"Retirement" all part of a plan?

[Partial]

However, I could see people putting him at about 10-12, and that puts him firmly in the AVERAGE group, as I have said all along.

Wait, if he's in the 10-12 range, he could in theory be #10, in which case he would be "top 10." I'm not sure how you can be both "top 10" and "average" in the NFL.

I mean, the 10th ranked defense is a good defense, it's not an average defense.

Plus, if you have the 10th best QB in the league, there are 22 teams that wish they had a QB as good as yours, that's average? I'd think "average" would be about the #16 QB.

I'm not sure in what way #10 out of 32 can be "average", and that's even ignoring the fact that there are teams with a bad situation at the QB position who have multiple starting QBs, so Rodgers is more like 10 out of 40, which would put him in the highest quartile, which is pretty good.

Since when is being the 33-36% better than average? 25-75 is average sir.

I think the misconception here is that most people seem to think the quarterbacks I consider as bad, they consider as average.

Like I said, there are 7-8 good quarterbacks, 14-16 average, 7-8 bad.

One could even say: 6 good, 6 above average, 6 average, 6 below average, 6 bad, if you want, than Rodgers is slightly into the above average group, as I have said all along. He's average to slightly above average.

Hmmmm, maybe that braniac mathematician Partial is reasonably intelligent after all

[Bossman641]

So, so far we've seen 6th. 6th would be ranked above average in the upper echelon.

We've also seen 8th. 8th ranks as average as he is then in the 25-50% mark.

This has nothing to do with Favre. I don't see why people cannot see that. I rank Rodgers around 14th personally. However, I could see people putting him at about 10-12, and that puts him firmly in the AVERAGE group, as I have said all along.

WTF are you talking about. Let's make it an even 40 QB's to take into account the number of teams that use 2 QB's (such as the Tenn Titans and the great Vince Young ). You're then going to tell me that anyone not ranked in the top 5 out of 40 is average? That's ridiculous.

You overstated your position. You've been called out. You wanna break down 40 QB's into like 3-4 categories??

I'd say there would have to be about 7-8 levels to realistically rate 40 QB's, not 3.

[Partial]

What? I said there is good, above average-average-below average(I lumped these into one originally), and bad.

I don't understand what is so hard to figure out..

[Bossman641]

What? I said there is good, above average-average-below average(I lumped these into one originally), and bad.

I don't understand what is so hard to figure out..

How do you know? Rodgers is average, he's not special. Before he started, he looked good in one game. Clemens hasn't played much either, so it's still up in there air. That loco to right a guy off before he's had a chance.

14th best in the league is average.

Seriously, some of you guys evidently don't understand what average is. I would like everyone here to rank the top 20 quarterbacks in the NFL in order of their ability to win a crucial game today against a top-tier team. I suspect Rodgers will be ranked about 12th.

12th is average!

There are only 5-6 upper echelon QBs in the NFL. There are about 20 that are average. There are about 5-6 lower echelon QBs in the NFL.

Nothing like a good backtrack eh Partial? First Arod was average because he wasn't a top 5 QB. Now that you realize how ridiculous that was you've split average into 3 separate categories.

[Lurker64]

Since when is being the 33-36% better than average? 25-75 is average sir.

I think the misconception here is that most people seem to think the quarterbacks I consider as bad, they consider as average.

Like I said, there are 7-8 good quarterbacks, 14-16 average, 7-8 bad.

Well, what's "average" really depends on context. If you're betting dollar bills on coinflips your average winnings will be around $0. If you give a math test to a bunch of high school students the average might be about 75%. If you give a really hard test though, the average might be significantly lower.

In terms of NFL QBs though? It seems that you've mostly "already reached your conclusion" and are trying to come up with numbers to prove it. Let's look at some actual numbers here.

Of the 32 NFL QBs who averaged 14 passes/game (the NFL's standard for qualifying for statistical records) the average passing yardage was 3132.375 (median 3241.5) with a standard deviation of 872.2638201. Aaron Rodgers threw for 4,038 yards, which is more than one standard deviation from the mean, which gives us a reasonably high degree of confidence as to "not being average" (the average QBs would at least be within one standard deviation of the mean.)

