is a more difficult throw than any the first guy made.

One thing about rating, is isn't that great for evaluating performance at the micro level. Rating doesn't know whether that is one drive, or a QB that went 300/500 for 1,500 yards and 100 TD's, with 0 ints, over a season, as the sample size increases, rating gets better and better.

In fact, NFL.com doesn't even list the rating for QB's that fail to throw at least 14 passes/gm on average (224 over a 16 game season), as the stat was never really meant to be used to evaluate at the micro level, as at the micro level there is no relationship between TD:Int, something that must be established for the formula.

At the micro level, IMO the best measure is YPA, that tends to be the only performance indicator that runs true through almost any sample size, at least down to the drive level. With YPA, your sample data shows QB1 to be drastically superior to QB2. It overshoots a bit though IMO, as the TD cannot be ignored.

I agree with most of that, but I am not will to presume the TD pass was necessarily a more difficult throw from a mechanical performance aspect for the QB. In fact a short TD pass can be an easy toss mechanically for a QB of a predominantly running team when the defense is expecting the run. The pressure of a third and long or fourth and long can make that throw much more difficult than a first and goal when the QB looks for a specific situation and otherwise just throws it into the stands.

I know neither completion percentage was great. I used those to keep the percentage the same for each player and remove that as a significant factor. The intent was to emphasize the impact of throwing a TD pass or not throwing a TD pass.

I find QB rating to be an only mildly interesting stat for seasons or careers because it swings so widely on one play of the small sample. There have been many times when a QB plays quite poorly for 3.5 quarters, but with his team down by a couple TDs completes a bunch of passes for a bunch of yards and a meaningless TD as time expires to salvage a QB rating for the game that is OK when his actual performance during meaningful drives was quite poor.

[pbmax]

The QB rating is essentially completion percentage combined with adjustments similar to Adjusted Yards Per Attempts figures. This is then scaled and shifted to get the scale from 0 to 158.3.

At http://www.profootballreference.com , they provide individual adjusted Yards Per Attempt figures and calculate thusly:
Yards + (TDs * 10) - (INTs * 45)= Adjusted Yards Per Attempt (APYA).

The thinking is that yards are the basic measure of offensive progress and we need our stat to measure how efficiently the QB gets those yards. But not all yards are equal you say. A 3 yard Pass TD is worth much more, and contributes more to winning than almost any other 3 yard pass, even if it is for a first down. So any TD pass gets you a 10 yard bonus here in AYPA.

An interception yields possession and field position (if you hadn't been picked, at worst you punt, at best you keep picking up yards and first downs). AYPA penalizes you 45 yards.

The QB formula converts everything to completions. It starts with completions, adds a completion for every 20 yards, adds 4 completions for each TD and subtracts 5 completions for each INT. The adjusted number of completions is then divided by attempts, scaled then shifted.

[Waldo]

I've always liked the rating formula. I think once you understand it, and its limitations, you are fine.

One of the biggest things is to compare apples to apples. I don't think that a 25 att/gm QB can be compared to a 35 att/gm QB via rating. They are asked to shoulder an entirely different load. But it can compare QB's of similar workloads to one another.

And there is a significant amount of data jitter that smooths over time. Aaron was actually pretty consistent rating wise from one part of the season to the other, even if the individual games jumped around.

[pbmax]

Nearly all stats are affected by garbage time. Good defenses look worse, good offenses bury the needle, etc.

The biggest decision in taking apart a football game is deciding what the down by down objective is. What best measures progress toward winning? Touchdowns, possession, first downs, yards? None of them are perfect. And none match the finite and discrete pitch by pitch matchup in baseball between batter and pitcher.

But eliminating garbage time would make some things much more clear. You can buy access to the database at Football Outsiders which has all the GameBook stats broken down play by play. It would be much more flexible than the NFL.com stats or even foxsports stats page, which is the best conventional one I have found.

Only Harvey and Patler (now Chevelle) have found stats that aren't covered by the foxsports database. Usually the most difficult ones to find consider down by down or yards to go considerations.

[sharpe1027]

QB rating, alone, does not prove or disprove the amount of 4th quarter "comebackiness" a QB exhibits. I find the entire discussion kinda silly. What exactly is "comebackiness?"

Rodgers had good statistical numbers and the team had a bad W/L record. Many studies have shown/suggested that most of our decisions are based upon emotion and our gut feelings rather than logic. I think this is one of those cases, and we each have a feeling about Rodgers and will use logic to backup our feeling.

Stongest evidence of a lack of comebackiness:
No come back wins.

Strongest evidence of comebackiness:
Several go-ahead drives in the 4th quarter.

Verdict:

Last year the team's comebackiness sucked, and Rodgers was part of the team.

[sharpe1027]

And I would like to know if he has a flower garden, and if he does, how it's doing and what types of flowers he has in it. In the Romper Room, of course.

I beg your pardon, Patler never promised you a rose garden.

Christ, I'll have that damn song in my head for a week now. :shock:

[pbmax]

The original statistics quoted have nothing to do with combackiness. It says, 4th Quarter QB Ratings When the Teams are Within 7. I missed the Within part the first four times I read it (unless Chevelle has edited it). Which is a statistical attempt to mean the game is in doubt and still tightly contested.

And good statistical numbers and bad W/L record indicates not that the stats are deceiving, but that there may be other factors.


QB rating, alone, does not prove or disprove the amount of 4th quarter "comebackiness" a QB exhibits. I find the entire discussion kinda silly. What exactly is "comebackiness?"

Rodgers had good statistical numbers and the team had a bad W/L record. Many studies have shown/suggested that most of our decisions are based upon emotion and our gut feelings rather than logic. I think this is one of those cases, and we each have a feeling about Rodgers and will use logic to backup our feeling.

Stongest evidence of a lack of comebackiness:
No come back wins.

Strongest evidence of comebackiness:
Several go-ahead drives in the 4th quarter.

Verdict:

Last year the team's comebackiness sucked, and Rodgers was part of the team.

[Waldo]

Football is an odd sport. All of the so called rules or mantras that fans/media have come up with have limitations.

Problem is, we broke them all last season in some way or another.

Last season was a cruel hoax to rational thought. If we are going to be bad, dammit, let the indicators show that we are a bad team. If we are good, dammit, win games. When looking at the commonly accepted indicators, I could make a very, very convincing case that the 2008 Packers were the best "bad" team in the history of the NFL.

[sharpe1027]

The original statistics quoted have nothing to do with combackiness. It says, 4th Quarter QB Ratings When the Teams are Within 7. I missed the Within part the first four times I read it (unless Chevelle has edited it). Which is a statistical attempt to mean the game is in doubt and still tightly contested.

And good statistical numbers and bad W/L record indicates not that the stats are deceiving, but that there may be other factors.


