How's the Packer decision to go with Rodgers looking now? (2 Viewers)

[sho nuff]

Anyone who thinks the biggest drop off for the Packers from last year to this year is at the quarterback position has not watched any Packer games this year or simply doesn't know anything about football.

Anyone who thinks the Packers haven't been impacted by the loss of Favre have not watched any Packer games this year or simply doesn't know anything about football.

Where did I say this?

Why don't you show us where someone wrote the biggest drop off for the Packers has been at QB like you implied up above.

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...t&p=9618557I never blamed Rodgers for the loses. I said the largest drop-off was at the QB position.

Do I get a prize? Jesus...

So one person stated it. WOW! You almost would think you implied many people where stating that in this thread.

the one poster who has been dominating this thread over the past few days

and we all know that just drives you nuts!!

Not at all.I don't care if someone else dominates a thread.

I don't keep count of people's posts on the board...its not my concern.

 

[Stinger Ray]

Except that 0-4 record in crunch time for Rodgers.

Yes...because Favre would have never thrown an INT late in a game right?Or Favre would have helped Crosby kick that FG against Minny...or tackled the returner for Carolina as he ripped off another 40 yard return. Or sacked Delhomme before he could toss it up to Smith.Yawn...same old same old.

Yawn....same old same old. Excuses, excuses, excuses. Bottom line is that Rodgers is 0-4 in crunch time. Deal with it. You also compared Rodgers to last year and I remember games against Denver, KC, and San Diego where Favre came through.Rodgers has played well but he also needs to learn how to come through at the end if he wants to be a great QB. It just may happen but for now he hasn't done it.

 

[PosterNutBag]

the fact that this thread is still going is laughable and dare i say a bit embarrassing

 

[Phase of the Game]

Except that 0-4 record in crunch time for Rodgers.

Or sacked Delhomme before he could toss it up to Smith.

It is funny the things you come up with.

 

[sho nuff]

Except that 0-4 record in crunch time for Rodgers.

Yes...because Favre would have never thrown an INT late in a game right?Or Favre would have helped Crosby kick that FG against Minny...or tackled the returner for Carolina as he ripped off another 40 yard return. Or sacked Delhomme before he could toss it up to Smith.Yawn...same old same old.

Yawn....same old same old. Excuses, excuses, excuses. Bottom line is that Rodgers is 0-4 in crunch time. Deal with it. You also compared Rodgers to last year and I remember games against Denver, KC, and San Diego where Favre came through.Rodgers has played well but he also needs to learn how to come through at the end if he wants to be a great QB. It just may happen but for now he hasn't done it.

Sure...maybe they are excuses...but its not like he did not have a lead with under 2 minutes left...or have his team in FG range.Yes...Favre in his what...14th season came threw a few times.He also got help from his defenses at times to have some late leads hold up.

 

[sho nuff]

Except that 0-4 record in crunch time for Rodgers.

Or sacked Delhomme before he could toss it up to Smith.

It is funny the things you come up with.

Not really...some put it all on Rodgers bad throw on the last drive...forgetting that the special teams gave up a 40+ yard return and a 50 yard pass to steve smith.Brett Favre would not have kept those things from happening.

 

[Aaronstory]

Oh, and Stinger Ray:

you got me.....and found ONE person!! Good for you, ace.

Thanks. Sucks to be wrong, don't it.

 

[Gr00vus]

So the Packers score 31 points and lose and it's Rogers's fault? Is that really where people are trying to go with this?

 

[CletiusMaximus]

Anyone who thinks the biggest drop off for the Packers from last year to this year is at the quarterback position has not watched any Packer games this year or simply doesn't know anything about football.

Pretty much. The manlove for Brett is sickening. He's a ####### traitor to boot. Fun guy, good ole boy....backstabber.

Can I maintain my undying manlove for Brett Favre and wish him the best of success with the Jets while still steadfastly believing that Ted Thompson unequivocally made the best move for the Packers for this year and beyond? Of course he was a bit juvenile and perhaps his behavior was a bit unkind to his teamates and Packer fans, but we never thought he was a smart, mature man, a good role model or a wise decision-maker; we just enjoyed watching him play on Sundays.

How are you related to Ted Thompson?

I stated long ago on this board that I disagreed with or at least was confused by Thompson's move of cutting Jon Ryan and signing Frost without ever having had him in camp. We now know some of the background on that move but I think Ted still has to shoulder the blame, and he's finally recongized that mistake and taken action to correct it. Certainly his effectiveness this summer was severly compromised by Favre's egomaniacal circus show that was clearly designed to undermine the team (and was partially successful). I think the Grant contract is also rather questionable in hindsight, but of course his agent played off on the Favre situation rather brilliantly. The Chillar signing was a good move, as he appears to be the most effective member of a rather unimpressive LB group. The fact that Thompson resisted signing one of the retread backup veteran QB's (or, god forbid, giving the Texans a #2 for Sage Rosenfels) was also clearly the correct decision in hindsight. As Andrew Brandt says, the best free agent signing is often the one you don't make.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Who posted in: How's the Packer decision to go with Rodgers looking now?

Poster Posts

sho nuff 332 (26.3% of the posts in this thread)

Phase of the Game 98

Look how far behind the 2nd most frequent poster is!

 

[Phase of the Game]

Except that 0-4 record in crunch time for Rodgers.

Or sacked Delhomme before he could toss it up to Smith.

It is funny the things you come up with.

Not really...some put it all on Rodgers bad throw on the last drive...forgetting that the special teams gave up a 40+ yard return and a 50 yard pass to steve smith.Brett Favre would not have kept those things from happening.

No one stated Favre would have won that game. You keep coming up with excuse after excuse to try and deflect the fact that Rodgers is 0-4 when trying to lead the Pack back late in the game. It makes you look silly.

 

[zDragon]

Why did you just look at a first half and 2 games?I simply pointing at that over a 5 game stretch the defense did bettter than Ari, NYG, Pit, NYJ and probably others that have winning records. That in the 5 games prior they held teams below their yearly average pts per game. Should I point out that the Broncos, Cardinals and Saints have worse defenses but better records?I also pointed out that the Panthers had a worse two halfs of football and the same bad two games and ended up going .500 and stead of o'fer.I simply took a random bit of data from where you cherry picked data to make you point. BTW Pit gave up 86 points or +5 in the same 5 game period.If you want to make it about Favre then the Jets offense went from 25th in pts per game to 2nd this year. The Jets defense is giving up 22.3 pts per game this year to the packers 24.6. The Jets are 8-4 with a similar defense.Bretts completing 68.7% of his passes in a new offensive scheme Aaron is only completing 63.6 in a offense he has worked in.Seems to me Favre has been a bigger positive for the Jets than Rodgers for the Packers but as you mentioned this was expected this year.Makes you go Hmmmm.

I merely pointed out the last two games in which the offense scored a good amount of points...yet the defense was pitiful (yet you keep trying to defend this defense which has given up more than 6 points per game more than last year. And you still don't think thats the biggest dropoff on the team (which is ludicrous).Cherry picking data? Not at all...look at the whole year if you want to. I pointed out the last two games because they refute some of the crap people have been whining about the offense being the reason the defense was not doing well...time of posession and all of that. Now the offense is rolling and time of posession has been in gB's favor...yet the defense is still porous. Maybe...just maybe, its the defenses problem it gives up points and not Aaron Rodger's fault.You also realize the Jets played with Chad Pennington and Kellen Clemons last year right? And that of course Brett Favre playing even average would have been a huge improvement.Rodgers has more yards, the same # of TDs, fewer INTs than Brett Favre on the year. Yet his "team" is worse.Perhaps you will see its not just the QB that is the problem and its not even close to the biggest dropoff this year.When the defense is giving up 6+ points per game more than last year and almost 40 yards per game more on the ground. 17 rushing TDs allowed so far this year...only 6 all of last year.The defense is the biggest dropoff and that is painfully obvious to nearly everybody who watches football.

You simply cherry picked data that supports your point. The last two games.I simply pointed out the FIVE previous games from where you cherry picked your data in which the defense did well and held the competition below their season average. The 5 games were simply to see how far back I could go before the defense gave up over 80 points. I also pointed out that Cardinals (7-5) 132 a lower ranked defense than Packers Giants (11-1) 107 Steelers (9-3) 86 (some say this is a good offense yet they gave up more points than the packers) Jets (8-4) 88 and giving up only 2 more points per game. I also pointed out that the Panther defense gave up 31 points in the last game they played and won. 76 points in two games that were picked by you and some large number when just grabbing a half to use as you did in the last two games.You can also look and see that the Saints defense is worse rankings wise than the packers and giving up more points per game. They are 24th in the league against the pass. Yet they manage to stomp the Packers into the ground. Seems like the Offense should be able to put up the same amount of points as the Saints since the Defenses were on equal footing. Curious if three picks and giving them the ball on the 3 and 29 hurt any.The defense also held the following teams below thier avg pts per game this year.

I picked the last 2 games because of glaring deficiencies in the defense. That you can't see that is laughable. But look at all year, the D has not played nearly as well as last. You picked the last 5 games prior to that because it included a great game against Indy and Chicago in that time period...but ignore the last 2 weeks and still think QB is the biggest dropoff...no matter how many people tell you how ludicrous that notion is.Wow...bringing up the 3 and 29 again. Sure it hurt...though, you again fail to mention the D had not stopped the Saints offense much and gave up 31 points prior to those things. Why do you always ignore that?Defense last year gave up over 6 points per game less than this year and 40 rushing yards per game less. They gave up 11 fewer TDs in 16 games than the D has given up in 12 games this season.Through 12 games Rodgers has thrown for 2897 yards, 20 TDs, 10 INTs at 63.6% with a 91.2 rating (yes, I hate that number)Through 12 games last year, Favre threw for 3412 yards, 22 TDs, 10 INTs, at 67%...I cant find his rating through 12 games though.Basically under 600 yards difference (and Favre threw the ball 439 times to Rodgers 404) 2 TDs, same INTs.The dropoff that has happened has been expected and its not near the over 6 points per game and 40 rushing yards per game dropoff that the D has had.

You selected data to fit your need. Why didn't you select say the Chicago, Tennessee, or Indy games?Because holding teams below the season average for scoring does not make your point. Therefore I consider it Cherry picking.No I explained why I picked the five games I did. I went backwards from where you started to enlarge to sample size. Interesting how you want to ignore a huge fact in the NO game since it doesn't fit your argument. The Saints are giving up more pts per game than the packers are are worse pass defense. Yet the Packers could not score. If you don't think giving the Saints the ball on the 3 and 29 is huge then I don't know what is. They are lucky the Defense got one of the Picks back almost immediatly. You realize the Packer Offense only ran close to 10 plays in the 3rd quarter against a BAD defense right. Of course 3 picks didn't effect this game at all. Did I mention the Saints also have a bad Defense.I'm not ignoring what the defense did. Everyone KNEW the saints were going to score. My point is in a game like that you do not give the HIGH POWERED offense the all on the 3 and 29. You lose if you offense is dead for a quarter. Could the point difference have anything to do with less yards from the passing game you pointed out, having an inexperienced leader, maybe the 9% 1st down conversion rating against the bucs or a quarter of not moving the ball against the Panthers and Saints. Maybe the Offense just isn't as good as last year and the defense is on the field more or defending worse field position (see Panthers and Saints games for two good examples).Did I mention the Saints have a worse defense?

