PFF gives Rodgers a negative grade against Chiefs last night

[AmishMafia]

I know that you are just messing with us, but that is incorrect. At this point, I think that PFF has completely discredited its formula and next week it will be worthless again, +8 or -8. The fact that they are defending it, rather than saying, "hold on, maybe this needs more development" tells a lot.

All I am saying is that last night, I know what I saw. And a below average grade is just not justified. No homer ism here.

You have to understand where Viking fans and Raptirman is coming from. They have been told the likes of Ponder and Bridgewater are great up And coming QBs. His ability to judge QBs is certainly askew. This is the guy, afterall that is still happy the Vikings didnt draft Rodgers and continued in with culpepper.

 

[Curly Calhoun]

PFF is becoming a joke. Any credibility they had just walked out the door in disgust.

 

[AmishMafia]

I am with you. I like them for finding all kinds of stats a person just does not normally have at their fingertips but something like this where you add a subjective grade to stats just seems flawed. The ESPN created QBR works the same, subjective thoughts on every given play which is just ridiculous. For instance qb's don't get good grades on 8 yard slant passes that go for a 65 yard TD however, how many of those passes don't go for a TD because the pass from the QB wasn't perfectly thrown allowing the receiver to catch the ball in stride and make one cut upfield to daylight?

Excellent!

And a QB who recognizes the coverage and throws the perfect short pass knowing his WR has a good shot at a 60 YAC TD gets a lower rating than throwing to a different WR on the same play for 10 yards and no YAC.

 

[Powarun]

Figured it was created for page clicks. Rodgers did great last night, and well sometimes there needs to be a villain that points out those flaws.

 

[TheSnowPlow]

Do people still actually read that fishwrap?

 

[bigbubbatd]

"On passes that traveled at least 13 yards downfield, Rodgers went 5-of-7 for 143 yards, including a 27-yard touchdown" Yep he did all his damage on short passes

 

[Poppa San]

Just ran across a reference to PFF giving Peyton a neg score the game he threw 7 TD's because a couple were screen plays with great YAC.

 

[Raptorman]

Not everyone buys completely into pff aND this is a great example of why. To say rodgers performance was similar to bridewater is a joke. Teddy threw 0 tds and 1 pick. Rodgers threw 5 tds and 0 int. Rodgers the for 200 more yards and had less incomplete passes while throwing for more ypa. Please explain how any reasonable ranking puts them close

No reasonable explanation is possible with Packer fans. See, they can't even admit that the reasons the Vikings didn't draft Rodgers is because they "DIDN'T NEED A FREAKING QB AT THE TIME!" No matter what anyone says or would put forth would be shot down because Packers fans see Rodgers as the God of QB's and anything that is negative about him is put down immediately and with full force. What really sucks for Packer fans is that once Rodgers leaves, they will more than likely be in the same boat that MN has been in the last 10 years, looking for a QB. So enjoy it while it lasts because the suck cycle is coming back around. (BTW, can the Packers win without Rodgers throwing a TD pass or two? Haven't seen that in a while. Kinda sucks if he gets hurt. )

Wait, what is the suck cycle? It's the cycle that all teams go through over time. Except Tampa and Detroit, they are stuck in the suck cycle. They have a period of victories and playoff runs that last 10-15 years or so. Then the coach, QB or GM leaves, the glue that held the team together. Then they suck more or less for 10-15 year and then they get the "good" cycle again. Teams that are due for the suck cycle are New England, Green Bay, Dallas, Indy. Now this suck-good cycle is visible with most teams over the years. New England sucked for years until Belicheat took over, once he is gone, their suck cycle will come back. Green Bay has been lucky with two great QB's. Their good cycle has been longer than normal, which means when suck time comes, it's going to be real ******* some of the newer fans from the last 20 years. Vikings fans, well those of us older ones, we understand the suck cycle. We know that eventually our team will come out of it.

 

[Sky King]

Just ran across a reference to PFF giving Peyton a neg score the game he threw 7 TD's because a couple were screen plays with great YAC.

Well, there you have it. Ryan Leaf was equal to or better than Peyton Manning; Rosie O'Donnell is more attractive than Miss America; and Yoko Ono sings the National Anthem far better than Taylor Swift.

