NFL Week 17

[Suburban Rhythm]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Congrats Hines on reaching your goal of 1000 career receptions!

This is one of those stats that seems a little forced, but still I guess a little telling in terms of longevity + ability:

Two players in NFL history have 1,000 catches AND 2 Super Bowl rings - Jerry Rice and Hines Ward.

[JPhillips]

Good looking schedule for the Bengals in 2012.

The Bengals will host the Denver Broncos and Dallas Cowboys, along with the much anticipated Carson Palmer return to Cincinnati with the Oakland Raiders visiting. Cincinnati's home schedule rounds out with the New York Giants and Miami Dolphins. The Bengals will play on the road against the Chiefs, Chargers, Eagles, Redskins and Jaguars.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Good looking schedule for the Bengals in 2012.

That's a pretty kind schedule. There's 7 pretty flawed/bad teams on there.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

That's a pretty kind schedule. There's 7 pretty flawed/bad teams on there.

They get Miami and Jacksonville for finishing third in the division and the AFC West isn't likely to be a powerhouse next year.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

They get Miami and Jacksonville for finishing third in the division and the AFC West isn't likely to be a powerhouse next year.

Denver/Dallas/Oakland/Washington are all totally beatable too (to one degree or another).

[MIJB#19]

Originally Posted by Danny

We are in the time of the passing game with rule changes along with some really good qbs

What patch of FOF are they on at NFL? I think they missed one or two of the recent ones.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Good looking schedule for the Bengals in 2012.

Why don't the Chiefs just join the AFC North? Seems like I have attended more Bengals games at Arrowhead the past ten years than Rams home games.

Agree on the easy looking schedule. Can't beat the playoffs and a third place schedule!

[Arles]

Per the Rodgers/Brees debate, the numbers are close. Still, Rodgers less than half his interceptions (14 to 6), averaged almost a yard more per attempt (9.25 to 8.34) and had more total TDs (48 to 47) despite playing 1 fewer game. Plus, if you add Rodgers rushing yards he's pretty close to Brees on yards per game. Brees also threw the ball 157 more times than Rodgers despite having a worse defense (32nd to NO's 24, on pts GB is 19 and NO 13) and running game (No is 6 in yds and ave 4.9 ypc - GB was 27th and had 3.9 ypc). There's also consistency - Brees had 3 games with 1 TD and 3 games with more INTs than TDs. Rodgers had one game all season with 1 TD (but added one rushing) and never had more INTs than TDs. He was +2 or better on passing TD/INT in all games but 2. Brees had 6 times he was +1 or worse. Brees had pockets where he went 1-2, 2-1, 1-3 and then 5-0 against Indy. Putting up 5 TDs against the Indys, Carolinas and Minnesotas shouldn't cancel out the 4-5 subpar games he had earlier. Outside of KC, Rodgers was a rock every week.

So, in summary, despite having a significantly worse statistical defense and running game, Rodgers had more TDs, half the INTs, a higher ypa and was simply more consistent week to week with a lot of holes in other areas of the team. Both had great seasons, but given GB's defense and running game - the fact that Rodgers had 48 total TDs and just 6 picks is quite an achievement. Plus, he didn't need 3 5+ TD games against crap defenses to cancel out 3-4 subpar games against other teams.

[jbergey22]

Not much to debate IMO. Rodgers had clearly the better season. The Saints chose to care more about personal accomplishments more than the Packers did. Give it to the man that deserves it and not the man that was allowed to accumulate big numbers based on his coaching staff finding that part of the game exciting.

[RainMaker]

Rodgers is the MVP. No doubt in my mind. Brees made a great run late but I know what I saw throughout the entire season. The argument for Brees is based on one particular statistic and a record that means absolutely nothing in this era.

[Tigercat]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The argument for Brees is based on one particular statistic and a record that means absolutely nothing in this era.

He set two major records, yards and completion percentage. So of the four major categories for judging the positive accomplishments of a QB, (others being TDs and yards per) he set half of the single season records this year.

Absolutely nothing? Wow. I guess Brees, Rogers, and Brady were taking steroids and we stopped keeping track of offensive yards when I wasn't looking. Someone should tell all those fantasy owners to find a new hobby, because as soon as stats progress upwards they mean absolutely nothing. Might as well not even change the record book until the NFL can give us more shutouts per year.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Tigercat

He set two major records, yards and completion percentage. So of the four major categories for judging the positive accomplishments of a QB, (others being TDs and yards per) he set half of the single season records this year.