Why did I not pick the other games...because they did not just happen.I can breakdown each game this year if you like.Yes...the defense has played some good football at times. For the most part, on the entire season, they have easily been the biggest dropoff on this team and its not even close. No amount of your spin or only discussing 5 games is going to change that.I don't ignore anything in the NO game...the D had already given up 31 points prior to those 2 starting positions you like to bring up. It is you who is ignoring the rest of that game to focus on 2 scoring drives. Great...take those out, they still give up 37 points that game without those two drives. That is still not acceptable and worse than last year's per game average.If you don't think giving up 31 points through one drive of the 2nd half is huge, I don't know what is.The offense Im talking about is ranked 10th in the league in passing yards and 12th in total yards.Where is the defense?Simply put...the defense has been the bigger problem this year...not the passing offense.No amount of 5 game samples is going to save your argument about QB being the biggest dropoff.

I did not focus on 5 games.My sevenMinTbSeaIndTenMinChiPlus your twoCarNoLet's throw in the atlanta game.The pack give up +3 on the Falcons season scoring average. I guess we should note they had a few secondary members injured not sure who or how many. They still come up with a Pick and a FF. Offense hands the ball over on a Pick. Maybe this is another time to point out that the offense did not move the ball in the 1st quarter for a total of 8 plays including the punts. Otherwise it was Atlanta ball all quarter. Once again your going back to your two cherry picked games versus my large sample of games.It was expected to be a shoot-out and the Packers had some blanks.

Throw in the entire season...quit continuing to just add games at your convenience and talk about holding teams at their scoring average.We are talking about comparing 2007 defense to 2008.2008's version of the GB Packers defense is far worse than 2007. You simply cannot deny that. Its true, its factual.QB play in 2008 is not the biggest dropoff. Again, a point that stats and watching the games simply does not bear out.I guess you should note that the defense could not stop Michael Turner or Roddy White either.Im not going to my 2 games. I am talking about the entire season.That it was expected to be a shootout does not excuse the defense.6+ points more per game. You simply cannot spin that into something that is good...nor can you put that all on the offense.

M. Turner is averaging 100 yds a game he got 121. Think that might have to do with the Packers running 6 plays the entire first quarter not including punts?Fact: It was a 3 point game.Fact: The offense cost them 3 points on penaltiesFact: The offense ran 6 plays in the first quarterFact: The offense generated one turn overFact: With the score tied the offense throws a pick and gives the Falcons the ball on the GB19. (Sound familiar??) (oh yeah, 6 points here, interesting). Probably didn't effect the outcome of the game. Fact: The defense generated two turn-oversFact: The Falcons gave up 24 points and won.Now with the facts listed above I see the offense had nothing to do with the loss at all. Just that measly 6 points a game difference the D is giving up. Man if they could only have stopped that final 70-80 yd scoring drive against one of the best (top 5 or 6) offenses in the league. Oh,yeah I mean if they could have stopped that 19 yard drive staring at the GB19 after the offense threw a pick in the last 5 minutes of the game.

Nobody in this thread has stated that the offense had nothing to do with any of the losses. But one person continues to deny that the defense is far worse than last year and the biggest dropoff of this team.You can spin it as much as you want.Im done with that portion of the conversation. Its ridiculous for you to continue this spin.6+ points per game difference...40 yards rushing per game difference...11 TDs through 12 games difference given up on the ground.Meanwhile, the QB play has barely dropped at all, a drop was expected but so far he has been better than expected and pretty much equal to what his predecessor has done on the year.

Why you implied that the defense did a bad job against Atlanta just pointing out what happened. Sure they've had some bad games but not as bad as some would like you to believe.Your the one spinning with the they couldn't even stop a top 5 offense not me. Games that could have been won but Offense did not help or hindered.Tampa 30 Packers 21 Rodgers 3 picks 8 first downs entire game Defense scores 7 of the 21 points. When the Offense gets 8 first downs the whole game and your QB throws three picks do you really plan on being within 9 points? Sure this one was the defenses fault.ATL 27 packer 24 Covered this above.Ten 19 Packers 16 Covered this aboveMin 28 Packers 27 9% on 3rd downs. Defense 4 turn overs and score 7 Punt return scores 7 Yet another game the offense disappears for a quarter or so. Once again when your only converting 9% of your third downs do you expect to be within one point. Defense and ST kept them in this one.Games the Defense and Special Teams did it's job Min 19 Packers 24 Special Teamsput up 7 of the 24 points. Offense not so special and Min wins if not for a punt returnInd 14 Packers 34 Defense scores 14 points and shuts down colts offense looks good.Games the Defense looked good and the offense clicked well.Sea 17 Packers 27 Defense gets three picks and Offense looks good againDet 25 Packers 48 Defense puts up two scores.Chi 3 Packers 37 Defense scores 7 here and shuts down the Bears.Games the offense put up points and the defense looked bad. Car 35 Packers 31 Discussed earlier what 8 plays in the first quarter or so? Defense did not help but if the offense shows up in the first is it a different game. Probably not. Also the offense had the chance so this goes in the nothing good at all games.No 51 GB 29 Close at half Green bay offense goes missing and error prone for the 3rd. Defense is helpless on the field. Can't do that against the Saints. Am I way off on this. I think once Rodgers is more experienced in a few years the close games at the top are won giving the Pack four more victories and the Carolina game for 5.You just can't win games and the defense suffers when your not converting 3rd downs or throwing 3 pick games.

 

[zDragon]

Who posted in: How's the Packer decision to go with Rodgers looking now?Poster Postssho nuff 332 (26.3% of the posts in this thread)Phase of the Game 98Look how far behind the 2nd most frequent poster is!

Hey no laughing I'm working on this.

 

[zDragon]

Except that 0-4 record in crunch time for Rodgers.

Or sacked Delhomme before he could toss it up to Smith.

It is funny the things you come up with.

Not really...some put it all on Rodgers bad throw on the last drive...forgetting that the special teams gave up a 40+ yard return and a 50 yard pass to steve smith.Brett Favre would not have kept those things from happening.

No one stated Favre would have won that game. You keep coming up with excuse after excuse to try and deflect the fact that Rodgers is 0-4 when trying to lead the Pack back late in the game. It makes you look silly.

Isn't it more that people expect veteran and experienced QB's such as Brady, Favre, Manning, etc to be able to put together the last minute come backs. Rodgers had a 1:30 or so to work with and two time-outs I think. This is why I say the QB is the largest drop this year. Experience is huge in tight games. Rodgers will get it I just do not think he has it yet. I also think that's why the offense disappears for quarters at a time. It's all growing pains for the QB.

 

[Ozymandias]

So the Packers score 31 points and lose and it's Rogers's fault? Is that really where people are trying to go with this?

Obviously, he should have led the Packers to a comeback victory, like Brett Favre always did.Like in this game from 2006:1-10-GB 41 (3:09) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass short right to D.Martin to GB 48 for 7 yards (R.Harper, S.Fujita).2-3-GB 48 (2:42) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass short middle to D.Martin to NO 44 for 8 yards (S.Fujita).1-10-NO 44 (2:17) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass incomplete short left to A.Green.2-10-NO 44 (2:10) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass incomplete short left to D.Martin.3-10-NO 44 (2:07) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass incomplete deep left to G.Jennings.4-10-NO 44 (2:02) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass incomplete deep left to R.Ferguson. Yard marker changed due to change of possession. The Saints ran out the clock, and won 34-27.Ooops. Or maybe like this one:2-2-STL 20 (1:00) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass short left to G.Jennings to STL 11 for 9 yards (O.Atogwe).1-10-STL 11 45) (No Huddle) B.Favre spiked the ball to stop the clock.2-10-STL 11 44) (Shotgun) B.Favre sacked at STL 18 for -7 yards (L.Little). FUMBLES (L.Little), touched at STL 15, RECOVERED by STL-J.Butler at STL 13. J.Butler to STL 13 for no gain (S.Wells). The Rams ran out the clock, and won 23-20.Oooops.1-10-BUF 39 (1:47) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass incomplete short middle to D.Martin (L.Fletcher-Baker). Receiver and coverage at BUF 32.2-10-BUF 39 (1:42) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass incomplete short middle to N.Herron (L.Tripplett, L.Fletcher-Baker). Pass tipped at line, then tipped in coverage at BUF 35.3-10-BUF 39 (1:37) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass incomplete deep right to D.Driver (L.Fletcher-Baker). Receiver and coverage at BUF 21.4-10-BUF 39 (1:32) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass incomplete deep middle to D.Driver [C.Kelsay]. The Bills ran out the clock, and won 24-10.Ooooops.1-15-GB 49 25) 4-B.Favre pass incomplete deep right to 88-B.Franks.2-15-GB 49 25) (Shotgun) 4-B.Favre pass deep right to 80-D.Driver to SEA 27 for 24 yards (26-K.Hamlin, 59-J.Peterson). PENALTY on GB, Illegal Shift, 5 yards, enforced at GB 49 - No Play.2-20-GB 44 16) (Shotgun) 4-B.Favre pass short middle to 23-N.Herron to SEA 45 for 11 yards (98-G.Wistrom, 59-J.Peterson).3-9-SEA 45 01) (No Huddle) 4-B.Favre sacked at 50 for -5 yards (55-D.Tapp). FUMBLES (55-D.Tapp), RECOVERED by SEA-93-C.Terrill at SEA 46. 93-C.Terrill, dead ball declared at GB 49 for 5 yards.The Seahawks ran out the clock, and won 34-24.Oooooops.Well, the hell with that. We know that Brett Favre led them to comeback victory, time after time.

 

[zDragon]

So the Packers score 31 points and lose and it's Rogers's fault? Is that really where people are trying to go with this?

I don't think so outside of someone like me saying it shows his inexperience in closing a tight game. Also remember that the offense was non-existent in the first quarter.

 

[J R]

So the Packers score 31 points and lose and it's Rogers's fault? Is that really where people are trying to go with this?

Obviously, he should have led the Packers to a comeback victory, like Brett Favre always did.Like in this game from 2006:1-10-GB 41 (3:09) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass short right to D.Martin to GB 48 for 7 yards (R.Harper, S.Fujita).2-3-GB 48 (2:42) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass short middle to D.Martin to NO 44 for 8 yards (S.Fujita).1-10-NO 44 (2:17) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass incomplete short left to A.Green.2-10-NO 44 (2:10) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass incomplete short left to D.Martin.3-10-NO 44 (2:07) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass incomplete deep left to G.Jennings.4-10-NO 44 (2:02) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass incomplete deep left to R.Ferguson. Yard marker changed due to change of possession. The Saints ran out the clock, and won 34-27.Ooops. Or maybe like this one:2-2-STL 20 (1:00) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass short left to G.Jennings to STL 11 for 9 yards (O.Atogwe).1-10-STL 11 45) (No Huddle) B.Favre spiked the ball to stop the clock.2-10-STL 11 44) (Shotgun) B.Favre sacked at STL 18 for -7 yards (L.Little). FUMBLES (L.Little), touched at STL 15, RECOVERED by STL-J.Butler at STL 13. J.Butler to STL 13 for no gain (S.Wells). The Rams ran out the clock, and won 23-20.Oooops.1-10-BUF 39 (1:47) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass incomplete short middle to D.Martin (L.Fletcher-Baker). Receiver and coverage at BUF 32.2-10-BUF 39 (1:42) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass incomplete short middle to N.Herron (L.Tripplett, L.Fletcher-Baker). Pass tipped at line, then tipped in coverage at BUF 35.3-10-BUF 39 (1:37) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass incomplete deep right to D.Driver (L.Fletcher-Baker). Receiver and coverage at BUF 21.4-10-BUF 39 (1:32) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass incomplete deep middle to D.Driver [C.Kelsay]. The Bills ran out the clock, and won 24-10.Ooooops.1-15-GB 49 25) 4-B.Favre pass incomplete deep right to 88-B.Franks.2-15-GB 49 25) (Shotgun) 4-B.Favre pass deep right to 80-D.Driver to SEA 27 for 24 yards (26-K.Hamlin, 59-J.Peterson). PENALTY on GB, Illegal Shift, 5 yards, enforced at GB 49 - No Play.2-20-GB 44 16) (Shotgun) 4-B.Favre pass short middle to 23-N.Herron to SEA 45 for 11 yards (98-G.Wistrom, 59-J.Peterson).3-9-SEA 45 01) (No Huddle) 4-B.Favre sacked at 50 for -5 yards (55-D.Tapp). FUMBLES (55-D.Tapp), RECOVERED by SEA-93-C.Terrill at SEA 46. 93-C.Terrill, dead ball declared at GB 49 for 5 yards.The Seahawks ran out the clock, and won 34-24.Oooooops.Well, the hell with that. We know that Brett Favre led them to comeback victory, time after time.

