Joined: Jan 04 2006 Posts: 7069 Location: Green Bay
Mark wrote:Game winning drives in superbowls. The reason stats are very misleading is for example..different set of recievers, they can get the dropsies, a more passing based offensive system as opposed to a running system, a suspect offensive line which means the QB having to throw alot away instead of taking the sack, a bad defence which leads to him having to force the ball as points are that much more important. Ratings and stats are misleading to an extent. When the system was first introduced you could go back to see when Unitas had A 50% percentage and a 14-16 TD-INT ratio and he went onto win the superbowl. To put a QB in a top 10 or a top 5 is very stupid based purely on stats, decision making and clutch play will never show on a stat sheet or the effect they have on the rest of their team mates. Its the same reason so many GMs get the drafting of QBs wrong. As for Matt Schab..having Andre Johnson to throw to probably helps him alot as will Jennings for the Packers etc. Eli has a 3rd,2nd and Rookie reciever as his first 3, thats why its hard to compare players on stats alone, people need to be a bit more wiser and think outside the box.
I get what you are saying but stats are the only way to compare players reasonably, obviously things like winning drives etc should be taken into account. I was agreeing with you. Eli is statisically and IMO rated between 8-12 in QB's during the regular season. Schaub (for example) is a better player and performs better in the regular season, but Eli having a ring and having game winning drives places him higher. (Although i'd rather have Schaub).
I'd never rate a QB (or any player) based soley on stats but to me they are the greatest factor and are the only comparisons that can be draw over all players. Eli is clutch and rightly so, but that can only place him above players at a higher standard for so long. As for recievers, again, why should Eli get rated higher (or others lower) because they have better or worse recievers.
El Pac Carnegie wrote:You have to remember that NE had Cassel waiting in the wings. Cassel had been in the NE system for 3 years previous to him taking the reigns from Brady. Would of been interesting to see how Sorgi would of gone instead of the rookie Painter who will obviously struggle.
I agree Sorgi would've done better, but I'm thinking more as the team on the whole. The Pats have excellent receivers in Moss and Welker. The Colts do well with one good receiver in Wayne and a bunch of nobodies! The D doesn't really impress me and the running game has been poor for years. I think you could take another decent QB i.e. Schaub and put him in the Pats, Chargers or Saints and you still have great teams. Put Schaub in the Indy team and they'd be poor. Peyton is the most important player in the NFL to his team, bar none.
Joined: Jan 04 2006 Posts: 7069 Location: Green Bay
El Pac Carnegie wrote:I'd hardly say Favre was to blame last night. 26/40 for 321 yards with no picks and 2 TD's suggests the defeat is hardly down to him.
Not to blame but the collapse of his team around this time last year is remarkably similar.
Play-off wise i expect us to do well. This weeks games (we play Arizona and IIRC Dallas play Philly) are both exactly the wildcard combinations for the week after. I don't think results will have any bearing and possibly all could rest players and keep a little back.
Our D is exceptionally good. #2 against the run and #7 against the pass (i think we are number 2 overall D). We have the best turn-over differential in the league and Woodson. Our D will be fine.
Our success in the play-offs depends on two guys. Chad Clifton and Mark Tauscher. They stay fit and keep Rodgers up and we can score points on anybody. I really think we can go all the way.
Philly are also good but they are always good and seem to blow it. New Orleans are still the team to beat in the NFC. They are still the best team in the NFL.
I can't see past San Diego in the AFC. Rivers is great.
ST_CONROY wrote:I get what you are saying but stats are the only way to compare players reasonably, obviously things like winning drives etc should be taken into account. I was agreeing with you. Eli is statisically and IMO rated between 8-12 in QB's during the regular season. Schaub (for example) is a better player and performs better in the regular season, but Eli having a ring and having game winning drives places him higher. (Although i'd rather have Schaub).
I'd never rate a QB (or any player) based soley on stats but to me they are the greatest factor and are the only comparisons that can be draw over all players. Eli is clutch and rightly so, but that can only place him above players at a higher standard for so long. As for recievers, again, why should Eli get rated higher (or others lower) because they have better or worse recievers.
Please dont tell me your that ignorant or stupid? Throwing a ball to Andre Johnson or throwing a ball to Hakeem Nicks? Who is more likely to make a catch? Of course recievers make a difference, give the Packers the bears recievers and they'd be a lesser team. Look at Cutler for example..he throws a lot of picks as he has to force it due to bad recievers and weak defence and he has still beaten more winning teams this season than Rodgers.
