I wish I had the time to delve into both of them in more detail, but unfortunately I am on a panel in front of a bunch of people in 15 minutes, then a 7 hour drive.

Originally Posted by: KRK 

Your parole hearing???

Cheesey chortled: Yes, good news!!! Now I only have to wear the ankle bracelet. I am going to pick the lock and put it around my dog's neck so they think I am moving around the house and the back yard.

Originally Posted by: KRK 

LOL...okay I figured I better carve time to come and take my lumps...LOL

Z2C you win with grace and gotta say deservedly added in some the perfect amount of smartass given the tone of my Rodgers comments [LOL] Now to all the others acting like sardonic sore-winner Trump-spirited mean-girls [Snickering]...

Asserting Rodgers is elite because of one elite performance is a logical error identified as "proof by example." Com'mon man, even in delirium we gotta process like adults: Cutler had some great games too; but he still sucked, we all agree on that, right?

First, now all Packerhome experts please go to the tape AND EFFING LEARN SOMETHING. Sunday our group saw repeatedly 1 highlight play, the first TD to Jones and we discussed it. Read 1 was to a WR lined up wide left, who ran a WIDE-OPEN one line curl-in. The LT and LG opened up a perfect throw-lane and the CB was backed off the WR by 3-4-5 yards [Probably due to previous play design]. Rodgers SKIPPED read #1 to a wide-open receiver, ARGH! This time it worked; but if #1 is wide open, that leaves 4 guys to cover reads 2 and 3. It was 1st and 10, so it if it failed it wasn't the end of the world [This was a benchable offense if 3rd and 5]. This play should not be cheered because of the great result, this play exemplifies the reason why we may not make playoffs or go deep if we do.

Second, when the Baldwin article came out. What the hell did you think would happen? LOL. Of course this prick is going to have to prove Baldwin wrong. So instead of playing like Rodgers of old; he plays the highlight hero bitch, and probably comes on these websites to masturbate to the singing of his sycophants. This performance on one hand gave me some wood, so many magical throws and a solid win, it's exhilarating. But it pisses me off, because it once again confirms that Rodgers still has it, his problem is not age. His problem is he's just an uncoachable its-about-me asshat between the ears.

Third, I posted a while back here blaming the fans for Rodgers's suck. His reaction to Baldwin's article evidences that if GB fandom shunned his statistical performance and collectively criticized his bad decision making; we'd get performances like this week after week. But, the GB fan-dumb is what it is, so we all must suffer. Please endeavor to separate from the fan-dumb even if winning with grace is especially challenging 😂.

Fourth, Rodgers QBR over the last 4 years is 60.7 minus his play 2nd half of '16 [63.1 including it]. Cutler's QBR was better in his prime. This really pisses me off, because Rodgers is 1000x better than Cutler any day; as long as he feels like playing great.

Originally Posted by: Barfarn 

Barn can you save your next dumbass Rodgers post for a few hours before the next game? That's worked pretty well the last 2 weeks.

Originally Posted by: earthquake 

I have to lead with your final point because it kind of highlights just how little of a leg you stand on, and for someone that likes to nitpick about logical fallacies, you seem to make a ton of them yourself and seem to love warping the facts around your opinion rather than using them to form a coherent argument with a basis in reality versus your feelings.

Could you cherry pick statistics any more than you did right here? You choose QBR (not to be confused with the much more widely used quarterback rating), choose an arbitrary timeframe that happens to provide the data you're looking for with no statistical or logical value and compare it to the best of Cutler's career as if it means something. And use an undefined term like "in his prime" to further erode any value in your statement. What specific timeframe of Cutler's career are you referring to and why was he in his prime at that time?

If we compared apples to apples here, and since you seem to like QBR for some reason I'll bite and use that - For any continuous timeframe from 1 year to 3 wherein the QB was a starter, comparing Rodgers best or worst QBR over that period to Cutler's best or worst, Rodgers always comes out way ahead. In the interest of not spending an hour on this, I didn't go further but if you'd like to accuse me of cherry picking data, go ahead and prove me wrong.

Best - Rodgers/Cutler (average/year)

1 - 84.5/70.9
2 - 77.85/64.75
3 - 74.97/60.87

Worst - Rodgers/Cutler (average/year)

1 - 54.4/23.2
2 - 59.4/34.4
3 - 64.2/42.9

And just in case you object to my methodology, here's for seasons of 10+ games started since there's way more outliers in seasons where the QB didn't start the vast majority of the games for obvious reasons:

1 - 54.4/45.6
2 - 67.05/50.7
3 - 68.1/55

So basically, Rodgers at his best has consistently had at least a +13.1 QBR over Cutler's best, and at his worst, has had at least +8.8 QBR over Cutler's worst. And as I'll get into below, Cutler's not as horrible as you seem to be making him out to be.

