Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dantés" data-source="post: 889530" data-attributes="member: 12283">Minshew— 21stCousins— 16thDarnold— 33rdFoles— 27thMayfield— 24thBurrow— 25thStafford— 17thJackson— 18thTannehill— 7thThe level of QB they’ve faced recently has been better, but five of their nine opponents have been 21st or later (i.e. not average). Even by the eye test, I think most people realize that guys like Minshew, Foles, and Mayfield are below average players, in addition to Darnold. It’s been one of the easier slates faced league wide. The average of these rankings is actually 21st. The average of the Packers’ opponents is 15th, and they haven’t exactly faced a murderers row. Six of their opponents have been top half however, compared to the Colts’ two. Lastly, a QB rating reflects the overall success of the passing attack, which “bakes in” the rest of the personnel. The fact is that Rodgers has the best rating in the league with the pass catchers he’s had to work with. So while they’ve faced better receiving corps, they have not come close to face a passing offense as good as Green Bay’s. This does not mean that the Packers will find success. It means that Indy is relatively untested. That the Packers haven’t been tested with strong defenses gets pointed out all the time. So naturally we should be able to recognize the simple reality of the inverse.</blockquote>

No members online now.

Total: 1,124 (members: 0, guests: 1,124)