WhiskeySam
14 years ago

Who wanted to know about passer ratings and when was this?

"Zero2Cool" wrote:



Are you asking about what I'm referring to in the article?

When shown the list of single-season sack leaders, Rodgers said he didnt make much of it without knowing the teams records in those seasons, the quarterbacks passer ratings and interceptions.
Nemo me impune lacessit
Zero2Cool
14 years ago

Who wanted to know about passer ratings and when was this?

"WhiskeySam" wrote:



Are you asking about what I'm referring to in the article?

When shown the list of single-season sack leaders, Rodgers said he didnt make much of it without knowing the teams records in those seasons, the quarterbacks passer ratings and interceptions.

"Zero2Cool" wrote:



I guess I am missing the point of why you mentioned it.
UserPostedImage
Stevetarded
14 years ago

His attitude that there's nothing wrong with taking a sack really bothers me. He's lost 200 yards in sacks this season. Understanding when to throw the ball away and save your team field position is part of knowing how to manage a game. Every time he stands there holding the ball is one more time he can get hit and fumble or be injured more than he already is.

"WhiskeySam" wrote:



That isn't his attitude so you don't have to be bothered.

"Stevetarded" wrote:



You might want to read this line again: You dont want to take sacks, Rodgers said. But do those hurt you in those situations? Id say no.

If your only option is taking a sack or throw the ball up for grabs, then yes take the sack. Too many times this year, Rodgers has had other options that hurt the team less and doesn't take them.

I haven't even touched on the fact he wanted to know about passer ratings which goes back to the point RedSox has been making in multiple threads about QBs needing to sacrifice their ratings for the benefit of the team.

"WhiskeySam" wrote:



You might want to reread the whole thing and make an effort to try to understand what he was saying rather than just reading what you want to and making stuff up about it.

It seemed pretty obvious to me that he was referring to taking sacks on 3rd down when it doesn't bring you out of FG range.

"And Rodgers argues there are times a sack has minimal cost, namely, on third downs if it doesnt take the team out of field-goal range."

You dont want to take sacks, Rodgers said. But do those hurt you in those situations? Id say no.
blank
Zero2Cool
14 years ago

Who wanted to know about passer ratings and when was this?

"WhiskeySam" wrote:



Are you asking about what I'm referring to in the article?

When shown the list of single-season sack leaders, Rodgers said he didnt make much of it without knowing the teams records in those seasons, the quarterbacks passer ratings and interceptions.

"Zero2Cool" wrote:



That's about sacks, not just QB ratings. If you throw for fewer interceptions and higher QB rating, you do know that NORMALLY that does translate into wins, right? I think that's the point he's trying to get at.

Or I could believe it like you and think that Rodgers is playing NFL like I play Madden, gimmie some stats!! :)


When shown the list of single-season sack leaders, Rodgers said he didnt make much of it without knowing the teams records in those seasons, the quarterbacks passer ratings and interceptions.

Were they bad teams or protection issues? Rodgers said. Or were they Randall Cunningham, where hes an athletic guy, the second all-time single-season rushing yards for a quarterback? Was he trying to make plays, or was it schematic? We dont want to get sacked. Im trying to make a conscious effort, but trying to play at the same time the way Ive always played.


UserPostedImage
WhiskeySam
14 years ago

His attitude that there's nothing wrong with taking a sack really bothers me. He's lost 200 yards in sacks this season. Understanding when to throw the ball away and save your team field position is part of knowing how to manage a game. Every time he stands there holding the ball is one more time he can get hit and fumble or be injured more than he already is.

"Stevetarded" wrote:



That isn't his attitude so you don't have to be bothered.

"WhiskeySam" wrote:



You might want to read this line again: You dont want to take sacks, Rodgers said. But do those hurt you in those situations? Id say no.

If your only option is taking a sack or throw the ball up for grabs, then yes take the sack. Too many times this year, Rodgers has had other options that hurt the team less and doesn't take them.

I haven't even touched on the fact he wanted to know about passer ratings which goes back to the point RedSox has been making in multiple threads about QBs needing to sacrifice their ratings for the benefit of the team.

"Stevetarded" wrote:



You might want to reread the whole thing and make an effort to try to understand what he was saying rather than just reading what you want to and making stuff up about it.

It seemed pretty obvious to me that he was referring to taking sacks on 3rd down when it doesn't bring you out of FG range.

