Sign in to follow this  
skippyx

Rodgers is a Fraud

Recommended Posts

Some clowns want to push an agenda that Rodgers is the greatest QB. These same clowns have a Fake News agenda that Brady is only good because of the AFC East. The truth is that Aaron Rodgers is only good because of the NFC North.

  • Rodgers is 41-17-1 against his division. (.703)
  • He is 37-27 against the rest of the NFC (.578)
  • He is 24-16 against the AFC (.600)
  • Rodgers is about 19.9% better in his division compared to outside his division.
    • .703 compared to .587

Now lets compare him to Tom Brady

  • Brady is 79-21 against his division (.790)
  • He is 73-24 against the rest of the AFC (.752)
  • He is 52-15 against the NFC (.776)
  • Brady is about 3.7% better in his division compared to outside his division.
    • .790 compared to .762

Its true that 2011 was an amazing season for Rodgers (14-1 with a 122.5 rating). Its true that he is the champion of the TD to INT ratio stat.

What is also true is that outside of 2011, none of that relates to him winning much outside of his division.

He is 52-42 (.565) outside his division if you exclude 2011

THAT is a QB who goes 6-0 or 5-1 in division and then goes 5-5 outside the division and makes the playoffs at 10-6 or worse 4 times.

Rodgers is even 2-0 in the playoffs against his division and 7-7 in all other playoff games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

His career ratings against those mighty opponents:

  • vs Chicago 108.3 (before today)
  • vs Detroit 109.3
  • vs Minnesota 110.0

BTW, his rating vs the AFC East is 86.8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno if he's a fraud, but I have been harping all year that his locker room presence is becoming a problem.  Starting to remind  me late Brett favre or Cal Ripken in Baltimore.  When a player becomes bigger than the franchise, mediocrity is almost always the result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Using win-loss records to determine QB skill is like using +/- in hockey. It's borderline useless. Rodgers has had a lot of ish defenses. If he threw for 500 yards and 4 TDs in every game for a full season but went 0-16 because his defense gave up 40 points a game would you say he sucks?

Just now, dawkins4prez said:

I dunno if he's a fraud, but I have been harping all year that his locker room presence is becoming a problem.  Starting to remind  me late Brett favre or Cal Ripken in Baltimore.  When a player becomes bigger than the franchise, mediocrity is almost always the result.

On this point, yes he seems like a major D-bag and I would probably hate to share a locker room with him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BDAWK_4EVER said:

Using win-loss records to determine QB skill is like using +/- in hockey. It's borderline useless. Rodgers has had a lot of ish defenses. If he threw for 500 yards and 4 TDs in every game for a full season but went 0-16 because his defense gave up 40 points a game would you say he sucks?

On this point, yes he seems like a major D-bag and I would probably hate to share a locker room with him.

You think +- in Hockey is borderline useless?

  • 21 of the top 22 +- players are in the Hall of Fame and the one missing was literally a beast for about 10 years (McCrimmon)
    • He won a cup in Calgary and he helped take his team to a 7 game series with an OT loss for Philly against maybe the greatest team of all time.
  • Some clowns who agree with you voted an absolute joke as MVP last year in Taylor Hall.
    • CLARIFICATION - THEY are clowns for taking the 6th leading scorer who ALSO was only +14 and giving him the MVP.
    • I disagree with you on this, but the decision of the MVP voters is what I am attacking here.

Its like LeBron ball hogging vs Golden State and trading his 2s for their 3s while down by 15 in the finals.

  • Lets worship him for his 34 points 7 assists and 10 rebounds... and his -22 🏀
    • The -22 is kind of a big deal
      • Jock sniffers were pumping up LeBron as MVP of the finals in that sweep.
        • He may have been -75 in 4 games, but I love me some Bron Bron!
    • Carmello could still put up good stats for your team if you did not mind the -25 every night.

Also, your 40 points in 16 losses is goofy theory, nothing close to it has ever happened.

  • Maybe Alex Smith's playoff career? But I understand the context and don't blame him for his record.
  • I'd never blame Rodgers for his playoff loss to Warner's Cardinals, but he did not really do much in his 3 NFCCGs.

 

Rodgers is a pretty boy who cares about stats and commercials and does not score enough points to win enough important games.

  • People who don't rate QBs by win loss don't understand football.
  • No one in their right mind wants their team to go 6-10 with pretty stats.
  • There is CLEARLY a widely accepted myth about Brady and the AFC East. 
  • I have simply laid out how that myth is actually true for Aaaron Rodgers.

Rage against the audacity of people holding QBs accountable for wins but at the end of the day, Rodgers is the highest paid loser in the NFL the last 2 seasons.

  • How dare we expect Rodgers to win in Chicago... it's not like Brady threw 3 TDs and scored 30+ there this year or something... oh, wait.

Rodgers should still be a first ballot hall of famer, but he does not belong in any conversation with guys like Brady or Montana.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, BDAWK_4EVER said:

You think +/- is a valuable hockey measurement. There is no need to read any further

His threads are good for one thing, and one thing only: comic relief

He doesn't watch games, he reads box scores and thinks the numbers will tell him everything. Flaming moron, that one...:roll:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He isn't a fraud. But ultimately a big stat for QBs is wins and play off success and actually his isn't that great. But he hasn't been helped by that organisation at all! They haven't put the weapons or players around him since their SB victory. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are 52 players on the team besides the starting QB. A good QB will only get you so far, you need the other players to step up too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rodgers is great and he did have weapons for many years, Jordy Nelson, Randall Cobb, etc.  

