Gil Brandt's comments on Ted Thompson

[Partial]

Top 12 would put Rodgers in the top 60% of QB's in the league, which based on one season worth of work seems fair.

I'm not following the math.

I think he meant percentile, which would be correct. He's at the 62nd percentile.

[sharpe1027]

Top 12 would put Rodgers in the top 60% of QB's in the league, which based on one season worth of work seems fair.

I'm not following the math.

I think he meant percentile, which would be correct. He's at the 62nd percentile.

You haven't answered my question, but I don't follow that math either. 32 is not the correct number.

I guess if you exclude all QBs that sucked bad enough to be benched or that were injured. That, of course, just means you are necessarily skewing the data towards the best QBs.

[retailguy]

Top 12 would put Rodgers in the top 60% of QB's in the league, which based on one season worth of work seems fair.

I'm not following the math.

I think he meant percentile, which would be correct. He's at the 62nd percentile.

You haven't answered my question, but I don't follow that math either. 32 is not the correct number.

I guess if you exclude all QBs that sucked bad enough to be benched or that were injured. That, of course, just means you are necessarily skewing the data towards the best QBs.

Look, you could use many different "measurements", but lets be realistic. Barring injury you'd have 32 starting qb's. My comment was based on what Partial has said previously, and I think he's even named off the other QB's he believed were better.

top 12 out of 32 is 62%. If you want a "math battle" this is probably the wrong place for that.

[Partial]

Top 12 would put Rodgers in the top 60% of QB's in the league, which based on one season worth of work seems fair.

I'm not following the math.

I think he meant percentile, which would be correct. He's at the 62nd percentile.

You haven't answered my question, but I don't follow that math either. 32 is not the correct number.

I guess if you exclude all QBs that sucked bad enough to be benched or that were injured. That, of course, just means you are necessarily skewing the data towards the best QBs.

What? 32? There are 32 teams in the NFL. That's just counting starters.

[cpk1994]

Partial,

I am lost. Are you arguing that Rodgers can't become a superbowl winning QB or just that he isn't there yet? If it is ther first, you admit that one year is not enough to judge a QB, which makes you a hypocrit. If it is the second, thank you captain obvious...

I do not understand what you are trying to say, or what you think the purpose of your arbitrarily defined categories of eliteness are good for.

In three sentences or less...what is your point?

I think he pretty much believes that ARod can't do the job. After all ARod is merely average in his mind even though the stats prove him wrong.

He's above average now. Haven't you been following?

Yes I have. I think he changed to above average becuase he was tired of the beating he recieved and couldn't come up with another argument to get crushed.

[cpk1994]

I think he pretty much believes that ARod can't do the job. After all ARod is merely average in his mind even though the stats prove him wrong.

Well, he's used the term "average" but he's also used the term "top 12", which to me at least is a fairer assumption.

Top 12 would put Rodgers in the top 60% of QB's in the league, which based on one season worth of work seems fair.

To be truthful, Arod has more promise than production at this point, but all the signs look favorable, and I expect good things from him this year. It would seem that Partial does as well, though to be fair he seems a little more pessimistic than me.

I'd venture to say CPK if we "picked and chose" your words the same way you do with others, you'd be damn unhappy....

But in this case I wasn't "picking and choosing". He repeatedly used the term "merely average" and stats were shown to repeateldy show his term wasn't accurate. He would then change his arguemt only to have that shot down. This was and still is a very consistent pattern with him. Hardly picking and choosing.

[retailguy]

But in this case I wasn't "picking and choosing". He repeatedly used the term "merely average" and stats were shown to repeateldy show his term wasn't accurate. He would then change his arguemt only to have that shot down. This was and still is a very consistent pattern with him. Hardly picking and choosing.

Wholeheartedly disagree with this. This ridiculous "battle" over Arod has been going on for months.

Partial has made some ridiculous statements largely in defense of his opinion about AROD. You guys have capitalized on those "defenses" and largely ignored his original point, which wasn't that unreasonable. He even named the 11 qb's that he thought were better. Yet you cleverly forget that, don't you?

Like it or not, it's his opinion. You've got 16 games to "evaluate Arod". More data is needed ON BOTH SIDES. Until then, you ARE picking and choosing, and thats even ignorning your "in this case" comment which if you pick a particular case, by default you ARE picking and choosing.

[sharpe1027]

What? 32? There are 32 teams in the NFL. That's just counting starters.

There were more than 32 starting QBs last year.