Admittedly, I took the liberty of reading between the lines, but the Favre "nut huggers" comment suggested this was directed at the endless debate about Rodgers inability to close the deal in the 4th quarter. The posts following the original post provided further support for my interpretation, as others reached the same reasonable conclusion.

As for deceiving stats, I think you missed my point. The stats are not the problem, the lack of any logical/concrete goal is the issue. Proving or disproving a QB's comebackiness is not difficult because of the stats, but because it has no concrete meaning.

[swede]

If we are going to be bad, dammit, let the indicators show that we are a bad team. If we are good, dammit, win games. When looking at the commonly accepted indicators, I could make a very, very convincing case that the 2008 Packers were the best "bad" team in the history of the NFL.

A valid point. Losing a bunch games by 3 points or less contributed mightily to what you suggest.

[Waldo]

If we are going to be bad, dammit, let the indicators show that we are a bad team. If we are good, dammit, win games. When looking at the commonly accepted indicators, I could make a very, very convincing case that the 2008 Packers were the best "bad" team in the history of the NFL.

A valid point. Losing a bunch games by 3 points or less contributed mightily to what you suggest.

I wrote this out a while ago elsewhere, so some of you might have seen it, but:

The statistical oddity that is the '08 Packers:

1) They tied with the Rams for the most games against quality opponents (teams with winning records) with 10. 5 teams (Jets, Pats, Chargers, Giants, Eagles) averaged more PPG than the Packers against quality opponents. GB on average outscored quality opponents 24.7 pgg to 22.2 ppg, but was 3-7 overall against quality opponents. GB led the league in '08 with 12 games played against teams that were at least 8-8. (By this measure of looking at difficulty of schedule and not W-L (typically a good formula that 2 games against the Lions broke last year), the Packers had the NFL's most difficult schedule in '08).

2) The Packers were losing in 3 games with 5:00 to play in 2008. In the other 13 contests they had the lead or were tied. Yet they finished 6-10.

3) In 2008 Packers opening day starters missed 44 games due to injury, an average of 2 per player, the 2nd most on the team since the 80's (48 in 2005). In 2007 that number was 10 games. The worst string of injuries were a rash at both RDE and SS. The team started 5 different RDE's due to injury and 4 different SS's. For a while the SLB (Poppinga) was playing RDE and CB (Woodson) was playing SS, due to a lack of healthy bodies.

4) Turnovers win games, unless you are the 2008 Packers. The Packers finished the season +7 in turnovers, and were the only team with more than +5 to fail to make the postseason. Of the 16 teams with a positive turnover ratio, 4 failed to make at least a 9-7 record (Oak, KC, Cle, GB).

5) Five teams in NFL history have lost 7 or more games by less than 4 points. The record is 8, accomplished once (1984 Browns), 3 other teams tied with the Packers at 7. Net close wins is a decent season to season barometer that gives an indication to the direction the team is headed, teams tend to regress toward the mean of +/-0. In 2007 the Packers were +3, in 2008 the Packers were -7. The other 4 teams to accomplish this pitiful feat improved by at least 3 games the following season: 1984 Browns (5-11 to 8-8 in '85), 1993 Patriots (5-11 to 10-6 in '94), 1994 Oilers (2-14 to 7-9 in '95), 2001 Panthers (1-15 to 7-9 in '02), 2008 Packers (6-10 to ??? in '09).

6) 3rd down % is a decent indicator of the quality of a unit, the difference in rank between scoring and 3rd down % is somewhat an indicator of luck, or lack thereof, it takes a lot of flukes to strongly deviate from the 3rd down %. The 2008 Packers offense ranked #5 in scoring and #5 in 3rd down %. The 2008 Packers defense ranked #22 in scoring but #14 in 3rd down %.

7) The 2008 Packers had a 4,000 yard passer, 2x 1,000 yard WR's, and a 1,200 yard RB, the first time in team history that feat was accomplished.

8) The 2008 Packer scored 419 points. Five teams in the history of the NFL have scored at least 400 points and failed to reach at least 8 wins. The 4 other teams are the 2004 Chiefs (7-9, 483 pts, 10-6 in '05), the 1985 Bengals (7-9, 441 pts, 10-6 in '86), the 1981 Falcons (7-9, 426 pts, 5-4 in '82 (strike)), the 2001 Colts (6-10, 413, 10-6 in '02), the 2008 Packers (6-10, 419, ??? in '09), all improved by at least 3 wins the following season aside from the 1981 Falcons, during the strike shortened season.

9) The 2008 Packers controlled the ball. Their TOP average was 31:57 for the offense, bettering the 2007 Favre-led Packers that controlled the ball on average for 30:19.

10) The 2008 Packers scored 147 points in the 4th quarter (35.0% of total scoring), the most of any team in the NFL. The 2008 Packers gave up 138 points in the 4th quarter (36.3% of total scoring), the 2nd most of any team in the NFL.

11) The unclutch factor, the 2008 Packers opponents had 13 drives with less that 5:00 to play with the Packers leading by less than a TD. In those 13 drives the Packers defense surrendered 7 TD's and 3 FG's, allowing opponents to score 76.9% of the time.

12) All season long, Football Outsiders had them ranked fairly highly, even the defense, and had a running commentary about how the Packers had broken their formulas and forced them to recheck their assumptions, as they were showing that in fact the Packers were performing quite well. On a play by play basis, for most of the game, both units were pretty good, however the defense hemorrhaged a massive amount of points near the end of games in only a few plays over the course of the season, the defense that played the whole game pretty well collapsed in the waning moments game after game. Something not typically encountered that broke their formulas that look at per play average performance.

13) The 2008 Packers were +49 in net points (419 vs 380), the only team in the NFL to fail to reach 8-8 with a positive net points differential. The Saints were the only other team with positive net points that failed to reach at least 9-7. The last time a team with positive net points failed to reach at least 8-8 was in 2004, when both the Chiefs (7-9, +48, 10-6 in '05) and Panthers (7-9, +16, 11-5 in '05) had losing records with positive net points.

The real statistical oddity of the season is the combination of the rarity of a team with a high positive turnover margin failing to produce at least 8-8, the rarity of a team that scores more than 400 points and fails to reach 8-8, the rarity of a team with positive net points failing to reach 8-8, and the rarity of a team with 7 or more losses by less than 4 points, all in the same season, the combination of all 4 together in one season the league has never seen before, and may never see again.

The Verdict: Don't trade the guy on the cover of Madden.

[Patler]

Football is an odd sport. All of the so called rules or mantras that fans/media have come up with have limitations.

Problem is, we broke them all last season in some way or another.

Last season was a cruel hoax to rational thought. If we are going to be bad, dammit, let the indicators show that we are a bad team. If we are good, dammit, win games. When looking at the commonly accepted indicators, I could make a very, very convincing case that the 2008 Packers were the best "bad" team in the history of the NFL.