Joined: Jan 04 2006 Posts: 7069 Location: Green Bay
Mark wrote:Please dont tell me your that ignorant or stupid? Throwing a ball to Andre Johnson or throwing a ball to Hakeem Nicks? Who is more likely to make a catch? Of course recievers make a difference, give the Packers the bears recievers and they'd be a lesser team. Look at Cutler for example..he throws a lot of picks as he has to force it due to bad recievers and weak defence and he has still beaten more winning teams this season than Rodgers.
I wouldn't know. Maybe Nicks has a higher reception percentage.
Obviously it does make a difference but you can't really take it into serious consideration when saying who is a better player. It poses too many questions and unless you have the best player in a position on your team you could make that claim. If Eli had better recievers he'd be better. If Rodgers had a better O-Line we'd be better etc. Although it may be correct it's just impossible to calculate the effect it'd have.
Joined: Mar 03 2004 Posts: 5308 Location: On a hill above Mold, North Wales
RedTez wrote:I agree Sorgi would've done better, but I'm thinking more as the team on the whole. The Pats have excellent receivers in Moss and Welker. The Colts do well with one good receiver in Wayne and a bunch of nobodies! The D doesn't really impress me and the running game has been poor for years. I think you could take another decent QB i.e. Schaub and put him in the Pats, Chargers or Saints and you still have great teams. Put Schaub in the Indy team and they'd be poor. Peyton is the most important player in the NFL to his team, bar none.
Bear in mind the defence has been battered, Sanders and Hayden lead a long injury list, and both corners are rookies.
Similar in the recievers, Wayne is superb, Clark is that reciever that just seems to be there, and Collie and Garcon have had decent years. Plus the running game is showing signs of life, at last.
Remember, no-one gave the Colts a hope in hell in 2006, while the Chargers looked all set for a title.....remember?
ST_CONROY wrote:I wouldn't know. Maybe Nicks has a higher reception percentage.
Obviously it does make a difference but you can't really take it into serious consideration when saying who is a better player. It poses too many questions and unless you have the best player in a position on your team you could make that claim. If Eli had better recievers he'd be better. If Rodgers had a better O-Line we'd be better etc. Although it may be correct it's just impossible to calculate the effect it'd have.
The only thing that matters is:
Rodgers- PLAYOFFS Cutler- OUT Eli-OUT
ELI - 1 Superbowl and 3 playoff road wins and 5 winning seasons. Rodgers- 0 and 0 and 1
Eli inherited a 4-12 team and Rodgers a 12-4.
Its not a comparison anyhow. Rodgers is a very, very good quarterback who I believe will accomplish all of the above sometime in his career. I'm telling you that you dont rate QB's just on stats alone. The circumstances surrounding him make a huge difference, that's something I've seen Ernie Accorsi write about as well and he drafted Elway, Kosar and Eli and also worked with Unitas for many years, so Im guessing he kinda has a good idea on what you look for in a quarterback. The QB matters most when the game or championship is on the line and the ball is in his hands...I know who I'd want and if your being honest you'd have exactly the same. and as I told you previously there are only 5 QBs in the history of the game that have done it with the championship on the line...there's a reason for that.
Joined: Jan 04 2006 Posts: 7069 Location: Green Bay
Mark wrote: I'm telling you that you dont rate QB's just on stats alone.
Yes, and i agreed. You need balance and that was my point. (I'm not even discussing Rodgers) but there is only so long that Eli's clutchness can elevate him above somebody who is clearly better for the other 16 games but doesn't have the chance to make that one superbowl/important game winning play.
I'm not interested in a whos QB is better debate. You think i base too much on stats and i think you base too much on an abstract concept. The truth is somewhere inbetween, as i've said.
Mark wrote:The QB matters most when the game or championship is on the line and the ball is in his hands...I know who I'd want and if your being honest you'd have exactly the same. and as I told you previously there are only 5 QBs in the history of the game that have done it with the championship on the line...there's a reason for that.
The QB matters all of the time. I know who i'd want. I'd have Favre. A QB who doesn't need a game winning drive but can get it done in the previous 58 minutes rather than the last 2.
On a side note, Is that 5 QB's who have led game winning drives in the last 2 minutes?
Last edited by ST_CONROY on Tue Dec 29, 2009 5:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Joined: Sep 03 2005 Posts: 7647 Location: The Midlands
4 teams can have the #2 NFC spot still
Eagles - Win and they're in Vikings - Win + Eagles loss/tie OR Tie + Eagles loss Cardinals - Win + Eagles loss + Vikings loss Cowboys - Win + Vikings loss + Cardinals loss/tie
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 45 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
