How big of a part is the QB to the whole team?

[ThunderDan]

I'm not sure that this statistic does average out over 16 games. There are too many things that the number is dependent on to know for sure.

For example, play selection and personnel determine this number. Injuries could be a factor. Whether you are consistently ahead or behind can factor in to the types of plays that a team would run. This could skew the stat one way or the other depending on the percentage of run vs. pass. If your star running back gets injured in game 1, and he was a great pass catcher out of the backfield, and his replacement went to the Troy Williamson finishing school, then your season just changed dramatically.

If you hire Mike Martz as your offensive coordinator, replacing say, Forrest Gregg, then that would also have an impact on your passer rating too, based on the different focus of the offense.

It probably statistically evens out over 2 -5 years and might typically even out over a year, but many things could also keep it from evening out over 1 season.

I was specifically talking about Partial's example. Assuming it was the same RB, QB, etc and getting two different outcomes that change the QB's rating.

But you bring up a good point so I did some research.

Here are some statistics:
5,069 yds 317 ypg 34 td 17 int 96.2 rating
3,653 yds 228 ypg 19 td 7 int 97.4 rating
3,043 yds 277 ypg 15 td 10 int 92.7 rating
3,238 yds 202 ypg 21 td 10 int 86.4 rating

There is a huge difference in ypg thrown because of different offensive schemes yet QB rating numbers are close especially the first two.

[Partial]

The fact that Chad Pennington is one of the NFL's all-time highest rated passers says everything you need to know about that stat. It doesn't always balance out and it is an efficiency stat, not a quality of QB stat.

[mraynrand]

93.4% of coaches agree that statistics are a crude and inadequate way to evaluate a QBs' contribution to the team.

[retailguy]

93.4% of coaches agree that statistics are a crude and inadequate way to evaluate a QBs' contribution to the team.

Well. That kind of settles it, doesn't it. :P

[ThunderDan]

The fact that Chad Pennington is one of the NFL's all-time highest rated passers says everything you need to know about that stat. It doesn't always balance out and it is an efficiency stat, not a quality of QB stat.

The fact that Chad Pennington took a 1-15 team and went 11-5 the next year should damn well tell you how well Pennington played as a QB in 2008.

[ThunderDan]

The fact that Chad Pennington is one of the NFL's all-time highest rated passers says everything you need to know about that stat. It doesn't always balance out and it is an efficiency stat, not a quality of QB stat.

Well then let's look at career stats:
Pennington - 85 games 1,580/2,395 17,391 yrds 7.3 ypa 101 td 62 int 90.6 rating
E. Manning - 73 games 1,276/2,284 14,623 yrds 6.4 ypa 98 td 74 int 76.1 rating

[Partial]

The fact that Chad Pennington is one of the NFL's all-time highest rated passers says everything you need to know about that stat. It doesn't always balance out and it is an efficiency stat, not a quality of QB stat.

Well then let's look at career stats:
Pennington - 85 games 1,580/2,395 17,391 yrds 7.3 ypa 101 td 62 int 90.6 rating
E. Manning - 73 games 1,276/2,284 14,623 yrds 6.4 ypa 98 td 74 int 76.1 rating

What's your point?

[ThunderDan]

The fact that Chad Pennington is one of the NFL's all-time highest rated passers says everything you need to know about that stat. It doesn't always balance out and it is an efficiency stat, not a quality of QB stat.

Well then let's look at career stats:
Pennington - 85 games 1,580/2,395 17,391 yrds 7.3 ypa 101 td 62 int 90.6 rating
E. Manning - 73 games 1,276/2,284 14,623 yrds 6.4 ypa 98 td 74 int 76.1 rating

What's your point?

I know how you think Eli is a stud and am using him as a measuring stick against someone that you dismissed at the beginning of this back-and-forth.

Chad took the NY Jets in 2006 to the playoffs with a 10-6 record. That sounds pretty familiar to what Brett did in 2008.

[Merlin]

Probably not, Partial. I can agree to that. Collins would be injured and there would be losing seasons. During those injury times, the other guy would get a chance and maybe Collins would have been let go sooner than Favre.


Favre deserves all the credit in the world for his longevity and durability and because of that the QB stability for the Packers.

He was a part every year, but the Packers are a well run organization. Sherman eventually tore down Wolfs roster, but for most of the last 15 years the Packers have had one of the better teams in teh NFC (and definitly in the NFC north).


I believe the GM is the key to a winning team. If ownership hires the right guy and gives him control, no matter who he starts with at QB, he'll end up building a winner. I believe we have that GM and that winning attitude and I believe the 10 years after Favre will be as good as the last 12 years with him (lots of wins, lots of playoffs and I think we have a damn good chance at a championship).