Agreed. Which could make for some very interesting discussions:

1. Since the team was very successful in 2007 and the 2008 indicators were good, was the 2008 record due to the uncertainties of change generally, Rodgers failures, Favre being gone, ineffective coaching overcome by some significant good fortune in 2007 (there is some support for that argument) or just "one of those things"?.

2. Based on your feeling regarding #1, is 2009 more likely to duplicate 2007 or 2008?

3. Is this team really headed in any direction, or is it likely to be a roller coaster team that varies significantly from year to year based on schedule and factors over which they have no control? Your opinion on this is likely to represent your true feelings about MM and his staff.

[Waldo]

LOL, I didn't even read that one thread that was basically just posting some of my giants posts from elsewhere until a second ago. Sorry for the repeat.

And no, Waldo does not need a Hooker. Waldo is married. And works for the government. Waldo has plenty of free time.

[Fritz]

Football is an odd sport. All of the so called rules or mantras that fans/media have come up with have limitations.

Problem is, we broke them all last season in some way or another.

Last season was a cruel hoax to rational thought. If we are going to be bad, dammit, let the indicators show that we are a bad team. If we are good, dammit, win games. When looking at the commonly accepted indicators, I could make a very, very convincing case that the 2008 Packers were the best "bad" team in the history of the NFL.

Agreed. Which could make for some very interesting discussions:

1. Since the team was very successful in 2007 and the 2008 indicators were good, was the 2008 record due to the uncertainties of change generally, Rodgers failures, Favre being gone, ineffective coaching overcome by some significant good fortune in 2007 (there is some support for that argument) or just "one of those things"?.

2. Based on your feeling regarding #1, is 2009 more likely to duplicate 2007 or 2008?

3. Is this team really headed in any direction, or is it likely to be a roller coaster team that varies significantly from year to year based on schedule and factors over which they have no control? Your opinion on this is likely to represent your true feelings about MM and his staff.

Waldo?

[Patler]

I've always liked the rating formula. I think once you understand it, and its limitations, you are fine.

One of the biggest things is to compare apples to apples. I don't think that a 25 att/gm QB can be compared to a 35 att/gm QB via rating. They are asked to shoulder an entirely different load. But it can compare QB's of similar workloads to one another.

And there is a significant amount of data jitter that smooths over time. Aaron was actually pretty consistent rating wise from one part of the season to the other, even if the individual games jumped around.

I understand the formula, but I still don't like it all that much, even when looking at players entire careers. I think my biggest objection is that I see no need for it. After all, we could devise a similar formula for "runningback rating" if we wanted to that would take into consideration averages per rushing attempt, averages per reception, TDs scored rushing, TDs scored receiving and fumbles. With stats available today we could easily factor in things like dropped passes, success on third and short, runs to the left, runs to the right, etc.

Football is very team oriented. Almost every player accomplishment relies significantly on the performances of team mates at the same time. If we try to accomplish too much with the statistical analysis of a players career we lose sight of that.

I prefer to look at the raw numbers and draw my own conclusions.

[CaptainKickass]

The 2008 Packers gave up 138 points in the 4th quarter (36.3% of total scoring), the 2nd most of any team in the NFL.


From watching the games last season, It was clear that the D was weak in the 4th quarter. I must've missed the above stat the first time you posted it - but that is pretty damn telling. I am absolutely amazed, flabbergasted, taken aback, whatever - that we gave up that many 4th quarter points. Another justification for a defensive revamp by the Packers.

My only question here (and really thank goodness there's room to ask it) is:

If we gave up the 2nd most points in the 4th quarter, what team gave up the most?

.

[sharpe1027]

I understand the formula, but I still don't like it all that much, even when looking at players entire careers. I think my biggest objection is that I see no need for it. After all, we could devise a similar formula for "runningback rating" if we wanted to that would take into consideration averages per rushing attempt, averages per reception, TDs scored rushing, TDs scored receiving and fumbles. With stats available today we could easily factor in things like dropped passes, success on third and short, runs to the left, runs to the right, etc.

Football is very team oriented. Almost every player accomplishment relies significantly on the performances of team mates at the same time. If we try to accomplish too much with the statistical analysis of a players career we lose sight of that.

I prefer to look at the raw numbers and draw my own conclusions.

While people often use the rating without regard for its limitations, it still provides a relative measuring stick for the effectivness of a passing attack under two QBs. For example, comparing two QBs battling for the starting position on the same team is a decent use of the rating since several of the factors are nearly identical. (They have the same teammates, style of offense and coaching).

As more variables come into play, the comparisons become more strained. Still, it is a respectable starting point and its pitfalls are pretty well known and tested. Whereas, an independent analysis is seldom peer-reviewed or tested over long-periods of time and numerous situations.

[Waldo]

Football is an odd sport. All of the so called rules or mantras that fans/media have come up with have limitations.

Problem is, we broke them all last season in some way or another.

Last season was a cruel hoax to rational thought. If we are going to be bad, dammit, let the indicators show that we are a bad team. If we are good, dammit, win games. When looking at the commonly accepted indicators, I could make a very, very convincing case that the 2008 Packers were the best "bad" team in the history of the NFL.

Agreed. Which could make for some very interesting discussions:

1. Since the team was very successful in 2007 and the 2008 indicators were good, was the 2008 record due to the uncertainties of change generally, Rodgers failures, Favre being gone, ineffective coaching overcome by some significant good fortune in 2007 (there is some support for that argument) or just "one of those things"?.

2. Based on your feeling regarding #1, is 2009 more likely to duplicate 2007 or 2008?

3. Is this team really headed in any direction, or is it likely to be a roller coaster team that varies significantly from year to year based on schedule and factors over which they have no control? Your opinion on this is likely to represent your true feelings about MM and his staff.

1) One of those things. Flukes (almost all negative), Punting, Injuries, Coaching (especially defensive), the DL, Kicking, the OL, Grant, Rodgers; each played a role. I don't think any one though should bear the burden more than others.

2) 2007. In fact many indicators I found for the 2008 team improved over 2007. I think that we in fact got a little better. One think people forget about Aaron and 2008, MM never called plays for him, and didn't have much live game tape to evaluate AR's tendencies for things that would work well. The is especially true for the no huddle offense, which perhaps isn't tweaked as much as the rest of the offense over the season and is more built off of a spring/camp knowledge base.

I know MM preached it from day 1, but I don't think even he understood what was needed. Finding success is very different than maintaining success. Early on he said the most difficult task was not to win, but to continue winning. He fell into his own trap and failed as a coach IMO. To be fair, at the most crucial time other things were on his mind, and he was missing his most important player(s).

