Bedard

[HarveyWallbangers]

He's awful.

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/102675289.html

When we last saw the secondary of the Green Bay Packers, they were trying to put out the fire on their collective backs after being torched by Arizona's Kurt Warner for 379 passing yards and five touchdowns in a 51-45 overtime loss in an NFC wild-card playoff game.

Three weeks prior, in the last meaningful matchup of the regular season, the Packers surrendered 503 yards and three touchdowns through the air to Ben Roethlisberger and the Pittsburgh Steelers.

That's a combined 882 yards and eight touchdowns in two important games.

To put that into perspective, if you picked the best two games of Aaron Rodgers' Pro Bowl season, you'd still come out more that two 80-yard drives short (718 yards and six touchdowns).

Wrong. In those same games, ARod passed for 806 yards and 7 TDs (423 and 4 vs. Arizona and 383 and 3 vs. Pittsburgh).

[Tony Oday]

Re: Bedard

He's awful.

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/102675289.html

When we last saw the secondary of the Green Bay Packers, they were trying to put out the fire on their collective backs after being torched by Arizona's Kurt Warner for 379 passing yards and five touchdowns in a 51-45 overtime loss in an NFC wild-card playoff game.

Three weeks prior, in the last meaningful matchup of the regular season, the Packers surrendered 503 yards and three touchdowns through the air to Ben Roethlisberger and the Pittsburgh Steelers.

That's a combined 882 yards and eight touchdowns in two important games.

To put that into perspective, if you picked the best two games of Aaron Rodgers' Pro Bowl season, you'd still come out more that two 80-yard drives short (718 yards and six touchdowns).

Wrong. In those same games, ARod passed for 806 yards and 7 TDs (423 and 4 vs. Arizona and 383 and 3 vs. Pittsburgh).

STOP USING FACTS TT SUCKS AND THE PACK IS TERRIBLE!!!!

[channtheman]

I'm guessing his stat "2 best games" was by rating or something where another game was a little bit higher QB rating.

[Patler]

Re: Bedard

He's awful.

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/102675289.html

When we last saw the secondary of the Green Bay Packers, they were trying to put out the fire on their collective backs after being torched by Arizona's Kurt Warner for 379 passing yards and five touchdowns in a 51-45 overtime loss in an NFC wild-card playoff game.

Three weeks prior, in the last meaningful matchup of the regular season, the Packers surrendered 503 yards and three touchdowns through the air to Ben Roethlisberger and the Pittsburgh Steelers.

That's a combined 882 yards and eight touchdowns in two important games.

To put that into perspective, if you picked the best two games of Aaron Rodgers' Pro Bowl season, you'd still come out more that two 80-yard drives short (718 yards and six touchdowns).

Wrong. In those same games, ARod passed for 806 yards and 7 TDs (423 and 4 vs. Arizona and 383 and 3 vs. Pittsburgh).

Not only did he forget to consider Rodgers' playoff game (amazing in itself because he was comparing to a playoff game) but in the games he did use for Rodgers, he apparently used the net passing yards (gross yards on completions-sack yards). For Roethlisberger and Warner he combined their gross yards, ignoring the sack yards.

It has gotten to the point that I skip over many of his articles, and I question (doubt) the "facts" he prints in the few that I do read.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I'm guessing his stat "2 best games" was by rating or something where another game was a little bit higher QB rating.

He didn't mention QB rating once, and those weren't his two highest rated games. 121.4 vs. Arizona and 101.3 vs. Pittsburgh. Games in which he had a QB rating better than 101.3:

St. Louis - 126.9
Minnesota - 110.6
Detroit - 113.7
Cleveland - 155.4
Minnesota - 108.5
San Fran - 108.0
Detroit - 124.7
Seattle - 103.0
Arizona - 117.1

By rating, the Arizona game was his 4th highest rated game and the Pittsburgh game was his 11th rated game. (Hard to imagine a guy can have a 101.3 rating and have it be his 6th worst rated game of the year.)

[Patler]

I'm guessing his stat "2 best games" was by rating or something where another game was a little bit higher QB rating.

