Report: Vikes on verge of acquiring Rosenfels

[hoosier]

Hey Hoosier, where is the logic exactly that Rodgers is better than average? Surely plenty of quarterbacks have nice stats, but how many good quarterbacks lead a team chock full of talent to a 6-10 record? Ron Wolfe is even on record as saying he doesn't think Rodgers is a winner. Say what you want, but Ronnie Wolf has a pretty solid track record and I'll trust HIS judgement over yours.

I would look at three things in evaluating a quarterback: individual performance, consistency, and how much the QB helps his team (by making others around him better and by winning games or at least not losing them). I think Lurker's post showed pretty clearly that Rodgers first year as a starter was statistically much better than the herd of statistically competent QBs you refer to. We don't have a long career to evaluate him on yet, but I didn't see anything last year that would lead me to think that his first year was a fluke or that he was just padding his stats. The 6-10 record certainly doesn't help make Rodgers case, but I hardly think any reasonable observer would say that 6-10 was his fault. True, he might have performed more last-minute heroics and won another game or two, but the close ones were lost by late special teams and defensive breakdowns, not by QB errors. In contrast to Favre, I would say that Rodgers is not as adept at making those around him better (yet), but nor does he cost the Packers games the way Favre did.

[Waldo]

As I have pointed out to Partial, this isn't fantasy football. He has this Brett Favre highlight reel running in his head. There will likely not be another Brett Favre in our lifetime. I think TT and his group have brought in a talented guy and nurtured him properly and I couldnt be more pleased with our QB. Where his stats end up will be fodder for discussion on boards like this for years to come. He's following a legend and so far I like what I see.

It could be argued that there are several right now.

Peyton has as many MVP's, as many rings, and will likely end his career with better stats than Brett. His single best season is better than Brett's single best season.

Brady has many more rings than Brett. His end career stats won't be as good, aside from maybe wins. His single best season is better than Brett's single best season.

Big Ben now has more rings than Brett. He also plays on a team built to run whose line is awful at pass blocking and lacks elite WR threats (Holmes and Ward are good though). Making plays amongst getting beat up is his game.

Brees has had a better statsitical season than Brett has ever had.

Warner has as many rings, 2 MVP's, and played in more superbowls.

Rivers, Ryan, Flacco, Cutler, and Rodgers have a lot of career left to show they are to be mentioned in the same breath.

[sheepshead]

As I have pointed out to Partial, this isn't fantasy football. He has this Brett Favre highlight reel running in his head. There will likely not be another Brett Favre in our lifetime. I think TT and his group have brought in a talented guy and nurtured him properly and I couldnt be more pleased with our QB. Where his stats end up will be fodder for discussion on boards like this for years to come. He's following a legend and so far I like what I see.

It could be argued that there are several right now.

Peyton has as many MVP's, as many rings, and will likely end his career with better stats than Brett. His single best season is better than Brett's single best season.

Brady has many more rings than Brett. His end career stats won't be as good, aside from maybe wins. His single best season is better than Brett's single best season.

Big Ben now has more rings than Brett. He also plays on a team built to run whose line is awful at pass blocking and lacks elite WR threats (Holmes and Ward are good though). Making plays amongst getting beat up is his game.

Brees has had a better statsitical season than Brett has ever had.

Warner has as many rings, 2 MVP's, and played in more superbowls.

Rivers, Ryan, Flacco, Cutler, and Rodgers have a lot of career left to show they are to be mentioned in the same breath.

Sorry, what I meant was in a packer uniform, knocking down all the records, 17 seasons etc etc.

[SnakeLH2006]

Wow..this has been the most surreal topic Snake has seen in some time. Hard to type with all amazing logic about ARod being average, LMAO!!




BTW, hey Tarlam, nice to see you posting again buddy! I see you still have you keen, tactful social graces intact. Snake feels brute honesty > misguided fanboyism anyday homey. Hope to see more of ya bud.

[Gunakor]

How many good, above average, average, below average, and bad starters are there, then?

I was in the midst of proving this last week before my hiatus, but 3/4 of the league is not a good or average starter, ya know?