I hate to add another quote of a long post to the thread, but

 

[Stinger Ray]

Oh, and Stinger Ray:

you got me.....and found ONE person!! Good for you, ace.

Thanks. Sucks to be wrong, don't it.

Not at all. You got me on that one person. I don't feel bad at all on that because all one has to do is watch sho operate in here and that will make them feel better.

 

[zDragon]

So the Packers score 31 points and lose and it's Rogers's fault? Is that really where people are trying to go with this?

Obviously, he should have led the Packers to a comeback victory, like Brett Favre always did.Like in this game from 2006:1-10-GB 41 (3:09) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass short right to D.Martin to GB 48 for 7 yards (R.Harper, S.Fujita).2-3-GB 48 (2:42) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass short middle to D.Martin to NO 44 for 8 yards (S.Fujita).1-10-NO 44 (2:17) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass incomplete short left to A.Green.2-10-NO 44 (2:10) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass incomplete short left to D.Martin.3-10-NO 44 (2:07) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass incomplete deep left to G.Jennings.4-10-NO 44 (2:02) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass incomplete deep left to R.Ferguson. Yard marker changed due to change of possession. The Saints ran out the clock, and won 34-27.Ooops. Or maybe like this one:2-2-STL 20 (1:00) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass short left to G.Jennings to STL 11 for 9 yards (O.Atogwe).1-10-STL 11 45) (No Huddle) B.Favre spiked the ball to stop the clock.2-10-STL 11 44) (Shotgun) B.Favre sacked at STL 18 for -7 yards (L.Little). FUMBLES (L.Little), touched at STL 15, RECOVERED by STL-J.Butler at STL 13. J.Butler to STL 13 for no gain (S.Wells). The Rams ran out the clock, and won 23-20.Oooops.1-10-BUF 39 (1:47) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass incomplete short middle to D.Martin (L.Fletcher-Baker). Receiver and coverage at BUF 32.2-10-BUF 39 (1:42) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass incomplete short middle to N.Herron (L.Tripplett, L.Fletcher-Baker). Pass tipped at line, then tipped in coverage at BUF 35.3-10-BUF 39 (1:37) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass incomplete deep right to D.Driver (L.Fletcher-Baker). Receiver and coverage at BUF 21.4-10-BUF 39 (1:32) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass incomplete deep middle to D.Driver [C.Kelsay]. The Bills ran out the clock, and won 24-10.Ooooops.1-15-GB 49 25) 4-B.Favre pass incomplete deep right to 88-B.Franks.2-15-GB 49 25) (Shotgun) 4-B.Favre pass deep right to 80-D.Driver to SEA 27 for 24 yards (26-K.Hamlin, 59-J.Peterson). PENALTY on GB, Illegal Shift, 5 yards, enforced at GB 49 - No Play.2-20-GB 44 16) (Shotgun) 4-B.Favre pass short middle to 23-N.Herron to SEA 45 for 11 yards (98-G.Wistrom, 59-J.Peterson).3-9-SEA 45 01) (No Huddle) 4-B.Favre sacked at 50 for -5 yards (55-D.Tapp). FUMBLES (55-D.Tapp), RECOVERED by SEA-93-C.Terrill at SEA 46. 93-C.Terrill, dead ball declared at GB 49 for 5 yards.The Seahawks ran out the clock, and won 34-24.Oooooops.Well, the hell with that. We know that Brett Favre led them to comeback victory, time after time.

Interesting you all the sudden bring Favre into it. Your last statement is correct though. Brett did lead a lot of comeback victories as have other QB's.Wohy is it so offensive to say that Rodgers lack of experience hurts them in those type of situations. Sure Brett might have thrown the same pick but until Rodgers get the experience close games are going to have the same statements made over and over.

 

[Ozymandias]

So the Packers score 31 points and lose and it's Rogers's fault? Is that really where people are trying to go with this?

Obviously, he should have led the Packers to a comeback victory, like Brett Favre always did.Like in this game from 2006:

1-10-GB 41 (3:09) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass short right to D.Martin to GB 48 for 7 yards (R.Harper, S.Fujita).

2-3-GB 48 (2:42) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass short middle to D.Martin to NO 44 for 8 yards (S.Fujita).

1-10-NO 44 (2:17) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass incomplete short left to A.Green.

2-10-NO 44 (2:10) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass incomplete short left to D.Martin.

3-10-NO 44 (2:07) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass incomplete deep left to G.Jennings.

4-10-NO 44 (2:02) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass incomplete deep left to R.Ferguson. Yard marker changed due to change of possession.

The Saints ran out the clock, and won 34-27.

Ooops.

Or maybe like this one:

2-2-STL 20 (1:00) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass short left to G.Jennings to STL 11 for 9 yards (O.Atogwe).

1-10-STL 11 45) (No Huddle) B.Favre spiked the ball to stop the clock.

2-10-STL 11 44) (Shotgun) B.Favre sacked at STL 18 for -7 yards (L.Little). FUMBLES (L.Little), touched at STL 15, RECOVERED by STL-J.Butler at STL 13. J.Butler to STL 13 for no gain (S.Wells).

The Rams ran out the clock, and won 23-20.

Oooops.

1-10-BUF 39 (1:47) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass incomplete short middle to D.Martin (L.Fletcher-Baker). Receiver and coverage at BUF 32.

2-10-BUF 39 (1:42) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass incomplete short middle to N.Herron (L.Tripplett, L.Fletcher-Baker). Pass tipped at line, then tipped in coverage at BUF 35.

3-10-BUF 39 (1:37) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass incomplete deep right to D.Driver (L.Fletcher-Baker). Receiver and coverage at BUF 21.

4-10-BUF 39 (1:32) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass incomplete deep middle to D.Driver [C.Kelsay].

The Bills ran out the clock, and won 24-10.

Ooooops.

1-15-GB 49 25) 4-B.Favre pass incomplete deep right to 88-B.Franks.

2-15-GB 49 25) (Shotgun) 4-B.Favre pass deep right to 80-D.Driver to SEA 27 for 24 yards (26-K.Hamlin, 59-J.Peterson). PENALTY on GB, Illegal Shift, 5 yards, enforced at GB 49 - No Play.

2-20-GB 44 16) (Shotgun) 4-B.Favre pass short middle to 23-N.Herron to SEA 45 for 11 yards (98-G.Wistrom, 59-J.Peterson).

3-9-SEA 45 01) (No Huddle) 4-B.Favre sacked at 50 for -5 yards (55-D.Tapp). FUMBLES (55-D.Tapp), RECOVERED by SEA-93-C.Terrill at SEA 46. 93-C.Terrill, dead ball declared at GB 49 for 5 yards.

The Seahawks ran out the clock, and won 34-24.

Oooooops.

Well, the hell with that. We know that Brett Favre led them to comeback victory, time after time.

Interesting you all the sudden bring Favre into it. Your last statement is correct though. Brett did lead a lot of comeback victories as have other QB's.Wohy is it so offensive to say that Rodgers lack of experience hurts them in those type of situations. Sure Brett might have thrown the same pick but until Rodgers get the experience close games are going to have the same statements made over and over.

Apparently Favre's vast experience didn't help him all that much in those situations.

 

[zDragon]

So the Packers score 31 points and lose and it's Rogers's fault? Is that really where people are trying to go with this?

Obviously, he should have led the Packers to a comeback victory, like Brett Favre always did.Like in this game from 2006:

1-10-GB 41 (3:09) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass short right to D.Martin to GB 48 for 7 yards (R.Harper, S.Fujita).

2-3-GB 48 (2:42) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass short middle to D.Martin to NO 44 for 8 yards (S.Fujita).

1-10-NO 44 (2:17) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass incomplete short left to A.Green.

2-10-NO 44 (2:10) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass incomplete short left to D.Martin.

3-10-NO 44 (2:07) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass incomplete deep left to G.Jennings.

4-10-NO 44 (2:02) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass incomplete deep left to R.Ferguson. Yard marker changed due to change of possession.

The Saints ran out the clock, and won 34-27.

Ooops.

Or maybe like this one:

2-2-STL 20 (1:00) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass short left to G.Jennings to STL 11 for 9 yards (O.Atogwe).

1-10-STL 11 45) (No Huddle) B.Favre spiked the ball to stop the clock.

2-10-STL 11 44) (Shotgun) B.Favre sacked at STL 18 for -7 yards (L.Little). FUMBLES (L.Little), touched at STL 15, RECOVERED by STL-J.Butler at STL 13. J.Butler to STL 13 for no gain (S.Wells).

The Rams ran out the clock, and won 23-20.

Oooops.

1-10-BUF 39 (1:47) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass incomplete short middle to D.Martin (L.Fletcher-Baker). Receiver and coverage at BUF 32.

2-10-BUF 39 (1:42) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass incomplete short middle to N.Herron (L.Tripplett, L.Fletcher-Baker). Pass tipped at line, then tipped in coverage at BUF 35.

3-10-BUF 39 (1:37) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass incomplete deep right to D.Driver (L.Fletcher-Baker). Receiver and coverage at BUF 21.

4-10-BUF 39 (1:32) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass incomplete deep middle to D.Driver [C.Kelsay].

The Bills ran out the clock, and won 24-10.

Ooooops.

1-15-GB 49 25) 4-B.Favre pass incomplete deep right to 88-B.Franks.

2-15-GB 49 25) (Shotgun) 4-B.Favre pass deep right to 80-D.Driver to SEA 27 for 24 yards (26-K.Hamlin, 59-J.Peterson). PENALTY on GB, Illegal Shift, 5 yards, enforced at GB 49 - No Play.

2-20-GB 44 16) (Shotgun) 4-B.Favre pass short middle to 23-N.Herron to SEA 45 for 11 yards (98-G.Wistrom, 59-J.Peterson).

3-9-SEA 45 01) (No Huddle) 4-B.Favre sacked at 50 for -5 yards (55-D.Tapp). FUMBLES (55-D.Tapp), RECOVERED by SEA-93-C.Terrill at SEA 46. 93-C.Terrill, dead ball declared at GB 49 for 5 yards.

The Seahawks ran out the clock, and won 34-24.

Oooooops.

Well, the hell with that. We know that Brett Favre led them to comeback victory, time after time.