 

[TJV]

There was an illegal contact penalty on the play Rodgers fumbled. That obviously illegally affected one of the routes run by a Packers receiver.. Was that the primary receiver? Would Rodgers have thrown him the ball except for the illegal contact? What if that route wasn’t disrupted - would Rodgers have released the ball more quickly? We don’t know and the reason we don’t know is the play didn’t count! So what is the best way for PFF to evaluate that play? Ignore it not only because it didn’t count but because the reason it didn’t count likely affected Rodgers’ performance on that play. OTOH the dropped INT? Yes, obviously a negative play.

The greatness of Rodgers’ performance last night was in the intangibles. Recognizing the blitz, drawing the defense offsides, catching the Chiefs in bad situations and exploiting those scenarios with simple passes to open receivers. But you cannot — and we do not try to — quantify intangibles, or what comes pre-snap. Our system grades what can be graded — the execution of the play post-snap — and in that regard Rodgers did not stand out in the same way that his statistics did.

Drawing a defense offsides is as tangible as anything in football, and it can be quantified. You can identify whose hard count caused it, who jumped offsides, and you can count the number of times a team was victimized. And if it’s not important, if you try not to quantify it, why mention regarding Rodgers’ TD pass to Jones? BTW, catching teams with 12 men on the field is also quantifiable.

The other three touchdowns, however, were passes thrown short of the end zone on speed outs to Randall Cobb. Were they bad throws? No, they were expected throws with the credit going to Cobb for fighting through contact or defeating the coverage with speed to the edge. That makes these zero-graded throws: Three passes that have a massive effect on Rodgers’ statistical performance but do not increase his grade.

Well they should have. First if you’re grading every player on every play you know that on at least one of those TDs, Rodgers’ changed the play to take advantage of Cobb’s matchup. How would you know that? Because every Packers OL and the RB executed a running play. But more important, how quickly Rodgers got the ball out to Cobb on those plays is critical. And that is quantifiable. How do we know it was quantifiable? Because ESPN timed his release on several passes (and if they can do it…). So were those “expected throws by an average NFL QB”? Or were they expected throws by Aaron Rodgers? If your standard is the former, Rodgers deserves a plus rating for those throws.

Based upon what was written in the linked article, I rate their rating a minus 7.

 

[Einstein McFly]

The big upside to PFF is that they rate every player every week on every play, and since you can't watch all eleven guys on your team at once, it's nice sometimes to have a simple number telling you how they did. It's something like a "stat" for olinemen or something. Of course, the PFF guys watching the plays don't know what the player's actual assignment was on the play, only the coaches do, so when people use PFF numbers to tear down coaches for who they're putting out there, you have to laugh.

And obviously, their metric for QB play is ridiculous. It's also unnecessary; QB is the one guy that you watch intently on every play, so who needs someone to put a number on it telling you what you saw?

 

[Croak]

No reasonable explanation is possible with Packer fans. See, they can't even admit that the reasons the Vikings didn't draft Rodgers is because they "DIDN'T NEED A FREAKING QB AT THE TIME!" No matter what anyone says or would put forth would be shot down because Packers fans see Rodgers as the God of QB's and anything that is negative about him is put down immediately and with full force. What really sucks for Packer fans is that once Rodgers leaves, they will more than likely be in the same boat that MN has been in the last 10 years, looking for a QB. So enjoy it while it lasts because the suck cycle is coming back around. (BTW, can the Packers win without Rodgers throwing a TD pass or two? Haven't seen that in a while. Kinda sucks if he gets hurt. )

Wait, what is the suck cycle? It's the cycle that all teams go through over time. Except Tampa and Detroit, they are stuck in the suck cycle. They have a period of victories and playoff runs that last 10-15 years or so. Then the coach, QB or GM leaves, the glue that held the team together. Then they suck more or less for 10-15 year and then they get the "good" cycle again. Teams that are due for the suck cycle are New England, Green Bay, Dallas, Indy. Now this suck-good cycle is visible with most teams over the years. New England sucked for years until Belicheat took over, once he is gone, their suck cycle will come back. Green Bay has been lucky with two great QB's. Their good cycle has been longer than normal, which means when suck time comes, it's going to be real ******* some of the newer fans from the last 20 years. Vikings fans, well those of us older ones, we understand the suck cycle. We know that eventually our team will come out of it.

