Week 3 MNF: Kansas City Chiefs (1-1) @ Green Bay Packers 2-0)

[wwharton]

Quote: Originally Posted by areobee401

Why is it ok to credit hockey goalies and pitchers in baseball for team achievements but not quarterbacks? Or on the flip side lack of success in those areas. Pitchers and goalies are constantly judged by their post season record and success beyond the regular season, but when I see the same done to quarterbacks, it's always the team achievement argument. This is not to say I agree that quarterbacks should be, just that I can understand why doing so is valid if we're being fair.

I agree with King, but who says it's okay in those sports? Nobody has cared about pitcher wins in years, and whether you think it's good or bad for the sport, the fact that a goalie catching hot can completely change the landscape of the playoffs in hockey takes away from the individual player ranking imo.

They're all stats... they should be used in addition with other factors. When you try to use them as THE factor, it's always surrounded by these questions. Good reason for that.

Quote: Originally Posted by ProfessaPackMan

It's almost the same in Basketball, depending on the player.

Basketball is a little different because only 5 players are on the court at a time, and they all play all aspects of the game. The best player on a basketball team really does have a greater impact on the team's success than other sports. But even still, it's stupid to judge based on titles alone (or lack there of). While Jordan was destroying the league, no players not on the Bulls were gonna win a title... does that make the superstars worse than players that won a ring after Jordan retired? Plenty of other examples of why using it as the end all, be all is just faulty logic.

[areobee401]

As I did there is a place for both stats and team W/L record when it comes to discussing the quarterback position. As I also said there are too many other variables in team sports to pin a win or loss on a singular player. But if sports fans are going to use W/L records and stats to prop up or tear down pitchers and goalies, someone should be allowed to do the same with a QB in my opinion. It's all worth taking into consideration when forming an opinion of a player.

[wwharton]

Quote: Originally Posted by areobee401

As I did there is a place for both stats and team W/L record when it comes to discussing the quarterback position. As I also said there are too many other variables in team sports to pin a win or loss on a singular player. But if sports fans are going to use W/L records and stats to prop up or tear down pitchers and goalies, someone should be allowed to do the same with a QB in my opinion. It's all worth taking into consideration when forming an opinion of a player.

That's faulty logic and I don't know why people like to go down that road so often.

"If people want to improperly use stats then I don't see why..." is not a good argument. You do see why. You've stated why you're already better than all of those people when it comes to the argument at hand, so why give their crappy analysis any validation?

It shouldn't be done with pitchers (real analysts haven't used W/L for pitchers in over a decade at least), shouldn't be done for goalies, shouldn't be done for QBs, etc, etc, etc.

Brady winning so many SBs is significant... but the significance is in the details of his roles in each of those seasons, playoffs and championship games. That's the difference between Rodgers' ring and Dilfer's ring. But you already know that... just stop listening to idiots who don't want to dig deeper than rings.

[areobee401]

Agree in that the significance is in the details. Which is why I am open to W/L records when discussing how a QB can be viewed. The team's record helps tell part of the story.

Let's use guys like Rodgers and Brady as an example. Beyond all physical tools the two have, it's the mental stuff that puts them above so many. Look at Peyton Manning as another example. Denver is struggling to run and the defense is keeping them in games. Manning has a lost some zip on his ball, but is as mentally sharp as ever. The final TD pass on Sunday night was a thing of beauty. Few guys in the league make those adjustments at the line to get that throw off.

The whole number of rings thing I'll give you, that's the ultimate team goal. A lot of luck goes into getting there anyway. W/L on the other hand can help mold opinions. Could be I'm old school for giving such a thing consideration,. But to me sometimes a QB can be responsible for a win or loss. And those specific games can be just as important to me as TD and passing yard totals.

[ubernoob]

You have to factor Ls like Rodgers took in his first playoff game like you factor his playoff win against the Bears though too.

I'm in 2 schools of thought at the same time on it. Take the Seattle game last year. On one hand, he did enough for us to win the game. If our special teams didn't decide to lick windows for a play we're talking another SB chance.

On the other hand, we lost so obviously he didn't do enough to win.

There's a happy medium between those two schools of thought, which is where the team comes in... but we haven't seen enough people in this line of thinking.

I don't know if when it's all said and done that he will have the best career out of any QB to date.

I just know he's the best QB to play the game thus far, beyond any shadow of a doubt in my mind.

[ProfessaPackMan]

Basically in all of these GOAT discussions when it comes to certain athletes in any sport, it comes down to context, which lets be real, most people don't take into consideration at all and I never get that at all.

[ANDROMADA 1]

Quote: Originally Posted by CM Hooe

So ProFootballFocus gave Aaron Rodgers a negative grade for his efforts in Green Bay's victory yesterday evening. They cite two plays - a sack-fumble and the dropped pick - as more important than what he did in the 60-some-odd other offensive snaps he played which resulted in five passing touchdowns. This doesn't sit well with me, obviously, lol.

I heard this today on the radio. One of the dumbest things I have ever heard about a player. You cannot treat football like baseball using metrics like that. I mean really. 3oo yards, 5 tds is avg.......smh Sure he made one bad throw which did not get picked, i mean the guy is human, maybe...lol

[Cyros]

The PFF defense of his grade:

https://www.profootballfocus.com/blo...egative-grade/

Quote:

The other three touchdowns, however, were passes thrown short of the end zone on speed outs to Randall Cobb. Were they bad throws? No, they were expected throws with the credit going to Cobb for fighting through contact or defeating the coverage with speed to the edge. That makes these zero-graded throws: Three passes that have a massive effect on Rodgers’ statistical performance but do not increase his grade.

Quote:

Context is crucial with everything in football, and if you believe we are saying that Rodgers had a poor game last night because his grade has a minus in front of it, then let me set your mind at ease; I do not think Rodgers played a poor, subpar game last night and neither does anybody else at Pro Football Focus. Rodgers did his job last night, but his job was executing simple throws, putting the ball quickly in the hands of receivers like Randall Cobb in favorable matchups on short throws, and allowing others to do the heavy lifting.

Quote:

The greatness of Rodgers’ performance last night was in the intangibles. Recognizing the blitz, drawing the defense offsides, catching the Chiefs in bad situations and exploiting those scenarios with simple passes to open receivers. But you cannot — and we do not try to — quantify intangibles, or what comes pre-snap. Our system grades what can be graded — the execution of the play post-snap — and in that regard Rodgers did not stand out in the same way that his statistics did.