Absolutely nothing? Wow. I guess Brees, Rogers, and Brady were taking steroids and we stopped keeping track of offensive yards when I wasn't looking. Someone should tell all those fantasy owners to find a new hobby, because as soon as stats progress upwards they mean absolutely nothing. Might as well not even change the record book until the NFL can give us more shutouts per year.

The only reason Brees is being considered for the MVP is because he broke the records. Records that are much easier to obtain at this point in time.

So my question is this, would Brees even be considered if he didn't break a record? Because that yardage record is going to fall a few more times this decade and I don't think we have to give the MVP award out every time a person does it. I mean Matt Stafford came 50 yards away from beating Marino's mark, it doesn't mean what it did.

It's like moving the fences in 100 feet in baseball, having someone break the HR record and then give him the MVP even if there is a guy who had a better overall season.

[RendeR]

Rain: Thats utter horseshit. He's being considered based on the body of work he did all season long. No one is ever considered for NFL MVP based on a SINGLE statistic. Its about what you mean to your team.

The biggest thing I see in Brees' favor is the fact that Rodgers BACKUP through for more yards in a game than Ridger's ever will.

Hence one could posulate (oooooo big word) that Brees is in fact far more valuable to his team than Rodgers is to the packers.

Without brees, the Saints win 5 games this season.

Without Rodgers? The Packers still make the playoffs, if not win the division.

Brees did more, with less talent around him than Rodgers did.

Lets drop this idiotic argument that brees is ONLY being considered due to one single achievement. its ludicrous at best.

[RainMaker]

Rodgers was an absolute lock for the MVP before Brees broke the record. I'm sorry, if there was no record, I don't think we'd be arguing about this. We'd all say how great Brees was, he'd get some votes perhaps, but the award would go to Rodgers. The guy with a 122.5 QB rating on a 15-1 team.

And I don't know if Rodgers has that much more talent around him. That offensive line isn't all that good. He has elite receivers, but Brees has some damn good weapons too.

Rodgers is being punished because he has a good backup and played on a team that didn't throw the ball in blowouts so that he could chase records. If Rodger had thrown the ball as much as Brees, he'd have come close to cracking 6,000.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Rodgers was an absolute lock for the MVP before Brees broke the record.

...

Rodgers is being punished because he has a good backup and played on a team that didn't throw the ball in blowouts so that he could chase records. If Rodger had thrown the ball as much as Brees, he'd have come close to cracking 6,000.

It comes back to the definition of "Valuable". Even when Brees broke the record, folks started saying "Well, he deserves consideration certainly, but that doesn't make him MVP. Maybe offensive player of the year." It was Matt Flynn throwing for 480 yards and 6 TDs that had people go "Hmmm, maybe it wasn't all Rodgers up there in Green Bay, he might not be as valuable as we think to that team."

You can put down records all you want, the only reason Rodgers was being considered for MVP was being undefeated until the KC game, and losing that one opened the door for other considerations.

[RainMaker]

Rodgers was being considered for MVP because he is by far the more efficient quarterback and put up video game numbers on a weekly basis. He is being punished for not throwing 150 more times.

[Suburban Rhythm]

Originally Posted by RendeR

Rain: Thats utter horseshit. He's being considered based on the body of work he did all season long. No one is ever considered for NFL MVP based on a SINGLE statistic. Its about what you mean to your team.

The biggest thing I see in Brees' favor is the fact that Rodgers BACKUP through for more yards in a game than Ridger's ever will.

Hence one could posulate (oooooo big word) that Brees is in fact far more valuable to his team than Rodgers is to the packers.

Without brees, the Saints win 5 games this season.

Without Rodgers? The Packers still make the playoffs, if not win the division.

Brees did more, with less talent around him than Rodgers did.

Lets drop this idiotic argument that brees is ONLY being considered due to one single achievement. its ludicrous at best.

Originally Posted by gstelmack

It comes back to the definition of "Valuable". Even when Brees broke the record, folks started saying "Well, he deserves consideration certainly, but that doesn't make him MVP. Maybe offensive player of the year." It was Matt Flynn throwing for 480 yards and 6 TDs that had people go "Hmmm, maybe it wasn't all Rodgers up there in Green Bay, he might not be as valuable as we think to that team."

You can put down records all you want, the only reason Rodgers was being considered for MVP was being undefeated until the KC game, and losing that one opened the door for other considerations.

+1...er 2 on these.

