OT: Aaron Rodgers QB rating over the past 9 weeks is 81.1, lowest among all starters

[Packer Fan]

Who has done all the math here? I can tell you those numbers don't come out to an 81.1 so I'm also doubting the math done for all other starters for the last 9 weeks in order to say Rodgers is lowest.

The online NFL passer rating calculator I frequent has Rodgers at 82.0. So I don't think 81.1 is a stretch.

Manziel over the same time period has a passer rating of 74.7 (maybe they had to start all 9 games?). Not much to say that Rodgers rating is better than Manziel but you could be on to something. I didn't check all quarterbacks over the crucial 9 week period though. Considering most typical lackluster QB's have been thriving, it does not surprise me that Rodgers is low on the 9 week list.

 

[Warrior Spirit]

http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/gamelog/_/id/8439/aaron-rodgers

Denver 69.7
Carolina 96.6
Detroit 83.6
Minnesota 86.9
Chicago 62.4
Detroit 96.2
Dallas 99.5
Oakland 68.8
Arizona 66.2

Does it still seem like it can't add up to 81.1?

You don't average out a QB rating. You use the numbers you had provided.
195 completions
346 attempts
15 TD
5 INT
2039 passing yards
5.89 yards per attempt

Actually comes out to 82.0 Small difference but how big a difference are the others that were done? And who are the others who were done? Actually not that hard to believe the way things have been going. Have more QBs than ever with ratings over 90. I don't think there were half as many as there are this year just a couple years ago. Maybe decent QBs aren't in as short supply as many have suggested.

 

[nc0gnet0]

You don't average out a QB rating. You use the numbers you had provided.
195 completions
346 attempts
15 TD
5 INT
2039 passing yards
5.89 yards per attempt

Actually comes out to 82.0 Small difference but how big a difference are the others that were done? And who are the others who were done? Actually not that hard to believe the way things have been going. Have more QBs than ever with ratings over 90. I don't think there were half as many as there are this year just a couple years ago. Maybe decent QBs aren't in as short supply as many have suggested.

Yup, but more importantly, isn't the only thing that REALLY matters is a QB who can win games?

 

[Warrior Spirit]

Yup, but more importantly, isn't the only thing that REALLY matters is a QB who can win games?

Yeah, of course, you want to get to the playoffs. Something Cutler has only done once in a 10 year career and that would be my biggest knock on him.

 

[nc0gnet0]

I got it wrong as you did the first time. It's 69-66 not 70-63 or 69-65.

Which still means you shouldn't call someone a dumbass after you have added the numbers up incorrectly.

nope try again. And I wasn't including the Denver game which was not decided at the time, so don't even try that.

 

[nc0gnet0]

Which defense would you rather your team have, heading into 2016. If you knew this following info, before the season started....A or B

Defense A is going to give up 32 TD's

Defense B is going to give up 37 TD's

Then as a bonus question, you will be given the knowledge of what both teams special teams will do.

Special teams A will give up 0 TD's

Special teams B will give up 3 TD's

Answer that simple question if you can.

I will take the QB with the 30 Td's thank you very much
I will take the QB with a 10-5 record, please.
I will take the QB that is on the team that scored 40 more points than the Bears
Special teams? Who said shit about special teams?

But hey, if it makes you feel better, Cutlers wife is hot. Happy now?

 

[Warrior Spirit]

Denver win today doesn't need to be added in order for the loss total to be different, does it?

10-5 Minnesota
4-11 San Diego
7-8 St. Louis
10-4 Denver
10-5 Green bay
4-11 San Francisco
8-7 Washington
10-5 Minnesota
6-9 Tampa Bay

That comes to a total of 69-66, does it not?

No. Math is not your (Matt) forte.

 

[nc0gnet0]

No. Math is not your (Matt) forte.

lol

nor is common sense it would appear.........

 

[mecha]

congratulations 3rd and Long. the forum hates you now too.

 

[Warrior Spirit]

It is actually 69-66 but if you say otherwise I guess it is LOL

10-5 Minnesota
4-11 San Diego
7-8 St. Louis
10-4 Denver
10-5 Green bay
4-11 San Francisco
8-7 Washington
10-5 Minnesota
6-9 Tampa Bay

Not a total of 69-66 but rather 69-65

 

[nc0gnet0]

Who said anything about the Packers defense originally.



That is true right?

The Bears higher rated defense that you are using to prop up your argument did give up 5 more TD's than the Packers defense correct?

The Bears special teams did give up 3 more TD's than the Packers special teams right?

Don't give up do you? I don't know where this whole special teams shit started. Never said a word about it myself. The crux of my argument is Rodgers is elite and Cutler sucks. Deal with it. Rodgers wins, Cutler loses.