The big mistake was to keep doing the same thing but try harder. Almost every team that fails to return to their level of success, fails for the same reason. They "think" that they are doing the right thing (after all they got this close) and try harder. One of the hallmarks of teams that get good and stay good, is that they tend to be moving targets; the only constant is change. By trying harder the players burn out faster, it was pretty apparent last year that at a point that burn out set in when they realized that they probably weren't going to win it all, guys were playing passionless and just going through the motions. True both physically and mentally for the 2008 team. It will tell a lot about MM just how much he learns from the experience, as for him as a coach it is a tremendous growth opportunity, one of those seasons that can turn a rookie coach into a veteran coach. Unfortunately when the tone is set for the team for the year, Favre just retired, QB camp was on, and he had a new QB to get ready. Bad timing. Likewise at the start of camp when the tone is set.....well, we don't need to rehash that.

Also missing were the players that the team turns to emotionally when things get tough to bring them out. For us IMO they were Favre, Harris, Barnett. Even though Harris and Barnett were still with the team, and injury brings a bit of emotional detachment. Woodson became one of those guys last year, but he just isn't enough. I think that Rodgers went a long way toward becoming one of those guys though this offseason.

3) I think the team is definitely headed in a positive direction. We all knew that the Sanders hire was a bad one from very early on, and even 2007 didn't change a lot of peoples minds. MM is going to have growing pains like every young HC, but I think that it is fair to say that he's getting better. The team undertook a very difficult task. It had to transform itself from a roster with aging and expensive players with very little depth or young talent, and a decade of inertia built up, to the next core of players. Very few parts were usable, and the transition was forced due to the fairly dire financial condition of the roster. I think that the bulk of the heavy roster turnover is over, and the team is beginning to identify the next core of the team, now the turnover will be to the less than core players, instead of replacing over the hill guys or awful guys.

When you look at a team from the acquisition standpoint, say a player lasts 10 years, and you get 10 new quality guys a year or so (FA's don't count IMO as there typically is close to a net balance of zero), so 100 guys to build you roster over, each year a moving average of the past 10 years of so. It takes guys time to be good though, really any elite or high level play you get out of a first contract player is a bonus. The gap on the Packers is really unfortunate. If Wolf wouldn't have knocked it out of the park in 2000, we would really have suffered for the last decade, that year created much of the core for the decade. There is just a huge player dead zone, we have hardly any players in their prime. A few guys over the hill, and a team of young guys that aren't yet in their prime, or are just entering it. As these guys enter their prime, and the guys that just aren't good enough are replaced by the next crop, each year the team gets deeper and deeper and in theory better and better. When you stretch out and look at the long view, the best teams over a long time are going to be the ones that acquire quality consistently over the long haul, year after year after year. When you look at the full roster, there are few positions that were in better shape going into '05 than they are today.

[Waldo]

The 2008 Packers gave up 138 points in the 4th quarter (36.3% of total scoring), the 2nd most of any team in the NFL.


From watching the games last season, It was clear that the D was weak in the 4th quarter. I must've missed the above stat the first time you posted it - but that is pretty damn telling. I am absolutely amazed, flabbergasted, taken aback, whatever - that we gave up that many 4th quarter points. Another justification for a defensive revamp by the Packers.

My only question here (and really thank goodness there's room to ask it) is:

If we gave up the 2nd most points in the 4th quarter, what team gave up the most?

.

http://thebloogle.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/3232detroitlions.jpg

[Bossman641]

Waldo I've just gotta say those were some great posts above.

It felt like last year was a cruel nightmare and everything that could have gone wrong did, but your posts show just how bad it was.

:bow:

[CaptainKickass]

The 2008 Packers gave up 138 points in the 4th quarter (36.3% of total scoring), the 2nd most of any team in the NFL.


From watching the games last season, It was clear that the D was weak in the 4th quarter. I must've missed the above stat the first time you posted it - but that is pretty damn telling. I am absolutely amazed, flabbergasted, taken aback, whatever - that we gave up that many 4th quarter points. Another justification for a defensive revamp by the Packers.

My only question here (and really thank goodness there's room to ask it) is:

If we gave up the 2nd most points in the 4th quarter, what team gave up the most?

.

http://thebloogle.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/3232detroitlions.jpg

Of course.

The frickin Loins.

So we were certainly at the very bottom of the league.

I don't really consider the 2008 Loins a team, so thus the Pack actually sucked even more on D in the 4th quarter than I really suspected.

If I were McCarthy and saw that deduction - I woulda revamped the D too.

.

[Patler]

It takes guys time to be good though, really any elite or high level play you get out of a first contract player is a bonus. The gap on the Packers is really unfortunate. If Wolf wouldn't have knocked it out of the park in 2000, we would really have suffered for the last decade, that year created much of the core for the decade. There is just a huge player dead zone, we have hardly any players in their prime. A few guys over the hill, and a team of young guys that aren't yet in their prime, or are just entering it. As these guys enter their prime, and the guys that just aren't good enough are replaced by the next crop, each year the team gets deeper and deeper and in theory better and better. When you stretch out and look at the long view, the best teams over a long time are going to be the ones that acquire quality consistently over the long haul, year after year after year. When you look at the full roster, there are few positions that were in better shape going into '05 than they are today.

Couldn't agree more. We had a thread about that last year (or the year before?) It was only into TT's second or third season, and already there were as many significant players brought in by Wolf still on the team as those brought in by Sherman. It's not just finding a better rookie to replace the poor choice veteran, it also takes a few years for the new player to mature into his role. The better teams may have a rookie starting now and then, but by and large the replacement players are backups for a year or two. The Packers were put in a position of having to start rookies due to poor decisions on player selections, trades and contracts. I think they are getting beyond that a little. Hopefully, in the next couple years the early TT draft picks become that experienced core that is needed.

[pbmax]

...
3. Is this team really headed in any direction, or is it likely to be a roller coaster team that varies significantly from year to year based on schedule and factors over which they have no control? Your opinion on this is likely to represent your true feelings about MM and his staff.
I think Waldo makes a good point referencing M3 about achieving versus sustaining success. And that colors my judgment about the coaching jobs in 07 and 08.

I think McCarthy's offense looked quite different between the two years. How much of the passing game change was QB versus coach, is hard to fathom. Rodgers seemed to prefer different routes than Favre had, and for 1/3 the season I thought we would have to hope he grew out of being a checkdown artist. His yards per attempt and a lot of nice deep throws convinced me otherwise.

He has also tinkered with the run game significantly. It has been hit and miss, but he has gone from not having anyone in the middle to run block to his tackles having difficulty. Nutz or someone mentioned that inside zone runs were far more effective at times in 08 but they couldn't run outside zone nearly as well.

The scheme that didn't adjust was on defense. It would have been a monumental jolt to dump Sanders after 07, but waiting and hoping cost them another year. That is the lesson I hope McCarthy learns. I am not convinced Thompson has brought in top ten talent on defense, but we might learn much more about it with a new coordinator.

Stock also was a coaching liability in that he refused to approve outside consultants to help his punter, who he clearly had taken as far as he (Stock) could. If Ryan really needed to change, then outside help would have been a good idea. Recommending Frost was just the icing on the bad coaching cake.

