WEEK 13 Gameday Thread ---- Green Bay Packers (4-8) @ Chicago Bears (3-9) --- LOVE showcase game???

[hitnhope]

Just now, AlexGreen#20 said:

Pro Football Reference . . . The most reputable NFL stat site, who gets its numbers from Sports Radar, the same company that the Vegas Sports Books do.

Is making **** up?

 

*****, Shut the **** up and take your L

I don't give a crap who it is.  If the Site is stating that there have only been 19 throw aways for the Packer's this year they are wrong.   It is a statistic without value the way they are tallying it.  That is the kindest thing I could say about it.

Anyone that has watched the games knows there have been a significantly higher number that that.   It is obvious that there could be disagreement on what a throw away is, but if the tally is 19 and you give that any credence we will never come to any kind of an agreement.  

I'm not taking a loss based on some ridiculous and obviously incorrect stat.   It's a trash number.  

[hitnhope]

2 hours ago, Norm said:

I'm guessing he's counting all the Tebow level accuracy misses Aaron has this year. 

Yet the same site has Rodger's accuracy number as 6th best in the league.  Trailing stalwarts like Matt Ryan, Kyler Murray and Andy Dalton.

Better than Mahomes, Burrow, Allen, etc.

You ready to change your tune and make the statement that Rodgers has been very accurate this year?

[Packerraymond]

1 minute ago, hitnhope said:

Yet the same site has Rodger's accuracy number as 6th best in the league.  Trailing stalwarts like Matt Ryan, Kyler Murray and Andy Dalton.

Better than Mahomes, Burrow, Allen, etc.

You ready to change your tune and make the statement that Rodgers has been very accurate this year?

He will, as soon as you stop acting like a clown about our OL, that has been very good since we've actually had some consistency among our starting 5.

[Packer_ESP]

13 minutes ago, hitnhope said:

I don't give a crap who it is.  If the Site is stating that there have only been 19 throw aways for the Packer's this year they are wrong.   It is a statistic without value the way they are tallying it.  That is the kindest thing I could say about it.

Anyone that has watched the games knows there have been a significantly higher number that that.   It is obvious that there could be disagreement on what a throw away is, but if the tally is 19 and you give that any credence we will never come to any kind of an agreement.  

I'm not taking a loss based on some ridiculous and obviously incorrect stat.   It's a trash number.  

What is your number then? Or is this another of those “eye tests” with no backing whatsoever?

[ThatJerkDave]

To add, from my casual eye, Zach Tom has been pretty good in his limited appearances.  I don't recall any time that makes me think that he is some kind of revelation, but at the same time, there hasn't been a time that he has been a liability.  This is a project player that I really like.  And because we already have some established players in front of him, we don't have to use him as a full time starter and he can grow into an NFL lineman.

[hitnhope]

21 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

He will, as soon as you stop acting like a clown about our OL, that has been very good since we've actually had some consistency among our starting 5.

I believe I said exactly that a couple posts back.    Was I a clown when I said that the line played much better the last 5 weeks or so?

Or are you the clown for ignoring the statement?

We all must know Alex Greene pulls stats like this out to find new ways to criticize Rodger's.   If there was some balance to it his arguments would have merit.  He has endless patience with other groups but rails on the imperfections of the QB.   His are a biased and dishonest assessment at best.   Did he point out in the same list of stats that AR was more accurate than the other Qb's?  Does he point out that the packers have the quickest time from snap to throw?   Could that be part of the OL troubles early?   

Does he point out the Packers air yards per pass are among the leagues lowest?  All of these would point to the OL difficulties this year which contributed to our current record.

It isn't dishonest to state that the OL had troubles early and the organization had players lined up in a less than optimal fashion.  Especially when my posts point to the improvement that has been taking place.

[Arthur Penske]

Wyatt

[hitnhope]

23 minutes ago, Packer_ESP said:

What is your number then? Or is this another of those “eye tests” with no backing whatsoever?