Defense, really? Who cares? Both are arguably middle of the road. The stat I pulled was from here:

http://www.nfl.com/stats/categoryst...OTAL_YARDS_GAME_AVG&d-447263-o=1&d-447263-n=1

You want to pull stats from somewhere else go ahead. Doesn't change a thing.

 

[Warrior Spirit]

You are correct, I have Denver as 10-5 and they were 10-4. I hate being wrong but it happens

The miracle will be getting you to admit it when you are wrong.

If you ever see me admit to being wrong about something. That is the time I'll be wrong.

 

[nc0gnet0]

With all the trolls on this site, I'm okay with that. Thankfully this site does have a decent share of people who aren't trolls.

Because everyone that doesn't like Cutler is a troll. A post about a non-bears player is ok on the Chicago Bears forum, but how dare you mention an actual Bears player within the context of that same thread?

It would seem, if we can't make common sense comparisons of Rodgers to Cutler, than your Rodgers thread would be best posted on a Packers forum, would it not?

 

[nc0gnet0]

The difference is that the Bears have lost their 9 games by a total of 97 points and the Bears team has given up 70 more points than Green Bay has.

Do you not see where swapping the totals given up would very easily change the teams records and chances of making the playoffs?

When 6 of those losses were by totals of

8
3
3
2
6
3

Giving up an extra 70 points made a huge difference in the W / L record

It's a lame argument as you failed to address both the strength of Schedule of those nine games , not to mention your using a total game metric (70 points allowed in all 15 games) and applying it to a nine game argument. You also fail to address the fact that the packers also scored 40 more points as well.

But then again, as has already been pointed out, math is not your strong suit. Slobbering on Cutlers nut sack is.

 

[nc0gnet0]

Well, if it makes you any happier, I hope the Vikes kick the shit out of the Packers this Sunday. I don't see it happening, but I can hope. Even then, I would still trade 3 Cutlers for one Aaron Rodgers in a heartbeat.

 

[nc0gnet0]

You bring up strength of schedule for the 9 games but you don't bring it up for the entire year when comparing the points the teams have scored?

Through 16 weeks the Bears have had the 2nd hardest strength of schedule.

Through 16 weeks the Packers have had the 15th hardest strength of schedule.

Through that 9 game stretch the Packers faced 4 teams with winning records, they went 1-3. The 5 games they played against sub .500 teams they went 3-2

Through that 9 game stretch the Bears went against 5 teams with winning records, they went 1-4. The 5 games they played against sub .500 teams they went 3-1.

The packers can't help the fact they played us 2x lowering there SOS.

 

[PrideisBears]

Lol...who has the better season? Who is going to playoffs? When was the season the 9 games you want to chose? Cousins and Fitzpatrick better than them all...guess they are the best QBs

I'm starting to think you just copy and paste the same thing over and over

 

[PrideisBears]

congratulations 3rd and Long. the forum hates you now too.

That means he made it

 

[nc0gnet0]

Agreed but their overall schedule probably factored into the points they scored and had scored against them. Which made their route to the playoffs a much easier path than the Bears.

As it stands right now the Bears schedule looks easy next year but that can change quickly in the NFL. Hopefully it does not for the Bears sake.

Do you ever research ANYTHING before you speak? Seriously !!

GB and Chicago will end up playing the same schedule this year with the exception of three opponents. Those three opponents are:

GB played Carolina, Dallas, and Arizona with a combined record of 31-14
The Bears played Tampa, KC, and Washington with a combined record of 24-21

So, other than playing the Woefull Bears (which should be eliminated from the whole SOS argument for comparison purposes), GB has had the tougher schedule.

 

[airtime143]

The difference is that the Bears have lost their 9 games by a total of 97 points and the Bears team has given up 70 more points than Green Bay has.

Do you not see where swapping the totals given up would very easily change the teams records and chances of making the playoffs?

When 6 of those losses were by totals of

8
3
3
2
6
3

Giving up an extra 70 points made a huge difference in the W / L record

A large factor in the point difference between the 2 teams is the fact that chicago has been scored on 7 times via defense and special teams, whereas the packers have been twice.
That is 50% of the point difference right there.

Then when you look at short scoring drives following turnovers, The bears have turned the ball over on their side of the field more frequently than Green bay has, thus resulting in more and quicker scoring drives.

Bottom line is that the 70 point difference in points allowed by each teams defense is definitely not an indicator of the Green Bay defense being significantly stronger.

As a matter of fact, an argument can be made that the Bears defense has been performing better than Green bay- the yards per play, yards per drive, and points per drive are virtually identical, yet Green Bay has committed 34 penalties resulting in first downs where the bears have committed only 22.