If you are giving it to the guy who is more valuable, ie his team winning is dependant on his performance, I say Brees.

But, much like the Hart in the NHL, it typically is going to the best player, statistically, and not necessarily the most valuable. Off the top of my head, the last guy to win based on his "valuable-ness" and not just stats was whatever year McNair shared with Peyton - 2003?

[Ksyrup]

Yet another area where baseball has completely different standards than football. Baseball writers go apopletic if you consider the best player to be the "most valuable," yet you rarely hear much more than a muffled throat-clearing about it in the NFL.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by Suburban Rhythm

+1...er 2 on these.

If you are giving it to the guy who is more valuable, ie his team winning is dependant on his performance, I say Brees.

Are we really going to equate a single performance in a game that meant nothing to Green Bay to a body of work that includes a 13 game win streak and a Super Bowl title in a twelve month span?

Let's be honest, that Detroit defense isn't exactly the Ravens... or the Patriots for that matter.

[Lathum]

I think Brees and Rodgers steal votes from each other paving the way for Eli to win it.

[Jas_lov]

Originally Posted by RendeR

Rain: Thats utter horseshit. He's being considered based on the body of work he did all season long. No one is ever considered for NFL MVP based on a SINGLE statistic. Its about what you mean to your team.

The biggest thing I see in Brees' favor is the fact that Rodgers BACKUP through for more yards in a game than Ridger's ever will.

Hence one could posulate (oooooo big word) that Brees is in fact far more valuable to his team than Rodgers is to the packers.

Without brees, the Saints win 5 games this season.

Without Rodgers? The Packers still make the playoffs, if not win the division.

Brees did more, with less talent around him than Rodgers did.

Lets drop this idiotic argument that brees is ONLY being considered due to one single achievement. its ludicrous at best.

I've already said this, if your argument is how good or bad the backup is then Peyton Manning is the 2011 MVP. You can't base your argument on Matt Flynn's performance in one game. Flynn has been in the system for 4 years working with those receivers. Rodgers vs Brees is a debate, but what the backup QB does really has nothing to do with it, it's a debate between Rodgers and Brees and what each has done this season. Remember that Rodgers was able to sit that last game because of how dominant he was the first 15 games.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Good looking schedule for the Bengals in 2012.

Thanks Jets, Broncos, and Raiders for actually being worse at playing under pressure than the Bengals.

[Ksyrup]

JasonLaCanfora Jason La Canfora
Jerry Angelo is out as Bears GM. The team's football staff was informed of the development this morning. More on NFL Network

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by RendeR

Without brees, the Saints win 5 games this season.

Without Rodgers? The Packers still make the playoffs, if not win the division.

Brees did more, with less talent around him than Rodgers did.

*cough*Bullshit!*cough*

Guess you forgot about Darren Sproles who set the single season yardage record or Jimmy Graham who shortly held the receiving record for most yards in a single season by a Tight End or Marques Colston or Pierre Thomas or Devery Henderson...

Since Chase Daniel has never started a game in New Orleans (he's attempted a total of 8 passes), we honestly don't know what he could do with the tools that Brees' has.

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

JasonLaCanfora Jason La Canfora
Jerry Angelo is out as Bears GM. The team's football staff was informed of the development this morning. More on NFL Network

HOOORAY!

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

You can put down records all you want, the only reason Rodgers was being considered for MVP was being undefeated until the KC game, and losing that one opened the door for other considerations.

Let's not forget that Rodgers set a record himself with the highest QB rating in league history. Many people were talking about how he was having one of the best seasons for a QB ever. Brees set a record, but it took him 150 more pass attempts to do it. Rodgers had almost a full yard per pass attempt advantage on Brees (9.2-8.3). He also beats Brees in TD% (9.0-7.0), INT% (1.2-2.1), Y/C (13.5-11.7). It's one thing to argue differences in talent (eventhough I'd disagree with that argument), but to say the only reason Rodgers was being considered for MVP was his record is just completely absurd and not supported by the numbers at all.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Not that I really care who wins the MVP, but if I had a vote, I would definitely vote for Aaron Rodgers.

[Arles]

Since when is having a crappy backup QB a recipe for winning the MVP? Rodgers shouldn't be punished because the Saints have never been good enough to take a game off and see how good Daniels is (or even invested in a better backup QB). Maybe if Brees wouldn't have laid eggs against the juggernaut defenses of St. Louis and Tampa, we could have seen how good Chase Daniels was in week 17.