Well, when you consider that there are 32 starting QB's in the NFL, the 16th rated QB would be considered average. To get an average you have to include the best QB, the WORST QB, and EVERYONE inbetween.

You can't have 5 above average and 5 average and 22 below average - the numbers don't add up. So try this one:

The top 10 starting QB's in the NFL are above average.
The bottom 10 starting QB's in the NFL are below average.
The 12 starting QB's inbetween are average.
If you absolutely need to break this down further, you could say that the top 3 are "elite" and the bottom 3 are "garbage".

So ask yourself - and be realistic here - is Rodgers really not a top TEN quarterback right now? Can you really name TEN quarterbacks that are better than Rodgers today?

[Partial]

I agree 100% gunk. No, I don't think Rodgers is top 10. I have said NUMEROUS times he's around 12. I have listed guys countless times to support my case, and many here have been ya, he's probably right around 10.

If he is ranked 9th or 10th by that scale, he is barely above average, what I have said that he is numerous times as well.

I don't hate on ARod, I just call it like I see it. He's not a great player yet. He has the potential to be with his phyiscal attributes, but going into his 5th year I'm sure he is what he is.

Can you win with that? Well, sure, given the right situation. As Wist and I have pointed out, we're a pass predicated offense. If we switch from finesse to physical and start pounding the ball and ask ARod to do less, we can certainly be a playoff team and contend.

MM talks about how he wants to be a run first team but he has never stuck to it. If and when he does, Rodgers could easily lead to a team to a 12-4 11-5 record annually.

[Gunakor]

I agree 100% gunk. No, I don't think Rodgers is top 10. I have said NUMEROUS times he's around 12. I have listed guys countless times to support my case, and many here have been ya, he's probably right around 10.

If he is ranked 9th or 10th by that scale, he is barely above average, what I have said that he is numerous times as well.

I don't hate on ARod, I just call it like I see it. He's not a great player yet. He has the potential to be with his phyiscal attributes, but going into his 5th year I'm sure he is what he is.

Can you win with that? Well, sure, given the right situation. As Wist and I have pointed out, we're a pass predicated offense. If we switch from finesse to physical and start pounding the ball and ask ARod to do less, we can certainly be a playoff team and contend.

MM talks about how he wants to be a run first team but he has never stuck to it. If and when he does, Rodgers could easily lead to a team to a 12-4 11-5 record annually.

You have said numerous times that he's merely average, that's what I remember. He's definitely not in the elite catagory yet, but he's definitely not merely average either. That's what I was getting at, and I apologize if I misinterpreted the multiple times you described AR as merely average to mean you thought AR was merely average. I promise I won't accuse you of that anymore, now that you've cleared that up.

If the key to AR becoming elite is a better running game, you can't really put that on AR himself. His stats might get better with a better running game, but he isn't going to be any more or less talented because of it. Either he's a top 10 talent or he isn't. Without considering stats, and simply looking at individual qualities such as arm strength, throwing accuracy, athleticism, decision making and leadership, I'd say he most definitely is a top 10 talent regardless of what kind of offense he's running. A better running game isn't going to make AR a better QB, but it will make the Packers a better football team.

[Freak Out]

I really think the Vikes should have gone after the Sex Cannon.

[MJZiggy]

I thought he wanted to go to the Lions?

[Waldo]

I agree 100% gunk. No, I don't think Rodgers is top 10. I have said NUMEROUS times he's around 12. I have listed guys countless times to support my case, and many here have been ya, he's probably right around 10.

If he is ranked 9th or 10th by that scale, he is barely above average, what I have said that he is numerous times as well.

I don't hate on ARod, I just call it like I see it. He's not a great player yet. He has the potential to be with his phyiscal attributes, but going into his 5th year I'm sure he is what he is.

Can you win with that? Well, sure, given the right situation. As Wist and I have pointed out, we're a pass predicated offense. If we switch from finesse to physical and start pounding the ball and ask ARod to do less, we can certainly be a playoff team and contend.

