Improve This Article: Reasons Packers Retreated To 6-10

[Patler]

Patler brings some great stuff. He seems to have that type of mind, but he's not stating his theory in my opinion.

JH;

Are you familiar with the Socratic teaching method? Familiarize yourself with it, and you will understand me much better.

[MJZiggy]

(My preferred sport is hockey, and a game that I actually know something about.)

Are you suggesting that you DON'T know football?

[pbmax]

... Harvey and Tyrone think James Jones is a high end #3 WR. I think he's high end #2 material. Now James Jones career will tell who is right. I might be wrong. They might be wrong. Nothing is proven, but that's what we do. It's fun...

Its all fun and that is why we are here. But this example of a testable hypothesis is problematic.

First of all, it may not be testable at all. Jones plays for the Packers for a couple of more years. Whether he is objectively a #2 or #3 will take a backseat to his ranking on the Packers. If Driver retires and Nelson surpasses him, then he is #3 on the Packers, almost regardless of his worth to other teams, or ranking of league WRs (you might get a reading if Packer's depth or another team's desperation led to a trade).

Second, not all teams are created equal on the QB ability or WR depth front. Jones might be the number one target on some teams in the NFC North. Will you measure success by his depth chart spot, number of catches or his rankings among all league receivers (#1-Top 32, #2-Top 64, #3-Top 96, etc.)?

It will be difficult to agree to the measurement that should be used, much less test that conjecture. A better hypothesis might be "Jones will wind up as a #x WR on the Packers". In that case, my bet is on a number 3 receiver behind Nelson by next year.


And Patler, I am so disappointed you blew the Atlas Herrion prediction!

[Scott Campbell]

And Patler, I am so disappointed you blew the Atlas Herrion prediction!

Alabama kid.

[Fritz]

This is the scientific method. It's quite invigorating to play with. You should try it.

I prefer the Brett Favre gunslinger methodology of logic.

Drew Barrymore would be quite invigorating to play with. The scientific method is just the scientific method.

[pbmax]

Resolved: Better Reasons Than Blaming Fans For Blaming Aaron Rodgers for The 6-10 Record

1. Poor judgments about the defensive line talent
2. Special Teams
3. 2nd Half Strategy With A Lead
4. Predictability in the running game
5. Specific Injuries
6. Team Conditioning
7. Luck: Two Field Goal Kicks and Assorted Plays Went Against the Packers in 08
8. Lambeau: Practicing Indoors Killing Home Field Ad


Areas We Need to Cover Yet

9. Rodgers Areas For Improvement (yes it would be OK to compare him to Brett since this is one of the ways the team changed year to year)
10. Linebacking Corp: Victim or Perpetrator of Dreck?
11. Strength of Schedule and Matchups: Its all important, but no one pays attention to it except when next season's schedule is announced. That is the worst way to consider it since all the teams will be different by Sept and REALLY different in November.

[pbmax]

9. Aaron Rodgers: Not Quite Favre Yet

Football Outsiders calculates a Sack Rate for all Offensive Lines, determined by the number of dropbacks, actual throws, sacks, pressures, hits while throwing, etc. One of the most remarkable things about Favre is that while adjusting to a new offensive line in 05 and 06, the team's Sack Rate was still top ten. It wasn't as good as previous years, but it was not terrible either.

We all remember the pressure Favre felt behind 2 new guards in 2005. And it was no cakewalk when he had two rookie guards and first year starter Wells at center in 2006. It was not the same pass protection. Some of this credit goes to the O line coaches and the players. But a lot of credit must go to Favre.

Recognizing pressure, making protection calls and knowing when you had to throw were things Favre had mastered by this point of his career. I think an argument could be made that Favre at times, in order to protect himself and the ball, threw too early rather than try to escape, throw it away or just fall on the ball. But he rarely moved without purpose in the pocket and had an uncanny clock in his head.

But older posters will remember young Favre used to not have any clock at all. A play wasn't dead until Favre was trapped like Tarkenton or had thrown the ball to his twelfth read. Holmgren used to cringe when the Gunslinger would come off his first read (Sharpe) and then improvise while bouncing off his lineman. And as fun as Jon Ryan's run for a first down against the Vikes was, it was not more fun than the first time a Green Bay home crowd saw Favre throw the ball out of bounds.

Favre, instead of channeling Houdini, channeled Ken Andersen and threw out of bounds. But in typical Brett fashion, the ball took an unexpected flight path: about 50 yards vertically in the air, and 35 yards to the sideline. It was like a pop fly in foul territory. You could have run out the clock or covered a punt with that kind of hang time. But to the enormous credit of the Packer fan base, that goofy throw out of bounds got Brett an ovation. Has to be one of the very few instances of applause for throwing safely out of bounds.