Another thing to consider, Rodgers had 3 games all season inside of dome. He also had to play 4 games in GB in Nov/Dec, 1 in windy Giants stadium and 1 in KC in December. Brees played 11 games in domes, including 8 of the final 9 games of the season. The one he played outside was the Tennessee game in November where the Saints scored 22 points and nearly lost to Jake Locker on a last second play. When you look at the cold/bad weather games Rodgers, Brady and Manning had to play, their numbers look a lot better. Brees had to play one "bad" weather game all season and it was against a marginal Tennessee team (with no rain/snow and little wind).

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by Arles

Since when is having a crappy backup QB a recipe for winning the MVP? Rodgers shouldn't be punished because the Saints have never been good enough to take a game off and see how good Daniels is (or even invested in a better backup QB). Maybe if Brees wouldn't have laid eggs against the juggernaut defenses of St. Louis and Tampa, we could have seen how good Chase Daniels was in week 17.

Another thing to consider, Rodgers had 3 games all season inside of dome. He also had to play 4 games in GB in Nov/Dec, 1 in windy Giants stadium and 1 in KC in December. Brees played 11 games in domes, including 8 of the final 9 games of the season. The one he played outside was the Tennessee game in November where the Saints scored 22 points and nearly lost to Jake Locker on a last second play. When you look at the cold/bad weather games Rodgers, Brady and Manning had to play, their numbers look a lot better. Brees had to play one "bad" weather game all season and it was against a marginal Tennessee team (with no rain/snow and little wind).

Excellent points. Rodgers would get my MVP vote if I had one.

[Doug5984]

Originally Posted by Arles

Since when is having a crappy backup QB a recipe for winning the MVP? Rodgers shouldn't be punished because the Saints have never been good enough to take a game off and see how good Daniels is (or even invested in a better backup QB). Maybe if Brees wouldn't have laid eggs against the juggernaut defenses of St. Louis and Tampa, we could have seen how good Chase Daniels was in week 17.

I've pretty much stayed out of the debate because I know I'm a homer- and really both players deserve it after the seasons they've had (only one should get it)... but you can't blame Brees for the loss to TBay & St Louis. If you watched those 2 games you would know the loss of coach Payton was a HUGE blow to the team- not to mention how bad the O-line played (missing RT). They are losses, and it really sucks about what happened to Payton, because that cost us the # 2 seed- but you can't put that on Brees. Not to mention Kreutz was so bad against Tampa (the game Payton was in the locker room because he got hurt) he quit football altogether.

Also, are you blaming the Saints for being in a dome, and playing dome teams and being built for the dome? They'd be dumb to build the team for outside, we play in the NFC south, not the North. I'd hope GB is better at playing outside than us. If you want to say that gives GB the advantage if we play there for the NFCCG then I'll give you that, but again that's not fair to hold against Brees.

Really I'd say let Rodgers have it, I wish Brees would win it, and any other year I think he would. However, I think Rodgers did more with less on offense (I think the Saints O has more talent than GB). Sproles, PT, Ingram, Ivory, Graham, Colston, Moore, Henderson, Meachem. 3 of the 5 O-line going to the probowl. Jennings and Nelson are great players but as a whole I would take our O over theirs.

Brees should without question get offensive player of the year though- led the league in TDs (Rodgers sat a full game, Brees sat a few 4th quarters and handed the ball off a lot in blowouts so it's close). Set all-time records in yardage (in 15 games), and completion %. I don't like the QB rating system at all, it is flawed, I think we've all agreed on that at some point? It's a good indicator of overall performance but shouldn't be used to separate 2 evenly matched guys- I like looking at it when I want to see the whole league and if a guy is in the 60s I know he sucks, if he is above 100 I know it was a great year. The QB ratings likes long passes better, I think completion % and efficiency is better, like 3rd down % (57% v 48%).

Both players had amazing years- I don't think either is a wrong choice, I wish Brees would win, but I'm pretty sure it'll be Rodgers

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by hoopsguy

Et tu, EagleFan?

There's a difference between saying that it takes an edge off a bad season and saying that it made the season.

[spleen1015]

Split the MVP between Brees and Rodgers like they did a few years ago with Manning and McNair.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Rodgers is the MVP. No doubt in my mind. Brees made a great run late but I know what I saw throughout the entire season. The argument for Brees is based on one particular statistic and a record that means absolutely nothing in this era.