[pbmax]

Couldn't agree more. We had a thread about that last year (or the year before?) It was only into TT's second or third season, and already there were as many significant players brought in by Wolf still on the team as those brought in by Sherman. It's not just finding a better rookie to replace the poor choice veteran, it also takes a few years for the new player to mature into his role. The better teams may have a rookie starting now and then, but by and large the replacement players are backups for a year or two. The Packers were put in a position of having to start rookies due to poor decisions on player selections, trades and contracts. I think they are getting beyond that a little. Hopefully, in the next couple years the early TT draft picks become that experienced core that is needed.
Some of that turnover that resulted in rookie starters was self-imposed though. Kevin Barry might have made Tony Moll or Spitz unnecessary for a year or two, but there was no way he was going to survive the new run scheme with McCarthy and Jags. Rueggamer also was a casualty as well. He has been a part-time starter on some pretty good teams.

It will be interesting to see Jags as O coordinator on a team with a Defensive background HC.

[Waldo]

It will be interesting to see Jags as O coordinator on a team with a Defensive background HC.

I think that MM is the brains behind a lot of the offense though. Innovative offensive concepts have always been a hallmark of our offensive since MM took over.

We max protected a lot in '06. While this doesn't seem very innovative, the way the TE's were used for it was kinda unorthodox. Sometimes I wonder why some teams never max protect though. MM used 5 wides as a short yardage situational play.

The way MM used slant passes in '07, and the 5 wides as a first down formation was pretty new to the NFL in recent memory. The 2 FB inverted wishbone is a pretty creative development. Sorry Miami, MM ran the Wildcat in '07, a year before they made it popular.

In '08 the 5 wides and inverted wishbone concepts remained. The wink audible route trees changed, and the team started using a dynamic pocket on occasion. MM starting motioning WR's into the backfield on running downs in his latest quest to screw up substitutions (same concept as the Wildcat, but a better application IMO). For how much the Wildcat is discussed, MM's 2008 innovation is completely unnoticed by all forms of media, including our own press.

[Waldo]

I think McCarthy's offense looked quite different between the two years. How much of the passing game change was QB versus coach, is hard to fathom. Rodgers seemed to prefer different routes than Favre had, and for 1/3 the season I thought we would have to hope he grew out of being a checkdown artist. His yards per attempt and a lot of nice deep throws convinced me otherwise.

The thing I was most concerned about on AR was his ability to drive the ball down the field.

With Aaron I don't think the issue is that he prefers different routes. He doesn't need to be hidden.

Contrary to popular belief, Brett cannot "make all the throws" and hasn't been able to for quite some time. Sorry Mn fans, but Bevell has no idea of how to call plays for Brett. Took MM a year to really figure it out. Brett has an accurate triangle that starts at the sidelines at the LOS and extends to the GL. As you go further down the field, his accuracy outside gets worse and worse. Brett cannot throw an intermediate-deep out, he's one of the NFL's worst at the sideline go, and play callers haven't called post-corner routes for him for years.

Brett's inability creates a conundrum and limited passing playbook on offense. MM kept switching up formations, but by and large running the same few routes with Brett. The ones he could throw, he was darn good at.

At first MM was calling exactly the opposite with Aaron. Doing what Brett couldn't do. I think then they just stuck to what was working and didn't try all sorts of new stuff. I also think that it was a point of emphasis to drive the ball down the field, hence Aaron ignoring his checkdown a bit too much.

I think this year the passing additions are going to be more screens, checkdowns, and slants, things we didn't do much of last year.

[MichiganPackerFan]

I have two complaints with McCarthy so far. Frost and Grant.

1) Derrick Frost should have been cut two months before (McCarthy should have pressured Thompson or found BJ Sander to add a second punter to the roster ; D

2) I don't care if you've overspent on a player. If that player is not getting the job done, try someone else. The team carried a handfull of RB's on the roster, there was no reason not to get them onto the field and see what they had.

[KYPack]

Waldo, great analysis.

All last year, I was trying to figure what was up with Football Outsiders. They had some of the most insightful information out there for a few seasons now. Last year, things went blooey, espec regarding the Packers. FO had us rated very highly all season. But, we were 6-10. How was this possible?

Another point you bring up has still got me wondering. In 2007, we ran slants very effectively. Hell, they won a couple, 3 games for us. Last season, they ran a few slants, but it didn't seem like they were as frequent and certainly not as strategic. Why did MM change up? i realize D;s make adjustments, but coach Mac likes to dictate to the D. that went away a bit last year.

[pbmax]

As you go further down the field, his accuracy outside gets worse and worse. Brett cannot throw an intermediate-deep out, he's one of the NFL's worst at the sideline go, and play callers haven't called post-corner routes for him for years.
But didn't Favre retain the ability to throw deep and to the outside of a cover 2, when the CB releases the WR and the WR heads down the sidelines. Favre is in the pocket holding the safety by looking at an medium route in the middle or a deep route from across the formation. He then comes back to the receiver who is by now well behind the CB with the safety failing to react from the middle of the field?

I don't recall the last time I saw it, but it used to be one of the few big plays we would get against Tampa. Now, this doesn't have to be his best throw as the coverage has give you a big hole in their zone, and he threw some pop flies into it that nearly allowed the safety to get back to the sideline, but he knew how to hold the safety and find that receiver.

And I was never enamored of his ability to accurately throw deep down the sideline when coverage was there. Even the Jennings TD in OT versus Denver was a matter of torching the coverage and having a free run to the throw. Even when he was young, that was not his strength.

[Patler]

Another point you bring up has still got me wondering. In 2007, we ran slants very effectively. Hell, they won a couple, 3 games for us. Last season, they ran a few slants, but it didn't seem like they were as frequent and certainly not as strategic. Why did MM change up? i realize D;s make adjustments, but coach Mac likes to dictate to the D. that went away a bit last year.

MM actually addressed that before the season, when asked how the passing game would change under Rodgers. He said they did not change plays due to the QB change, but the calls in given situations might change due to different strengths and weaknesses of the two players. He specifically mentioned slants, which he said Favre threw as well as any QB ever. He called it their bread and butter route with Favre. He said Rodger threw it OK, like most QBs not named Favre; but he said Rodgers best throws were on intermediate out routes, which Favre didn't throw particularly well, he said (Giants game still on his mind????). So in a given situation, even though all the same plays are there, the call would be different for Rodgers than Favre when going to the player's strength.

It was interesting because he specifically said they would likely throw fewer slants, and that proved true right from the start.

[pbmax]

Another point you bring up has still got me wondering. In 2007, we ran slants very effectively. Hell, they won a couple, 3 games for us. Last season, they ran a few slants, but it didn't seem like they were as frequent and certainly not as strategic. Why did MM change up? i realize D;s make adjustments, but coach Mac likes to dictate to the D. that went away a bit last year.
That's gotta be tape don't you think? If you were preparing for the 2008 Packers, opposing defenses must have spent a lot of time on defending slants. Regardless of the QB. I think defenses wanted that threat to the middle of the field gone.