Interesting you all the sudden bring Favre into it. Your last statement is correct though. Brett did lead a lot of comeback victories as have other QB's.Wohy is it so offensive to say that Rodgers lack of experience hurts them in those type of situations. Sure Brett might have thrown the same pick but until Rodgers get the experience close games are going to have the same statements made over and over.

Apparently Favre's vast experience didn't help him all that much in those situations.

Not a real Favre fan. How many come from behind wins does he have? I thought he was on up there with some of the other all time greats.

 

[Phase of the Game]

So the Packers score 31 points and lose and it's Rogers's fault? Is that really where people are trying to go with this?

Obviously, he should have led the Packers to a comeback victory, like Brett Favre always did.Like in this game from 2006:

1-10-GB 41 (3:09) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass short right to D.Martin to GB 48 for 7 yards (R.Harper, S.Fujita).

2-3-GB 48 (2:42) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass short middle to D.Martin to NO 44 for 8 yards (S.Fujita).

1-10-NO 44 (2:17) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass incomplete short left to A.Green.

2-10-NO 44 (2:10) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass incomplete short left to D.Martin.

3-10-NO 44 (2:07) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass incomplete deep left to G.Jennings.

4-10-NO 44 (2:02) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass incomplete deep left to R.Ferguson. Yard marker changed due to change of possession.

The Saints ran out the clock, and won 34-27.

Ooops.

Or maybe like this one:

2-2-STL 20 (1:00) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass short left to G.Jennings to STL 11 for 9 yards (O.Atogwe).

1-10-STL 11 45) (No Huddle) B.Favre spiked the ball to stop the clock.

2-10-STL 11 44) (Shotgun) B.Favre sacked at STL 18 for -7 yards (L.Little). FUMBLES (L.Little), touched at STL 15, RECOVERED by STL-J.Butler at STL 13. J.Butler to STL 13 for no gain (S.Wells).

The Rams ran out the clock, and won 23-20.

Oooops.

1-10-BUF 39 (1:47) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass incomplete short middle to D.Martin (L.Fletcher-Baker). Receiver and coverage at BUF 32.

2-10-BUF 39 (1:42) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass incomplete short middle to N.Herron (L.Tripplett, L.Fletcher-Baker). Pass tipped at line, then tipped in coverage at BUF 35.

3-10-BUF 39 (1:37) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass incomplete deep right to D.Driver (L.Fletcher-Baker). Receiver and coverage at BUF 21.

4-10-BUF 39 (1:32) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass incomplete deep middle to D.Driver [C.Kelsay].

The Bills ran out the clock, and won 24-10.

Ooooops.

1-15-GB 49 25) 4-B.Favre pass incomplete deep right to 88-B.Franks.

2-15-GB 49 25) (Shotgun) 4-B.Favre pass deep right to 80-D.Driver to SEA 27 for 24 yards (26-K.Hamlin, 59-J.Peterson). PENALTY on GB, Illegal Shift, 5 yards, enforced at GB 49 - No Play.

2-20-GB 44 16) (Shotgun) 4-B.Favre pass short middle to 23-N.Herron to SEA 45 for 11 yards (98-G.Wistrom, 59-J.Peterson).

3-9-SEA 45 01) (No Huddle) 4-B.Favre sacked at 50 for -5 yards (55-D.Tapp). FUMBLES (55-D.Tapp), RECOVERED by SEA-93-C.Terrill at SEA 46. 93-C.Terrill, dead ball declared at GB 49 for 5 yards.

The Seahawks ran out the clock, and won 34-24.

Oooooops.

Well, the hell with that. We know that Brett Favre led them to comeback victory, time after time.

Interesting you all the sudden bring Favre into it. Your last statement is correct though. Brett did lead a lot of comeback victories as have other QB's.Wohy is it so offensive to say that Rodgers lack of experience hurts them in those type of situations. Sure Brett might have thrown the same pick but until Rodgers get the experience close games are going to have the same statements made over and over.

Apparently Favre's vast experience didn't help him all that much in those situations.

Not a real Favre fan. How many come from behind wins does he have? I thought he was on up there with some of the other all time greats.

I believe 40 prior to this year and he was second behind Elway.

 

[Jeremy]

I haven't read the past several pages, but by now it should be pretty obvious the Packers did the right thing to move on. If you think the QB is reason the Packers are losing, you ain't been watching the Packers. No QB would make this team a superbowl contender with this defense. By giving the job to Rodgers, we now know he's got the skills to be a good QB and were able to lock him up long term. With Favre, we don't go to the Superbowl anyway and may have lost Rodgers.

That said, if Ted Thompson doesn't acknowledge and address this team's weaknesses, especially the lack of a pass rush, we won't win with any QB we put out there.

 

[zDragon]

I haven't read the past several pages, but by now it should be pretty obvious the Packers did the right thing to move on. If you think the QB is reason the Packers are losing, you ain't been watching the Packers. No QB would make this team a superbowl contender with this defense. By giving the job to Rodgers, we now know he's got the skills to be a good QB and were able to lock him up long term. With Favre, we don't go to the Superbowl anyway and may have lost Rodgers. That said, if Ted Thompson doesn't acknowledge and address this team's weaknesses, especially the lack of a pass rush, we won't win with any QB we put out there.

Games that could have been won but Offense did not help or hindered.Tampa 30 Packers 21Rodgers 3 picks8 first downs entire gameDefense scores 7 of the 21 points.When the Offense gets 8 first downs the whole game and your QB throws three picks do you really plan on being within 9 points? Sure this one was the defenses fault.ATL 27 packer 24Covered this above.Ten 19 Packers 16Covered this aboveMin 28 Packers 279% on 3rd downs.Defense 4 turn overs and score 7Punt return scores 7Yet another game the offense disappears for a quarter or snce again when your only converting 9% of your third downs do you expect to be within one point. Defense and ST kept them in this one.Games the Defense and Special Teams did it's jobMin 19 Packers 24Special Teamsput up 7 of the 24 points.Offense not so special and Min wins if not for a punt returnInd 14 Packers 34Defense scores 14 points and shuts down colts offense looks good.Games the Defense looked good and the offense clicked well.Sea 17 Packers 27Defense gets three picks and Offense looks good againDet 25 Packers 48Defense puts up two scores.Chi 3 Packers 37Defense scores 7 here and shuts down the Bears.Games the offense put up points and the defense looked bad.Car 35 Packers 31Discussed earlier what 8 plays in the first quarter or so?Defense did not help but if the offense shows up in the first is it a different game. Probably not.Also the offense had the chance so this goes in the nothing good at all games.No 51 GB 29Close at half Green bay offense goes missing and error prone for the 3rd. Defense is helpless on the field. Can't do that against the Saints.Am I way off on this. I think once Rodgers is more experienced in a few years the close games at the top are won giving the Pack four more victories and the Carolina game for 5.You just can't win games and the defense suffers when your not converting 3rd downs or throwing 3 pick games.

 

[hauser42]

Food for thought for the Pro-Favre group that is hanging around and telling what should have been done.

Brett Favre cried that he had nothing left and was done with football. You can call it retiring or quiting I dont care. But Brett knew that day he had a very young and talented team he was leaving behind. He even stated last pre-season that it could have been the most talented team he has been around. Only player of any importance that might not have been was DT Corey Willams who was a rotation player, not a huge impact guy.

Brett was given a chance in early summer to come back and turned down the chance to come back, to this talented team. He was turning away for a second time coming back to a group of players that he himself believed was talented.

Now during training camp he decides that he wants to come back and play with the great young talented team. When he is told that team has moved on he decides that he will play some where else. Packers then give him that chance by trading him to the Jets.

Rodgers has done his share with the Packers this year, other parts of the team have not due to bad play and injuries. Those games the offense have struggled are going to happen. I'm sure if you looked back over the last couple of years you could find games like that when Brett was under center. Brett Favre was not and is no the second coming of Christ like so many believe. What he was and is was a HOF QB that could not figure out if he wanted to play or not at his age.

Packer decision was to move on. What if Favre has sat out this year and then said, I want to be the Packer QB in 2009. Would they have to bring him back even with Rodgers playing this well.

 

[Challenge Everything]

I am impressed because last night at some time, sho had ~25.5% of the posts in the thread. He is currently at 26% and this thread gained a good 100 posts today.

I enjoy the fact people are trying to justify, what would be a 1:1 ratio, when they say Favre would not have helped this team because the defense is playing poorly. This season would have not been the same nor would have the same injuries taken place nor would stats be similar and whatever else you, anybody, would like to give a 1:1 ratio from Rodgers to Favre.

Some things that would have been different, and I would think most people would acknowledge the following differences:

- The play calling would not have been as timid as it has been.

- The offense would have opened up, at least, some compared to how it has been.

- The threat of Favre is much worse to defenses than the threat of Rodgers.

- The passing stats would have been more well rounded, here are the current stats:

Jennings - 1057

Driver ---- 698

Nelson --- 296

Lee ------- 247

Jackson -- 178

Humphrey- 126

These are the top 6 receivers right now and out of Rodgers 2897 yards these six players represent 2602 yards. From that, a 2051 represents passing yards to WR. A total of 373 to TE and 178 to RB. What does this mean?

Since these are Rodgers top 6 targets, defenses will tend to cover the WR's more since they represent ~71% of the yards generated while the TE's represent 13% and RB represents 6% of yards. Now, again, what does this mean?

A defense keys in on the WR's to stop, or stall the offense. On big downs, 3rd and longs, whatever else, the coverage will roll to the WR's in a double cover or disguise it. Stop the WR's on those big downs and the defense will win the big down battle. Just looking at these numbers, I wonder how many passing yards the offense has generated on 3rd down? Why? Because those downs keep the offense moving, defense off the field, etc.

These numbers come from football-reference and I guarantee you every defense in the league uses similar numbers to diagnose where the offense moves the ball. Sure, Jennings and Driver have had nice games this year but where are the above average games from the TE position or even RB receiving? They are not there because Rodgers does not spread the ball around and is less of a threat to do so than in years previous. I am not saying this to downgrade Rodgers at all however the "decline" in QB play can be represented by numbers. I will also guarantee you that if the team would take 200 or so yards away from Jennings and add them to the TE position... the offense moves the ball much more and possibly scores more. When there are more options at play, there is more threat to move the ball and looser coverage because more positions are exposed. If a defense "knows" it only has to defend 4 spots instead of 5... they win. Now, what if they "know" they only have to defend 3 instead of 4? They win much more.

For comparison sake and without man-love for Favre, here are his stats from last year... top 6:

Driver ------ 1048 = 25%

Jennings --- 920 == 22%

Jones ------- 676 == 16%

Lee --------- 575 == 14%

Martin ------ 242 == 6%

Robinson --- 241 == 6%

Favre ------- 4155 == 3701 = 89%

So, Favre's top 6 targets caught 89% of his yards... 5 WR and 1 TE. The WR's caught 75% of the yards but were spread around 5 players... this is the key issue here. Plus the one big TE was a threat catching 14% of the yards but that is a ton and another position to cover. Rodgers has 71% of his yards going to WR but those are spread out among only 3 WR's. Huge difference in how defenses defend between this year and last year.

Packers Defense

Through 12 games in 2007 the Packers forced 21 turnovers.

Through 12 games in 2008 the Packers forced 20 turnovers.

Through 12 games in 2007 the Packers have had 222 points scored on them.

Through 12 games in 2008 the Packers have had 295 points scored on them.

Through 12 games in 2007 the Packers, on defense, scored 7 touchdowns.

Through 16 games in 2008 the Packers, on defense, scored 4 touchdowns... total.