I have a hard time saying that we "have the right GM" after the past 4 seasons. The question again comes up; "When exactly is the future?" I would argue that it was last year because the team had 2 years to work under the same coaching philosophies, and they fell on their asses. Rodgers played well enough for us to win, and the Favre "it" factor may have given us 1-2 more wins but that's it. Rodgers will hopefully have "it" this season, he should because 2008 was a good season for him as basically a "rookie". Other then that, Thompson gets a pass?? I don't think so.

This year, new philosophies, how long before it pays off? I see them as new excuses for Thompson to keep his job, you have used MANY of those as reasons he hasn't been successful yet in defending your admiration for him. I think you are giving too much credit to a GM who as of yet isn't a winning GM. Maybe the next 10 years will be great, then again maybe they won't. As a fan, a human being, with a limited life span, I would like to enjoy a winning team every season, not 1 every 4 years as has been the case under Thompson. The NFL is all about winning and Thompson has to date not done that - yet you follow him blindly. It doesn't make any sense. He deserves even the smallest of skepticism from his most ardent supporters - unless you like losing, which I find hard to believe.

Bottom Line: It's about winning football games, not how many changes he can make, how many years that takes, until he gets it right. I find it hard to believe that you or anyone else is "happy" about the past 4 years under Thompson, if you say you are, then apparently you aren't a fan of the game. I can go watch the Lions play, probably for free @ Ford Field, if I want to watch a team lose football games...

[ThunderDan]

Probably not, Partial. I can agree to that. Collins would be injured and there would be losing seasons. During those injury times, the other guy would get a chance and maybe Collins would have been let go sooner than Favre.


Favre deserves all the credit in the world for his longevity and durability and because of that the QB stability for the Packers.

He was a part every year, but the Packers are a well run organization. Sherman eventually tore down Wolfs roster, but for most of the last 15 years the Packers have had one of the better teams in teh NFC (and definitly in the NFC north).


I believe the GM is the key to a winning team. If ownership hires the right guy and gives him control, no matter who he starts with at QB, he'll end up building a winner. I believe we have that GM and that winning attitude and I believe the 10 years after Favre will be as good as the last 12 years with him (lots of wins, lots of playoffs and I think we have a damn good chance at a championship).

I have a hard time saying that we "have the right GM" after the past 4 seasons. The question again comes up; "When exactly is the future?" I would argue that it was last year because the team had 2 years to work under the same coaching philosophies, and they fell on their asses. Rodgers played well enough for us to win, and the Favre "it" factor may have given us 1-2 more wins but that's it. Rodgers will hopefully have "it" this season, he should because 2008 was a good season for him as basically a "rookie". Other then that, Thompson gets a pass?? I don't think so.

This year, new philosophies, how long before it pays off? I see them as new excuses for Thompson to keep his job, you have used MANY of those as reasons he hasn't been successful yet in defending your admiration for him. I think you are giving too much credit to a GM who as of yet isn't a winning GM. Maybe the next 10 years will be great, then again maybe they won't. As a fan, a human being, with a limited life span, I would like to enjoy a winning team every season, not 1 every 4 years as has been the case under Thompson. The NFL is all about winning and Thompson has to date not done that - yet you follow him blindly. It doesn't make any sense. He deserves even the smallest of skepticism from his most ardent supporters - unless you like losing, which I find hard to believe.

Bottom Line: It's about winning football games, not how many changes he can make, how many years that takes, until he gets it right. I find it hard to believe that you or anyone else is "happy" about the past 4 years under Thompson, if you say you are, then apparently you aren't a fan of the game. I can go watch the Lions play, probably for free @ Ford Field, if I want to watch a team lose football games...

Yeah that loss in the NFC Championship game sucked; that some how you make absolutely no mention of. The first one since 1998 when we lost to Denver in the Super Bowl.

Once again 2005 is not TT's fault. The Packers couldn't sign the players needed because of cap hell. It's hard to turn a whole roster over in 1 year.

[ThunderDan]

Probably not, Partial. I can agree to that. Collins would be injured and there would be losing seasons. During those injury times, the other guy would get a chance and maybe Collins would have been let go sooner than Favre.


Favre deserves all the credit in the world for his longevity and durability and because of that the QB stability for the Packers.

He was a part every year, but the Packers are a well run organization. Sherman eventually tore down Wolfs roster, but for most of the last 15 years the Packers have had one of the better teams in teh NFC (and definitly in the NFC north).


I believe the GM is the key to a winning team. If ownership hires the right guy and gives him control, no matter who he starts with at QB, he'll end up building a winner. I believe we have that GM and that winning attitude and I believe the 10 years after Favre will be as good as the last 12 years with him (lots of wins, lots of playoffs and I think we have a damn good chance at a championship).