"And Rodgers argues there are times a sack has minimal cost, namely, on third downs if it doesnt take the team out of field-goal range."

You dont want to take sacks, Rodgers said. But do those hurt you in those situations? Id say no.

"WhiskeySam" wrote:



And he's still wrong. He's acting like there's no option but take a sack or throw a pick. What about throwing it away? What about checking down as was shown in another thread where he ignored multiple open receivers in front of him? How about scrambling? What about the risk of fumbling when taking these sacks? How about injury since he hasn't practiced all week? Taken with how he's playing, his comments indicate to me that he thinks as long as the QB has a high rating and isn't throwing picks, it's okay to take sacks. It's not that simple. That list is pretty damning in that great QBs do not pile up huge sack totals, and a lot of people here like to make Rodgers out to be a great QB. I guess I forgot to put on my Green and Gold glasses before posting here again. Let me do that. "Oh yeah, Aaron Rodgers is the best QB in the league, and possibly the best ever. There is no grounds for criticizing anything he does or says." Better?
Nemo me impune lacessit
Stevetarded
14 years ago

His attitude that there's nothing wrong with taking a sack really bothers me. He's lost 200 yards in sacks this season. Understanding when to throw the ball away and save your team field position is part of knowing how to manage a game. Every time he stands there holding the ball is one more time he can get hit and fumble or be injured more than he already is.

"WhiskeySam" wrote:



That isn't his attitude so you don't have to be bothered.

"Stevetarded" wrote:



You might want to read this line again: You dont want to take sacks, Rodgers said. But do those hurt you in those situations? Id say no.

If your only option is taking a sack or throw the ball up for grabs, then yes take the sack. Too many times this year, Rodgers has had other options that hurt the team less and doesn't take them.

I haven't even touched on the fact he wanted to know about passer ratings which goes back to the point RedSox has been making in multiple threads about QBs needing to sacrifice their ratings for the benefit of the team.

"WhiskeySam" wrote:



You might want to reread the whole thing and make an effort to try to understand what he was saying rather than just reading what you want to and making stuff up about it.

It seemed pretty obvious to me that he was referring to taking sacks on 3rd down when it doesn't bring you out of FG range.

"And Rodgers argues there are times a sack has minimal cost, namely, on third downs if it doesnt take the team out of field-goal range."

You dont want to take sacks, Rodgers said. But do those hurt you in those situations? Id say no.

"Stevetarded" wrote:



And he's still wrong. He's acting like there's no option but take a sack or throw a pick. What about throwing it away? What about checking down as was shown in another thread where he ignored multiple open receivers in front of him? How about scrambling? What about the risk of fumbling when taking these sacks? How about injury since he hasn't practiced all week? Taken with how he's playing, his comments indicate to me that he thinks as long as the QB has a high rating and isn't throwing picks, it's okay to take sacks. It's not that simple. That list is pretty damning in that great QBs do not pile up huge sack totals, and a lot of people here like to make Rodgers out to be a great QB. I guess I forgot to put on my Green and Gold glasses before posting here again. Let me do that. "Oh yeah, Aaron Rodgers is the best QB in the league, and possibly the best ever. There is no grounds for criticizing anything he does or says." Better?

"WhiskeySam" wrote:



He didn't say he thinks it's good to get sacked he said there are certain times where getting sacked is a minimal cost. Getting sacked on 3rd down is indeed a minimal cost. His first move on 3rd downs if the protection breaks is to scramble and buy time for guys to get open for the first down. If he throws it away in that situation it's 4th down, if he takes a sack while trying to extend the play it's 4th down = minimal cost.

Now go ahead and find some more of his quotes to take out of context and complain about.
blank
Zero2Cool
14 years ago
Why are some claiming that others are claiming Rodgers is the best QB in the league? He's not, and I haven't seen anyone state he was. Is that a little over reaction on some replies to posts?

Rodgers has his ups and his downs. Luckily for us, more ups than downs. So far.

As I've said for WEEKS, he needs to hit his check downs and if there are none, the coach needs to call some plays he does have them.

Rodgers has missed some open guys, but not as many as most think and he's not the only QB in the league that does it. All of them do it from time to time.
UserPostedImage
WhiskeySam
14 years ago

Who wanted to know about passer ratings and when was this?

"Zero2Cool" wrote:



Are you asking about what I'm referring to in the article?

