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

[hitnhope]

12 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

And people say I'm obsessed with Rodgers????

I said nothing about Rodgers. YOU brought up Rodgers.

I was talking about the Offensive Line. 

The fact that you are a Rodgers fan and not a Packers fan and consequently only view things through that lens isn't on me. 

Your posts saying the OL is above average?   Your post prior to the Eagles game stating that defense is not the problem?  What are the purposes of those posts if not to criticize the QB?   

You have spent years blaming the league MVP for the Packers problems.  Don't know why you cannot see that he is the least of the problems especially prior to this year.

BTW I have been the person criticizing Gute for resigning Rodgers to the deal he gave him.   You are wrong again about being a rodgers fan over a Packer fan.  I simply think your analysis that the QB position has been the major problem for the last 5 years is WAY off base.  

Your irrational dislike for the Packers QB puts others in the position of defending him when it should be obvious to a rational person that the MVP isnt the problem.  The garbage defense and ST over the years deserve much more scrutiny.

I get that personally AR is a tough person to like but lets put the focus on the areas of the organization that most need improvement.

[Striker]

37 minutes ago, hitnhope said:

What if I told you your bias is obvious to anybody with an IQ above room temperature? 

Your opinion means nothing to me after reading your constant criticism of the league MVP every game for the past few years. You can't be consistently wrong that often and think you have the high ground.

You pull out stats like this without any framework or objectivity and get your back up when called on the problems with your "stat".   Why didn't you post anything about the others I noted?   No response?   Just don't like it when someone calls you on your biased observations.

The problem with denying the stats/history that refute your claims/eye test/feelings (which you seem to often do for whatever reason) is that using multiple stats can tell a more complete story. 

The OL had its early season struggles. It has really solidified during the game vs. the Commanders and have statistically/performance grade-wise come more into line of what we've historically seen from an OL that has Bakhtiari and Jenkins as anchors. It also helps that they have had consistency in their starters these past few weeks. There's no reshuffling going on. So the improved pressure rates and lower throwaway rates make sense. 

Also, Christian Watson's emergence.

[Striker]

13 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

You're a hero for doing this. 

[squire12]

30 minutes ago, Striker said:

It also doesn't take long to find these incompletions if you use the play-by-play on PFR and still have the games on YouTube TV.

How do you expect someone to trust the description of the play from a site where that someone doesn't trust the statistics?

[Striker]

1 minute ago, squire12 said:

How do you expect someone to trust the description of the play from a site where that someone doesn't trust the statistics?

I continue to have this belief that people will listen to reason/are willing to learn from stats/history/etc. but I've also lived through the past 6 years of rampant mis/disinformation and still irrationally believe that folks have the capacity for learning/growing so maybe I'm just beyond naively optimistic.

[hitnhope]

Just now, Striker said:

The problem with denying the stats/history that refute your claims/eye test/feelings (which you seem to often do for whatever reason) is that using multiple stats can tell a more complete story. 

The OL had its early season struggles. It has really solidified during the game vs. the Commanders and have statistically/performance grade-wise come more into line of what we've historically seen from an OL that has Bakhtiari and Jenkins as anchors. It also helps that they have had consistency in their starters these past few weeks. There's no reshuffling going on. So the improved pressure rates and lower throwaway rates make sense. 

Also, Christian Watson's emergence.

Agree with all of that.  I said the same thing multiple times.  

My problem is not with stats.  It is the selective use of stats to push a narrative.  It is ignoring all of the other stats that do not fit the narrative.  The stat in question is obscure and has little chance of being the complete picture.  Yet it was posted by itself to further the narrative.

[Striker]

14 minutes ago, hitnhope said:

Agree with all of that.  I said the same thing multiple times.  

My problem is not with stats.  It is the selective use of stats to push a narrative.  It is ignoring all of the other stats that do not fit the narrative.  The stat in question is obscure and has little chance of being the complete picture.  Yet it was posted by itself to further the narrative.

The problem is when you counter said stats with something as equally unprovable as "Anyone that has watched the games knows there have been a significantly higher number that that."

I've watched two games. There have been two throws in questions that could be extra throwaways, but can you fault the OL when it's a coverage throwaway or a blown screen? 

Also, when you look at all the various stat/ratings sites (PFO, PFF, PFR, etc), the OL is doing pretty well. Is it possible there's one outlier? Sure. But when they all seem to align, then there may be something to the Packers OL being above average over the course of the season. Even with their early struggles.

Edited December 6, 2022 by Striker

[AlexGreen#20]

16 minutes ago, hitnhope said:

Agree with all of that.  I said the same thing multiple times.  

My problem is not with stats.  It is the selective use of stats to push a narrative.  It is ignoring all of the other stats that do not fit the narrative.  The stat in question is obscure and has little chance of being the complete picture.  Yet it was posted by itself to further the narrative.

YOU are the one that brought up the issue. YOU were the one that said the sacks allowed number is bull**** because of the disproportionately high number of throw aways.

In any kind of sensical world, YOU would be the one trying to back up this nonsensical claim that the throwaways are what's driving the numbers. 