I have a hard time saying that we "have the right GM" after the past 4 seasons. The question again comes up; "When exactly is the future?" I would argue that it was last year because the team had 2 years to work under the same coaching philosophies, and they fell on their asses. Rodgers played well enough for us to win, and the Favre "it" factor may have given us 1-2 more wins but that's it. Rodgers will hopefully have "it" this season, he should because 2008 was a good season for him as basically a "rookie". Other then that, Thompson gets a pass?? I don't think so.

This year, new philosophies, how long before it pays off? I see them as new excuses for Thompson to keep his job, you have used MANY of those as reasons he hasn't been successful yet in defending your admiration for him. I think you are giving too much credit to a GM who as of yet isn't a winning GM. Maybe the next 10 years will be great, then again maybe they won't. As a fan, a human being, with a limited life span, I would like to enjoy a winning team every season, not 1 every 4 years as has been the case under Thompson. The NFL is all about winning and Thompson has to date not done that - yet you follow him blindly. It doesn't make any sense. He deserves even the smallest of skepticism from his most ardent supporters - unless you like losing, which I find hard to believe.

Bottom Line: It's about winning football games, not how many changes he can make, how many years that takes, until he gets it right. I find it hard to believe that you or anyone else is "happy" about the past 4 years under Thompson, if you say you are, then apparently you aren't a fan of the game. I can go watch the Lions play, probably for free @ Ford Field, if I want to watch a team lose football games...

How many years did it take Ron Wolf to get us to the NFC Championship game? Five years. Wolf started 9-7, 9-7, 9-7. Should the Packers have canned him after showing no improvement after 3 years?

[retailguy]

How many years did it take Ron Wolf to get us to the NFC Championship game? Five years. Wolf started 9-7, 9-7, 9-7. Should the Packers have canned him after showing no improvement after 3 years?

I love these debates!

Isn't 3 years of 9-7, followed by 13-3 better than 4-12, 8-8, 13-3, 6-10?

Heck, even leave the 6-10 and the 13-3 out.

9-7 x 3 = 27-21
9-7 X 3 + 13-3 = 40-24

4-12 + 8-8 + 13-3 = 25 - 23
4-12 + 8-8 + 13-3 + 6-10 = 31 - 33

Dan, I understand the point you were trying to make, but really, if you're going to judge based on wins & losses, and the "continuity" of wins and losses, Thompson is no Ron Wolf. Ron Wolf in tandem with Mike Holmgren was much more consistent. Granted they didn't have the "Brett drama" to deal with, but still....

There's more to it than that. Stick with that.... This isn't working..

[Fritz]

We're going to find out in the next two years if Thompson has done the job.

[ThunderDan]

How many years did it take Ron Wolf to get us to the NFC Championship game? Five years. Wolf started 9-7, 9-7, 9-7. Should the Packers have canned him after showing no improvement after 3 years?

I love these debates!

Isn't 3 years of 9-7, followed by 13-3 better than 4-12, 8-8, 13-3, 6-10?

Heck, even leave the 6-10 and the 13-3 out.

9-7 x 3 = 27-21
9-7 X 3 + 13-3 = 40-24

4-12 + 8-8 + 13-3 = 25 - 23
4-12 + 8-8 + 13-3 + 6-10 = 31 - 33

Dan, I understand the point you were trying to make, but really, if you're going to judge based on wins & losses, and the "continuity" of wins and losses, Thompson is no Ron Wolf. Ron Wolf in tandem with Mike Holmgren was much more consistent. Granted they didn't have the "Brett drama" to deal with, but still....

There's more to it than that. Stick with that.... This isn't working..

After 3 years would you have kept the GM that goes 9-7, 9-7, 9-7 or the one that goes 4-12, 8-8, 13-3 and gets us to the NFC Championship game?

That's what I am trying to point out. Quick knee-jerk reactions keep a franchise average at best. Right around 50% of the NFL teams have losing records should all of those GM's be canned?

Looking solely at the final record is not the correct way to evaluate your GM. Stuff happens during the NFL season that you try to prepare for but you can't. Remember having Taco Wallace and Samkon Gato on our team.

[retailguy]

After 3 years would you have kept the GM that goes 9-7, 9-7, 9-7 or the one that goes 4-12, 8-8, 13-3 and gets us to the NFC Championship game?

That's what I am trying to point out.

Yeah, I understand Dan. But then, when you look at 6-10 the following year after the Championship game, it weakens your argument.

That's my point. There is a better argument than the one you used. You can defeat this perspective after this year, or, it will defeat you using this argument. But, not many can look at the quality of the football players on the roster and not see improvement from the 2005 team. That's why Thompson gets another year. Potential. That's why Ron Wolf stayed around. That's why Ray Rhodes got canned. Potential. Much better argument.

Jury is still out.