MM talks about how he wants to be a run first team but he has never stuck to it. If and when he does, Rodgers could easily lead to a team to a 12-4 11-5 record annually.

Ask AR to do less

No running team averages as many yds/play as Aaron's arm does.

His accuracy is easily top 3 in the NFL. Accuracy goes a long way. He has the physical tools to be one of the best QB's the NFL has ever seen. His accuracy is beyond elite on all routes, his arm strength is well above average, he's mobile, throws well on the run, and his release is ridiculously compact and quick (he has no Leftwich wind up). He's not a dump off to the RB in the flat QB for his stats, he makes very difficult throws look easy (several that were NOT part of Favre's repertoire later in his career). Aaron's passing tree is bigger than most QB's. There are a few routes that he can use that maybe 5 QB's in the NFL can use. The deep post-corner and nod audilble seam are two of the most difficult and dangerous passes possible, Brett didn't throw them, Aaron does.

[SkinBasket]

How many good, above average, average, below average, and bad starters are there, then?

I was in the midst of proving this last week before my hiatus, but 3/4 of the league is not a good or average starter, ya know?

Well, let's look at this a bit shall we? Let's go as "above average" means "more than one standard deviation above the mean." You may want to have a less strict definition of "above average" such as "more than one half of the standard deviation above the mean", but we'll go with something clearcut. Statistically nothing outside of one standard deviation of the mean is average, in fact everything either above or below a standard deviation from the mean is significantly not-average.

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.

For TD passes, the mean was 17.84 and the median was 15.5 with a standard deviation of 7.22.

For QB rating, the mean was 82.28 and the median was 85.7. The standard deviation was 15.78 (QB ratings are fairly evenly distributed.)

So in order to be significantly above average in terms of "yardage" you needed to throw for more than 4004 yards. Five quarterbacks accomplished this feat: Brees, Warner, Cutler, Rodgers, and Rivers.

In order to be significantly above average in terms of "touchdown passes" you needed to throw for 26 or more. Six quarterbacks accomplished this feat: Brees, Rivers, Warner, Rodgers, Manning, Romo.

In order to be significantly above average in terms of QB rating, you needed to finish the season with a QB rating above 98. Only one QB accomplished this feat: Rivers.

Of the three most important statistics for a QB, one QB is significantly above average in all three categories: Phillip Rivers. Three are significantly above average in two categories: Brees, Warner, and Rodgers. Three QBs are significantly above average in one category: Manning (Peyton), Cutler, and Romo. So if you asked me "who were the above average QBs in 2008", I would give you: Rivers, Brees, Warner, Rodgers, Manning (Peyton), Cutler, and Romo. That's about 7/32, which is about the number you were predicting, right?

There may be a lot of average QBs in the league, but the statistics clearly point to "Rodgers, at least in 2008, is not one of them." You don't end up more than one standard deviation above the mean in terms of "Yards" and "Touchdowns" and fall into the "average" category. Now he may end up being average over the totality of his career, but neither you nor I can see the future and speculating as to whether or not he will is sort of pointless. The fact of the matter though, is that Rodgers has given us nothing statistically in the 2008 season to indicate that he is an "average" QB. He finished top 10 in practically every significant statistic, and he was more than one standard deviation above average in terms of the "production" statistics.

This post should be stickied and referred to as the "reality check" thread.

[Bretsky]

IMO this move should help the Vikings a lot; they've just become harder to beat

[Rastak]

IMO this move should help the Vikings a lot; they've just become harder to beat

Scouts inc did a nice writeup.....the real problem is the dude runs hot and cold. He's really accurate, which is great...but he takes lots of chances which causes turnovers.

Frerotte's problem was he's a statue. Jackson's problem(s) were seeing the field and his terrible accuracy.

Rosenfels is accurate and sees the field well from what I've read...if they can reign in the risk taking, he may work out well.

[Bretsky]

IMO this move should help the Vikings a lot; they've just become harder to beat

Scouts inc did a nice writeup.....the real problem is the dude runs hot and cold. He's really accurate, which is great...but he takes lots of chances which causes turnovers.

