Record Rodgers is most likely to beat

MackemPacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 15, 2010
Messages
101
Reaction score
17
Location
Sunderland, England
of course their D was crappy, they spent a **** load of time on the field due to the offense scoring quickly. When brees throws 6 or 7 passes and moves the ball down the field to score that fast, their D does not get a break.


Alternative way of looking at it is Brees put their D on the field a lot by throwing all them INTs.
 

JBlood

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 5, 2004
Messages
3,159
Reaction score
467
At present Rogers owns the following records:
highest career passer rating 104.9
highest season passer rating 122.5
highest career completion percentage 65.7
most TD passes/game started (average) 2.19
best completion/interception ratio, career 38.09
best passing yards/interception ratio, career 470.9
lowest percentage passes intercepted, career 1.73

all he has to do is continue his current level of play imo. And the Championships will follow.
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
You seem to be implying that I'm changing what I am saying. Not the case, you need to pay closer attention to what you read next time. I will explain it again for you. "You could have a bad season and set the record" that was in a general context. Not a specific one like I commented on in a later post about drew Brees. Do you get that? General and specific? I'm talking about two different things. I thought it was clear as I said set the record then referenced drew Brees season last year.

You are telling me what my standards look like? Funny, bc it's clear you are talking out of your *** as Brees was actually the #1 player in fantasy football ball last season but here i am saying he really wasnt all that. http://games.espn.go.com/ffl/leaders

So please, tell me more about my standards

Again you seem to be stuck on some sort of emotional special touchy feely thing when talking about success in football. The team missed the playoffs with their below .500 record, Brees led the league in INTs and had his worse completion % in 9 years.

You have zero appreciation for the art of the game and the intangibles. You asked so I'll answer: your standards are distorted and lack nuance.
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
The two are pretty much directly tied. If he owns one of those records, he will likely own the other one.

Not quite. Int % is one of 4 stats that go into the rating. It's important, but hardly guarantees a high passer rating.

For instance, Neil O'Donnell is third all-time in Int %, 0.4% behind Rodgers. That's a difference of 2 ints over a 500 pass season. At the same time O'Donnell is 44th. all time in passer rating at 81.8, a mediocre or worse career number in today's game. The top 20 all time in the Int % department has a number of less than impressive names:

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/leaders/pass_int_perc_career.htm

I included Int % along with Passer Rating because in my view protecting the ball is Job #1. But it certainly is not the only job and is not sufficient for winning.
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
I love when people who don't know me tell me about me.

Joe Namath might say the same.;)

Would you be more comfortable if I used the the third person?

I could have mentioned "context" along with nuance and intangibles, but I forgot. You've got that going for you.
 

weeds

Fiber deprived old guy.
Joined
Dec 10, 2004
Messages
5,691
Reaction score
1,791
Location
Oshkosh, WI
A championship is much harder to come by these days when it requires 3 or 4 playoff wins to achieve it. This is another difficulty in comparing eras. Starr's 5 championships were achieved with 9 wins. The first 2 of the 5 required only one playoff win.

Further, in Starr's pre-free agent era it was possible to keep a winning team together year after year. Free agency and the salary cap now make that impossible.

Nope HRE, I refuse to minimize or "qualify" championships as the yardstick. For instance, I'll never differentiate between the dog and pony shows that we call Super Bowl Championships and Championships that came prior to the marketing term "Super Bowl" being coined. That's a tool used by fans of expansion franchises to elevate their newbie teams to a level equal to the Bears, Cardinals, Giants and Packers. Like it's the Green Bay Packers' fault that their expansion franchise didn't exist prior to 1950. That would be like telling me that the World Champion Packers 1965 team was a lesser team than the 1966 model simply because they didn't annihilate some 3rd rate AFL team in an exhibition after the regular season.

Your points are good points. Well thought out and presented and all. Just sayin'. We're an ocean apart on this one. ;) 5 in 7 is still the gold standard in my little world.
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
Nope HRE, I refuse to minimize or "qualify" championships as the yardstick. For instance, I'll never differentiate between the dog and pony shows that we call Super Bowl Championships and Championships that came prior to the marketing term "Super Bowl" being coined. That's a tool used by fans of expansion franchises to elevate their newbie teams to a level equal to the Bears, Cardinals, Giants and Packers. Like it's the Green Bay Packers' fault that their expansion franchise didn't exist prior to 1950. That would be like telling me that the World Champion Packers 1965 team was a lesser team than the 1966 model simply because they didn't annihilate some 3rd rate AFL team in an exhibition after the regular season.

Your points are good points. Well thought out and presented and all. Just sayin'. We're an ocean apart on this one. ;) 5 in 7 is still the gold standard in my little world.

Well, if you don't like Super Bowls so much, I would guess those first 2 don't count in your book, in which case Starr won his 5 championships over just 7 playoff games...instead of 15 - 20 in today's game. It's a simple fact that the more quality teams you play, the more likely something can go wrong.

I think you have to count those first two SBs, though, not because the Packers won but because they did not lose. All the pressure was on the Packers...losing either would have been an embarrassment of the first order while tarnishing the legacy.

Nobody said 5 in 7 years isn't the gold standard. However, it is more difficult now to try to achieve it for the reasons cited.

I view the '62 team as the greatest Packer team of the Lombardi era...first in the league in points scored, points surrendered and giveaway / takeaway. The guys were in their primes.
 

weeds

Fiber deprived old guy.
Joined
Dec 10, 2004
Messages
5,691
Reaction score
1,791
Location
Oshkosh, WI
Well, if you don't like Super Bowls so much, I would guess those first 2 don't count in your book, in which case Starr won his 5 championships over just 7 playoff games...instead of 15 - 20 in today's game. It's a simple fact that the more quality teams you play, the more likely something can go wrong.

I think you have to count those first two SBs, though, not because the Packers won but because they did not lose. All the pressure was on the Packers...losing either would have been an embarrassment of the first order while tarnishing the legacy.

Nobody said 5 in 7 years isn't the gold standard. However, it is more difficult now to try to achieve it for the reasons cited.

I view the '62 team as the greatest Packer team of the Lombardi era...first in the league in points scored, points surrendered and giveaway / takeaway. The guys were in their primes.

Your point is taken, however the current format didn't exist because perhaps 20 teams didn't exist way back when. I like Championships if they're called Super Bowls or Super Salads ... makes no never mind to me - "Super Bowl" is a marketing term, nothing more and nothing less. This has all the makings of a circular argument...sure it's tougher to win Championships today. The available talent is dispersed between too many teams.
'
I would agree that the '62 Packers team was the greatest team of the Lombardi era. You know it and I know it ... my point is that most fans of the ESPN generation would denigrate that team as being pre-historic and therefore not relevant because there isn't a "Super Bowl Champion" tag in front of 1962 Green Bay Packers.
 

Members online

Latest posts

Top