[Waldo]

As you go further down the field, his accuracy outside gets worse and worse. Brett cannot throw an intermediate-deep out, he's one of the NFL's worst at the sideline go, and play callers haven't called post-corner routes for him for years.
But didn't Favre retain the ability to throw deep and to the outside of a cover 2, when the CB releases the WR and the WR heads down the sidelines. Favre is in the pocket holding the safety by looking at an medium route in the middle or a deep route from across the formation. He then comes back to the receiver who is by now well behind the CB with the safety failing to react from the middle of the field?

I don't recall the last time I saw it, but it used to be one of the few big plays we would get against Tampa. Now, this doesn't have to be his best throw as the coverage has give you a big hole in their zone, and he threw some pop flies into it that nearly allowed the safety to get back to the sideline, but he knew how to hold the safety and find that receiver.

And I was never enamored of his ability to accurately throw deep down the sideline when coverage was there. Even the Jennings TD in OT versus Denver was a matter of torching the coverage and having a free run to the throw. Even when he was young, that was not his strength.

Eye ability and trickery is one thing. Pinpoint accuracy is quite another. I noticed it constantly in 2007 (and thought that it was actually a decent drag on our offense) (after noticing it for several years before), as you went outside, Brett's throws got wild, requiring the WR's make big adjustments to get to the ball; rarely, if ever, did you see a pass drop nicely into their arms that they didn't slow down for, jump for, or change trajectory for.

[Patler]

But didn't Favre retain the ability to throw deep and to the outside of a cover 2, when the CB releases the WR and the WR heads down the sidelines. Favre is in the pocket holding the safety by looking at an medium route in the middle or a deep route from across the formation. He then comes back to the receiver who is by now well behind the CB with the safety failing to react from the middle of the field?

I don't recall the last time I saw it, but it used to be one of the few big plays we would get against Tampa. Now, this doesn't have to be his best throw as the coverage has give you a big hole in their zone, and he threw some pop flies into it that nearly allowed the safety to get back to the sideline, but he knew how to hold the safety and find that receiver.

And I was never enamored of his ability to accurately throw deep down the sideline when coverage was there. Even the Jennings TD in OT versus Denver was a matter of torching the coverage and having a free run to the throw. Even when he was young, that was not his strength.

There was discussion a few years ago about how Favre actually improved on his deep throws under MM. I don't remember what the distance was, but a few years back they used to mention his poor percentage on throws in the air over "X" yards. They talked about some long throw drills MM developed that were used regularly to improve Favre's deep throws, and it really started to pay results in 2007.

[Waldo]

Another point you bring up has still got me wondering. In 2007, we ran slants very effectively. Hell, they won a couple, 3 games for us. Last season, they ran a few slants, but it didn't seem like they were as frequent and certainly not as strategic. Why did MM change up? i realize D;s make adjustments, but coach Mac likes to dictate to the D. that went away a bit last year.
That's gotta be tape don't you think? If you were preparing for the 2008 Packers, opposing defenses must have spent a lot of time on defending slants. Regardless of the QB. I think defenses wanted that threat to the middle of the field gone.

I think that the NFCCG showed MM and the NFL the fallibility of MM's slant based offense.

One thing that it did well, once they fear your slants, in a way it is like built in protection, we could run 4-5 wides safely more as the primary slant defenders are the LB's, the same guys that would blitz the overloaded formation.

But the Giants showed the drawback. Namely with inside tech by the CB's, and 'backers frozen for a step in the slant zone.....good luck with that running game if you are using a ZBS (or any really).

In the NFL, often all it takes is one game for the cat to be out of the bag. IMO the Packers and Pats of 2007 both were living off of the bashing that the Pats gave the Vikes in 2006. That game showed the feasibility of a spread based attack at the NFL level in a new incarnation. I think the NFCCG told MM ha had to move in a new direction or teams would revert to the Giants gameplan on some items.

[KYPack]

Another point you bring up has still got me wondering. In 2007, we ran slants very effectively. Hell, they won a couple, 3 games for us. Last season, they ran a few slants, but it didn't seem like they were as frequent and certainly not as strategic. Why did MM change up? i realize D;s make adjustments, but coach Mac likes to dictate to the D. that went away a bit last year.
That's gotta be tape don't you think? If you were preparing for the 2008 Packers, opposing defenses must have spent a lot of time on defending slants. Regardless of the QB. I think defenses wanted that threat to the middle of the field gone.

I think that the NFCCG showed MM and the NFL the fallibility of MM's slant based offense.

One thing that it did well, once they fear your slants, in a way it is like built in protection, we could run 4-5 wides safely more as the primary slant defenders are the LB's, the same guys that would blitz the overloaded formation.

But the Giants showed the drawback. Namely with inside tech by the CB's, and 'backers frozen for a step in the slant zone.....good luck with that running game if you are using a ZBS (or any really).

In the NFL, often all it takes is one game for the cat to be out of the bag. IMO the Packers and Pats of 2007 both were living off of the bashing that the Pats gave the Vikes in 2006. That game showed the feasibility of a spread based attack at the NFL level in a new incarnation. I think the NFCCG told MM ha had to move in a new direction or teams would revert to the Giants gameplan on some items.

Wow, a good discussion of football. Now I would like to insult Patler, PB and Waldo, call 'em names, and throw a tantrum. At least, that's how it had been done around here sometimes.

I didn't think we could stay slant oriented, either. You must run slants if you want to get big yards on sluggo's and the other breaking routs. But you must ration the slants or your guys will be heading to the hospital.

All the slants do freeze S's and LB's and put 'em in automatic run support. I think Mike will now alter his stuff to take advantage of AR's arm and have a much more varied passing attack. I think we have a great QB and receivers to go with him. We should break a lot of big plays and look much different this season.

I hope, anyhow.

[woodbuck27]

Patler,

i don't know what you believe about this, and it wasn't really relevant to my point. I do believe that the OP had a point to make that wasn't supported by his statistics.

I completely agree that Rodgers might be an anomaly, and he might be the real deal, but any way you look at it, we have to wait for more game experience to know that.

I support Rodgers very much, and am glad he's our QB.

As to the rest of the 'intangibles' I think they're relevant. I also think they're impossible to measure. But, at the end of the day, we need at least two, maybe three more years before any comparisons to Favre will truly have meaning. Right now it is all speculation, with just enough in the way of statistics to give people two things - hope and ammunition.

Well, you should know what I believe about this NOW, because I gave it to you in a series of numbered paragraphs!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:

I agree with most of this. The best that can be said for Rodgers right now is that we have no reason to think that he won't be the QB in GB for the next 10 years. He performed as well as anyone should have hoped he would. He should get better for the next several seasons as he gains experience and confidence. If he does, the Packers will be in very good hands.

