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
Zero2Cool (4h) : Packers were not selected for the 2025 Hall of Fame game.
dfosterf (6h) : PFOW Out of our division would be a good thing imo
Zero2Cool (8h) : Jameson Williams is done at 24 years old? What? He's a WR, not QB. I'm missing something here haha
wpr (8h) : Tomorrow is almost here.
packerfanoutwest (8h) : would you want him if Pack needed a back up qb?
packerfanoutwest (8h) : JW is done......stick a fork in him
Zero2Cool (10h) : You should. He goes to AFC that helps Packers.
packerfanoutwest (21h) : don't care
Zero2Cool (22-Apr) : Lions shopping Jameson Williams?
packerfanoutwest (22-Apr) : Packers General Manager Brian Gutekunst says Green Bay’s roster can win, even without adding anyone in the draft.
Zero2Cool (22-Apr) : It's a poor design. New site has SignalR like our gameday chat
wpr (22-Apr) : Ah today's Shout was very quick to post.
wpr (22-Apr) : now 3
Zero2Cool (22-Apr) : Who? What?
beast (22-Apr) : What is he supposed to say? He doesn't want players currently on the team?
Martha Careful (21-Apr) : meh
Zero2Cool (21-Apr) : Sounds like Walker and Wyatt will be with Packers for beyond 2026
Zero2Cool (21-Apr) : It's so awesome.
Zero2Cool (21-Apr) : new site fan shout post fast
wpr (21-Apr) : Slow posting in Fan shout.
wpr (21-Apr) : Only 4
wpr (21-Apr) : Only 4
Zero2Cool (21-Apr) : If only we had a topic to read about and discuss it. That's something new website must have!!!
dfosterf (21-Apr) : Justice Musqueda over at Acme Packing put up an excellent synopsis of the Packers 1st round options this am
wpr (19-Apr) : 5 days
beast (18-Apr) : 6 days
wpr (17-Apr) : 7 days
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : sounds like Packers don't get good compensation, Jaire staying
dfosterf (16-Apr) : Nobody coming up with a keep, but at x amount
dfosterf (16-Apr) : Trade, cut or keep
dfosterf (16-Apr) : that from Jaire
dfosterf (16-Apr) : My guess is the Packers floated the concept of a reworked contract via his agent and agent got a f'
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : Yes, and that is why I think Rob worded it how he did. Rather than say "agent"
dfosterf (16-Apr) : Same laws apply. Agent must present such an offer to Jaire. Cannot accept or reject without presenting it
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : I'm thinking that is why Rob worded it how he did.
dfosterf (16-Apr) : The Packers can certainly still make the offer to the agent
dfosterf (16-Apr) : Laws of agency and definition of fiduciary responsibility
dfosterf (16-Apr) : Jaire is open to a reduced contract without Jaire's permission
dfosterf (16-Apr) : The agent would arguably violate the law if he were to tell the Packers
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : That someone ... likely the agent.
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : So, Jaire has not been offered nor rejected a pay reduction, but someone says he'd decline.
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : Demovksy says t was direct communication with someone familiar with Jaire’s line of thinking at that moment.
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : Demovsky just replied to me a bit ago. Jaire hasn't said it.
dfosterf (16-Apr) : Of course, that depends on the definition of "we"
dfosterf (16-Apr) : We have been told that they haven't because he wouldn't accept it. I submit we don't know that
dfosterf (16-Apr) : What is the downside in making a calculated reduced offer to Jaire?
Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : Packers are receiving interest in Jaire Alexander but a trade is not imminent
Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : Jalen Ramsey wants to be traded. He's never happy is he?
Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : two 1sts in 2022 and two 2nd's in 2023 and 2024
Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : Packers had fortunate last three drafts.
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
Recent Topics
1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

9h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

22-Apr / Packers Draft Threads / Zero2Cool

22-Apr / Random Babble / Martha Careful

22-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

22-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

17-Apr / Random Babble / wpr

13-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

12-Apr / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Zero2Cool

11-Apr / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Rockmolder

2-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

2-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

1-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

1-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

31-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

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