For TD passes, the mean was 17.84 and the median was 15.5 with a standard deviation of 7.22. Again, Rodgers's 28 TD passes puts him more than one standard deviation away from the mean, which strongly points to "not average."

For QB rating, the mean was 82.28 and the median was 85.7. The standard deviation was 15.78, so Aaron Rodger's 93.8 does lie within one standard deviation of the mean, but when you look at the statistics you see that only Phillip Rivers had a QB rating (on the high end) more than one standard deviation from the mean, and you would at least consider the top 5 to be above average, and Rodgers landing out of the top 5 by 1.2 points probably makes him above average as well.

So really, Partial, you have no statistical leg to stand on for your "Aaron Rodgers is average" claim, since the important statistics indicate that he was significantly above average (at least in yards and touchdowns).

If you want to base your claims that Rodgers is average on "having watched him" feel free to do so, but you're unlikely to convince anybody with this opinion since many others have watched him and reached different conclusions.

[channtheman]

What? I said there is good, above average-average-below average(I lumped these into one originally), and bad.

I don't understand what is so hard to figure out..

Uhh, maybe because you lumped 3 groups into one originally? It makes it a lot harder for people to see you as reasonable. If you had said originally that you don't think Aaron Rodgers is the best but he is above average no one would argue with you.

You've done this before with how you said our offense was the WHOLE problem. You later changed your stance to say that defense has failed at the end of the games but the offense hasn't been amazing. If you would just say what you really mean no one would have a problem. You just have to stop saying things like a dumbass and putting such a bad spin on everything Rodgers.

[sharpe1027]

What? I said there is good, above average-average-below average(I lumped these into one originally), and bad.

I don't understand what is so hard to figure out..

Who cares how you slice it. Did you forget the context of your original statement already? You were arguing that the Jets were just as solidified at QB as the Packers because Rodgers was only average. Presumably that means that Clemens was also "average." The ranges between "average" QBs under your definition is HUGE. So large that being "average" is virtually meaningless to your original statement. You current argument about what "average" means completely undermines your original statement, nice try buddy.

[Zool]

Waffle

[Cheesehead Craig]

Waffle

I love waffles...

[Zool]

I believe the urbandictionary sums it up best.

Waffle

To talk unendingly, with no point to your conversation about totally idiotic things. Spamming on chat rooms is a case of waffling.

[KYPack]

If you're betting dollar bills on coinflips your average winnings will be around $0.

Good idea.

Back to the coin flips.

[vince]

Like I said, there are 7-8 good quarterbacks, 14-16 average, 7-8 bad.
...
Hmmmm, maybe that braniac mathematician Partial is reasonably intelligent after all

Setting aside for a moment your propensity to pull shit completely out of your ass when coming up with your magic formulas for determining who you think ranks where, the premise of your argument is nothing short of ridiculous. To claim that the #8 or #9 ranked anything is equal to the #24 or #25 ranked anything in this league is an absolute joke.

In this case, that means you're claiming that Tony Romo's 91.4 QB Rating, 3448 yards, 26 TD's and 14 INT's are equal to Kyle Orton's 79.6 QB rating, 2972 yds., 18 TD's and 12 INT's.

You can throw all the bell curves, standard deviations and algorithms in the world at it, and you will still just simply be WRONG in that analysis.

Players and coaches ranking 8th in stuff get big contracts, while players and coaches ranking 24th and 25th in stuff get fired. Slight difference there.

[Bossman641]

Like I said, there are 7-8 good quarterbacks, 14-16 average, 7-8 bad.
...
Hmmmm, maybe that braniac mathematician Partial is reasonably intelligent after all

Setting aside for a moment your propensity to pull shit completely out of your ass when coming up with your magic formulas for determining who you think ranks where, it is nothing short of ridiculous to claim that the # 8 ranked anything is equal to the #25 ranked anything in this league.

In this case, that means you're claiming that Tony Romo's 91.4 QB Rating, 3448 yards, 26 TD's and 14 INT's are equal to Kyle Orton's 79.6 QB rating, 2972 yds., 18 TD's and 12 INT's.

