Report: Vikes on verge of acquiring Rosenfels

[Partial]

Where's Partial? Why isnt he calling for TT to make this move?

Excellent question. Wish I had the answer. Especially since he thinks Carr is such a stud and Rodgers sucks.

What? Carr is a stud? Carr who? I think Rodgers is AVERAGE, not suck. He's in the middle of the road, not the bottom of the road. Don't put words in my mouth.

Why would we bring in a backup when we already have two promosing young quarterbacks and an average starter?

[Chevelle2]

Where's Partial? Why isnt he calling for TT to make this move?

Excellent question. Wish I had the answer. Especially since he thinks Carr is such a stud and Rodgers sucks.

What? Carr is a stud? Carr who? I think Rodgers is AVERAGE, not suck. He's in the middle of the road, not the bottom of the road. Don't put words in my mouth.

Why would we bring in a backup when we already have two promosing young quarterbacks and an average starter?

LOL @ "average starter"

[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?

[mission]

my hiatus

Such a great time at PR it's been ...

[Lurker64]

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.

[Partial]

Oye, here we go again. Stats tell a small fraction of the tale. Wins matter WAY more than stats, but one cannot completely ignore stats.

By in large, this team was very healthy this year. Only major injuries were Tausch (late in the year), Jenkins (injured year before throughout and was by in large ineffective, so I'm not sure if this is even anything more than a minor loss), Barnett (devestating blow), and Al for a few weeks (had a severely injured/hampered Chuck for much of last year).

Despite a more consistent running game, the offense struggled in the second half of games.

Overall, similar teams with very different records.

Harv, stating that one scout ranked Rodgers 19th is retarded and ignorant. It was 4-5 scouts on record averaging him out to be about at that level. The only thing stupid or misleading about it is you asinine conspiracy theory, that the scouts are out to "get" Rodgers because his success makes them look bad for overlooking him.

I'm not going to get into it again, but it would be tough to argue that Rodgers is a top 8 QB in the NFL. If he's not in the top 8, he certainly isn't in the good category.

[Lurker64]

Partial-

Drew Brees lead his team to an 8-8 season. Would you say that he did not have a fantastic year simply because "wins tell the story?" If Green Bay wins that game in New Orleans, he would have had a 7-9 season, but Brees individually, would have still had a fantastic season.

Wins are a team statistic, team statistics don't weigh in on how good individual players are. If Crosby wasn't 0/2 on game winning kicks after Rodgers had lead the team down to field goal range to win the game as time was expiring, Rodgers would have lead his team to an 8-8 record, the same as Brees. Certainly you can't blame Crosby's miss at Minnesota and block at Chicago on Rodgers.

All sorts of things could have broken slightly differently this year which would have changed the record significantly (Steve Smith not catching that long pass at the end of the Carolina game, winning the coin toss in overtime against Tennessee, Crosby making either potentially game winning kick, the defense holding against Houston on their game winning drive, someone landing on Garrard's fumble in the game winning drive in the Jacksonville game, etc.) which had nothing to do with Rodgers. In fact, go and read the recaps for each Packer game from NFL.com or the AP, statements like The defense was the Packers' biggest problem, Green Bay's last-minute special teams and defensive breakdowns ruined what could have been a signature win for Rodgers, and The Packers played shorthanded on defense -- and it showed. abound.

Everybody except you seems to realize that it's unreasonable to pin all of the losses on Rodgers. Certainly, yes, if Rodgers had thrown for an extra couple of touchdowns in each of those games (making it 60 on the year) they would have won a lot more games. But the fact of the matter is that you can name basically any player on the roster and for any game we didn't just get blown out in, you can basically say "if he had performed better, we would have won." We would have probably won three more if Crosby was a better kicker, we probably would have won quite a few more if Green was in his 2007 form, the secondary dropped a lot of INTs last year, etc

Rodgers had an outstanding year, the team as a whole had a poor one.

[cpk1994]

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?

The only thing you proved is getting your arguments owned. Everytime someone shot your argument down, you changed it. You are the only one who says Rodgers is average. You took the words of one scout as fact. You will never Rodgers a fair shake becuase you are butt hurt that TT didn't kiss Lord Favre's ring. You hate Rodgers, we get it.