Yes, the Packers team is giving up more points this year but with watching the games, looking at the stats and so on... I am not pointing my fingers at the Packers defense, in and of itself, as playing worse than last year. Yes, the stats from this year do not look as good as they did from last year however other stats look much better than last year. Points given up is a team effort and not a sole defensive lack of effort.

Skew this data however you want, say what you will, but having Favre on this team for this year would have been the right decision if a division title is what was sought and once in the playoff... who knows what could have happened. Only thing is... you have to make it to the playoffs to make things happen and that is not happening in 2008 unless the offense gets on track.

 

[hauser42]

I am impressed because last night at some time, sho had ~25.5% of the posts in the thread. He is currently at 26% and this thread gained a good 100 posts today. I enjoy the fact people are trying to justify, what would be a 1:1 ratio, when they say Favre would not have helped this team because the defense is playing poorly. This season would have not been the same nor would have the same injuries taken place nor would stats be similar and whatever else you, anybody, would like to give a 1:1 ratio from Rodgers to Favre.Some things that would have been different, and I would think most people would acknowledge the following differences:- The play calling would not have been as timid as it has been.- The offense would have opened up, at least, some compared to how it has been.- The threat of Favre is much worse to defenses than the threat of Rodgers.- The passing stats would have been more well rounded, here are the current stats:Jennings - 1057Driver ---- 698Nelson --- 296Lee ------- 247Jackson -- 178Humphrey- 126These are the top 6 receivers right now and out of Rodgers 2897 yards these six players represent 2602 yards. From that, a 2051 represents passing yards to WR. A total of 373 to TE and 178 to RB. What does this mean?Since these are Rodgers top 6 targets, defenses will tend to cover the WR's more since they represent ~71% of the yards generated while the TE's represent 13% and RB represents 6% of yards. Now, again, what does this mean?A defense keys in on the WR's to stop, or stall the offense. On big downs, 3rd and longs, whatever else, the coverage will roll to the WR's in a double cover or disguise it. Stop the WR's on those big downs and the defense will win the big down battle. Just looking at these numbers, I wonder how many passing yards the offense has generated on 3rd down? Why? Because those downs keep the offense moving, defense off the field, etc. These numbers come from football-reference and I guarantee you every defense in the league uses similar numbers to diagnose where the offense moves the ball. Sure, Jennings and Driver have had nice games this year but where are the above average games from the TE position or even RB receiving? They are not there because Rodgers does not spread the ball around and is less of a threat to do so than in years previous. I am not saying this to downgrade Rodgers at all however the "decline" in QB play can be represented by numbers. I will also guarantee you that if the team would take 200 or so yards away from Jennings and add them to the TE position... the offense moves the ball much more and possibly scores more. When there are more options at play, there is more threat to move the ball and looser coverage because more positions are exposed. If a defense "knows" it only has to defend 4 spots instead of 5... they win. Now, what if they "know" they only have to defend 3 instead of 4? They win much more.For comparison sake and without man-love for Favre, here are his stats from last year... top 6river ------ 1048 = 25%Jennings --- 920 == 22%Jones ------- 676 == 16%Lee --------- 575 == 14%Martin ------ 242 == 6%Robinson --- 241 == 6%Favre ------- 4155 == 3701 = 89%So, Favre's top 6 targets caught 89% of his yards... 5 WR and 1 TE. The WR's caught 75% of the yards but were spread around 5 players... this is the key issue here. Plus the one big TE was a threat catching 14% of the yards but that is a ton and another position to cover. Rodgers has 71% of his yards going to WR but those are spread out among only 3 WR's. Huge difference in how defenses defend between this year and last year. Packers DefenseThrough 12 games in 2007 the Packers forced 21 turnovers. Through 12 games in 2008 the Packers forced 20 turnovers.Through 12 games in 2007 the Packers have had 222 points scored on them.Through 12 games in 2008 the Packers have had 295 points scored on them.Through 12 games in 2007 the Packers, on defense, scored 7 touchdowns.Through 16 games in 2008 the Packers, on defense, scored 4 touchdowns... total.Yes, the Packers team is giving up more points this year but with watching the games, looking at the stats and so on... I am not pointing my fingers at the Packers defense, in and of itself, as playing worse than last year. Yes, the stats from this year do not look as good as they did from last year however other stats look much better than last year. Points given up is a team effort and not a sole defensive lack of effort. Skew this data however you want, say what you will, but having Favre on this team for this year would have been the right decision if a division title is what was sought and once in the playoff... who knows what could have happened. Only thing is... you have to make it to the playoffs to make things happen and that is not happening in 2008 unless the offense gets on track.

HA HA HO HO WOW WOW.You missed one or should I say two simpe things.James Jones has been bothered by a knee most of the season and not been on the field as much.Ruvell Martin has a broken hand and like Jones has not been on the field as much.This year the Packers have not used the 5WR set like they did last year due to this years inuuries. This is a big reason Jennings and Driver had done so much compared to others.

 

[Challenge Everything]

I am impressed because last night at some time, sho had ~25.5% of the posts in the thread. He is currently at 26% and this thread gained a good 100 posts today. I enjoy the fact people are trying to justify, what would be a 1:1 ratio, when they say Favre would not have helped this team because the defense is playing poorly. This season would have not been the same nor would have the same injuries taken place nor would stats be similar and whatever else you, anybody, would like to give a 1:1 ratio from Rodgers to Favre.Some things that would have been different, and I would think most people would acknowledge the following differences:- The play calling would not have been as timid as it has been.- The offense would have opened up, at least, some compared to how it has been.- The threat of Favre is much worse to defenses than the threat of Rodgers.- The passing stats would have been more well rounded, here are the current stats:Jennings - 1057Driver ---- 698Nelson --- 296Lee ------- 247Jackson -- 178Humphrey- 126These are the top 6 receivers right now and out of Rodgers 2897 yards these six players represent 2602 yards. From that, a 2051 represents passing yards to WR. A total of 373 to TE and 178 to RB. What does this mean?Since these are Rodgers top 6 targets, defenses will tend to cover the WR's more since they represent ~71% of the yards generated while the TE's represent 13% and RB represents 6% of yards. Now, again, what does this mean?A defense keys in on the WR's to stop, or stall the offense. On big downs, 3rd and longs, whatever else, the coverage will roll to the WR's in a double cover or disguise it. Stop the WR's on those big downs and the defense will win the big down battle. Just looking at these numbers, I wonder how many passing yards the offense has generated on 3rd down? Why? Because those downs keep the offense moving, defense off the field, etc. These numbers come from football-reference and I guarantee you every defense in the league uses similar numbers to diagnose where the offense moves the ball. Sure, Jennings and Driver have had nice games this year but where are the above average games from the TE position or even RB receiving? They are not there because Rodgers does not spread the ball around and is less of a threat to do so than in years previous. I am not saying this to downgrade Rodgers at all however the "decline" in QB play can be represented by numbers. I will also guarantee you that if the team would take 200 or so yards away from Jennings and add them to the TE position... the offense moves the ball much more and possibly scores more. When there are more options at play, there is more threat to move the ball and looser coverage because more positions are exposed. If a defense "knows" it only has to defend 4 spots instead of 5... they win. Now, what if they "know" they only have to defend 3 instead of 4? They win much more.For comparison sake and without man-love for Favre, here are his stats from last year... top 6river ------ 1048 = 25%Jennings --- 920 == 22%Jones ------- 676 == 16%Lee --------- 575 == 14%Martin ------ 242 == 6%Robinson --- 241 == 6%Favre ------- 4155 == 3701 = 89%So, Favre's top 6 targets caught 89% of his yards... 5 WR and 1 TE. The WR's caught 75% of the yards but were spread around 5 players... this is the key issue here. Plus the one big TE was a threat catching 14% of the yards but that is a ton and another position to cover. Rodgers has 71% of his yards going to WR but those are spread out among only 3 WR's. Huge difference in how defenses defend between this year and last year. Packers DefenseThrough 12 games in 2007 the Packers forced 21 turnovers. Through 12 games in 2008 the Packers forced 20 turnovers.Through 12 games in 2007 the Packers have had 222 points scored on them.Through 12 games in 2008 the Packers have had 295 points scored on them.Through 12 games in 2007 the Packers, on defense, scored 7 touchdowns.Through 16 games in 2008 the Packers, on defense, scored 4 touchdowns... total.Yes, the Packers team is giving up more points this year but with watching the games, looking at the stats and so on... I am not pointing my fingers at the Packers defense, in and of itself, as playing worse than last year. Yes, the stats from this year do not look as good as they did from last year however other stats look much better than last year. Points given up is a team effort and not a sole defensive lack of effort. Skew this data however you want, say what you will, but having Favre on this team for this year would have been the right decision if a division title is what was sought and once in the playoff... who knows what could have happened. Only thing is... you have to make it to the playoffs to make things happen and that is not happening in 2008 unless the offense gets on track.

HA HA HO HO WOW WOW.You missed one or should I say two simpe things.James Jones has been bothered by a knee most of the season and not been on the field as much.Ruvell Martin has a broken hand and like Jones has not been on the field as much.This year the Packers have not used the 5WR set like they did last year due to this years inuuries. This is a big reason Jennings and Driver had done so much compared to others.

Injuries happen, they are not an excuse. Last year Robinson did not play much but was still a threat. Are you arguing the fact that Rodgers does not spread the ball around as much as he could? Take away Jones and add in Humphrey or Jackson or Grant or another WR. He has not done so. Correct?

 

[phthalatemagic]

by now it should be pretty obvious the Packers did the right thing to move on. If you think the QB is reason the Packers are losing, you ain't been watching the Packers.

 

[hauser42]

I am impressed because last night at some time, sho had ~25.5% of the posts in the thread. He is currently at 26% and this thread gained a good 100 posts today. I enjoy the fact people are trying to justify, what would be a 1:1 ratio, when they say Favre would not have helped this team because the defense is playing poorly. This season would have not been the same nor would have the same injuries taken place nor would stats be similar and whatever else you, anybody, would like to give a 1:1 ratio from Rodgers to Favre.Some things that would have been different, and I would think most people would acknowledge the following differences:- The play calling would not have been as timid as it has been.- The offense would have opened up, at least, some compared to how it has been.- The threat of Favre is much worse to defenses than the threat of Rodgers.- The passing stats would have been more well rounded, here are the current stats:Jennings - 1057Driver ---- 698Nelson --- 296Lee ------- 247Jackson -- 178Humphrey- 126These are the top 6 receivers right now and out of Rodgers 2897 yards these six players represent 2602 yards. From that, a 2051 represents passing yards to WR. A total of 373 to TE and 178 to RB. What does this mean?Since these are Rodgers top 6 targets, defenses will tend to cover the WR's more since they represent ~71% of the yards generated while the TE's represent 13% and RB represents 6% of yards. Now, again, what does this mean?A defense keys in on the WR's to stop, or stall the offense. On big downs, 3rd and longs, whatever else, the coverage will roll to the WR's in a double cover or disguise it. Stop the WR's on those big downs and the defense will win the big down battle. Just looking at these numbers, I wonder how many passing yards the offense has generated on 3rd down? Why? Because those downs keep the offense moving, defense off the field, etc. These numbers come from football-reference and I guarantee you every defense in the league uses similar numbers to diagnose where the offense moves the ball. Sure, Jennings and Driver have had nice games this year but where are the above average games from the TE position or even RB receiving? They are not there because Rodgers does not spread the ball around and is less of a threat to do so than in years previous. I am not saying this to downgrade Rodgers at all however the "decline" in QB play can be represented by numbers. I will also guarantee you that if the team would take 200 or so yards away from Jennings and add them to the TE position... the offense moves the ball much more and possibly scores more. When there are more options at play, there is more threat to move the ball and looser coverage because more positions are exposed. If a defense "knows" it only has to defend 4 spots instead of 5... they win. Now, what if they "know" they only have to defend 3 instead of 4? They win much more.For comparison sake and without man-love for Favre, here are his stats from last year... top 6river ------ 1048 = 25%Jennings --- 920 == 22%Jones ------- 676 == 16%Lee --------- 575 == 14%Martin ------ 242 == 6%Robinson --- 241 == 6%Favre ------- 4155 == 3701 = 89%So, Favre's top 6 targets caught 89% of his yards... 5 WR and 1 TE. The WR's caught 75% of the yards but were spread around 5 players... this is the key issue here. Plus the one big TE was a threat catching 14% of the yards but that is a ton and another position to cover. Rodgers has 71% of his yards going to WR but those are spread out among only 3 WR's. Huge difference in how defenses defend between this year and last year. Packers DefenseThrough 12 games in 2007 the Packers forced 21 turnovers. Through 12 games in 2008 the Packers forced 20 turnovers.Through 12 games in 2007 the Packers have had 222 points scored on them.Through 12 games in 2008 the Packers have had 295 points scored on them.Through 12 games in 2007 the Packers, on defense, scored 7 touchdowns.Through 16 games in 2008 the Packers, on defense, scored 4 touchdowns... total.Yes, the Packers team is giving up more points this year but with watching the games, looking at the stats and so on... I am not pointing my fingers at the Packers defense, in and of itself, as playing worse than last year. Yes, the stats from this year do not look as good as they did from last year however other stats look much better than last year. Points given up is a team effort and not a sole defensive lack of effort. Skew this data however you want, say what you will, but having Favre on this team for this year would have been the right decision if a division title is what was sought and once in the playoff... who knows what could have happened. Only thing is... you have to make it to the playoffs to make things happen and that is not happening in 2008 unless the offense gets on track.