You can throw all the bell curves, standard deviations and algorithms in the world at it, and you will still just simply be WRONG in that analysis.

Players and coaches ranking 8th in stuff get big contracts, while players and coaches ranking 24th and 25th in stuff get fired. Slight difference there.

But what if I told you there were some group of miscellanous scouts that ranked Rodgers 19th in the league? Isn't that something you'd be interested in?? Surely that would trump everything else right???

[Lurker64]

Setting aside for a moment your propensity to pull shit completely out of your ass when coming up with your magic formulas for determining who you think ranks where, it is nothing short of ridiculous to claim that the # 8 ranked anything is equal to the #25 ranked anything in this league.

In this case, that means you're claiming that Tony Romo's 91.4 QB Rating, 3448 yards, 26 TD's and 14 INT's are equal to Kyle Orton's 79.6 QB rating, 2972 yds., 18 TD's and 12 INT's.

You can throw all the bell curves, standard deviations and algorithms in the world at it, and you will still just simply be WRONG in that analysis.

Players and coaches ranking 8th in stuff get big contracts, while players and coaches ranking 24th and 25th in stuff get fired. Slight difference there.

Yeah, the actual important fact is that it doesn't really matter "how far you are from the statistical mean", what matters is that you're on the right side of it.

Regardless of which fuzzy hedge you want to throw Rodgers into (above average, slightly above average, probably above average, mostly above average, somewhat above average, etc.) Rodgers is clearly on the right side of the platonic "average quarterback", and that's the place you want your guy to be.

Really, no team looks at things like "there are only three elite QBs in the league, our guy isn't one of the three elite QBs so we'd better get rid of him in hopes we get someone better." The analysis is always "Is there a guy out there that we can get who would be better than our current QB? Would the cost of acquisition be justified in the difference in quality?" The fact of the matter is that there's nobody out there we can get (without making some ridiculous offer, like 19 first round draft picks for Peyton Manning), who would be better than Aaron Rodgers. There's nobody in this draft, there's nobody in the next draft, and no free agents coming any time soon that are likely to be better.

So it doesn't really matter whether or not seven teams out there have better quarterbacks. What matters is that we've got a significantly above average QB, who is in the "getting better" part of his career, and he can run a good offense offense pretty effectively. I mean, 12 teams make the playoffs anyway every year, and they're not always the 12 teams with the 12 best QBs, and at least 5 of those teams (by Pigeonhole) would fall in the "average" tier d'apres Partial.

[SnakeLH2006]

Wow..Great conspiracy theories abound.

Here's Snake's Take from the ESPN article and interview:

-It's obvious Brett doesn't want to play for another coach he doesn't know in New York (Mangini is gone).
-Brett said he can still play.
-Brett confirmed the training camp itch syndrome.
-Brett said he wanted to play in the division to stick it the Pack....again.
-Brett is DAMN entertaining on the field and off.
-Brett is only 1 game away from setting the all-time consecutive starting record of ANY position in NFL history (L. Marshall DE Vikings at 270 reg. season games).
-Brett likes the spotlight, sounds kinda scared baking pies with Deanna and running weedwhackers around the Hattiesburg home 12 hours a day.
-Brett has lied before about this stuff to get his way (didn't work so well in 2008).
-Brett hates TT.
-If released, he can sign for any team/any money. I think he'd take the minimum for 1 year at Minn.

All very entertaining and I'll believe he's done when they drag him off the field. Don't get me wrong, I love Brett, but this stuff is must-see TV and he knows it. I feel he has a vendetta to "prove" against TT and he will do whatever to scratch that itch.

More power to him as I enjoyed watching him play with the Jets this last year. And doesn't that speak volumes that he was wearing a JETS CAP during this interview today!! WTF! LMAO!

Good stuff. Keep it going Brett as this is almost as entertaining as watching the Pack play. I say let him play, as I don't see the Jets wanting a fiasco like the Pack last year, and see them releasing him. I don't think we've seen the last of Brett yet.