Not really, he was average. Just because he sucked overall against the Packers doesn't mean he sucked - Career passer rating of 85.3 (Just shy of Brett Favre's 86.0), 227 TDs to 160 INTs at a 1.42 ratio (Again, not that far short of Brett Favre at 508/336, 1.51 ratio). His skills and stats were above average, where he was below average is in taking charge of games, and while there's tons of factors involved in this both with Cutler and the rest of his team, where he's below average is his win-loss record of 74-79.

For someone that likes pointing out logical fallacies, you sure seem to make a lot of them. This is called confirmation bias - you've convinced yourself that Rodgers is a stubborn mule who is happy to take the team down with him unless the coach treats him like a god and lets him do whatever he wants. But is so sensitive to criticism - but only in the media, not from his coach or the locker room, and then again only certain select articles such as this one and not the 10,000 others that are written all season long for some reason - that he goes ahead and decides to prove people wrong and throws a 153.8 game.

Why did he only care about this article? Media personalities have been saying stuff like this for years. It was all over the place a couple years ago, and Rodgers didn't react like this. Why is this article special? How do you get your staggering insight into Rodger's psyche?



Again, why is Baldwin's article special? People write critical articles about him all the time. There've been some doozies by prominent people and most aren't followed up by career performances.

Originally Posted by: Porforis 

It's halftime in KC...Rodgers is a dumbass dumbass dumbass...times a gazillion...let's see it he's better in 2nd half...LOL
Mo


This is one big ole' strawman!

First off, my main 4 year running argument about Rodgers' suck is not statistical at all. I evaluate Rodgers' play against what he's supposed to do. Here's your problem: I describe a dickhead that is passing up 2nd read to Kumerow for a wide open easy first on 3rd and 5 and all you see [truly awesome pass to Lizard] is 1 for 1 for 35 and a TD. And you run from the evaluation. This is how he has been playing for 4 years. Those great passes along with his passer rating stat whoring mask how truly bad he has been. To say Rodgers is not elite is WRONG...He's pedestrian or worse for most of the last 4 years. The performance in Oakland proves its all between the ears/attitude/intentional. What kind of asshole ups his game because of a Baldwin article? And the prick admits it. He is effed in the head!

AND THIS IS CRITICAL: his gun-slinging glory hero highlight bitch stuff creates highs AND lows. He is inconsistent. This was Cutler's worst trait. Did you follow the Cubs hitting? 10 runs, 0 runs, 8 runs, 2 runs... That's a 5 run average each batter a statistical stud; but they sucked. GB cant win in playoffs unless Rodgers plays precisely and he cant! Eff the stats what's the point of great stats and a QB that's not focused on WINNING.

Why QBR? QB goes 10-10-125-2-0 w/ 3 lost fumbles, and takes 12 sacks for -125. The QB has a perfect passer rating. But, a QBR well under 50, which is bad, because the QB was BAD.

Rodgers is playing for passer rating, not wins. Those short passes hurt his PR, Rushing TDs hurt his PR. Not being careful with the ball as he's playing stat whore highlight boy, dont hurt his PR. Running around looking for a big play and taking a 15 yard sack doesn't affect his PR. INTs KILL your PR, so he wont throw a tight throw when he needs to. 3rd an 8 sometimes you gotta throw into tight coverage, Rodgers wont. That hurts the team Why doesn't he throw the ball away instead of taking so many sacks? Answer: INC hurt the PR, so the prick takes the sack. Rodgers is a passer rating stat whore.

Stats are for losers. YOU NEED TO EVALUATE PLAY! What I find special about Baldwin's article? It motivated the prick to a 158.3 PR. LOL. Otherwise it was interesting because it statistically EXACTLY confirms what I've been demonstrating to ya'll by showing you how terrible he at playing in the offense since the bye in 2015.

Again I've NEVER compared Rodgers to Cutler, except as it pertains to Rodgers' last 4 years. Rodgers was GOAT like up to that time, THEN SOMETHING CHANGED. It statistically dishonest to compare 4 years of Rodgers' prime to Cutler's career that included some horrific years early and late. It is statistically dishonest to weasel in Rodgers' stats prior to 2014, when I said he sucked after 2014.

Originally Posted by: Barfarn