Ha! Hey, we faced it for 30 years. We paid our dues. I have a feeling if TT is still in charge when Rodgers hangs up his cleats, the Packers will have found a fine QB (they already have a real nice prospect, but I doubt he'll stay with the team another 8 years). Some teams do go in cycles. Others seem to hover around the middle to the top for a loooonggg time. Look at the Steelers. You would think it is time for their suck cycle, but from the looks of their past couple of games, not yet. We'll see what happens with Vick, but they somehow manage to have a good team year after year. Of course you forgot to mention the Eagles. They haven't won a Championship since 1960.

As far as Packers fans thinking Rodgers is the God of QBs. I'll own it. No apologies for that. Chuck Norris wants to throw footballs like Aaron Rodgers.

 

[bigbubbatd]

No reasonable explanation is possible with Packer fans. See, they can't even admit that the reasons the Vikings didn't draft Rodgers is because they "DIDN'T NEED A FREAKING QB AT THE TIME!" No matter what anyone says or would put forth would be shot down because Packers fans see Rodgers as the God of QB's and anything that is negative about him is put down immediately and with full force. What really sucks for Packer fans is that once Rodgers leaves, they will more than likely be in the same boat that MN has been in the last 10 years, looking for a QB. So enjoy it while it lasts because the suck cycle is coming back around. (BTW, can the Packers win without Rodgers throwing a TD pass or two? Haven't seen that in a while. Kinda sucks if he gets hurt. )

Wait, what is the suck cycle? It's the cycle that all teams go through over time. Except Tampa and Detroit, they are stuck in the suck cycle. They have a period of victories and playoff runs that last 10-15 years or so. Then the coach, QB or GM leaves, the glue that held the team together. Then they suck more or less for 10-15 year and then they get the "good" cycle again. Teams that are due for the suck cycle are New England, Green Bay, Dallas, Indy. Now this suck-good cycle is visible with most teams over the years. New England sucked for years until Belicheat took over, once he is gone, their suck cycle will come back. Green Bay has been lucky with two great QB's. Their good cycle has been longer than normal, which means when suck time comes, it's going to be real ******* some of the newer fans from the last 20 years. Vikings fans, well those of us older ones, we understand the suck cycle. We know that eventually our team will come out of it.

You quoted my post but I think you responded to another one. I don't think it is just Packer fans mocking pff for this. I have seen stuff on yahoo and espn.

We won't get another qb like Rodgers. If he stays healthy he will be in the best ever convo. Saying Minnesota didn't need Rodgers is fine but if you can scout elite talent you take it even if you don't need it. The Vikings had chester Taylor who was very good when they drafted ap. By the time Rodgers played for the Packers the Vikings were desperate for a qb.

Viking fans like to call the packers lucky but they scouted well. Traded a first round pick for Favre to the surprise of many and drafted rodgers even with favre. Now they have a guy in Hundley who may not amount to anything but looked like the 2nd or 3rd best qb in this draft in the preseason

 

[Raptorman]

You quoted my post but I think you responded to another one. I don't think it is just Packer fans mocking pff for this. I have seen stuff on yahoo and espn.

We won't get another qb like Rodgers. If he stays healthy he will be in the best ever convo. Saying Minnesota didn't need Rodgers is fine but if you can scout elite talent you take it even if you don't need it. The Vikings had chester Taylor who was very good when they drafted ap. By the time Rodgers played for the Packers the Vikings were desperate for a qb.

Viking fans like to call the packers lucky but they scouted well. Traded a first round pick for Favre to the surprise of many and drafted rodgers even with favre. Now they have a guy in Hundley who may not amount to anything but looked like the 2nd or 3rd best qb in this draft in the preseason

Nope, got the right post. You asked for a reasonable explanation and I pointed out that no explanation would be considered that didn't put Rodgers down as the best QB in the league last week. Don't get me wrong, Rodgers is a great QB and I wish we did have him. Sorta. Problem is, Rodgers is all the Packers have on offense. Since no other QB is close to him, no one can replace him. And hence, if he get's hurt, the Packers are screwed. Think Tolzien can throw 5 TD passes like Rodger? Not likely.

If Rodgers throws 0-1 Td passes the Packer win 44% of the time.
If he throws 0, that drops to 33% of the time.
2 TD passes per game, it jumps to 74% winning percentage.
80% at 3 Tds
and 4 or more, 93%.

So really, if the Packer Qb can't put up 2+ Td's, the Packers are screwed. When Rodgers went down in 2013 the Packer Qbs only threw more than 1 TD pass in one game. Of the 7 they they went 2-4-1. With only 1 multi TD game which they won.