You still haven't answered my question.

[cpk1994]

But in this case I wasn't "picking and choosing". He repeatedly used the term "merely average" and stats were shown to repeateldy show his term wasn't accurate. He would then change his arguemt only to have that shot down. This was and still is a very consistent pattern with him. Hardly picking and choosing.

Wholeheartedly disagree with this. This ridiculous "battle" over Arod has been going on for months.

Partial has made some ridiculous statements largely in defense of his opinion about AROD. You guys have capitalized on those "defenses" and largely ignored his original point, which wasn't that unreasonable. He even named the 11 qb's that he thought were better. Yet you cleverly forget that, don't you?

Like it or not, it's his opinion. You've got 16 games to "evaluate Arod". More data is needed ON BOTH SIDES. Until then, you ARE picking and choosing, and thats even ignorning your "in this case" comment which if you pick a particular case, by default you ARE picking and choosing.

I haven't forgot. He claimed ARod was merely average and then said he was Top 12. Top 12 is not merely average. That's above average. That's why he got bashed repeatdly. He was clearly contradicting himself, and when called on it, he got even more ridiculous with his "defenses" and changing to new arguments when old ones got demolished.

My opinion has never changed about ARod. I believe he is a Top 8, above average QB. Only one other QB in the HISTORY of the NFL did what ARod did last year. That bodes well as that other QB has a couple of SB rings.

[retailguy]

My opinion has never changed about ARod. I believe he is a Top 8, above average QB. Only one other QB in the HISTORY of the NFL did what ARod did last year. That bodes well as that other QB has a couple of SB rings.

Which ones are better? I don't recall seeing you "define" anything.

[sharpe1027]

Look, you could use many different "measurements", but lets be realistic. Barring injury you'd have 32 starting qb's. My comment was based on what Partial has said previously, and I think he's even named off the other QB's he believed were better.

top 12 out of 32 is 62%. If you want a "math battle" this is probably the wrong place for that.

Not true. Crappy QBs get benched. If you exclude all of them, and their replacements you are skewing the numbers.Not that it matters.

I fail to understand what the point is. Frankly, you can't realistically rank them because for the most part you are comparing apples to oranges. What the point of partial's ranking system? Frankly, I don't care whether Rodgers is 32 on his ranking scale. Ranking for the sake of ranking...??

Once again, in three sentences or less, Partial, what is the point of this discussion?

[cpk1994]

My opinion has never changed about ARod. I believe he is a Top 8, above average QB. Only one other QB in the HISTORY of the NFL did what ARod did last year. That bodes well as that other QB has a couple of SB rings.

Which ones are better? I don't recall seeing you "define" anything.

It was the same thread that Partial lsited his. I believe it went something like this:

P Manning
T Brady
B Rothliesberger
D Brees
E Manning
P Rivers
T Romo
A Rodgers

[retailguy]

My opinion has never changed about ARod. I believe he is a Top 8, above average QB. Only one other QB in the HISTORY of the NFL did what ARod did last year. That bodes well as that other QB has a couple of SB rings.

Which ones are better? I don't recall seeing you "define" anything.

It was the same thread that Partial lsited his. I believe it went something like this:

P Manning
T Brady
B Rothliesberger
D Brees
E Manning
P Rivers
T Romo
A Rodgers

I see. So what's your rationale to rank Rodgers over Flacco & Ryan? Also, what about Hasselbeck? He's got several years of proven experience including a super bowl appearance.

[cpk1994]

My opinion has never changed about ARod. I believe he is a Top 8, above average QB. Only one other QB in the HISTORY of the NFL did what ARod did last year. That bodes well as that other QB has a couple of SB rings.

Which ones are better? I don't recall seeing you "define" anything.

It was the same thread that Partial lsited his. I believe it went something like this:

P Manning
T Brady
B Rothliesberger
D Brees
E Manning
P Rivers
T Romo
A Rodgers

I see. So what's your rationale to rank Rodgers over Flacco & Ryan? Also, what about Hasselbeck? He's got several years of proven experience including a super bowl appearance.

Hasselbeck is injured and on the decline. Flacoo rode a great D to the AFC title game but really wasn't great at all. Ryan would be the closest to Rodgers and 9 on my list, but Rodgers gets the edge becuase he managed to pass for over 4000 yards despite the revolving door that was the OL and periodic brainfarts from M3.

[Zool]

So what's your rationale to rank Rodgers over Flacco

Every day of every week of this season and the next 10.