[Bossman641]

Oye, here we go again. Stats tell a small fraction of the tale. Wins matter WAY more than stats, but one cannot completely ignore stats.

By in large, this team was very healthy this year. Only major injuries were Tausch (late in the year), Jenkins (injured year before throughout and was by in large ineffective, so I'm not sure if this is even anything more than a minor loss), Barnett (devestating blow), and Al for a few weeks (had a severely injured/hampered Chuck for much of last year).

Despite a more consistent running game, the offense struggled in the second half of games.

Overall, similar teams with very different records.

Harv, stating that one scout ranked Rodgers 19th is retarded and ignorant. It was 4-5 scouts on record averaging him out to be about at that level. The only thing stupid or misleading about it is you asinine conspiracy theory, that the scouts are out to "get" Rodgers because his success makes them look bad for overlooking him.

I'm not going to get into it again, but it would be tough to argue that Rodgers is a top 8 QB in the NFL. If he's not in the top 8, he certainly isn't in the good category.

I'm not gonna get into it with you again regarding the Rodgers stuff because you obviously are gonna stick with your viewpoint no matter how many holes are shot through it, but I'm wondering how you can say that Jenkins was a minor loss? He was playing lights out when he got injured, and that end spot turned into a revolving door of garbage once he got hurt. If you don't think having Jenkins lined up there instead of Montgomery or Hunter was a big deal then I have to wonder what games you were watching.

[sheepshead]

Where's Partial? Why isnt he calling for TT to make this move?

Excellent question. Wish I had the answer. Especially since he thinks Carr is such a stud and Rodgers sucks.

What? Carr is a stud? Carr who? I think Rodgers is AVERAGE, not suck. He's in the middle of the road, not the bottom of the road. Don't put words in my mouth.

Why would we bring in a backup when we already have two promosing young quarterbacks and an average starter?

He's average like Michelson is a duffer.

[KYPack]

Not this happy horseshit again?!?

[sheepshead]

Partial, I think it's fair to say that as Packer fans we do not want ANY "average" player on our team. ESPECIALLY at the very important quarterback position. Thus it is fair to assume, that anyone you can convince that Aaron Rodgers is "average" would also have to agree that he should be replaced as soon as possible. Why don't you take some time and write a little blurb about who should we should go after either/both in the draft or free agency or trade. Take some time. Give us your reasons why that guy or guys would be a better choice than Rodgers. Let's really have a discussion rather than , what I think this really is, idol moronic bitching from someone who is looking for attention. This reminds me of the famous mouthbreathing knuckle draggers that used to frequent JSO.

[Tarlam!]

This reminds me of the famous mouthbreathing knuckle draggers that used to frequent JSO.

For which you Sheepdip are totally infamous.

[sheepshead]

This reminds me of the famous mouthbreathing knuckle draggers that used to frequent JSO.

For which you Sheepdip are totally infamous.

Go fuck yourself, I dont know what rock YOU crawled out from out of-but if all you can do is pop on here and continue personal attacks, then you sir need to get some serious help-back where ever it is you came from please.

[hoosier]

Oye, here we go again. Stats tell a small fraction of the tale. Wins matter WAY more than stats, but one cannot completely ignore stats.

By in large, this team was very healthy this year. Only major injuries were Tausch (late in the year), Jenkins (injured year before throughout and was by in large ineffective, so I'm not sure if this is even anything more than a minor loss), Barnett (devestating blow), and Al for a few weeks (had a severely injured/hampered Chuck for much of last year).

Despite a more consistent running game, the offense struggled in the second half of games.

Overall, similar teams with very different records.

Harv, stating that one scout ranked Rodgers 19th is retarded and ignorant. It was 4-5 scouts on record averaging him out to be about at that level. The only thing stupid or misleading about it is you asinine conspiracy theory, that the scouts are out to "get" Rodgers because his success makes them look bad for overlooking him.

I'm not going to get into it again, but it would be tough to argue that Rodgers is a top 8 QB in the NFL. If he's not in the top 8, he certainly isn't in the good category.

Impervious to logic