We just learned this past week that anyone could put up big numbers as the QB for the Packers though.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by Doug5984

Also, are you blaming the Saints for being in a dome, and playing dome teams and being built for the dome? They'd be dumb to build the team for outside, we play in the NFC south, not the North. I'd hope GB is better at playing outside than us. If you want to say that gives GB the advantage if we play there for the NFCCG then I'll give you that, but again that's not fair to hold against Brees.

I don't think you hold it against him, but he did play eight more games in a clean environment. No wind, no rain and a comfortable seventy-two degrees. No receivers slipping on saturated or frozen turf and no balls slipping out of Brees' hand because of a wet ball.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

I don't think you hold it against him, but he did play eight more games in a clean environment. No wind, no rain and a comfortable seventy-two degrees. No receivers slipping on saturated or frozen turf and no balls slipping out of Brees' hand because of a wet ball.

No defensive backs slipping in coverage leaving open receivers.... bad weather actually hurts the coverage more than the passing game (except for high winds).

[Doug5984]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Rodgers is the MVP. No doubt in my mind. Brees made a great run late but I know what I saw throughout the entire season. The argument for Brees is based on one particular statistic and a record that means absolutely nothing in this era.

One particular statistic?

How about breaking the yardage record (you're meaningless record)- also means leading the league in yardage.

Leading the league in TD passes.
Breaking the greatest show on turf yardage record
Breaking his own completion % record (this is a % record, so it will always stand the test of time)
Having 13- 300 yard games
Winning 13 games (tied 2nd in league).

So like I said before, you want to give it Rodgers that's fine- but don't undercut Brees in your argument and say he only had 1 statistic.

[Doug5984]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

I don't think you hold it against him, but he did play eight more games in a clean environment. No wind, no rain and a comfortable seventy-two degrees. No receivers slipping on saturated or frozen turf and no balls slipping out of Brees' hand because of a wet ball.

I'll agree with what EaglesFan says as well about coverage slipping, hell in the first game we played in GB that played a huge role. Patrick Robinson slipped down more than a few times leading to open receivers.

Also, it's a very cold 72 in the dome- if you don't have a long sleeve shirt it can get chilly before kickoff.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Doug5984

I've pretty much stayed out of the debate because I know I'm a homer- and really both players deserve it after the seasons they've had (only one should get it)... but you can't blame Brees for the loss to TBay & St Louis. If you watched those 2 games you would know the loss of coach Payton was a HUGE blow to the team- not to mention how bad the O-line played (missing RT). They are losses, and it really sucks about what happened to Payton, because that cost us the # 2 seed- but you can't put that on Brees. Not to mention Kreutz was so bad against Tampa (the game Payton was in the locker room because he got hurt) he quit football altogether.

And Green Bay had 4 OL and its best WR out injured against KC and lost. Usually losses happen in those situations. My point was that it seems Rodgers is being punished in the MVP debate because A) they have a good backup QB and B) they did so much better than the rest of the NFC they could afford to not play starters the last game and still get the #1 seed.

Also, are you blaming the Saints for being in a dome, and playing dome teams and being built for the dome? They'd be dumb to build the team for outside, we play in the NFC south, not the North. I'd hope GB is better at playing outside than us. If you want to say that gives GB the advantage if we play there for the NFCCG then I'll give you that, but again that's not fair to hold against Brees.

I'm not blaming them, I'm just saying it's a factor. People routinely bring up the quality of defenses both Rodgers and Brees faced in the MVP debate. I feel that playing 11/16 games in a dome is just a big of a factor in having good passing numbers. That's why I have a lot more respect for someone like Manning who had a ton of bad weather games and still put up really good passing numbers. Same goes for Brady and Rodgers.

It just seems that people are using Brees' "volume" of numbers over Rodgers' efficiency. And, if that's the case, all the good weather situations Brees played in should factor in.

Brees should without question get offensive player of the year though- led the league in TDs (Rodgers sat a full game, Brees sat a few 4th quarters and handed the ball off a lot in blowouts so it's close). Set all-time records in yardage (in 15 games), and completion %. I don't like the QB rating system at all, it is flawed, I think we've all agreed on that at some point? It's a good indicator of overall performance but shouldn't be used to separate 2 evenly matched guys- I like looking at it when I want to see the whole league and if a guy is in the 60s I know he sucks, if he is above 100 I know it was a great year. The QB ratings likes long passes better, I think completion % and efficiency is better, like 3rd down % (57% v 48%).