But hey, he's a damn good QB. Just pray he doesn't get hurt.

 

[PikeBadger]

No reasonable explanation is possible with Packer fans. See, they can't even admit that the reasons the Vikings didn't draft Rodgers is because they "DIDN'T NEED A FREAKING QB AT THE TIME!" No matter what anyone says or would put forth would be shot down because Packers fans see Rodgers as the God of QB's and anything that is negative about him is put down immediately and with full force. What really sucks for Packer fans is that once Rodgers leaves, they will more than likely be in the same boat that MN has been in the last 10 years, looking for a QB. So enjoy it while it lasts because the suck cycle is coming back around. (BTW, can the Packers win without Rodgers throwing a TD pass or two? Haven't seen that in a while. Kinda sucks if he gets hurt. )

Wait, what is the suck cycle? It's the cycle that all teams go through over time. Except Tampa and Detroit, they are stuck in the suck cycle. They have a period of victories and playoff runs that last 10-15 years or so. Then the coach, QB or GM leaves, the glue that held the team together. Then they suck more or less for 10-15 year and then they get the "good" cycle again. Teams that are due for the suck cycle are New England, Green Bay, Dallas, Indy. Now this suck-good cycle is visible with most teams over the years. New England sucked for years until Belicheat took over, once he is gone, their suck cycle will come back. Green Bay has been lucky with two great QB's. Their good cycle has been longer than normal, which means when suck time comes, it's going to be real ******* some of the newer fans from the last 20 years. Vikings fans, well those of us older ones, we understand the suck cycle. We know that eventually our team will come out of it.

Any franchise is only as good as their management. It's imperative to consistently putting an excellent product on the field. Our "luck" came to us when Ted's telephone did not ring during that fateful 10 minutes in 2005.

 

[Croak]

Nope, got the right post. You asked for a reasonable explanation and I pointed out that no explanation would be considered that didn't put Rodgers down as the best QB in the league last week. Don't get me wrong, Rodgers is a great QB and I wish we did have him. Sorta. Problem is, Rodgers is all the Packers have on offense. Since no other QB is close to him, no one can replace him. And hence, if he get's hurt, the Packers are screwed. Think Tolzien can throw 5 TD passes like Rodger? Not likely.

If Rodgers throws 0-1 Td passes the Packer win 44% of the time.
If he throws 0, that drops to 33% of the time.
2 TD passes per game, it jumps to 74% winning percentage.
80% at 3 Tds
and 4 or more, 93%.

So really, if the Packer Qb can't put up 2+ Td's, the Packers are screwed. When Rodgers went down in 2013 the Packer Qbs only threw more than 1 TD pass in one game. Of the 7 they they went 2-4-1. With only 1 multi TD game which they won.

But hey, he's a damn good QB. Just pray he doesn't get hurt.

Can't disagree with this post. If Rodgers gets hurt, the team will suffer greatly. This is true for most of the teams in the NFL. If the star player gets hurt, the team struggles. Look how Minnesota does without Adrian Peterson. I've been saying for some time that Peterson gives the Vikings hope. One could say the same for many teams. Drew Brees goes down and the Saints struggle. And it could go on for Brady, Romo, Newton, et al. In many cases it's the QB. In some cases it's an RB.

 

[TJV]

Let this be a lesson to all the parents out there. Don’t let your children grow up to be Vikings fans: It warps minds. No doubt at some point in time decades and decades ago Raptorman was a reasonable, rationale kid. And now look at him: He wouldn’t want Aaron Rodgers on the Vikings because if he got injured their chances for a title would vanish. Never mind the Vikings have never won a title. As Packers fans we can only hope this irrationality has infected the front office.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

How about the fact that Rodgers puts the ball in a perfect place to let his wide receivers get yac? Or that he finds the open guy? Even add an interception to his numbers and that is still a phenomenal game. Your post seems like you are struggling to defend pff. Rodgers had a masterful performance. To put his anywhere near the ugly game bridgewater had is ridiculous

So, let's remove Rodgers and Cobb from the discussion. Let's say quarterback A throws a 10-yard pass directly sideways to a wide open receiver. That receiver then uses his speed and agility to outrun the defense to the edge and runs the ball in for a TD. In your opinion, the QB deserves the credit for hitting the wide open receiver with one of the easiest passes in the NFL?