To me QB's get way too much credit today.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rodgers is one of the greatest quarterbacks in history. He's been injured the past two seasons and has definitely been playing hurt this year. The rest of his team isn't all that good either. It's understandable why he hasn't looked great.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to take anything away from Rodgers, but the Packers (as well as the Cowboys and the Steelers) have always benefited at home from highly favorable officiating.

There's also an apparent curse on players who do TV commercials. Peyton's career started sliding when he started doing them.
And McNabb's Campbell soup commercials coincided with the start of his decline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wins and losses may be attributed to QBs but I've never been a fan of that. A QB can play great and his team loses, or he can play terrible, and his team wins. He may be the most important position, but there are still 10 other guys on the field with him, as well as 11 others on defense , plus special teams.

Take the Super Bowl. Both QBs were terrific, but one had to lose. Fortunately, theirs did. However, if Graham and Barnett don't combine for a strip sack and recovery, excellent chance Brady takes them down the field again as he had done his 3 other 2nd half drives, and scores with little to no time left. Even that drive started with an 8 yard gain on first down. Had that happened, it doesn't change the fact that Foles played a great game, but he would have gone down as the loser of that game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a fan of Rodgers but I wouldn't call him a fraud. he's better than a lot of QB's in this league. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meh Brady and Rodgers are both great QBs, but to counter your myopic look at each QBs W/L record, take Tom off the Patriots for a year and they go 11-5 (and play well when he was suspended for Deflate Gate).  Take Rodgers off the Packers and they are a dumpster fire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, KzEaglefan86 said:

Meh Brady and Rodgers are both great QBs, but to counter your myopic look at each QBs W/L record, take Tom off the Patriots for a year and they go 11-5 (and play well when he was suspended for Deflate Gate).  Take Rodgers off the Packers and they are a dumpster fire.

This is anothe idiotic myth.

Taking Brady off a team that won 18 games resulted in a team that won 11 games.

He was 7 wins better than his replacement and you think that is a zinger against him?

Try Rodgers and Hundley last year. Their records were much closer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, skippyx said:

This is anothe idiotic myth.

Taking Brady off a team that won 18 games resulted in a team that won 11 games.

He was 7 wins better than his replacement and you think that is a zinger against him?

Try Rodgers and Hundley last year. Their records were much closer.

LOL @ "7 wins better" comparing a SB record to a team that missed the playoff with 11 wins.  This isn't a serious post, is it?  Matt freaking Cassell won 11 games with the Patriots. 11.  There's no comparison between Rodgers supporting cast throughout the years and Brady's.  It's not close.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎12‎/‎17‎/‎2018 at 7:37 PM, EagleJoe8 said:

"Wins and losses may be attributed to QBs but I've never been a fan of that. A QB can play great and his team loses, or he can play terrible, and his team wins. He may be the most important position, but there are still 10 other guys on the field with him, as well as 11 others on defense , plus special teams.

Take the Super Bowl. Both QBs were terrific, but one had to lose. Fortunately, theirs did. However, if Graham and Barnett don't combine for a strip sack and recovery, excellent chance Brady takes them down the field again as he had done his 3 other 2nd half drives, and scores with little to no time left. Even that drive started with an 8 yard gain on first down. Had that happened, it doesn't change the fact that Foles played a great game, but he would have gone down as the loser of that game".

I've never been a fan of W/L records for a QB either. How many times is a QB standing on the sidelines while his defense ends up surrendering the score that loses the game for him? Now *that's* a stat I could get behind - His record when he's on the field for the last time. And even that's a bit dubious. For example, in SB 42, Brady directed a drive to give the Pats a 14-10 lead, then watched as the Giants scored the game-winning TD. Brady did get back on the field, but with only 51 seconds left and deep in his own territory. So even that loss is hard to hang on Brady. Whilehe almost hit Randy Moss on a bomb that could have led to a tying FG attempt, the fact is that he did not stand a reasonable chance of leading a late-game drive to tie or win it. So it's really hard to judge how responsible a QB is for a loss or a win.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the question about records within the division vs outside of it:

One possibility I'd offer is that the Pats have a very good record outside their own division because they do play in a weaker division. My thinking is that, because the competition is less taxing within the AFC East, the Pats aren't as physically and mentally taxed as they would be if they'd play in, say, the AFC North and have to face the Ravens and Steelers twice per year, year after year.

Granted, the Pats have winning records against both teams, but again, could that be because they're not playing similar teams within their division every year? Meanwhile, the Ravens and Steelers are beating up on one another twice each season, so does that factor in when they play other teams?

I'm not trying to be dogmatic about this, but I think it might be a fair point to raise when looking at Won - Lost records. One could draw from what happens in college football, where powerhouse schools like Alabama schedule in weak opponents, often right before a big rivalry game (almost always the week before the Auburn game, for instance, such as playing The Citadel this season prior to Auburn) or early in the season when the team wants to sort out any kinks ('Bama opened vs Fla State but then faced Fresno State). The weaker opponent is not going to be as challenging as a stronger opponent, thus leaving the big-name team less-taxed physically for future games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BKLYNYG said:

I love watching this guy incorrectly use and interpret data time and time again. :facepalm:

It’s gold, Jerry! GOLD!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this