Jump to content

Is Aaron Rodgers prime being wasted by Thompson/McCarthy?


Darkness

Is Aaron Rodgers prime being wasted?  

91 members have voted

  1. 1. Is Aaron Rodgers prime being wasted?

    • Yes
      47
    • No
      44


Recommended Posts

 

56 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

Take the top 4 OTs, top 2 WRs, #1CB, #1 DL off any team and that team loses regardless who is at QB when you're playing a team as good as ATL, on their home turf opening as well.

We'll be fine so long as none of those injuries were serious. Something about playing in ATL has led us to be massively injured the last 3 contests.

 

They lost their:

 

#1 LT David Bahktiari

#2 LT Jason Spriggs

#1 RT Bryan Bulaga

#2 RT Don Barclay

#2 WR Randall Cobb

#1 WR Jordy Nelson

 

#1 DT Mike Daniels

#2 DT Montravious Adams

#2 ROLB Ahmad Brooks

#1 CB Davon House

 

An irreplaceable amount of talent was lost in this game by the Packers.  Anyone can go down at anytime, so that's not the fault of Thompson or McCarthy.

 

In an overall sense, they haven't come close to the greatness of Bill Belichick though. 

Nobody does. 

Belichick is the standard in rebuilding, building, and maintaining a team. 

 

Screen-Shot-2017-05-13-at-10.15.37-AM-10

"First off, it’s clear that these players’ passing offenses have been the driving force behind their teams’ success. Compare their passing EP to the average margin of victory and you see that it’s each quarterback’s passing game that has created most or all of that point differential – it looks like most of the time, these guys carry their teams.

That said, we can see the EP support (AKA negative plays) has been very different for one player compared to the other three – Brady is the only one to have positive EP support in any category and amazingly has positive EP in ALL support categories. It’s said that the quarterback affects all other players on the field and while that may be true, we’re not seeing it in these results – every other QB has a higher EP average per game than Brady but gets worse support than him.

If we were to round the numbers, it looks like Manning’s and Rodgers’ team support have cost their teams around a field goal in points, on average, while Brees loses roughly 5 points. Meanwhile, Brady’s support has been worth an extra point to his Patriots. We shouldn’t misinterpret these numbers to suggest that somehow Brady is being carried by great support – it’s clear that Brady’s passing game is the engine that drives the Patriots’ success as a team but he’s the only quarterback of the four whose supporting elements haven’t cost him points."

http://www.footballperspective.com/guest-post-support-for-manning-brady-brees-and-rodgers/

 

Nobody's surrounding support beats Brady's.  And that's for a reason.  Bill Belichick.  Arguably the greatest coach and GM of all time.

By Belichick's standard, yes, they have failed Rodgers.  Nobody provides better coaching to as much surrounding talent as Bill Belichick does.  And it quite frankly isn't' even close.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Revel8 said:

 

 

They lost their:

 

#1 LT David Bahktiari

#2 LT Jason Spriggs

#1 RT Bryan Bulaga

#2 RT Don Barclay

#2 WR Randall Cobb

#1 WR Jordy Nelson

 

#1 DT Mike Daniels

#2 DT Montravious Adams

#2 ROLB Ahmad Brooks

#1 CB Davon House

 

An irreplaceable amount of talent was lost in this game by the Packers.  Anyone can go down at anytime, so that's not the fault of Thompson or McCarthy.

 

In an overall sense, they haven't come close to the greatness of Bill Belichick though. 

Nobody does. 

Belichick is the standard in rebuilding, building, and maintaining a team. 

 

Screen-Shot-2017-05-13-at-10.15.37-AM-10

"First off, it’s clear that these players’ passing offenses have been the driving force behind their teams’ success. Compare their passing EP to the average margin of victory and you see that it’s each quarterback’s passing game that has created most or all of that point differential – it looks like most of the time, these guys carry their teams.

That said, we can see the EP support (AKA negative plays) has been very different for one player compared to the other three – Brady is the only one to have positive EP support in any category and amazingly has positive EP in ALL support categories. It’s said that the quarterback affects all other players on the field and while that may be true, we’re not seeing it in these results – every other QB has a higher EP average per game than Brady but gets worse support than him.

If we were to round the numbers, it looks like Manning’s and Rodgers’ team support have cost their teams around a field goal in points, on average, while Brees loses roughly 5 points. Meanwhile, Brady’s support has been worth an extra point to his Patriots. We shouldn’t misinterpret these numbers to suggest that somehow Brady is being carried by great support – it’s clear that Brady’s passing game is the engine that drives the Patriots’ success as a team but he’s the only quarterback of the four whose supporting elements haven’t cost him points."

http://www.footballperspective.com/guest-post-support-for-manning-brady-brees-and-rodgers/

 

Nobody's surrounding support beats Brady's.  And that's for a reason.  Bill Belichick.  Arguably the greatest coach and GM of all time.

By Belichick's standard, yes, they have failed Rodgers.  Nobody provides better coaching to as much surrounding talent as Bill Belichick does.  And it quite frankly isn't' even close.