Frerotte's problem was he's a statue. Jackson's problem(s) were seeing the field and his terrible accuracy.

Rosenfels is accurate and sees the field well from what I've read...if they can reign in the risk taking, he may work out well.

No matter how it shakes out, or how people feel about the Vikings, I find it hard for anybody to argue he's not an upgrade over Jackson.

IMO the Vikings were never winning anything of substance with Jackson; this guy gives them a shot

[Partial]

How many good, above average, average, below average, and bad starters are there, then?

I was in the midst of proving this last week before my hiatus, but 3/4 of the league is not a good or average starter, ya know?

Well, let's look at this a bit shall we? Let's go as "above average" means "more than one standard deviation above the mean." You may want to have a less strict definition of "above average" such as "more than one half of the standard deviation above the mean", but we'll go with something clearcut. Statistically nothing outside of one standard deviation of the mean is average, in fact everything either above or below a standard deviation from the mean is significantly not-average.

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.

For TD passes, the mean was 17.84 and the median was 15.5 with a standard deviation of 7.22.

For QB rating, the mean was 82.28 and the median was 85.7. The standard deviation was 15.78 (QB ratings are fairly evenly distributed.)

So in order to be significantly above average in terms of "yardage" you needed to throw for more than 4004 yards. Five quarterbacks accomplished this feat: Brees, Warner, Cutler, Rodgers, and Rivers.

In order to be significantly above average in terms of "touchdown passes" you needed to throw for 26 or more. Six quarterbacks accomplished this feat: Brees, Rivers, Warner, Rodgers, Manning, Romo.

In order to be significantly above average in terms of QB rating, you needed to finish the season with a QB rating above 98. Only one QB accomplished this feat: Rivers.

Of the three most important statistics for a QB, one QB is significantly above average in all three categories: Phillip Rivers. Three are significantly above average in two categories: Brees, Warner, and Rodgers. Three QBs are significantly above average in one category: Manning (Peyton), Cutler, and Romo. So if you asked me "who were the above average QBs in 2008", I would give you: Rivers, Brees, Warner, Rodgers, Manning (Peyton), Cutler, and Romo. That's about 7/32, which is about the number you were predicting, right?

There may be a lot of average QBs in the league, but the statistics clearly point to "Rodgers, at least in 2008, is not one of them." You don't end up more than one standard deviation above the mean in terms of "Yards" and "Touchdowns" and fall into the "average" category. Now he may end up being average over the totality of his career, but neither you nor I can see the future and speculating as to whether or not he will is sort of pointless. The fact of the matter though, is that Rodgers has given us nothing statistically in the 2008 season to indicate that he is an "average" QB. He finished top 10 in practically every significant statistic, and he was more than one standard deviation above average in terms of the "production" statistics.

This post should be stickied and referred to as the "reality check" thread.

Why? When you look at his stats, and realize that he has insane talent around him...

any QB in the league would look great with his supporting cast.

He is around the 12th best quarterback in the league in my opinion. I don't care if you agree of not, but give me:
Brees - Showed he can guide a team to the playoffs multiple times
Romo - Showed he is clutch in the regular season and get a team a high seed
Brady - Mr playoffs
Manning - Showed he can beat the best team ever in the clutch of a game
Manning - Beat a very good bears team in the super bowl, best RS QB ever
Rivers - Taken teams to the championship game, gutted it out with torn ACL
Warner - super bowl champion, has been there 3 times
Ryan - As a rookie, he easily outperformed our 4th year veteran
Roethlisberger - Won the big one, is clutch, has carried team on back in gutsy game
McNabb - dynamic player, been to the big game, took eagles to championship game consistently early in his career despite only mediocre offensive talent


Cutler/Palmer/Hasselbeck/Flacco/Rodgers are in the next tier down. I'd choose one of those guys on any given day over Rodgers.

I agree that its not fantasy football. They need to keep trying to upgrade the position like they do every other position. They probably won't win a superbowl with Rodgers unless they make a serious change to the way they play offense (think Vikings).