PFF ain't perfect. I'm struggling to get some to think about what the rating might tell you to look at. That's all the rating is saying. The rating isn't saying Rodgers was bad, it's just saying that maybe Randall Cobb was phenomenal in this game. When a receiver is REALLY good, naturally the QB is going to look good as well. I would also add that the offensive coordinator deserves some credit as well because many of those TDs were built around a second receiver (Montgomery a couple of times if I recall) picking off the primary defender for Cobb, thus allowing Cobb to just have to beat the help.

I get that it's a Packers fan board but I don't recall people having this kind of issue when Calvin Johnson was making Matthew Stafford look great in some games. Cobb isn't as good as Johnson and Rodgers is way better than Stafford (like, they play a different sport better) so it's very rare to see a game in which Cobb (or anyone else) can make Rodgers look better.

 

[TJV]

PFF writes, ‘The greatness of Rodgers’ performance was in the intangibles. We do not try to quantify intangibles’. (I argue they don’t quantify some tangibles either.) Taking them at their word, this would make more sense to me: ‘The greatness – a hugely significant part – of playing QB is in the intangibles. We don’t even try to take intangibles into consideration. Therefore we don’t grade the performances of QBs.

 

[Croak]

Let this be a lesson to all the parents out there. Don’t let your children grow up to be Vikings fans: It warps minds. No doubt at some point in time decades and decades ago Raptorman was a reasonable, rationale kid. And now look at him: He wouldn’t want Aaron Rodgers on the Vikings because if he got injured their chances for a title would vanish. Never mind the Vikings have never won a title. As Packers fans we can only hope this irrationality has infected the front office.

Raptor is a good guy. We have to go easy on him. It isn't often that a devoted fan of another team stays on a forum as long as he has this one and contributes well. He wears Purple tinted sunglasses, so it's hard for him to see the bright yellow sunshine. Someday maybe he'll come over to the light. I enjoy a lot of his posts. But I'm a Packer homer who can sympathize with a Viking homer.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I like PFF because it tracks a lot of statistics you can´t find anywhere else. Their rating system of players is completely flawed though.

FWIW Bob McGinn rated Rodgers´ performance with four out of points and mentions three negative plays during his performance vs. the Chiefs on which he got lucky.

Defensive coordinator Bob Sutton spent four seasons on Rex Ryan's staff in New York and shares some of his schemes and attack mode. Sutton blitzed on 31.8% of passes, most the Packers have encountered since Game 10 (Eagles) last year. Rodgers recognized most of it, although the overload sack was partially his fault. Despite steady pressure, he stayed remarkably collected. In the end zone, he bounced away from a collapsed pocket, moved left, squared his shoulders and tossed a dart to Cobb for 29. Twice he made off-balance throws on screens totaling 45 yards. He helped save the tackles using a hard count (two off-sides penalties), changing plays at the line and catching Howard twice 1 yard away from the sideline for drive-sustaining substitution penalties. Each week, he makes throws and escapes almost no other quarterback can make. He is controlling the game with his eyes. He missed ILBs Josh Mauga and Johnson in the progression and was fortunate both players dropped interceptions. After holding the ball for 5.9 seconds and fumbling the ball away on a sack, he was saved by an illegal-contact penalty. He overthrew Cobb on a routine corner route for an 8-yard TD.

Just ran across a reference to PFF giving Peyton a neg score the game he threw 7 TD's because a couple were screen plays with great YAC.

Manning had a +4.8 rating in that game.

 

[bigbubbatd]

So, let's remove Rodgers and Cobb from the discussion. Let's say quarterback A throws a 10-yard pass directly sideways to a wide open receiver. That receiver then uses his speed and agility to outrun the defense to the edge and runs the ball in for a TD. In your opinion, the QB deserves the credit for hitting the wide open receiver with one of the easiest passes in the NFL?

PFF ain't perfect. I'm struggling to get some to think about what the rating might tell you to look at. That's all the rating is saying. The rating isn't saying Rodgers was bad, it's just saying that maybe Randall Cobb was phenomenal in this game. When a receiver is REALLY good, naturally the QB is going to look good as well. I would also add that the offensive coordinator deserves some credit as well because many of those TDs were built around a second receiver (Montgomery a couple of times if I recall) picking off the primary defender for Cobb, thus allowing Cobb to just have to beat the help.