I enjoyed Favre's years a lot, but it really was time to make the change because of where Rodgers was at. He needed to start playing.

Just think what a mess this off season would have been if Favre had not "retired" last season? Transitions from icons who want to hang on get very messy in every sport. It's good for the Packers to have that behind them.

Aaron Rodgers looks OK but we still need to see him perform for a couple more seasons. I hope he has the injury monkey off his back too.

Have we accepted Aaron Rodgers? I believe so. That sure seems obvious now to most here yet the damage remains for the bleeding prior to the tournequet.

This thread is like the difference between trying on a Community College Diploma and attending Princeton for a Doctorate. A deep discussion and worthy of a careful read. :D

GO PACK GO!

[pbmax]

But didn't Favre retain the ability to throw deep and to the outside of a cover 2, when the CB releases the WR and the WR heads down the sidelines. Favre is in the pocket holding the safety by looking at an medium route in the middle or a deep route from across the formation. He then comes back to the receiver who is by now well behind the CB with the safety failing to react from the middle of the field?

I don't recall the last time I saw it, but it used to be one of the few big plays we would get against Tampa. Now, this doesn't have to be his best throw as the coverage has give you a big hole in their zone, and he threw some pop flies into it that nearly allowed the safety to get back to the sideline, but he knew how to hold the safety and find that receiver.

And I was never enamored of his ability to accurately throw deep down the sideline when coverage was there. Even the Jennings TD in OT versus Denver was a matter of torching the coverage and having a free run to the throw. Even when he was young, that was not his strength.

There was discussion a few years ago about how Favre actually improved on his deep throws under MM. I don't remember what the distance was, but a few years back they used to mention his poor percentage on throws in the air over "X" yards. They talked about some long throw drills MM developed that were used regularly to improve Favre's deep throws, and it really started to pay results in 2007.
I don't remember, but is it possible the total number of attempts went down?

And Greg Jennings might have something to do with it as well. As good as Driver is at leaping and adjusting in the middle of the field, he has never seemed comfortable doing the Michael Irvin/Randy Moss tango on the sideline and then leap to get the ball. Part of that might be a height issue as well.

[pbmax]

Another point you bring up has still got me wondering. In 2007, we ran slants very effectively. Hell, they won a couple, 3 games for us. Last season, they ran a few slants, but it didn't seem like they were as frequent and certainly not as strategic. Why did MM change up? i realize D;s make adjustments, but coach Mac likes to dictate to the D. that went away a bit last year.
That's gotta be tape don't you think? If you were preparing for the 2008 Packers, opposing defenses must have spent a lot of time on defending slants. Regardless of the QB. I think defenses wanted that threat to the middle of the field gone.

I think that the NFCCG showed MM and the NFL the fallibility of MM's slant based offense.

One thing that it did well, once they fear your slants, in a way it is like built in protection, we could run 4-5 wides safely more as the primary slant defenders are the LB's, the same guys that would blitz the overloaded formation.

But the Giants showed the drawback. Namely with inside tech by the CB's, and 'backers frozen for a step in the slant zone.....good luck with that running game if you are using a ZBS (or any really).

In the NFL, often all it takes is one game for the cat to be out of the bag. IMO the Packers and Pats of 2007 both were living off of the bashing that the Pats gave the Vikes in 2006. That game showed the feasibility of a spread based attack at the NFL level in a new incarnation. I think the NFCCG told MM ha had to move in a new direction or teams would revert to the Giants gameplan on some items.
All true, but I doubt it took until the NFCCG to get someone to think slant first on an opposing defense. I remember going into the game not being certain we could dominate the run again (not as well as the 3rd week of the season) but thought we could abuse their secondary (weren't they way down on the depth chart?). As it turned out, even in the first half, we did little of either.

[woodbuck27]

But didn't Favre retain the ability to throw deep and to the outside of a cover 2, when the CB releases the WR and the WR heads down the sidelines. Favre is in the pocket holding the safety by looking at an medium route in the middle or a deep route from across the formation. He then comes back to the receiver who is by now well behind the CB with the safety failing to react from the middle of the field?

I don't recall the last time I saw it, but it used to be one of the few big plays we would get against Tampa. Now, this doesn't have to be his best throw as the coverage has give you a big hole in their zone, and he threw some pop flies into it that nearly allowed the safety to get back to the sideline, but he knew how to hold the safety and find that receiver.

And I was never enamored of his ability to accurately throw deep down the sideline when coverage was there. Even the Jennings TD in OT versus Denver was a matter of torching the coverage and having a free run to the throw. Even when he was young, that was not his strength.

There was discussion a few years ago about how Favre actually improved on his deep throws under MM. I don't remember what the distance was, but a few years back they used to mention his poor percentage on throws in the air over "X" yards. They talked about some long throw drills MM developed that were used regularly to improve Favre's deep throws, and it really started to pay results in 2007.
I don't remember, but is it possible the total number of attempts went down?

And Greg Jennings might have something to do with it as well. As good as Driver is at leaping and adjusting in the middle of the field, he has never seemed comfortable doing the Michael Irvin/Randy Moss tango on the sideline and then leap to get the ball. Part of that might be a height issue as well.

pbmax. When Driver came to us I re-call reading he had outstanding jumping capability. I re-call he could high jump over 7 feet. Now getting up that high and looking at the size of his frame might be another thing?

[bobblehead]

hold on a minute...ty got banned?? WTF for? I'm sitting out until he is back in protest. He is a hopeless bleeding liberal, but he does contribute solid stuff quite often.

Anyway Ayn, thanx for picking up the slack. You know how I feel about the spelling and grammar police, so no need for me to respond really.

[th87]

:shock: Wow is this a great discussion.

[Waldo]

I was reading through the CHFF (Cold Hard Football Facts) website, one thing they really stress are quality stats (that is things that affect the outcome of games). Their biggest stat is adj passing YPA, it is pretty telling too, it is an excellent predictor of success, both of good seasons, and the team that has a greater adj YPA typically wins the game.

However just looking at it, there is an error IMO. The stats they use are att, yds, sacks, yards. I think that scrambles and yds have to be added in as well, as they typically are intended to be passes (though sneaks are in there as well, I thing the adj ypa is more accurate with a few sneaks added in, than it is with sacks and passing only, skipping on the scrambles).

The historical average is around 6.8 ypa for the top 15 QB's each season (I would guess with scrambles added in, that average dips to ~6.6 YPA). Good seasons are 7 ypa or better, great seasons are 8 ypa or better, legendary are 9 ypa or better.

How did Aaron do?

His season average is 6.4. The first half of the season he averaged 6.4. The second half of the season he average 6.4. With the yearly average of the top 15 QB's being roughly 6.8, AR is just under average for the top 15 (or about where many fans rank him, around 9 or 10).