Both players had amazing years- I don't think either is a wrong choice, I wish Brees would win, but I'm pretty sure it'll be Rodgers

Brees had a great season and set a lot of volume passing records because the Saints chose to pass a lot more than most other teams (esp with big leads). Again, that's their choice, but I think there's something to be said for efficiency and margin for error. Rodgers had 1 more total TD (add rushing and passing) despite playing 1 fewer game. He also had half the interceptions and averaged much higher ypc and ypa. In the history of the NFL, it is almost unheard of to have a 68+% completion rate, average 9.25 per attempt - yet have a TD-INT rate of 45-6. Manning's 2004 season is widely considered the best ever and he had a 9.17 ypa, 49 TDs, 10 INT and a 67.6% completion rate.

[Doug5984]

Originally Posted by Arles

Brees had a great season and set a lot of volume passing records because the Saints chose to pass a lot more than most other teams (esp with big leads). Again, that's their choice, but I think there's something to be said for efficiency and margin for error. Rodgers had 1 more total TD (add rushing and passing) despite playing 1 fewer game. He also had half the interceptions and averaged much higher ypc and ypa. In the history of the NFL, it is almost unheard of to have a 68+% completion rate, average 9.25 per attempt - yet have a TD-INT rate of 45-6. Manning's 2004 season is widely considered the best ever and he had a 9.17 ypa, 49 TDs, 10 INT and a 67.6% completion rate.

In my "give it to Rodgers" I think what pushed me over the edge that way was the INTs, that's huge and should play a big part. However, I think we'll just agree to disagree on the yardage, the offense as a whole put up a ton of yardage and ran a ton more plays- the plays is because we run a lot of short stuff, that's our style, we move the chains and hit a few big plays but not as many as GB... it's mostly about efficiently moving the ball down the field. To me, I'd rather have the higher completion %, and the higher 3rd down %, that's the type of offense I like- YPC and YPA are not as important- we run a lot of short passes that are basically runs to the outside, but use Sproles (86 catches)- it brings down the YPC/YPA.

[Suburban Rhythm]

I don't think I saw this mentioned earlier in the thread

Antonio Brown became the first player in NFL history with 1000 receiving yards and 1000 return yards in the same season.

Seems odd to me it hadn't happened earlier, but as I thought about it I guess it made sense. Typically teams don't use starting WR on KR, where the bulk of his return yardage is coming from. It took a perfect storm of him racking up return yards early, then replacing Ward opposite Mike Wallace, to build on his numbers he'd accumulated as the #3 WR.

[Doug5984]

I'd have thought Derrick Mason had done it before, but I just checked and he came close but he didn't.

[Suburban Rhythm]

I was thinking someone like Jermaine Lewis. He never reached 1,000 receiving yards, and the seasons he was a regular part of the offense, he wasn't used as a KR much, only a PR.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

We just learned this past week that anyone could put up big numbers as the QB for the Packers though.

We also learned anyone can put up big numbers in the NFL as a QB since you can't play defense.

[Matthean]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

We just learned this past week that anyone could put up big numbers as the QB for the Packers though.

You are giving Sanchez far too much credit.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Doug5984

One particular statistic?

How about breaking the yardage record (you're meaningless record)- also means leading the league in yardage.

Leading the league in TD passes.
Breaking the greatest show on turf yardage record
Breaking his own completion % record (this is a % record, so it will always stand the test of time)
Having 13- 300 yard games
Winning 13 games (tied 2nd in league).

So like I said before, you want to give it Rodgers that's fine- but don't undercut Brees in your argument and say he only had 1 statistic.

And Rodgers would have broken many of those had Rodgers thrown 150 more times this season. The most impressive thing about Rodgers numbers is on how few passes he did it with.

[Grover]

Most surprising stat I heard all weekend: Stevie Johnson is the first ever Bills WR with back to back 1,000 yard seasons. I was even more surprised to see that Andre Reed only did it four times.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Grover

Most surprising stat I heard all weekend: Stevie Johnson is the first ever Bills WR with back to back 1,000 yard seasons. I was even more surprised to see that Andre Reed only did it four times.

I agree with you. That really made me scratch my head, as i figured that Reed would have done it, perhaps as many as 4 years in a row.

[RainMaker]

I guess those Bills teams didn't throw that much. Looking it up, Kelly never broke 4000 yards in a season. Only threw more than 30 TDs once. They sure did run the ball well though.

[JediKooter]

And the "Official 2011 Self Destruction" for the Raiders has come to a successful conclusion...

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

And the "Official 2011 Self Destruction" for the Raiders has come to a successful conclusion...

They fire Jackson?