Would it matter what number I gave?   You wouldn't believe it any way. 

If I review all of the games and give you my number would it hold any weight with you?  Be honest with the answer to this.   Do you really believe there have only been 19 throw away passes?   

 

[ThatJerkDave]

7 minutes ago, Arthur Penske said:

Wyatt

Counter point to that, Wyatt and Slaton played in 9 snaps each from scrimmage.  

[Arthur Penske]

26 minutes ago, ThatJerkDave said:

Counter point to that, Wyatt and Slaton played in 9 snaps each from scrimmage.  

Ya, well thank Joe Barry.

[vegas492]

15 hours ago, Refugee said:

I saw him getting down field and finding some work. Didn’t focus on him much but hard to miss that little number 50 on offense. Don’t know what his most natural position will be but the guy is an athlete. 

I LOLd at Tom on one play.  I think it was a draw to Jones that went for good yardage.  Tom was leading the play, Jones was tackled and Tom flat out fell down at the end of the play.  No one hit him, just fell down.  Turf Monster got him.  I thought I saw him get up smiling.  Like maybe he knew he fell without being hit....or he was trying to draw a flag when the play was dead.

Either way?  Funny stuff!

[vegas492]

5 hours ago, hitnhope said:

This is a case of stats lying and you know it.   The OL this year has been bad.  We have had more throw aways to save sacks than can be covered.   You choose to put all of these on the QB and point at his stats being down while any honest look would point to both a big decline in OL play as well as a decline in the QB play.   

We all know you want Rodgers gone but posts like this will make people with any sort of football acumen discard your opinion as biased.

Just going off of an eye test here, but that o-line has gotten better as the season has gone on.

Once they benched Newman and got Bakh healthy, while moving Runyan/Jenkins and putting Nijman at RT, the line is getting better and better.

It's been a few weeks of mostly the same line.  And it is working nicely.

I'd be surprised if we are top 5 in the league, as stated in a prior post, but yah, I gotta say, they are playing better now since all the moves were made.

[hitnhope]

Just now, vegas492 said:

Just going off of an eye test here, but that o-line has gotten better as the season has gone on.

Once they benched Newman and got Bakh healthy, while moving Runyan/Jenkins and putting Nijman at RT, the line is getting better and better.

It's been a few weeks of mostly the same line.  And it is working nicely.

I'd be surprised if we are top 5 in the league, as stated in a prior post, but yah, I gotta say, they are playing better now since all the moves were made.

Agreed.  I said the same right away in the thread. That isn't what this discussion has been about.   

[vegas492]

1 hour ago, hitnhope said:

I don't give a crap who it is.  If the Site is stating that there have only been 19 throw aways for the Packer's this year they are wrong.   It is a statistic without value the way they are tallying it.  That is the kindest thing I could say about it.

Anyone that has watched the games knows there have been a significantly higher number that that.   It is obvious that there could be disagreement on what a throw away is, but if the tally is 19 and you give that any credence we will never come to any kind of an agreement.  

I'm not taking a loss based on some ridiculous and obviously incorrect stat.   It's a trash number.  

I view it like this....It is a PFR number and metric.  

It (throw aways) is applied uniformly across all teams.

Is the number is truly greater than 19 for GB, then it stands to reason that the number is greater for everyone else too.

So whatever the number is....I'll bet the ranking for GB concerning said throw aways is eerily similar.

[hitnhope]

Just now, vegas492 said:

I view it like this....It is a PFR number and metric.  

It (throw aways) is applied uniformly across all teams.

Is the number is truly greater than 19 for GB, then it stands to reason that the number is greater for everyone else too.

So whatever the number is....I'll bet the ranking for GB concerning said throw aways is eerily similar.

I understand that line of thinking.  Could be the truth, but don't think it is true for the first 7 - 8 games of this season for this team.  Our interior OL play, and OL play overall was weak in the beginning of the season.   There were a lot of throw aways and give up plays due to it.