When shown the list of single-season sack leaders, Rodgers said he didnt make much of it without knowing the teams records in those seasons, the quarterbacks passer ratings and interceptions.

"WhiskeySam" wrote:



That's about sacks, not just QB ratings. If you throw for fewer interceptions and higher QB rating, you do know that NORMALLY that does translate into wins, right? I think that's the point he's trying to get at.

Or I could believe it like you and think that Rodgers is playing NFL like I play Madden, gimmie some stats!! :)


When shown the list of single-season sack leaders, Rodgers said he didnt make much of it without knowing the teams records in those seasons, the quarterbacks passer ratings and interceptions.

Were they bad teams or protection issues? Rodgers said. Or were they Randall Cunningham, where hes an athletic guy, the second all-time single-season rushing yards for a quarterback? Was he trying to make plays, or was it schematic? We dont want to get sacked. Im trying to make a conscious effort, but trying to play at the same time the way Ive always played.

"Zero2Cool" wrote:



The reason I brought up the rating again is because this is the third thread now it's been relevant to. Why does Rodgers want to know what the QBs' ratings were? Why is that at all relevant? The QB rating does not factor in sacks so rating has no bearing on if sack totals are too high.

Let's run through the math again just as an example of how the QB rating is not as great an indicator of QB play as it is made out to be. The QB rating takes into account 4 things: completion %, yards per attempt, TDs per attempt, and INTs per attempt. Right now Rodgers has a rating of 110.4 based on 147 completions, 225 attempts, 1989 yards, 14 TDs, and 2 INTs. He also has taken 31 sacks for 193 yards lost with two fumbles and a safety. For the sake of this argument, let's assume every sack he had the option of throwing the ball away (I know this isn't true, but we're using this assumption to show how the rating formula works). If he throws the ball away 16 times, his attempts go up to 241, and his rating falls to 103.2. If he throws the ball away all 31 times, his attempts go up to 256, and his rating falls to 97.3. A QB with a 97.3 rating who has taken 0 sacks, lost 193 fewer yards, hasn't fumbed or taken a safety is a better QB than one who has but has a 110.4 rating.
Nemo me impune lacessit
Zero2Cool
14 years ago
Yep, you missed the point of his asking completely. You're taking a few words out of a whole thought and stretching it, big time.

I'm out of that discussion. You're too off key for me to continue this one with.

I'm sure because of that though I'm wearing green and gold goggles and think Rodgers is supreme, right?