Rodgers is a different QB. He is not willing to reverse field like young Favre did; he has a run mode and a run to the sideline while intending to throw mode. The latter of which it took Favre some years to develop. But he doesn't yet have that clock or instantaneous understanding of where pressure is coming from and where to go with the ball. His movement in the pocket sometimes leads him the wrong way and into more pressure.

But he has clearly progressed as a QB in his three years as backup, and it stands to reason he will improve with more starts. His share of sacks and pressures that he contributes to will decline and the offense will sustain longer drives more often. One aspect of Rodger development that does not get enough mention is his time on the bench. He clearly benefited from it, and more teams would be wise to do this with QBs who come into the league with less than an ideal number of starts under their belt in College.

[Rastak]

(My preferred sport is hockey, and a game that I actually know something about.)

Are you suggesting that you DON'T know football?

The dude is smart AND humble.....

[Gunakor]

Favre had incredible pocket awareness. Best I've seen in a very long time, maybe ever. That was as big an asset to him as his cannon arm, especially later on in his career. Aaron will eventually develop this pocket awareness, but I agree, it's not nearly there yet.

[woodbuck27]

It's ok JH. I figured you had PMS again, or your wife beat you up... :P

Sign me up for the Patler Appreciation Society.

Patler is really a post HAL prototype. The system he uses to find `the facts`to support his positions has always caused me to wonder also.

Patler. You have a great filing system or your a computer.

[HarveyWallbangers]

... Harvey and Tyrone think James Jones is a high end #3 WR. I think he's high end #2 material. Now James Jones career will tell who is right. I might be wrong. They might be wrong. Nothing is proven, but that's what we do. It's fun...

Actually, I said Jones has the upside to be a decent #2, but I think Nelson has the upside to be a good #2. I don't think there's a lot that separates them. I just like Nelson a bit more.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

It's ok JH. I figured you had PMS again, or your wife beat you up... :P

Sign me up for the Patler Appreciation Society.

Patler is really a post HAL prototype. The system he uses to find `the facts`to support his positions has always caused me to wonder also.

Patler. You have a great filing system or your a computer.

He is nothing special, just looks special to you canadians.

[denverYooper]

It's ok JH. I figured you had PMS again, or your wife beat you up... :P

Sign me up for the Patler Appreciation Society.

Patler is really a post HAL prototype. The system he uses to find `the facts`to support his positions has always caused me to wonder also.

Patler. You have a great filing system or your a computer.

Or he has Teh Google.

On a side note, computers were people from the early 17th century until the early 20th. They were people who performed calculations. So, in that sense, "computer" fits him well.

If he were a machine, he should probably be entered in the Loebner prize competition. He'd likely be the first gold they've ever given.

[Fritz]

It's ok JH. I figured you had PMS again, or your wife beat you up... :P

Sign me up for the Patler Appreciation Society.

Patler is really a post HAL prototype. The system he uses to find `the facts`to support his positions has always caused me to wonder also.

Patler. You have a great filing system or your a computer.

Or he has Teh Google.

On a side note, computers were people from the early 17th century until the early 20th. They were people who performed calculations. So, in that sense, "computer" fits him well.

If he were a machine, he should probably be entered in the Loebner prize competition. He'd likely be the first gold they've ever given.

Do we know that Patler is not a machine?

[sharpe1027]

Hey, anybody could post like Patler if they had a research staff of 32 people.

Yeah. He's impressive. And sometimes, he remembers things that are important to an issue that you can just tell he made a little mental note of it when it was said and was going to go back to it when things are finished. You can see he's obviously got ideas. He wouldn't just happen to remember important details unless he viewed them as important at the time he read them. I know he's a good poster, I hope I'm not sending a message otherwise here.

I get a little frustrated because they're never really expressed as a theory or in a "there is more reason to believe this than that" way. It's expressed in a, "there is reason to believe this or this" way.

Obviously Patler brings some great things, particularly an attention to detail and stellar memory of details that matter. I like to see the details and facts brought together to support a defined theory, not just left so open. I'm sure he knows what he thinks will happen or thinks is happening before it's proven beyond a reasonable doubt. We don't though. I think I know what Patler thinks, like I said, I just don't know.

There is a certain wisdom in recognizing that certain things cannot possibly be knowable with any certainty. Pointing out this uncertainty, while explaining the reasons for why one answer is more likely correct is about as definitive as you can get without pretending to know more than you do.

If you are suggesting that posters should tout their theories as the "correct" theory, then I disagree. That would be a misrepresentation.

If you are suggesting that posters must provide short summaries to assist in understanding the point of the post, I guess it is a reasonable request, if somewhat unnecessary.