WhiskeySam
15 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
15 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
15 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
15 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
15 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
15 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
15 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
15 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
15 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
15 years ago
+1 WhiskeySam
Fan Shout
Martha Careful (18h) : thank you Mucky for sticking up for me
Martha Careful (18h) : some of those people are smarter than you zero. However Pete Carroll is not
Mucky Tundra (22h) : Rude!
beast (22h) : Martha? 😋
Zero2Cool (24-Jan) : Raiders hired someone from the elderly home.
dfosterf (24-Jan) : I'm going with a combination of the two.
beast (24-Jan) : Either the Cowboys have no idea what they're doing, or they're targeting their former OC, currently the Eagles OC
Zero2Cool (23-Jan) : Fake news. Cowboys say no
Zero2Cool (23-Jan) : Mystery candidate in the Cowboys head coaching search believed to be Packers ST Coordinator Rich Bisaccia.
beast (23-Jan) : Also why do both NYC teams have absolutely horrible OL for over a decade?
beast (23-Jan) : I wonder why the Jets always hire defensive coaches to be head coach
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Still HC positions available out there. I wonder if Hafley pops up for one
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Trent Baalke is out as the Jaguars GM.
dfosterf (22-Jan) : Jeff Hafley would have been a better choice, fortunately they don't know that. Someone will figure that out next off season
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Aaron Glenn Planning To Take Jets HC Job
dfosterf (22-Jan) : Martha- C'est mon boulot! 😁
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Thank you
wpr (22-Jan) : Z, glad you are feeling better.
wpr (22-Jan) : My son and D-I-L work for UM. It's a way to pick on them.
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Thank you. I rarely get sick, and even more rarely sick to the point I can't work.
wpr (22-Jan) : Beast- back to yesterday, I CAN say OSU your have been Michigan IF the odds of making the playoffs were more urgent.
dfosterf (22-Jan) : Glad to hear you are feeling a bit better.
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : I've been near death ill last several days, finally feel less dead and site issues.
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : It is a big deal. This host is having issues. It's frustrating.
Martha Careful (22-Jan) : just kidding...it was down
Martha Careful (22-Jan) : you were blocked yesterday, due to a a recalcitrant demeanor yesterday in the penalty box for a recalcitrant demeanor
dfosterf (22-Jan) : Was that site shutdown on your end or mine? No big deal, just curious
beast (21-Jan) : That way teams like Indiana and SMU don't make the conference championships by simply avoiding all the other good teams in their own confere
beast (21-Jan) : Also, with these "Super Conferences" instead of a single conference champion, have 4 teams make a Conference playoffs.
beast (21-Jan) : Also in college football, is a bye week a good or bad thing?
Martha Careful (21-Jan) : The tournament format was fine. Seeding could use some work.
beast (21-Jan) : You can't assume Ohio State would of won the Michigan game...
beast (21-Jan) : Rankings were 1) Oregon 2) Georgia 3) Texas 4) Penn State 5) Notre Dame 6) Ohio State, none of the rest mattered
wpr (21-Jan) : Texas, ND and OSU would have been fighting for the final 2 slots.
wpr (21-Jan) : Oregon and Georgia were locks. Without the luxury of extra playoff berths, Ohios St would have been more focused on Michigan game.
wpr (21-Jan) : Zero, no. If there were only 4 teams Ohio State would have been one of them. Boise St and ASU would not have been selected.
Zero2Cool (21-Jan) : So that was 7 vs 8, that means in BCS they never would made it?
Martha Careful (21-Jan) : A great game. Give ND credit for coming back, although I am please with the outcome.
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : FG to make it academic
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : and there's the dagger
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : ooooo 8 point game with 4 minutes to go!
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : ooooooooohhhhhh he missed!
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Ooooo that completion makes things VERY interesting
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Game not over yet
beast (21-Jan) : Oh yeah, Georgia starting quarterback season ending elbow injury
beast (21-Jan) : Sadly something happened to Georgia... they should be playing in this game against Ohio State
beast (21-Jan) : I thought Ohio State and Texas were both better than Notre Dame & Penn State
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Notre Lame getting rolled
Martha Careful (21-Jan) : Ohio State just got punched in the gut. Lets see how they respond
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Notre Lame vs the Luckeyes, bleh
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2024 Packers Schedule
Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM
Eagles
Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
COLTS
Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
Titans
Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
Rams
Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM
CARDINALS
Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
TEXANS
Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM
Jaguars
Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM
Bears
Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM
49ERS
Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM
DOLPHINS
Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM
Seahawks
Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM
SAINTS
Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM
Vikings
Sunday, Jan 5 @ 12:00 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Jan 12 @ 3:30 PM
Eagles
Recent Topics
8h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

9h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

18h / Random Babble / Martha Careful

21-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

21-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

19-Jan / Random Babble / Martha Careful

18-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

17-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

17-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

17-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

16-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2025 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.