Aaron Rodgers - Best 4th Quarter QB In GB In Last Decade ?

[falco]

How could you not have noticed???

[pbmax]

As I read it, the OP was implying that all things equal, the Green Bay Packers should want Rodgers behind center as opposed to Favre. If that is the intended conclusion, I do believe he is missing many things to make that justification.

I think you have to look at the other "team" personnel, the defense, the coaching, the strength of schedule, and the play calling and game plan. Those are all significant factors in how the QB is able to perform the job.

Then, you also need to include the intangibles. What kind of relationship does the QB have with his teammates? Does he make you want to strive for your best and do the impossible? What about luck?

Instead of coming up with reason why he could be wrong, how about some actual facts or analysis?

The OP post is quite clear on what he thinks the stats mean. Statistically speaking, 2008 Aaron Rodgers was better than the previous 10 or so Favre years in the 4th Quarter when down by a score.

As for your points, they nearly all go in Rodgers favor. His defense stunk worse than we have seen in almost 20 years (the Slowik year might be the exception, also possible Rhodes/Thomas). The Special Teams fell to well below average. His offensive line was not as effective as Favre's were in 8 out of those ten previous seasons. I have nothing on strength of schedule for you off the top of my head (perhaps you could check for us?), but my guess in that in 10 years, Favre has faced worse and still had the lower rating.

As for coaching and play calling, no one on this board is qualified enough to reach a quantitative analysis. We are lucky if the Game Day thread manages not to botch a game clock analysis before halftime.

And intangibles. Oy vey.

The original post contained a troublesome shot at people likely to have an opposing viewpoint. It was unnecessary. The poster also removed it (and at least he didn't use "haters" or "lovers"). I think we can live with someone who posts actual information, takes a needless shot, and admits and corrects the error.

But there are others who stopped by just to complain, not discuss anything. Those are the type of posts that need to end. Except for Patler. Patler can post about his flower garden and I would probably learn something.

[Patler]

Admin: I'm going to let you have it here a little!

Blah, blah blah...Unnecessary material delete!

:P Ok, lets explain this one. My comment was directed at the OP's intended meaning of his statistical analysis. As you so eloquently stated there is nothing wrong with the statistics as presented. Where we differ is that the statistics don't support the OP's conclusions. As I read it, the OP was implying that all things equal, the Green Bay Packers should want Rodgers behind center as opposed to Favre. If that is the intended conclusion, I do believe he is missing many things to make that justification.

I think you have to look at the other "team" personnel, the defense, the coaching, the strength of schedule, and the play calling and game plan. Those are all significant factors in how the QB is able to perform the job.

Then, you also need to include the intangibles. What kind of relationship does the QB have with his teammates? Does he make you want to strive for your best and do the impossible? What about luck?

All those things impact the "success" or "failure" of a QB. I would say that all QB's in the NFL have the talent to "make it". But most don't succeed because of all of the other factors that go with the pure "talent" of an NFL QB.

Personally, I think we've got the QB we need to field a decent team, as compared to the over-the-hill 39/40 year old Brett Favre (which is the commonly stated only other option - which I also disagree with). I don't disagree with the OP or with you on that one. I just disagree with how the OP reached his conclusion, and I disagree with the "tone" used to convey said conclusion.

You can "let me have it" anytime you'd like.

You seem to be jumping to a lot of conclusions. The original post contains no analysis. The subject of the string poses a question and the post presents a list of data. Nothing more. It's there for us to evaluate/analyze.

You also seem to have reached some conclusions about me supporting some position (I'm no sure what it is) that you deduced from the original post. So far I have defended the data, not any conclusion from it, because I don't think the data gives much of a comparison. However, the data is what it is and can be compared without worrying about the other factors. My reasoning:

1. I don't think QB rating is a very good evaluator. It is impacted too significantly by a couple things. If you really want to see it, run some hypotheticals with a QB who marches his team 80 yards through the air, but with the TD scored on a one yard run from the back, and another who has an offense that grinds it out mostly on the ground but he throws a 5 yard TD at the end.
9/15 for 80 yds 0 TDs = 74.3
3/5 for 15 yds and 1 TD = 104.1
Was the second performance really that much better? I don't think so. In both cases the offense scored, but in one the drive relied on the QB, in the other the passes were a change-up to the ball control drive.

2. Having years and years of data on Favre can show trends, averages, etc. A single year on Rodgers could be an anomaly. We don't know yet.

3. However, even given #2 above, Rodgers year, based on the accepted evaluator of QB rating, (accepted by some at least) compared very favorably to Favre's individual yearly performances the last 10 years.

4. As for all the extraneous factors you listed and implied, they are not that relevant. If you start worrying about that stuff, then why not consider whether the receivers have generally good hands, or have the dropsies? What about the weather each game they played? What about if the game or games came when Rodgers had his bum shoulder, or Favre his broken thumb? The whole idea in considering sports stats is that these things wash over time. Sometimes they help, sometimes they hinder; but every player faces them. Its a known and accepted variable that is ignored, generally, when looking at individual performances over time.

Heck, we compare batting averages without worrying which pitchers they faced, and the home parks for homerun hitters are given only passing thought most of the time. Yet hitters parks and pitchers parks do exist and a homerun hitter on a team in a real pitchers park suffers because of it.

[Patler]

But there are others who stopped by just to complain, not discuss anything. Those are the type of posts that need to end. Except for Patler. Patler can post about his flower garden and I would probably learn something.

Thanks! (But are you implying I dropped by just to complain??? )

[MJZiggy]

Does this mean your flower garden is a mess? :P

[Administrator]

Patler,

i don't know what you believe about this, and it wasn't really relevant to my point. I do believe that the OP had a point to make that wasn't supported by his statistics.