By season quarter:
1st - 6.3
2nd - 6.5
3rd - 5.6
4th - 7.2

Per game (sorted best to worst performance):
HOU - 8.6
@ DET - 8.1
DET - 7.6
ATL - 7.5
CHI - 7.4
MIN - 7.1
@ JAC - 6.9
@ TEN - 6.4
IND - 6.3
@ CHI - 6.2
CAR - 6.1
@ SEA - 5.9
DAL - 5.3
@ NO - 5.3
@ TB - 4.8
@ MIN - 3.6
I think that it is fairly obvious, Aaron plays a lot better at home, with 5 of his top 6 performances being at Lambeau (the only away game in there was Detroit). Aaron played really good in December. 3 of his 5 worst games were in the first half of the season. He really only has two very poor games. He was consistently average (unless he played Det), really only having one really good game against somebody but Det. But his consistency counts for something, being above 6 ypa for 11 of 16 games is very impressive. After the 2nd Mn game he played very good, only the NO blowout where he tried to keep up, was even below 6 ypa.

How did our team do? After all, CHFF has found that on average, the team that wins the adj ypa battle wins the game (who cares how you run, historically accurate even back to the 50's, running just makes the passing game (hence ypa) more effective).

Well, just like all other indicators related to last season, we underperformed. Adj YPA says that we should have been 10-5-1. Our defense was actually very good by this measure almost all year, aside from a 3 game stretch.

Net (GB ypa - OPP ypa):
Det - 5.0 W
Chi - 3.0 W
Det - 2.8 W
Sea - 2.5 W
Mn - 1.9 W
Tn - 1.9 L
Chi - 1.8 L
Ind - 1.0 W
Atl - 0.5 L
Jax - 0.4 L
Tam - 0.0 L
Hou - -0.7 L
Mn - -0.9 L
Dal - -1.4 L
Car - -2.0 L
NO - -6.1 L
Our defense game up on average 5.7 adj ypa, though for a 3 game span (NO, Car, Hou) it was over 8.0 ypa, and NO was 11.4 ypa. There is no winning a game like that. Our defense gave up over 6 ypa only 6 times all season (Dal, Atl, NO, Car, Hou, Jax). It is crazy (and sucks) that Aaron and his 11 games better than 6 ypa didn't win more.

Again, just like all the other indicators that came before, cannot explain why the Packers sucked in '08. By the statistics and all of CHFF's research, we should have been 10-5-1.

Never trade the guy on the cover of Madden.

[MOBB DEEP]

Never trade the guy on the cover of Madden.

lol

yeah, its SO hard for me to imagine pack going a weak 6-10 with lord favre at the helm

unfortunately, we will never know...and thats what stings so much - nfccg to losing every big game

but....forwards ever backwards never

i think minny will be 12-5 and pack 10-6 #1 wildcard and play again in semifinals with winner playing giants

[MJZiggy]

Never trade the guy on the cover of Madden.

lol

yeah, its SO hard for me to imagine pack going a weak 6-10 with lord favre at the helm

unfortunately, we will never know...and thats what stings so much - nfccg to losing every big game



Why is that hard for you to imagine. Favre did go 4-12 remember.

[Rastak]

hold on a minute...ty got banned?? WTF for? I'm sitting out until he is back in protest. He is a hopeless bleeding liberal, but he does contribute solid stuff quite often.

Anyway Ayn, thanx for picking up the slack. You know how I feel about the spelling and grammar police, so no need for me to respond really.

You must be thinking of a different Ty. The one that got banned jumps into threads to start shit mainly, rarely making solid points. Tries to be funny and outrageous by saying things to shock and insult. Rarely solid "stuff" in regards to football content.

Back on point, I still haven't seen a link to the stats mentioned by the OP. I think more than one person has asked.

[Waldo]

hold on a minute...ty got banned?? WTF for? I'm sitting out until he is back in protest. He is a hopeless bleeding liberal, but he does contribute solid stuff quite often.

Anyway Ayn, thanx for picking up the slack. You know how I feel about the spelling and grammar police, so no need for me to respond really.

You must be thinking of a different Ty. The one that got banned jumps into threads to start shit mainly, rarely making solid points. Tries to be funny and outrageous by saying things to shock and insult. Rarely solid "stuff" in regards to football content.

Back on point, I still haven't seen a link to the stats mentioned by the OP. I think more than one person has asked.

Read the thread closer. I posted it. :wink:

[Rastak]

hold on a minute...ty got banned?? WTF for? I'm sitting out until he is back in protest. He is a hopeless bleeding liberal, but he does contribute solid stuff quite often.

Anyway Ayn, thanx for picking up the slack. You know how I feel about the spelling and grammar police, so no need for me to respond really.

You must be thinking of a different Ty. The one that got banned jumps into threads to start shit mainly, rarely making solid points. Tries to be funny and outrageous by saying things to shock and insult. Rarely solid "stuff" in regards to football content.

Back on point, I still haven't seen a link to the stats mentioned by the OP. I think more than one person has asked.

Read the thread closer. I posted it. :wink:

Good man Waldo!

Was looking for the original guy to respond...although I did read most of you, Pater, PB and others excellent discussion. Just missed the link.

[hoosier]

Not real cool to badmouth posters who aren't able to defend themselves.

[Rastak]

Not real cool to badmouth posters who aren't able to defend themselves.


True. Even worse for one who always had to have the last word. I shall refrain from doing that going forward.

[Freak Out]

Help.

[Fritz]

What seemed frustrating about the slant to opposing defenses was that there was really not much way to get to the QB. It was that drop-step-throw rhythm and unlike those goofy receiver out things where the receiver just stands there at the line and the QB whips it to him, in a slant the receiver has a few yards down the field. But man, you have to be brave to catch a slant.

[SnakeLH2006]

Wow what a great thread! :tup: Anytime Waldo and Patler go head to head, it's a win-win. King-Kong vs. Godzilla in a statistical showdown without the insults. Soooo much better than the old cliche'd "Favre sucks, and so do you. Or, Brett is much better than that injury-prone wannabe Arod" BS that used to be. "So fire TT." :shock:

Snake is very happy to see some great threads like this once again. Excellent points all around from everyone. Bravo.

On point. QB rating is very important with QB's. Made a thread about it a year ago that got tons of hits, as Snake did a mathematical thesis/PowerPoint in 2002 in college about QB rating that showed trends (QB rating vs. winning %) in many aspects. Overall, there are instances where it doesn't work out. Arod in 2008 was excellent statistically, yet we didn't win much. Personally, that's not his fault overall, as the D really sank the ship, and those losses were really close for the most part.

To Waldo's point that 2008 for Arod/GB being a huge statistical glitch, being that we were much better I do agree wholeheartedly. And, hey, we are young and good in QB, and just netted BJ Raji for our poor record and Matthews for OLB. Woot! Times are looking up for the young bucks in QB. Go Pack.