The AUDACITY to ***** about obscure stats when YOU rejected the two most common stats for evaluating offensive line performance, is simply mind blowing. 

[AlexGreen#20]

35 minutes ago, hitnhope said:

Your posts saying the OL is above average?   Your post prior to the Eagles game stating that defense is not the problem?  What are the purposes of those posts if not to criticize the QB?   

You have spent years blaming the league MVP for the Packers problems.  Don't know why you cannot see that he is the least of the problems especially prior to this year.

BTW I have been the person criticizing Gute for resigning Rodgers to the deal he gave him.   You are wrong again about being a rodgers fan over a Packer fan.  I simply think your analysis that the QB position has been the major problem for the last 5 years is WAY off base.  

Your irrational dislike for the Packers QB puts others in the position of defending him when it should be obvious to a rational person that the MVP isnt the problem.  The garbage defense and ST over the years deserve much more scrutiny.

I get that personally AR is a tough person to like but lets put the focus on the areas of the organization that most need improvement.

Are you seriously so obsessed with Rodgers that you just unironically asked me why I would talk about the Offensive Line and the defense?????

I don't know if this is a thing you can comprehend, but there is more to this football team than the QB. 

The purpose of talking about the defense and the offensive line is to . . . TALK ABOUT THE DEFENSE AND OFFENSIVE LINE!!!!

[hitnhope]

2 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

YOU are the one that brought up the issue. YOU were the one that said the sacks allowed number is bull**** because of the disproportionately high number of throw aways.

In any kind of sensical world, YOU would be the one trying to back up this nonsensical claim that the throwaways are what's driving the numbers. 

The AUDACITY to ***** about obscure stats when YOU rejected the two most common stats for evaluating offensive line performance, is simply mind blowing. 

I didn't say a thing about sacks.  There you go again pushing things to further your argument that aren't true.  I didn't say a thing about yards per carry.  

Stop changing things to fit your purposes.

[hitnhope]

4 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Are you seriously so obsessed with Rodgers that you just unironically asked me why I would talk about the Offensive Line and the defense?????

I don't know if this is a thing you can comprehend, but there is more to this football team than the QB. 

The purpose of talking about the defense and the offensive line is to . . . TALK ABOUT THE DEFENSE AND OFFENSIVE LINE!!!!

Yeah right.  I don't believe you regarding your motives. 

Do you still believe the defense isn't a major problem with this team?

Do you still believe the OL play as a whole is average or better than average for the entirety of this season?

 

Why are all your observations of every position other than QB so kind while the bar is beyond high for QB play?   I understand the point about salary, but your still out of balance . 

 

[hitnhope]

4 hours ago, Striker said:

I did the free trial for the purposes of this debate because the internet.

Anyway, Aaron Rodgers throwaways:

Week 1 - 3
Week 2 - 1
Week 3 - 4
Week 4 - 4
Week 7 - 1
Week 8 - 1
Week 9 - 3
Week 10 - 1
Week 11 - 1
 

Reviewed the Giants game.   No listed throw aways per your list.

My count:

Absolute throw away =Ball thrown 15 yards OOB   = 2 plays

Immediate pressure = Ball thrown to receiver before receiver close to position to make a play on the ball = 3

receiver covered ball thrown in a position where nobody could catch it = 3

Terrible throws - Uncatchable ball = 6

Forgot to count dropped passes.

[AlexGreen#20]

36 minutes ago, hitnhope said:

I didn't say a thing about sacks.  There you go again pushing things to further your argument that aren't true.  I didn't say a thing about yards per carry.  

Stop changing things to fit your purposes.

Are you ******* high? 

What was the point of quoting a post bringing up sacks allowed and bringing up throwaways???

[AlexGreen#20]

37 minutes ago, hitnhope said:

Yeah right.  I don't believe you regarding your motives. 

Do you still believe the defense isn't a major problem with this team?

Do you still believe the OL play as a whole is average or better than average for the entirety of this season?

 

Why are all your observations of every position other than QB so kind while the bar is beyond high for QB play?   I understand the point about salary, but your still out of balance . 

 

You don't believe that I wasn't talking about the QB, on a post that didn't once mention the QB?????? You are literally an insane person.

The defense is 23rd in points per game allowed. Of course it's an issue with this team. The offense is 26th in points per game scored. Over the course of the season, the offense is the bigger problem. In the games that actually mattered before our season ended, we had an average defense and a horrible offense. Those are the facts.

Over the course of the season as a whole, this offensive line is not just better than average, it is downright good.

My observations of other positions are not kind. I regularly rip on the coaches, the IOL, and the ILBs

The bar for QB play is high because when the QB screws up, the play is dead. If somebody else screws up, a play is still salvageable. 

I also just don't like QBs. I hate how they're treated in the media. You've read my piece on this. 

[hitnhope]

17 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Are you ******* high? 

What was the point of quoting a post bringing up sacks allowed and bringing up throwaways???

I responded about throw aways and the number 19mbeing wrong.  Never said one word about sacks.