BearPerspective said:
Zero2Cool said:
BearPerspective said:
Hey, if you want too keep living in the 90s with Brett at the helm, Im all for it. I just find it funny that you guys trash Grossman so much for his performance, yet this season he played better than Brett and you all are clamoring for his return. You dont see the irony?
Packers fans want Brett back because we all know (assuming) Brett gives the Packers a better chance to win over any QB the Packers have on the roster currently.
Who said the Bears would be better with Brett? I don't think anyone did, so I don't know why you compare them against one another when talking about fans wanting Brett to play another year and saying Grossman sucks.
Again, Packer fans want Brett to play another year because he gives the team the best chance to win.
People trash Grossman because he is inconsistent and forces his team catch up to cover his mistakes. The guy played some fantastic games no doubt, but on the same note he played some downright awful games.
You want to throw some stats around? Find the junction of the game those INT's were thrown for each player.
Who was making daring passes to bring his team back?
vs
Who was making daring passes while his team was in the lead allowing the other team to catch up?
Well, Grossman had 4 ints vs. Arizona when well behind.
3 vs. Miami when well behind
3 vs. the Patriots also while trailing
3 vs. Green Bay when behind.
2 vs. Minnesota (1 in each game) while they were trailing
So that takes care of 15 of the 20 off the top of my head.
How 'bout them apples? :rotflmao:
Let's see Favre's.
Sorry I didn't make myself clear. I didn't ask how many INT's they each threw during games they LOST. I'm asking AT THE TIME of the INT, what was the score? Then, did that INT cause them to get behind? Did the other team score off that INT and how many points?
If you want to use stats, be accurate an thorough, thats all I'm asking. I love stats, but I'm not ignorant to think they tell the whole story when looking at just a few of the end result numbers instead of what came FROM those stats.
For instance, a QB could be the most accurate QB of all time, but if his supporting staff drops a lot or tips a lot of them, that hurts the QB stats. Did you account for the drops/tips?
It's a little harder to throw face value stats down for QB vs QB than it is say RB vs RB in my opinion. And the stats you've thrown down are dilluded. I'm not trying to say that when you do it accurate and thorough, I don't know, (I don't have the time for doing all that is rquired to say that, meaning compile all the stats) but I do know saying one QB is better than another based on the stats you've provided is not accurate. There is sooo much more to being a QB than your ending stats can tell.
Know what I mean? Do you really think Brett wouldn't have had better numbers if he had a feared defense? or a feared special teams? Personally, I think Brett would have lit some **** up. Why? Look at his stats ten years ago when he actually had a feared defense and a feared special teams.
Try comparing that.
Rex with a feared defense an special teams
vs
Brett with a feared defense and special teams
Rex 2006
att 480
comp 262
comp% 54.6
yds 3193
yds/pass 6.65
td 23
int 20
rating 73.9
No MVP, no Pro Bowl.
Brett 1996
att 543
comp 325
comp% 59.9
yards 3899
yds/pass 7.2
td 39
int 13
rating 95.8
MVP and Pro Bowl starter
That's not a fair comparison, of course. But, neither is the one you are presenting because of how different each team is. Bears are a SB team, the Packers aren't even a playoff team.
Kind of interesting though isn't it? Meaning, go back to when Brett had a solid D an solid ST an compare that to Rex who has a solid D an solid ST. Brett blows the doors off Rex. Should be noted the Packers has two good TE's where I think the Bears only have one?