:) (thats right, im smiling at you!)
UserPostedImage
IronMan
14 years ago
+1 WhiskeySam
Fan Shout
dfosterf (1h) : Surprisingly low initially is my guess cap wise, but gonna pay the piper after that
dfosterf (1h) : The number on Love is going to be brutal.
Zero2Cool (1h) : May 3rd. Extension day for Jordan Love. (soonest)
Zero2Cool (20h) : USFL MVP QB Alex McGough moved to WR. So that's why no WR drafted!
earthquake (23h) : Packers draft starters at safety ever few years. Collins, Clinton-Dix, Savage
beast (1-May) : Why can't the rookies be a day 1 starter? Especially when we grabbed 3 of them at the position
dfosterf (1-May) : Not going to be shocked if Gilmore goes to the Lions.
dfosterf (1-May) : I hear you dhazer, but my guess would be Gilmore Colts and Howard Vikings from what little has been reported.
Mucky Tundra (30-Apr) : S learn from McKinney who learns from Hafley who learns from the fans. Guaranteed Super Bowl
Zero2Cool (30-Apr) : could*
Zero2Cool (29-Apr) : Safeties should learn from Xavier.
dhazer (29-Apr) : And what about grabbing a Gilmore or Howard at CB ? Those are all Free Agents left
dhazer (29-Apr) : out of curiosity do they try and sign Simmons or Hyde to let these young safeties learn from, they can't be day 1 starters.
Zero2Cool (29-Apr) : I miss having Sam Shields.
Zero2Cool (29-Apr) : Not that he's making excuses, just pointing it out
Zero2Cool (29-Apr) : That's for dang sure. Make our erratic kicker have no excuse!
packerfanoutwest (28-Apr) : having a great long snapper is gold
Zero2Cool (28-Apr) : LaFleur looking like he had some weight. Coachin will do that lol
Zero2Cool (28-Apr) : Thanks Mucky and whomever created topcos for each pick!
Zero2Cool (28-Apr) : Insane about Kingsley
dfosterf (28-Apr) : Putring it here so Mucky sees it. He was our guy!
dfosterf (28-Apr) : Bowden long snapper Wisconsin. Consensus best LS in college.
dfosterf (28-Apr) : We got Peter Bowde
dfosterf (28-Apr) : I personally interpret that as a partial tear that can be recovered from with rehab
dfosterf (28-Apr) : MLF said Kingsley Enagbare did NOT tear his ACL and did NOT require surgery, and that he is "looking good" for the 2024 season!
beast (28-Apr) : T.O. son signs with the 49ers
Mucky Tundra (28-Apr) : damn those vikings
beast (27-Apr) : UDFA Vikings sign TE – Trey Knox, South Carolina
beast (27-Apr) : Kitchen was all high from Miami, he was more lucky than talented in 2022 and it showed in 2023
beast (27-Apr) : Reportedly Packers have UDFAs Jennings and Jones
beast (27-Apr) : OL – Donovan Jennings, USF OT – Trente Jones, Michigan
TheKanataThrilla (27-Apr) : Interesting draft. A bit shocked that we didn't select an early CB. Definitely have Safety help. Pretty happy overall.
dhazer (27-Apr) : wow the last 2 picks are really stupid and probably will be special teams players Top 10 draft pick next year book it
TheKanataThrilla (27-Apr) : I think he ended up with a terrible RAS score
dhazer (27-Apr) : Anyone know what went on with Kitchens from Florida? At 1 point he was to be the Packers 1st round and he is way down the board now
Martha Careful (27-Apr) : Z, could you please combine my thread with yours please. I obviously did not see it when I Created it
Martha Careful (26-Apr) : Re: 'Kool-Aid' McKinstry. Other than Icky Woods, has there ever been a good NFLer with a childish nickname?
Martha Careful (26-Apr) : Packers looking to trade up
Martha Careful (26-Apr) : Flag?
Martha Careful (26-Apr) : Sag?
Nonstopdrivel (26-Apr) : It rhymes with "bag."
beast (26-Apr) : Family? That's Deadpool's F word
Nonstopdrivel (26-Apr) : Not THAT f-word.
Zero2Cool (26-Apr) : fuck
beast (25-Apr) : 49ers are Cap Tight
beast (25-Apr) : Fuck
Mucky Tundra (25-Apr) : Kanata, I will be when I'm on my lunch later
TheKanataThrilla (25-Apr) : Love you NSD
Nonstopdrivel (25-Apr) : Huh. I guess the F-word is censored in this fan shout.
Nonstopdrivel (25-Apr) : Anyone who doesn't hang out in the chat probably smokes pole.
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2023 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 10 @ 3:25 PM
Bears
Sunday, Sep 17 @ 12:00 PM
Falcons
Sunday, Sep 24 @ 12:00 PM
SAINTS
Thursday, Sep 28 @ 7:15 PM
LIONS
Monday, Oct 9 @ 7:15 PM
Raiders
Sunday, Oct 22 @ 3:25 PM
Broncos
Sunday, Oct 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Nov 5 @ 12:00 PM
RAMS
Sunday, Nov 12 @ 12:00 PM
Steelers
Sunday, Nov 19 @ 12:00 PM
CHARGERS
Thursday, Nov 23 @ 11:30 AM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 3 @ 7:20 PM
CHIEFS
Monday, Dec 11 @ 7:15 PM
Giants
Sunday, Dec 17 @ 12:00 PM
BUCCANEERS
Sunday, Dec 24 @ 12:00 PM
Panthers
Sunday, Dec 31 @ 7:20 PM
Vikings
Sunday, Jan 7 @ 3:25 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Jan 14 @ 3:30 PM
Cowboys
Saturday, Jan 20 @ 7:15 PM
49ers
Recent Topics
16h / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

16h / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

20h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

1-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / greengold

1-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

1-May / Packers Draft Threads / dfosterf

30-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

29-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

29-Apr / Packers Draft Threads / Zero2Cool

29-Apr / Packers Draft Threads / Mucky Tundra

29-Apr / Packers Draft Threads / Mucky Tundra

29-Apr / Packers Draft Threads / Mucky Tundra

28-Apr / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Zero2Cool

28-Apr / Packers Draft Threads / Mucky Tundra

28-Apr / Packers Draft Threads / Martha Careful

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.