HA HA HO HO WOW WOW.You missed one or should I say two simpe things.James Jones has been bothered by a knee most of the season and not been on the field as much.Ruvell Martin has a broken hand and like Jones has not been on the field as much.This year the Packers have not used the 5WR set like they did last year due to this years inuuries. This is a big reason Jennings and Driver had done so much compared to others.

Injuries happen, they are not an excuse. Last year Robinson did not play much but was still a threat. Are you arguing the fact that Rodgers does not spread the ball around as much as he could? Take away Jones and add in Humphrey or Jackson or Grant or another WR. He has not done so. Correct?

He wont because there have been less targets out there. When you are running fewer 4 and 5 WR sets you will have the passing yards less spread out. RBs and TEs will get there share of due to check downs and screen passed. This year for a long stretch Lee was not getting looks in the offense but lately he has gotten them.

 

[Challenge Everything]

He wont because there have been less targets out there. When you are running fewer 4 and 5 WR sets you will have the passing yards less spread out. RBs and TEs will get there share of due to check downs and screen passed. This year for a long stretch Lee was not getting looks in the offense but lately he has gotten them.

Do I need to show you the stats for TE's and RB's this year? He is not spreading the ball around as well as he could be.

 

[zDragon]

I am impressed because last night at some time, sho had ~25.5% of the posts in the thread. He is currently at 26% and this thread gained a good 100 posts today. I enjoy the fact people are trying to justify, what would be a 1:1 ratio, when they say Favre would not have helped this team because the defense is playing poorly. This season would have not been the same nor would have the same injuries taken place nor would stats be similar and whatever else you, anybody, would like to give a 1:1 ratio from Rodgers to Favre.Some things that would have been different, and I would think most people would acknowledge the following differences:- The play calling would not have been as timid as it has been.- The offense would have opened up, at least, some compared to how it has been.- The threat of Favre is much worse to defenses than the threat of Rodgers.- The passing stats would have been more well rounded, here are the current stats:Jennings - 1057Driver ---- 698Nelson --- 296Lee ------- 247Jackson -- 178Humphrey- 126These are the top 6 receivers right now and out of Rodgers 2897 yards these six players represent 2602 yards. From that, a 2051 represents passing yards to WR. A total of 373 to TE and 178 to RB. What does this mean?Since these are Rodgers top 6 targets, defenses will tend to cover the WR's more since they represent ~71% of the yards generated while the TE's represent 13% and RB represents 6% of yards. Now, again, what does this mean?A defense keys in on the WR's to stop, or stall the offense. On big downs, 3rd and longs, whatever else, the coverage will roll to the WR's in a double cover or disguise it. Stop the WR's on those big downs and the defense will win the big down battle. Just looking at these numbers, I wonder how many passing yards the offense has generated on 3rd down? Why? Because those downs keep the offense moving, defense off the field, etc. These numbers come from football-reference and I guarantee you every defense in the league uses similar numbers to diagnose where the offense moves the ball. Sure, Jennings and Driver have had nice games this year but where are the above average games from the TE position or even RB receiving? They are not there because Rodgers does not spread the ball around and is less of a threat to do so than in years previous. I am not saying this to downgrade Rodgers at all however the "decline" in QB play can be represented by numbers. I will also guarantee you that if the team would take 200 or so yards away from Jennings and add them to the TE position... the offense moves the ball much more and possibly scores more. When there are more options at play, there is more threat to move the ball and looser coverage because more positions are exposed. If a defense "knows" it only has to defend 4 spots instead of 5... they win. Now, what if they "know" they only have to defend 3 instead of 4? They win much more.For comparison sake and without man-love for Favre, here are his stats from last year... top 6river ------ 1048 = 25%Jennings --- 920 == 22%Jones ------- 676 == 16%Lee --------- 575 == 14%Martin ------ 242 == 6%Robinson --- 241 == 6%Favre ------- 4155 == 3701 = 89%So, Favre's top 6 targets caught 89% of his yards... 5 WR and 1 TE. The WR's caught 75% of the yards but were spread around 5 players... this is the key issue here. Plus the one big TE was a threat catching 14% of the yards but that is a ton and another position to cover. Rodgers has 71% of his yards going to WR but those are spread out among only 3 WR's. Huge difference in how defenses defend between this year and last year. Packers DefenseThrough 12 games in 2007 the Packers forced 21 turnovers. Through 12 games in 2008 the Packers forced 20 turnovers.Through 12 games in 2007 the Packers have had 222 points scored on them.Through 12 games in 2008 the Packers have had 295 points scored on them.Through 12 games in 2007 the Packers, on defense, scored 7 touchdowns.Through 16 games in 2008 the Packers, on defense, scored 4 touchdowns... total.Yes, the Packers team is giving up more points this year but with watching the games, looking at the stats and so on... I am not pointing my fingers at the Packers defense, in and of itself, as playing worse than last year. Yes, the stats from this year do not look as good as they did from last year however other stats look much better than last year. Points given up is a team effort and not a sole defensive lack of effort. Skew this data however you want, say what you will, but having Favre on this team for this year would have been the right decision if a division title is what was sought and once in the playoff... who knows what could have happened. Only thing is... you have to make it to the playoffs to make things happen and that is not happening in 2008 unless the offense gets on track.

I need to look at this reference guide you speak of.

 

[ScottyFargo]

Good statistical analysis here on the difference between the two offensive styles.

 

[Sweetness_34]

Who posted in: How's the Packer decision to go with Rodgers looking now?Poster Postssho nuff 332 (26.3% of the posts in this thread)Phase of the Game 98Look how far behind the 2nd most frequent poster is!

It is called being delusional. shonuff is probably the most delusional packer homer I have read on a message board, and that says something given how a lot of packer fans are delusional.

 

[sho nuff]

Oh, and Stinger Ray:

you got me.....and found ONE person!! Good for you, ace.

Thanks. Sucks to be wrong, don't it.

Not at all. You got me on that one person. I don't feel bad at all on that because all one has to do is watch sho operate in here and that will make them feel better.

Wow...another little sniping comment...Im shocked I tell you.

 

[sho nuff]

So the Packers score 31 points and lose and it's Rogers's fault? Is that really where people are trying to go with this?

Obviously, he should have led the Packers to a comeback victory, like Brett Favre always did.Like in this game from 2006:1-10-GB 41 (3:09) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass short right to D.Martin to GB 48 for 7 yards (R.Harper, S.Fujita).2-3-GB 48 (2:42) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass short middle to D.Martin to NO 44 for 8 yards (S.Fujita).1-10-NO 44 (2:17) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass incomplete short left to A.Green.2-10-NO 44 (2:10) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass incomplete short left to D.Martin.3-10-NO 44 (2:07) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass incomplete deep left to G.Jennings.4-10-NO 44 (2:02) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass incomplete deep left to R.Ferguson. Yard marker changed due to change of possession. The Saints ran out the clock, and won 34-27.Ooops. Or maybe like this one:2-2-STL 20 (1:00) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass short left to G.Jennings to STL 11 for 9 yards (O.Atogwe).1-10-STL 11 45) (No Huddle) B.Favre spiked the ball to stop the clock.2-10-STL 11 44) (Shotgun) B.Favre sacked at STL 18 for -7 yards (L.Little). FUMBLES (L.Little), touched at STL 15, RECOVERED by STL-J.Butler at STL 13. J.Butler to STL 13 for no gain (S.Wells). The Rams ran out the clock, and won 23-20.Oooops.1-10-BUF 39 (1:47) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass incomplete short middle to D.Martin (L.Fletcher-Baker). Receiver and coverage at BUF 32.2-10-BUF 39 (1:42) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass incomplete short middle to N.Herron (L.Tripplett, L.Fletcher-Baker). Pass tipped at line, then tipped in coverage at BUF 35.3-10-BUF 39 (1:37) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass incomplete deep right to D.Driver (L.Fletcher-Baker). Receiver and coverage at BUF 21.4-10-BUF 39 (1:32) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass incomplete deep middle to D.Driver [C.Kelsay]. The Bills ran out the clock, and won 24-10.Ooooops.1-15-GB 49 25) 4-B.Favre pass incomplete deep right to 88-B.Franks.2-15-GB 49 25) (Shotgun) 4-B.Favre pass deep right to 80-D.Driver to SEA 27 for 24 yards (26-K.Hamlin, 59-J.Peterson). PENALTY on GB, Illegal Shift, 5 yards, enforced at GB 49 - No Play.2-20-GB 44 16) (Shotgun) 4-B.Favre pass short middle to 23-N.Herron to SEA 45 for 11 yards (98-G.Wistrom, 59-J.Peterson).3-9-SEA 45 01) (No Huddle) 4-B.Favre sacked at 50 for -5 yards (55-D.Tapp). FUMBLES (55-D.Tapp), RECOVERED by SEA-93-C.Terrill at SEA 46. 93-C.Terrill, dead ball declared at GB 49 for 5 yards.The Seahawks ran out the clock, and won 34-24.Oooooops.Well, the hell with that. We know that Brett Favre led them to comeback victory, time after time.

Interesting you all the sudden bring Favre into it. Your last statement is correct though. Brett did lead a lot of comeback victories as have other QB's.Wohy is it so offensive to say that Rodgers lack of experience hurts them in those type of situations. Sure Brett might have thrown the same pick but until Rodgers get the experience close games are going to have the same statements made over and over.

All of a sudden bring Favre into it?Ummm...who else are we to compare Rodgers to in this thread?

 

[sho nuff]

So the Packers score 31 points and lose and it's Rogers's fault? Is that really where people are trying to go with this?

