FINAL STATISTICAL COMPARISON

[Sparkey]

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

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

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


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

[LL2]

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

[Fritz]

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

[cpk1994]

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

Absolutely.

[FritzDontBlitz]

Final statistical comparison that matters:

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

Happy New Year.

[cpk1994]

Final statistical comparison that matters:

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

Happy New Year.

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

[Sparkey]

Final statistical comparison that matters:

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

Happy New Year.

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

[packinpatland]

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

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

[PlantPage55]

Final statistical comparison that matters:

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

Happy New Year.

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

[bobblehead]

Final statistical comparison that matters:

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

Happy New Year.

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

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

[sharpe1027]

Final statistical comparison that matters:

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

Pennington for HoF!

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

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

[Gunakor]

Final statistical comparison that matters:

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

Happy New Year.

He was comparing QB's, not teams.

Happy New Year to you as well.

[Patler]

Final statistical comparison that matters:

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

Happy New Year.

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

[Lurker64]

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

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

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

Rodgers had a good year, the team did not.

[denverYooper]

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

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

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

Rodgers had a good year, the team did not.

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