I get that it's a Packers fan board but I don't recall people having this kind of issue when Calvin Johnson was making Matthew Stafford look great in some games. Cobb isn't as good as Johnson and Rodgers is way better than Stafford (like, they play a different sport better) so it's very rare to see a game in which Cobb (or anyone else) can make Rodgers look better.

So, let's remove Rodgers and Cobb from the discussion. Let's say quarterback A throws a 10-yard pass directly sideways to a wide open receiver. That receiver then uses his speed and agility to outrun the defense to the edge and runs the ball in for a TD. In your opinion, the QB deserves the credit for hitting the wide open receiver with one of the easiest passes in the NFL?

PFF ain't perfect. I'm struggling to get some to think about what the rating might tell you to look at. That's all the rating is saying. The rating isn't saying Rodgers was bad, it's just saying that maybe Randall Cobb was phenomenal in this game. When a receiver is REALLY good, naturally the QB is going to look good as well. I would also add that the offensive coordinator deserves some credit as well because many of those TDs were built around a second receiver (Montgomery a couple of times if I recall) picking off the primary defender for Cobb, thus allowing Cobb to just have to beat the help.

I get that it's a Packers fan board but I don't recall people having this kind of issue when Calvin Johnson was making Matthew Stafford look great in some games. Cobb isn't as good as Johnson and Rodgers is way better than Stafford (like, they play a different sport better) so it's very rare to see a game in which Cobb (or anyone else) can make Rodgers look better.

Cobb didnt make Rodgers look better as much as a bad KC pass defense made Rodgers look better. KC had a weakness and the Packers exploited it. Rodgers knew what was there and attacked it. Cobb was great but so was James Jones. It wasnt like Rodgers just threw short. He was 5-7 for 134 yards on passes that traveled 13 yards. That is very good. You cant discount Rodgers game because he played against a weak secondary. That would be like giving Daniels a negative grade because the interior OL of KC was bad. Rodgers embarrassed that defense and was able to do it with short passes because that is what the defense gave him and guess what defense give him that because of how he kills them downfield if they dont focus their attention there.

Yes a qb deserves credit for getting rid of the ball extremely quick and right on stride to a receiver. I have seen plenty of other qbs with slower deliveries and less accuracy miss those plays. Just because Rodgers makes plays look easy doesnt mean they actually are. Why is Cobb considered phenomenal for catching an easy pass and scoring without being touched? Good teams make things look easy

Also discrediting a td because it was short is stupid. Long passes got them down there. It is fine that the rating system is telling people at what they could look at but their rational is stupid. It is why a lot of coaches talking poorly of pff system.

It isnt just Packer fans you are trying to convince. National sports analysts have said the rating was a joke as well.

 

[HardRightEdge]

As some posters have already highlighted, the key to PFF's rating is captured in the following paragraph, an important glimpse into the "black box":

"The greatness of Rodgers’ performance last night was in the intangibles. Recognizing the blitz, drawing the defense offsides, catching the Chiefs in bad situations and exploiting those scenarios with simple passes to open receivers. But you cannot — and we do not try to — quantify intangibles, or what comes pre-snap. Our system grades what can be graded — the execution of the play post-snap — and in that regard Rodgers did not stand out in the same way that his statistics did."

Another intangible they did not mention is his ability to elude pass rushers and avoid sacks. His ability to neutralize pressures, depending on how they measure those (which requires an eyeball test and, interestingly, is subjective enough to have an element of intangibility when they count them anyway), might be thrown into the mix. How do they account for that, if at all? If that's not taken into account as a plus for the QB, then you might surmise it's not being recorded as a minus in the pass blocking ratings.

The message here (or anywhere for that matter) is simple: know the terms by which a statistic is developed and evaluate it in view of those terms. If the terms cannot be ascertained, view the stat with skepticism.

 

[Half Empty]

Maybe we can just agree to not use PFF (alone) numbers as "proof" of anything. Interesting, sure. Supportive of a position, probably. Something to live by, no.

 

[PFanCan]

Wait, what is the suck cycle? ... Green Bay has been lucky with two great QB's. Their good cycle has been longer than normal...

It's been longer as we were stuck in the suck cycle for ~25 years through the '70s, '80s, and early '90s.

Vikings fans, well those of us older ones, we understand the suck cycle.

Of course you do.