Obviously, he should have led the Packers to a comeback victory, like Brett Favre always did.Like in this game from 2006:

1-10-GB 41 (3:09) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass short right to D.Martin to GB 48 for 7 yards (R.Harper, S.Fujita).

2-3-GB 48 (2:42) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass short middle to D.Martin to NO 44 for 8 yards (S.Fujita).

1-10-NO 44 (2:17) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass incomplete short left to A.Green.

2-10-NO 44 (2:10) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass incomplete short left to D.Martin.

3-10-NO 44 (2:07) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass incomplete deep left to G.Jennings.

4-10-NO 44 (2:02) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass incomplete deep left to R.Ferguson. Yard marker changed due to change of possession.

The Saints ran out the clock, and won 34-27.

Ooops.

Or maybe like this one:

2-2-STL 20 (1:00) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass short left to G.Jennings to STL 11 for 9 yards (O.Atogwe).

1-10-STL 11 45) (No Huddle) B.Favre spiked the ball to stop the clock.

2-10-STL 11 44) (Shotgun) B.Favre sacked at STL 18 for -7 yards (L.Little). FUMBLES (L.Little), touched at STL 15, RECOVERED by STL-J.Butler at STL 13. J.Butler to STL 13 for no gain (S.Wells).

The Rams ran out the clock, and won 23-20.

Oooops.

1-10-BUF 39 (1:47) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass incomplete short middle to D.Martin (L.Fletcher-Baker). Receiver and coverage at BUF 32.

2-10-BUF 39 (1:42) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass incomplete short middle to N.Herron (L.Tripplett, L.Fletcher-Baker). Pass tipped at line, then tipped in coverage at BUF 35.

3-10-BUF 39 (1:37) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass incomplete deep right to D.Driver (L.Fletcher-Baker). Receiver and coverage at BUF 21.

4-10-BUF 39 (1:32) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass incomplete deep middle to D.Driver [C.Kelsay].

The Bills ran out the clock, and won 24-10.

Ooooops.

1-15-GB 49 25) 4-B.Favre pass incomplete deep right to 88-B.Franks.

2-15-GB 49 25) (Shotgun) 4-B.Favre pass deep right to 80-D.Driver to SEA 27 for 24 yards (26-K.Hamlin, 59-J.Peterson). PENALTY on GB, Illegal Shift, 5 yards, enforced at GB 49 - No Play.

2-20-GB 44 16) (Shotgun) 4-B.Favre pass short middle to 23-N.Herron to SEA 45 for 11 yards (98-G.Wistrom, 59-J.Peterson).

3-9-SEA 45 01) (No Huddle) 4-B.Favre sacked at 50 for -5 yards (55-D.Tapp). FUMBLES (55-D.Tapp), RECOVERED by SEA-93-C.Terrill at SEA 46. 93-C.Terrill, dead ball declared at GB 49 for 5 yards.

The Seahawks ran out the clock, and won 34-24.

Oooooops.

Well, the hell with that. We know that Brett Favre led them to comeback victory, time after time.

Interesting you all the sudden bring Favre into it. Your last statement is correct though. Brett did lead a lot of comeback victories as have other QB's.Wohy is it so offensive to say that Rodgers lack of experience hurts them in those type of situations. Sure Brett might have thrown the same pick but until Rodgers get the experience close games are going to have the same statements made over and over.

Apparently Favre's vast experience didn't help him all that much in those situations.

Not a real Favre fan. How many come from behind wins does he have? I thought he was on up there with some of the other all time greats.

I believe 40 prior to this year and he was second behind Elway.

And how many did he have where he did not lead the comeback?

 

[sho nuff]

Am I way off on this.

Yes.

 

[zDragon]

So the Packers score 31 points and lose and it's Rogers's fault? Is that really where people are trying to go with this?

Obviously, he should have led the Packers to a comeback victory, like Brett Favre always did.Like in this game from 2006:1-10-GB 41 (3:09) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass short right to D.Martin to GB 48 for 7 yards (R.Harper, S.Fujita).2-3-GB 48 (2:42) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass short middle to D.Martin to NO 44 for 8 yards (S.Fujita).1-10-NO 44 (2:17) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass incomplete short left to A.Green.2-10-NO 44 (2:10) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass incomplete short left to D.Martin.3-10-NO 44 (2:07) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass incomplete deep left to G.Jennings.4-10-NO 44 (2:02) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass incomplete deep left to R.Ferguson. Yard marker changed due to change of possession. The Saints ran out the clock, and won 34-27.Ooops. Or maybe like this one:2-2-STL 20 (1:00) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass short left to G.Jennings to STL 11 for 9 yards (O.Atogwe).1-10-STL 11 45) (No Huddle) B.Favre spiked the ball to stop the clock.2-10-STL 11 44) (Shotgun) B.Favre sacked at STL 18 for -7 yards (L.Little). FUMBLES (L.Little), touched at STL 15, RECOVERED by STL-J.Butler at STL 13. J.Butler to STL 13 for no gain (S.Wells). The Rams ran out the clock, and won 23-20.Oooops.1-10-BUF 39 (1:47) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass incomplete short middle to D.Martin (L.Fletcher-Baker). Receiver and coverage at BUF 32.2-10-BUF 39 (1:42) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass incomplete short middle to N.Herron (L.Tripplett, L.Fletcher-Baker). Pass tipped at line, then tipped in coverage at BUF 35.3-10-BUF 39 (1:37) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass incomplete deep right to D.Driver (L.Fletcher-Baker). Receiver and coverage at BUF 21.4-10-BUF 39 (1:32) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass incomplete deep middle to D.Driver [C.Kelsay]. The Bills ran out the clock, and won 24-10.Ooooops.1-15-GB 49 25) 4-B.Favre pass incomplete deep right to 88-B.Franks.2-15-GB 49 25) (Shotgun) 4-B.Favre pass deep right to 80-D.Driver to SEA 27 for 24 yards (26-K.Hamlin, 59-J.Peterson). PENALTY on GB, Illegal Shift, 5 yards, enforced at GB 49 - No Play.2-20-GB 44 16) (Shotgun) 4-B.Favre pass short middle to 23-N.Herron to SEA 45 for 11 yards (98-G.Wistrom, 59-J.Peterson).3-9-SEA 45 01) (No Huddle) 4-B.Favre sacked at 50 for -5 yards (55-D.Tapp). FUMBLES (55-D.Tapp), RECOVERED by SEA-93-C.Terrill at SEA 46. 93-C.Terrill, dead ball declared at GB 49 for 5 yards.The Seahawks ran out the clock, and won 34-24.Oooooops.Well, the hell with that. We know that Brett Favre led them to comeback victory, time after time.

Interesting you all the sudden bring Favre into it. Your last statement is correct though. Brett did lead a lot of comeback victories as have other QB's.Wohy is it so offensive to say that Rodgers lack of experience hurts them in those type of situations. Sure Brett might have thrown the same pick but until Rodgers get the experience close games are going to have the same statements made over and over.

All of a sudden bring Favre into it?Ummm...who else are we to compare Rodgers to in this thread?

I meant as in bashing Favre because someone mentioned Rodgers did not have experience in the situation.

 

[hauser42]

He wont because there have been less targets out there. When you are running fewer 4 and 5 WR sets you will have the passing yards less spread out. RBs and TEs will get there share of due to check downs and screen passed. This year for a long stretch Lee was not getting looks in the offense but lately he has gotten them.

Do I need to show you the stats for TE's and RB's this year? He is not spreading the ball around as well as he could be.

You don't even have a RB stat in your post for last year! I agreed that the TE has not gotten the look he did last year. But you are missing the point that WR catches are not spread out as they have been running less 4-5 sets. Those stats do not show that you have to watch or listen to the games. Announcers have been talking about the lack of spreading out defenses for about 6 weeks now. If you only ran 2WR sets 75% of the time with the same two guys they would tend to have the most yardage no matter who is throwing the ball.

 

[sho nuff]

I am impressed because last night at some time, sho had ~25.5% of the posts in the thread. He is currently at 26% and this thread gained a good 100 posts today. I enjoy the fact people are trying to justify, what would be a 1:1 ratio, when they say Favre would not have helped this team because the defense is playing poorly. This season would have not been the same nor would have the same injuries taken place nor would stats be similar and whatever else you, anybody, would like to give a 1:1 ratio from Rodgers to Favre.Some things that would have been different, and I would think most people would acknowledge the following differences:- The play calling would not have been as timid as it has been.- The offense would have opened up, at least, some compared to how it has been.- The threat of Favre is much worse to defenses than the threat of Rodgers.- The passing stats would have been more well rounded, here are the current stats:Jennings - 1057Driver ---- 698Nelson --- 296Lee ------- 247Jackson -- 178Humphrey- 126These are the top 6 receivers right now and out of Rodgers 2897 yards these six players represent 2602 yards. From that, a 2051 represents passing yards to WR. A total of 373 to TE and 178 to RB. What does this mean?Since these are Rodgers top 6 targets, defenses will tend to cover the WR's more since they represent ~71% of the yards generated while the TE's represent 13% and RB represents 6% of yards. Now, again, what does this mean?A defense keys in on the WR's to stop, or stall the offense. On big downs, 3rd and longs, whatever else, the coverage will roll to the WR's in a double cover or disguise it. Stop the WR's on those big downs and the defense will win the big down battle. Just looking at these numbers, I wonder how many passing yards the offense has generated on 3rd down? Why? Because those downs keep the offense moving, defense off the field, etc. These numbers come from football-reference and I guarantee you every defense in the league uses similar numbers to diagnose where the offense moves the ball. Sure, Jennings and Driver have had nice games this year but where are the above average games from the TE position or even RB receiving? They are not there because Rodgers does not spread the ball around and is less of a threat to do so than in years previous. I am not saying this to downgrade Rodgers at all however the "decline" in QB play can be represented by numbers. I will also guarantee you that if the team would take 200 or so yards away from Jennings and add them to the TE position... the offense moves the ball much more and possibly scores more. When there are more options at play, there is more threat to move the ball and looser coverage because more positions are exposed. If a defense "knows" it only has to defend 4 spots instead of 5... they win. Now, what if they "know" they only have to defend 3 instead of 4? They win much more.For comparison sake and without man-love for Favre, here are his stats from last year... top 6river ------ 1048 = 25%Jennings --- 920 == 22%Jones ------- 676 == 16%Lee --------- 575 == 14%Martin ------ 242 == 6%Robinson --- 241 == 6%Favre ------- 4155 == 3701 = 89%So, Favre's top 6 targets caught 89% of his yards... 5 WR and 1 TE. The WR's caught 75% of the yards but were spread around 5 players... this is the key issue here. Plus the one big TE was a threat catching 14% of the yards but that is a ton and another position to cover. Rodgers has 71% of his yards going to WR but those are spread out among only 3 WR's. Huge difference in how defenses defend between this year and last year. Packers DefenseThrough 12 games in 2007 the Packers forced 21 turnovers. Through 12 games in 2008 the Packers forced 20 turnovers.Through 12 games in 2007 the Packers have had 222 points scored on them.Through 12 games in 2008 the Packers have had 295 points scored on them.Through 12 games in 2007 the Packers, on defense, scored 7 touchdowns.Through 16 games in 2008 the Packers, on defense, scored 4 touchdowns... total.Yes, the Packers team is giving up more points this year but with watching the games, looking at the stats and so on... I am not pointing my fingers at the Packers defense, in and of itself, as playing worse than last year. Yes, the stats from this year do not look as good as they did from last year however other stats look much better than last year. Points given up is a team effort and not a sole defensive lack of effort. Skew this data however you want, say what you will, but having Favre on this team for this year would have been the right decision if a division title is what was sought and once in the playoff... who knows what could have happened. Only thing is... you have to make it to the playoffs to make things happen and that is not happening in 2008 unless the offense gets on track.