 

 

Gonna have to save this link. I know NO fans will like it too :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Revel8 said:

http://www.footballperspective.com/guest-post-support-for-manning-brady-brees-and-rodgers/

Nobody's surrounding support beats Brady's.  And that's for a reason.  Bill Belichick.  Arguably the greatest coach and GM of all time.

By Belichick's standard, yes, they have failed Rodgers.  Nobody provides better coaching to as much surrounding talent as Bill Belichick does.  And it quite frankly isn't' even close.

From that link: "Here are the quarterbacks’ average stats per game for their overall careers including playoff games." Pretty much stopped reading right there. Do you see why?

Just as a quick point of interest, the Patriots have the best win% since 2001 when allowing 20+ points, 25+ points and 30+ points. I don't think the Patriots have ever had a top rushing offense aside from Dillon in '04. Sometimes a duck is just a duck.

It's pretty obvious that Brady has had the best overall organization/team around him, followed by (less obviously but in my opinion), Manning, Rodgers and Brees. I definitely agree with you re:Belichick. Arguably the greatest coach of all time, just as Brady is arguably the greatest QB of all time. Generally that's a solid formula for winning multiple championships.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

Gonna have to save this link. I know NO fans will like it too :)

Patriots fans should be the most pleased. 

The 3-part analysis points out that even when Brady retires, as long as Belichick doesn't lose his touch the Patriots will continue having more success than a normal team regardless of who their QB is.

We've already seen this in part.  Ever since Belichick rebuilt the Patriots and started Brady, they've gone 14-6 without him.  That's a .700 record without their all-time great QB playing.  This doesn't normally happen when you lose your all-time great QB these days.  When other teams lose their all-time great QBs, they nearly always start losing.  Yet when they lose Brady, they just keep on winning.  This is great news for Patriots fans, as their success isn't necessarily tied to their aging all-time great QB

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The piece also doesn't account for quality of defense faced, for what it's worth. Adding in Rodgers is complicated also, as he wasn't a starting QB until much later, when rules were changed/enforced to favor passing offenses more.

Also, just logically speaking, the piece doesn't make much sense. Just step back and look at it. It's essentially trying to argue that the Patriots had a much better rushing game than the Colts did with multiple 1,000+-yard seasons from Edge and Addai. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RB: Below-Average

WR: Above-Average

Defense: Average

Oline: Above-Average.  I don't watch a lot of Packers games so this might be nonsense but it seems like the Packers always had a pretty strong oline when everyone was healthy.  Individually, I always held the players in pretty high regard.  They just never seemed to be healthy at the same time and they have a QB who holds onto the ball for a long time which makes them look worse than they are.

Coaching: Wash.  I think McCarthy is a bad head coach but I think he is a big reason Rodgers is Rodgers.

So yeah, I'd say this is unfounded/recency bias.  I think we'll look back on Rodgers career and be surprised he didn't win more.  It always seems like fluke/key injuries or underperformance hit GB at the worst times.  They looked real dominant in the SB run and I think 2011 was one of the all-time great choke jobs.  The 2011 Packers team were the most impressive team I've ever seen based on the eye test.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, childofpudding said:

From that link: "Here are the quarterbacks’ average stats per game for their overall careers including playoff games." Pretty much stopped reading right there. Do you see why?

Just as a quick point of interest, the Patriots have the best win% since 2001 when allowing 20+ points, 25+ points and 30+ points. I don't think the Patriots have ever had a top rushing offense aside from Dillon in '04. Sometimes a duck is just a duck.

It's pretty obvious that Brady has had the best overall organization/team around him, followed by (less obviously but in my opinion), Manning, Rodgers and Brees. I definitely agree with you re:Belichick. Arguably the greatest coach of all time, just as Brady is arguably the greatest QB of all time. Generally that's a pretty good formula for winning multiple championships.

 

Maybe instead of refusing to read the data, you should read all of it.  And this data isn't included in 1 single link like you claim either.  It's a 3-part analysis, from 3 different links, that includes many more data points on each page than the single data point you chose to dismiss in bold.

Having the arguably greatest coach and GM of all time naturally leads to a higher level of success regardless if an all-time great QB is playing or not. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Revel8 said:

Maybe instead of refusing to read the data, you should read all of it.  And this data isn't included in 1 single link like you claim either.  It's a 3-part analysis, from 3 different links, that includes many more data points on each page than the single data point you chose to dismiss in bold.

Having the arguably greatest coach and GM of all time naturally leads to a higher level of success regardless if an all-time great QB is playing or not. 

 

Yeah, I actually read the data, and have stated a few reasons why it's flawed.

Regarding your second paragraph, you're arguing with a strawman. Logical fallacy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, childofpudding said:

Using average stats per game is statistical folly. Combining regular season and playoff games is as well due to the caliber of opponent faced, though lesser so.

That fact that you're looking at 1 single data point, which you then admittedly stopped reading, and then said "that's all there is" demonstrates why you don't understand.

You can't have it both ways bud.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...