I completely agree that Rodgers might be an anomaly, and he might be the real deal, but any way you look at it, we have to wait for more game experience to know that.

I support Rodgers very much, and am glad he's our QB.

As to the rest of the 'intangibles' I think they're relevant. I also think they're impossible to measure. But, at the end of the day, we need at least two, maybe three more years before any comparisons to Favre will truly have meaning. Right now it is all speculation, with just enough in the way of statistics to give people two things - hope and ammunition.

[Brando19]

Patler,

i don't know what you believe about this, and it wasn't really relevant to my point. I do believe that the OP had a point to make that wasn't supported by his statistics.

I completely agree that Rodgers might be an anomaly, and he might be the real deal, but any way you look at it, we have to wait for more game experience to know that.

I support Rodgers very much, and am glad he's our QB.

As to the rest of the 'intangibles' I think they're relevant. I also think they're impossible to measure. But, at the end of the day, we need at least two, maybe three more years before any comparisons to Favre will truly have meaning. Right now it is all speculation, with just enough in the way of statistics to give people two things - hope and ammunition.

Was Patler just Adminized?

[Administrator]

Was Patler just Adminized?

Nah, we're probably 90% in agreement. I just think the intangibles are bigger than he does, and he's a total numbers guy. I'm not a numbers guy, at all. that's why I went into IT, because I didn't want to deal with numbers.

[mraynrand]

Christ almighty you have all become a bunch of panty wastes. I mean the nut huggers and the TT leg humpers as well. Have we really reached the point where a little name calling gets the teachers tone and the finger wagging?

Don't get me wrong, if chevelle had lead with Bobblehead you fucking nut hugging ARod slurping prick, that would have been personal and uncalled for (not that I would have been bothered by it). But he ended with a general jab...no biggie.

So...in conclusion all you oversensitive panty waste girly men (and girly girls) get over it. I hope ty responds by calling me a name so I can show people how an adult reacts. See, ty and I raz all the time, but then we can come back and agree on something 2 posts later. Grow up everyone, and don't get your panties in a bunch over a little razzing.

Look Bobble - it's Panty WAIST. not WASTE, ya stupid MORON!! WTF, is your head not attached properly or what??

[Fritz]

Was Patler just Adminized?

Nah, we're probably 90% in agreement. I just think the intangibles are bigger than he does, and he's a total numbers guy. I'm not a numbers guy, at all. that's why I went into IT, because I didn't want to deal with numbers.

I'm not sure I'd agree that Patler is really "a total numbers guy." Certainly he uses numbers and facts as his starting points, but I've never felt he was slavish to numbers. In fact, his post above, in which he questions the validity of the QB rating, supports my assertion.

And I would like to know if he has a flower garden, and if he does, how it's doing and what types of flowers he has in it. In the Romper Room, of course.

[Patler]

Patler,

i don't know what you believe about this, and it wasn't really relevant to my point. I do believe that the OP had a point to make that wasn't supported by his statistics.

I completely agree that Rodgers might be an anomaly, and he might be the real deal, but any way you look at it, we have to wait for more game experience to know that.

I support Rodgers very much, and am glad he's our QB.

As to the rest of the 'intangibles' I think they're relevant. I also think they're impossible to measure. But, at the end of the day, we need at least two, maybe three more years before any comparisons to Favre will truly have meaning. Right now it is all speculation, with just enough in the way of statistics to give people two things - hope and ammunition.

Well, you should know what I believe about this NOW, because I gave it to you in a series of numbered paragraphs!!!

I agree with most of this. The best that can be said for Rodgers right now is that we have no reason to think that he won't be the QB in GB for the next 10 years. He performed as well as anyone should have hoped he would. He should get better for the next several seasons as he gains experience and confidence. If he does, the Packers will be in very good hands.

I enjoyed Favre's years a lot, but it really was time to make the change because of where Rodgers was at. He needed to start playing.

Just think what a mess this off season would have been if Favre had not "retired" last season? Transitions from icons who want to hang on get very messy in every sport. It's good for the Packers to have that behind them.

[Patler]

Does this mean your flower garden is a mess? :P

Fair to middling. Better than some, but not a showpiece! No time! Waste too many hours typing responses on here with just two fingers!!
If I ever learned to type, I could have a decent landscape!

[Fritz]

This is an interesting point. There is little evidence to suggest that if the Packers had - possibly "again" - agreed to have Favre come back that Favre wouldn't have retired-unretired again this season. Imagine going through all of the crap from last year, then have Favre come back, then have him retire, then have him want to come back again. Two years of utter mess in a row - ugh. I'm so glad that's over.

It was time for Rodgers to play. We'll see how it plays out, but I am hopeful and feel he can be a very good QB - maybe even Steve Young to Favre's Montana.

[mraynrand]

Was Patler just Adminized?

Nah, we're probably 90% in agreement. I just think the intangibles are bigger than he does, and he's a total numbers guy. I'm not a numbers guy, at all. that's why I went into IT, because I didn't want to deal with numbers.

I'm not sure I'd agree that Patler is really "a total numbers guy." Certainly he uses numbers and facts as his starting points, but I've never felt he was slavish to numbers. In fact, his post above, in which he questions the validity of the QB rating, supports my assertion.

Patler used numbers to demonstrate that numbers can be deceiving. A delicious irony, methinks.

[mraynrand]

And I would like to know if he has a flower garden, and if he does, how it's doing and what types of flowers he has in it. In the Romper Room, of course.

I beg your pardon, Patler never promised you a rose garden.