Very good read from Bedard

[Partial]

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/64396032.html

[Maxie the Taxi]

I was never very good at math. Whew, this article hurt my head.

Maybe someone better at math can tell me what's the bottom line.

[cheesner]

I was never very good at math. Whew, this article hurt my head.

Maybe someone better at math can tell me what's the bottom line.

It says that AR holds on to the ball a bit longer.

AR is a much better QB than Brett Favre.

And - the Packer OL stinks.

[Maxie the Taxi]

See, all those mind-bending charts boiled down to three sentences.

Thank you.

[bobblehead]

Funny, I didn't read it that way at all.

It was based solely on ONE game. It showed that half the sacks on Aaron were in less than 3 seconds, half were in more than 3 seconds....so he held the ball too long about half the time.

Based on that game, BF was clearly better (THAT game).

Also seemed to imply that Aaron can make things happen with his legs so he doesn't throw it away as often. I said exactly this when I said he makes big plays, and takes sacks. If you give up one, you lose the other.

If you read between the lines it also indicates that Aaron doesn't progress through his reads as fast (or just doesn't read the D as fast, or doesn't throw to marginally open guys...etc). Was always a knock I had on him...the game seemed to fast for him. That was his first two years though. Since then it has slowed down enough to make him a very good QB. If it slows down a bit more for him he'll be a great QB....but he's not there yet. (no guarantee he ever gets there).

[MadScientist]

Also seemed to imply that Aaron can make things happen with his legs so he doesn't throw it away as often. I said exactly this when I said he makes big plays, and takes sacks. If you give up one, you lose the other.

I see the numbers as showing that even when he isn't sacked, he doesn't make many plays when he holds on to the ball too long. He's better served running after 2.5-2.75 seconds (or perhaps starting to run and passing like the play to Finley).

[pbmax]

The thing I have not puzzled out is how you can separate out receivers being open or the pass rush forcing him to move/change sight lines prior to his planned release.

While its clear that both have greater success with earlier releases, someone needs to be open and there needs to be a lane to throw through. If the receiver doesn't get off the LOS or a rusher breaks the pocket, the claiming the QB held the ball too long is missing the point.

I can see the advantages of throwing it away, even if you are harassed in the pocket or no receiver has come open, you might wish to throw the ball away anyway and avoid the other poor scenarios later in the clock.

[SnakeLH2006]

Bottom line...Arod is young and learning. Favre used to wing it up (INT's) early in his career. Arod runs around and gets sacked. Same results. Nope. Favre won EVERY year till TT took over. Sorry. I still like ARod but to compare the dude to a HOF is stupid. He needs to learn to dump the ball off the sidelines quicker. He might not throw the INT (but it's kinda a punt the way Brett did it on 3rd down).....when ARod gets sacked...it just sucks. Favre's sacks were 2-5 yard losses. Arod runs around with 10-12 yard losses on his sacks. HUGE difference. That's Arod's BIGGEST mistake.

[Maxie the Taxi]

I don't know if the charts and stats support this opinion, but my impression is that AR is more of a technician, under control, married to the game plan. BF with the Packers was a free spirit most of his years here, didn't hesitate to vary from the game plan -- some would say a loose cannon.

Each type has it's plusses and minuses. AR doesn't have the talent or personality to be the BF type and BF doesn't have the patience to be AR type.

AR reminds me of Bart Starr. I'm not saying he'll be as good as Starr. I'm saying he's the same type as Starr: a game planner, methodical, not afraid to throw downfield but in a controlled circumstance. He won't take chances like sticking it into double or triple coverage.

One of my biggest frustrations watching Bart Starr was that he would take sacks rather than launch the ball downfield like, say, Unitas. He had guts. He would throw the ball at the last second knowing he's exposed. But only if a receiver was open. If not, he'd eat it. Some Sundays Bart would take a ferocious beating, unreal. And this was with an All-Pro, HOF OL in front of him.

The bottomline is that Starr (and I think AR) put the premium on ball security and avoiding turnovers and big defensive plays. (We all remember BF throwing interceptions and fumbling under pressure.)

Starr could get away with taking sacks because he was surrounded by playmakers and a defense that wouldn't budge. They played a field position game back then. Turnovers were killers.

Nowadays the game is more sophisticated and explosive so it fits a QB type like BF. AR doesn't have to become a gunslinger. He just has to be a bit less conservative.

[Fritz]

I had a different impression vis a vis Starr. I thought that he was the smartest QB to play for the Pack, bar none, and he knew the value of risk/reward measuring. I agree that Arod is much more like Starr than Favre, not that he'll necessarily be as good as either.

And this was my frustration with Favre. For as wonderful as he was, he never, never really learned to live to play another day. He'd throw one away, as he ought, but then two series later he'd launch one over the middle with his protection breaking down...and throw it into a crowd, often to the opposing team. He played nearly the same was at 34 as he did at 24.

I preferred Starr's style.

[Maxie the Taxi]

I thought that he [Starr] was the smartest QB to play for the Pack, bar none, and he knew the value of risk/reward measuring.

I preferred Starr's style.

I agree. You said it better in two sentences than I did in fifty.

[SnakeLH2006]

I thought that he [Starr] was the smartest QB to play for the Pack, bar none, and he knew the value of risk/reward measuring.

I preferred Starr's style.

I agree. You said it better in two sentences than I did in fifty.

LOL. You two guys are old. It's all good though. I, like most on the Rats, have no recollection of anything Starr. What QB does he relate to in today's NFL? Anyone? Just curious. Thanks.

[Maxie the Taxi]

I thought that he [Starr] was the smartest QB to play for the Pack, bar none, and he knew the value of risk/reward measuring.

I preferred Starr's style.

I agree. You said it better in two sentences than I did in fifty.

LOL. You two guys are old. It's all good though. I, like most on the Rats, have no recollection of anything Starr. What QB does he relate to in today's NFL? Anyone? Just curious. Thanks.

Tom Brady without question. Maybe Montana of a few years back.

[SnakeLH2006]

Maybe I'm reading into it, but it must be the clutchness factor/championships/accuracy/all of it?

Sounds like Bart was a helluva QB from what I've heard of anyone who's seen him play. With all those rings, how come he's not mentioned with the all-time greats? That's all I ask? Why is that? Thanks.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Maybe I'm reading into it, but it must be the clutchness factor/championships/accuracy/all of it?

Sounds like Bart was a helluva QB from what I've heard of anyone who's seen him play. With all those rings, how come he's not mentioned with the all-time greats? That's all I ask? Why is that? Thanks.

Yes, Starr was among the best. He doesn't get credit because of an old canard: the Packers had so much talent in those years, anyone could have been the QB and won championships.

That's all BS of course. Anyone who watched Starr and the Packers knows that Starr was the heart and soul of that team. I think even Lombardi said that Starr held it all together and was the essential cog.

You have to remember that in those days the QB called all the plays. Very seldom did a play come in from the sidelines. As Fritz pointed out, Starr was the best field general ever. No one was better at keeping a defense off balance.

Unitas was a superb passer and playcaller, but Starr was every bit his equal and should be ranked right up there with Unitas if not above him.

Plus, the Packers had a hell of a ground game, so Starr's stats were not huge in terms of yardage. But his completion percentage was among the best, I believe. Very Brady or Montana-like.