I think he just looked at the 16 game stats, picked the ones with the most TD passes, then selected the two with the highest passing yards (342 net vs. Detroit and 376 net vs. Pit.) That gives him the 718 yards. But, as I mentioned earlier, he used Rodgers' net yards to compare to gross yards for Roethlisberger and Warner, in addition to ignoring Rodgers playoff game as Harvey reported.

[Tarlam!]

You're a tough taskmaster, Harvey.

He got a couple of facts wrong, but us fans have been concerned about this very issue for months. I think he aired a lot of their views.

[Patler]

You're a tough taskmaster, Harvey.

He got a couple of facts wrong, but us fans have been concerned about this very issue for months. I think he aired a lot of their views.

Ya Tar, I guess there is no reason to expect the primary reporter for an NFL team at a major newspaper to have his facts right!

Compare the two:

What he did write:

That's a combined 882 yards and eight touchdowns in two important games.

To put that into perspective, if you picked the best two games of Aaron Rodgers' Pro Bowl season, you'd still come out more that two 80-yard drives short (718 yards and six touchdowns)

What he SHOULD have written:

That's a combined 882 yards and eight touchdowns in two important games.

To put that into perspective, if you picked the best two games of Aaron Rodgers' Pro Bowl season (which happen to be the same games), you'd come out less than one 80-yard drive short (806 yards and seven touchdowns)

"...more than two 80 yard drives short" versus "...less than one 80 yard drive short". Just a bit of a difference I would say. If he is correct about the issue, he loses any value by being careless with the supporting facts. Perhaps he should have looked to other facts to support his point, because using Rodgers stats accurately sure would not have done it.

I think it is particularly ludicrous that it is Rodgers stats for the same exact games that he should have used, and that would have diluted his argument significantly.

[Tarlam!]

I get it, Patler, but the point of the article was the CB depth. Not a lot of fans are like you and Harvey in the incredible detail you can bring to the table.

I doubt many NFL reporters are in your league.

[CaptainKickass]

I get it, Patler, but the point of the article was the CB depth. Not a lot of fans are like you and Harvey in the incredible detail you can bring to the table.

I doubt many NFL reporters are in your league.

True.

But I for one come to the chat boards for just this reason. To get more in depth and granular. I'm not much to post, but if it weren't for these sites I'd never know how much Bedard truly does suck.

[Patler]

I get it, Patler, but the point of the article was the CB depth. Not a lot of fans are like you and Harvey in the incredible detail you can bring to the table.

I doubt many NFL reporters are in your league.

Thanks, but this isn't even detail, its gross, primary level stats from 17 games; and he couldn't (or chose not to) use it accurately. My biggest concern here is that it might have been intentional.

He could have approached the issue from so many other ways, comparing their good performances to their bad ones, looking at their inconsistency versus that of other teams, looking at the cause, proposing bypassed solutions, etc. Instead, he chose to use a foundation of his own making that was not suitable.

[CaptainKickass]

I am also retarded like Bedards employer. (Does that make 'em "Bedarded"??) If I weren't - I'd hire out some freelance factual/statistical verification work to a couple internet forum posters I know of.

[Patler]

Congrats Harvey! You got him to change it! It now reads:

To put that into perspective, if you picked the best two games of Aaron Rodgers' Pro Bowl season (806 yards and seven touchdowns), you'd still come out short.

"...you'd still come up short."

[RashanGary]

Motivation for sucking so bad:

1. Lazy
2. Sell Papers
3. Stupid
4. Angry at Ted for various reasons (not giving them stories, info, etc)
5. Unwilling to admit when they're wrong


I'm sure the list could go on, but I guess at the end of the day we'll never know exactly why they suck so bad. What we do know is that they suck. It is what it is I suppose.

[LP]

Just in case anyone hasn't checked lately, Waldo is back updating his blog. Very interesting perspective I thought. Trying to post a link, but I'm far beyond ignorant with a computer. (And most other things too.)

http://waldo56.wordpress.com/