If you are not pointing at the defense being worse, you simply have not been watching.And i love your percentages where you claim teams will key on the packers wrs cause rodgers throws them 71% of the yardage (why not receptions) and Favre threw it to the wrs at 75%. Simply put...your pint is a bit out there.Yes...Favre put it out to a few others...newsflash, they are running less 5 WR sts cause the oline is not protecting aswell, meaning backs and tes are also now being kept in more to help keep rodgers upright.I sought more than a division title. Without winning it all, bringing him back was not the right move unless you like nostalgia.

 

[Challenge Everything]

He wont because there have been less targets out there. When you are running fewer 4 and 5 WR sets you will have the passing yards less spread out. RBs and TEs will get there share of due to check downs and screen passed. This year for a long stretch Lee was not getting looks in the offense but lately he has gotten them.

Do I need to show you the stats for TE's and RB's this year? He is not spreading the ball around as well as he could be.

You don't even have a RB stat in your post for last year! I agreed that the TE has not gotten the look he did last year. But you are missing the point that WR catches are not spread out as they have been running less 4-5 sets. Those stats do not show that you have to watch or listen to the games. Announcers have been talking about the lack of spreading out defenses for about 6 weeks now. If you only ran 2WR sets 75% of the time with the same two guys they would tend to have the most yardage no matter who is throwing the ball.

Sure, Favre did not have a RB in the top 6 but the poster first quoted it about their being injuries to the WR position... therefore one of those other positions would need to step up but that takes the QB to spread it out. Rodgers has not done so. Not having a RB in Favre's top 6 does not help Rodgers out in this comparison. Rodgers has simply not spread the ball around and that hurts the offense.Running 2 or 3 WR sets rests on the playcalling. But, why are they not running 3 or 4 WR sets? Part of the reason is because Rodgers keys in on the WR's. When they run 3 WR sets... who does Rodgers look too? Most times he looks for Nelson in those plays and Nelson does not go deep. That does not move the chains. And, you claim the Packers run 2 WR sets 75% of the time. Do you have a link showing those numbers? I provided stats for my numbers... where are yours because that is a pretty substantial "fact" you are proposing.

 

[sho nuff]

He wont because there have been less targets out there. When you are running fewer 4 and 5 WR sets you will have the passing yards less spread out. RBs and TEs will get there share of due to check downs and screen passed. This year for a long stretch Lee was not getting looks in the offense but lately he has gotten them.

Do I need to show you the stats for TE's and RB's this year? He is not spreading the ball around as well as he could be.

Or they are simply not out in pass patterns as much because of the play of the oline.

 

[sho nuff]

So the Packers score 31 points and lose and it's Rogers's fault? Is that really where people are trying to go with this?

Obviously, he should have led the Packers to a comeback victory, like Brett Favre always did.Like in this game from 2006:1-10-GB 41 (3:09) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass short right to D.Martin to GB 48 for 7 yards (R.Harper, S.Fujita).2-3-GB 48 (2:42) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass short middle to D.Martin to NO 44 for 8 yards (S.Fujita).1-10-NO 44 (2:17) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass incomplete short left to A.Green.2-10-NO 44 (2:10) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass incomplete short left to D.Martin.3-10-NO 44 (2:07) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass incomplete deep left to G.Jennings.4-10-NO 44 (2:02) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass incomplete deep left to R.Ferguson. Yard marker changed due to change of possession. The Saints ran out the clock, and won 34-27.Ooops. Or maybe like this one:2-2-STL 20 (1:00) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass short left to G.Jennings to STL 11 for 9 yards (O.Atogwe).1-10-STL 11 45) (No Huddle) B.Favre spiked the ball to stop the clock.2-10-STL 11 44) (Shotgun) B.Favre sacked at STL 18 for -7 yards (L.Little). FUMBLES (L.Little), touched at STL 15, RECOVERED by STL-J.Butler at STL 13. J.Butler to STL 13 for no gain (S.Wells). The Rams ran out the clock, and won 23-20.Oooops.1-10-BUF 39 (1:47) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass incomplete short middle to D.Martin (L.Fletcher-Baker). Receiver and coverage at BUF 32.2-10-BUF 39 (1:42) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass incomplete short middle to N.Herron (L.Tripplett, L.Fletcher-Baker). Pass tipped at line, then tipped in coverage at BUF 35.3-10-BUF 39 (1:37) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass incomplete deep right to D.Driver (L.Fletcher-Baker). Receiver and coverage at BUF 21.4-10-BUF 39 (1:32) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass incomplete deep middle to D.Driver [C.Kelsay]. The Bills ran out the clock, and won 24-10.Ooooops.1-15-GB 49 25) 4-B.Favre pass incomplete deep right to 88-B.Franks.2-15-GB 49 25) (Shotgun) 4-B.Favre pass deep right to 80-D.Driver to SEA 27 for 24 yards (26-K.Hamlin, 59-J.Peterson). PENALTY on GB, Illegal Shift, 5 yards, enforced at GB 49 - No Play.2-20-GB 44 16) (Shotgun) 4-B.Favre pass short middle to 23-N.Herron to SEA 45 for 11 yards (98-G.Wistrom, 59-J.Peterson).3-9-SEA 45 01) (No Huddle) 4-B.Favre sacked at 50 for -5 yards (55-D.Tapp). FUMBLES (55-D.Tapp), RECOVERED by SEA-93-C.Terrill at SEA 46. 93-C.Terrill, dead ball declared at GB 49 for 5 yards.The Seahawks ran out the clock, and won 34-24.Oooooops.Well, the hell with that. We know that Brett Favre led them to comeback victory, time after time.

Interesting you all the sudden bring Favre into it. Your last statement is correct though. Brett did lead a lot of comeback victories as have other QB's.Wohy is it so offensive to say that Rodgers lack of experience hurts them in those type of situations. Sure Brett might have thrown the same pick but until Rodgers get the experience close games are going to have the same statements made over and over.

All of a sudden bring Favre into it?Ummm...who else are we to compare Rodgers to in this thread?

I meant as in bashing Favre because someone mentioned Rodgers did not have experience in the situation.

Its not bashing him..its bringing up that recently he has struggled in these comebacks...he even mentioned it in retirement that people expecting it wore on him big time.

 

[Challenge Everything]

If you are not pointing at the defense being worse, you simply have not been watching.And i love your percentages where you claim teams will key on the packers wrs cause rodgers throws them 71% of the yardage (why not receptions) and Favre threw it to the wrs at 75%. Simply put...your pint is a bit out there.Yes...Favre put it out to a few others...newsflash, they are running less 5 WR sts cause the oline is not protecting aswell, meaning backs and tes are also now being kept in more to help keep rodgers upright.I sought more than a division title. Without winning it all, bringing him back was not the right move unless you like nostalgia.

Yeah, you completely missed the point. Favre throwing for 75% of his yards to WR's using 5 WR's is much more threatening than throwing for 71% of the yardage to 3 WR's. Do you understand this? The 75%/5 is more threatening and tougher to defend than 71%/3.

 

[Challenge Everything]

He wont because there have been less targets out there. When you are running fewer 4 and 5 WR sets you will have the passing yards less spread out. RBs and TEs will get there share of due to check downs and screen passed. This year for a long stretch Lee was not getting looks in the offense but lately he has gotten them.

Do I need to show you the stats for TE's and RB's this year? He is not spreading the ball around as well as he could be.

Or they are simply not out in pass patterns as much because of the play of the oline.

And that partially falls back on Rodgers/QB. How many sacks has Rodgers taken for holding onto the ball too long? How many times has Rodgers taken off out of the pocket when he had another second to find a receiver? How many times Rodgers not dumped off a pass when he could have? Plenty of times for each. Read the defense, find the hot read, any number of things. The offensive line has played poorly, compared to last year, in run blocking but pass blocking they have not been bad.

 

[sho nuff]

If you are not pointing at the defense being worse, you simply have not been watching.And i love your percentages where you claim teams will key on the packers wrs cause rodgers throws them 71% of the yardage (why not receptions) and Favre threw it to the wrs at 75%. Simply put...your pint is a bit out there.Yes...Favre put it out to a few others...newsflash, they are running less 5 WR sts cause the oline is not protecting aswell, meaning backs and tes are also now being kept in more to help keep rodgers upright.I sought more than a division title. Without winning it all, bringing him back was not the right move unless you like nostalgia.

Yeah, you completely missed the point. Favre throwing for 75% of his yards to WR's using 5 WR's is much more threatening than throwing for 71% of the yardage to 3 WR's. Do you understand this? The 75%/5 is more threatening and tougher to defend than 71%/3.

Basically you talked about how it was easier to key in on wrs...then posted how favre thre to his wrs for a higher percentage of yardage.I understand they are not running as many 4-5wr sets...so your complaint that Rodgers is not spreading it out as much is getting shot down quickly.

 

[sho nuff]

He wont because there have been less targets out there. When you are running fewer 4 and 5 WR sets you will have the passing yards less spread out. RBs and TEs will get there share of due to check downs and screen passed. This year for a long stretch Lee was not getting looks in the offense but lately he has gotten them.

Do I need to show you the stats for TE's and RB's this year? He is not spreading the ball around as well as he could be.

Or they are simply not out in pass patterns as much because of the play of the oline.

And that partially falls back on Rodgers/QB. How many sacks has Rodgers taken for holding onto the ball too long? How many times has Rodgers taken off out of the pocket when he had another second to find a receiver? How many times Rodgers not dumped off a pass when he could have? Plenty of times for each. Read the defense, find the hot read, any number of things. The offensive line has played poorly, compared to last year, in run blocking but pass blocking they have not been bad.

Some of it is on Rodgers..plenty of it is on the oline.And how many times when he does get out of the pocket and mae something happen that favre could not do?pass blocking they have not been bad? are you kidding me?

 

[Challenge Everything]

If you are not pointing at the defense being worse, you simply have not been watching.And i love your percentages where you claim teams will key on the packers wrs cause rodgers throws them 71% of the yardage (why not receptions) and Favre threw it to the wrs at 75%. Simply put...your pint is a bit out there.Yes...Favre put it out to a few others...newsflash, they are running less 5 WR sts cause the oline is not protecting aswell, meaning backs and tes are also now being kept in more to help keep rodgers upright.I sought more than a division title. Without winning it all, bringing him back was not the right move unless you like nostalgia.

Yeah, you completely missed the point. Favre throwing for 75% of his yards to WR's using 5 WR's is much more threatening than throwing for 71% of the yardage to 3 WR's. Do you understand this? The 75%/5 is more threatening and tougher to defend than 71%/3.

Basically you talked about how it was easier to key in on wrs...then posted how favre thre to his wrs for a higher percentage of yardage.I understand they are not running as many 4-5wr sets...so your complaint that Rodgers is not spreading it out as much is getting shot down quickly.

Do you not understand this? If I have an offense and I, as the QB, spread it out regularly to 5 guys... that is much more threatening to a defense than throwing 3 guys out there. Does this not compute?

 

[sho nuff]

And judging it based on a percentage of yards is a bit out there. Of course WRs will dominate that. They are more explosive.

Look at receptions.

favre's top 5 caught 57.2% of his passes.

rodgers have caught 63.7%

Not a huge difference.