Official NFL Discussion Thread

[lazorbeak]

good ole Dan, wait until something happens with the Dolphins and he makes a remark to get him suspended and then fired.

 

 

So more surprising, the 0-4 Bucs or the 2-2 Browns (2-0 after Richardson trade)

 

Me being a Bucs fan, it has to be the Bucs. This team came in with a lot of hope this season and 3 of their games have been loss on the finale plays. Defense is better, offense went no where.

 

Does Greg Schiano just hate his job and want to get fired? Because he's certainly on track. It's amazing how they lost winnable games against the Jets and others, benched their QB who has at least shown competency in the past to put in a completely raw guy in there who promptly throws 2 picks and doesn't move the ball even as well as Josh Freeman's zombie was doing. Oh, and how about completely sabotaging Josh Freeman? Ron Rivera's gotta be sitting in Carolina thinking "whew, finally a division opponent has a coach that doesn't make me look like a moron."

[Stennick]

<p>Ok this is a start 'em / sit 'em kinda week. I have three receivers to start. Calvin Johnson and Julio Jones are taking two spots because....they're Julio Jones and Calvin Johnson.</p><p> </p><p>

My third spot is tricky. I originally had Amendola before he got hurt in week two. Then right after Amendola got hurt DeSean Jackson had a MONSTER two weeks for Philly. I picked him up and he's since done jack. </p><p> </p><p>

So for this week do I start Jackson who as noted has been averaging about four damn points a game since week 2. Do I start Torrey Smith who had a monster game last week but the Ravens aren't known for their prolific passing even if they do have Flacco but they are playing Miami who are not only playing well above what most everyone thought they would they have played some really good passing teams and kept them from accomplishing much. Or my third option is Colston of the Saints but not only is he old, he's at best option three on that offense and on top of that they play the Bears who have for the most part had a lights out defense. </p><p> </p><p>

So Jackson, Smith, Colston, I'm leaning towards Smith in a big way but Jackson's big play ability makes me want to believe he can find a way to have a big game against New York.</p>

[lazorbeak]

<p>Well the Ravens aren't going to be known for much this season, but Torrey Smith is basically the only Ravens receiver that's upright headed into the week, so I could see him getting a lot of opportunities. On the other hand, Miami's defense is far better than the Giants'. I still think Smith is more of a sure thing just because who else is Flacco going to throw the ball up for grabs at? Ed Dickson is apparently their #1 tight end after Dallas Clark proved unable to do much of anything, and Jones, Stokley, and every other receiver on the team is hurt. The Eagles on the other hand have a running game and a couple of other choices in their offense.</p><p> </p><p>

Also are you in a small league or did you just draft receivers in the first 3 rounds? I had to scrape together my receiving corps of Fitzgerald, Edelman and Josh Gordon.</p>

[GatorBait19]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="lazorbeak" data-cite="lazorbeak" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="26529" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Does Greg Schiano just hate his job and want to get fired? Because he's certainly on track. It's amazing how they lost winnable games against the Jets and others, benched their QB who has at least shown competency in the past to put in a completely raw guy in there who promptly throws 2 picks and doesn't move the ball even as well as Josh Freeman's zombie was doing. Oh, and how about completely sabotaging Josh Freeman? Ron Rivera's gotta be sitting in Carolina thinking "whew, finally a division opponent has a coach that doesn't make me look like a moron."</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> reports are coming out now that he is so meticulous that he will constantly go over scenarios that might never happen in a season instead of focusing on improving the offense.</p><p> </p><p> Schiano, has truly gotten everything he has asked for since coming to Tampa. He has done really well drafting the past two years as well, but some of that has to be credited to Dominick, Jimmy Raye, and Butch Davis as well. If he goes 1-7 I honestly see them dropping him and putting Sullivan or even Bryan Cox as interim coach.</p><p> </p><p> The team is undisciplined, there seems to be a divided locker room, and it's amazing how Freeman could be a 60% thrower before Schiano and fall to 55-45% with Schiano. I think Schiano may have destroyed Freeman and a move to the Cardinals or Vikes might benefit him the most.</p>

[GatorBait19]

Jackson vs the Giants could be a good match... Or the Giants finally wake up and remember how to win.

[lazorbeak]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="GatorBait19" data-cite="GatorBait19" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="26529" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Jackson vs the Giants could be a good match... Or the Giants finally wake up and remember how to win.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Is "have no running game, no offense line, and throw 3 picks a game" the way to win? Because the Giants are really good at executing that formula.</p><p> </p><p> In hindsight, Jackson had a slightly better game, but Smith did get 121 yards receiving, so I don't feel too bad about recommending him. In the meantime, I lead my league in scoring, but get beaten this week by Tony Romo's ridiculous performance.</p>

[moon_lit_tears]

<p>Send Drew Brees, NO QB from QB to grrr</p><p>

Receive Alshon Jeffery, Chi WR from grrr to Bench</p><p>

Receive Russell Wilson, Sea QB from grrr to Bench</p><p>

Receive Chris Johnson, Ten RB from grrr to Bench</p><p> </p><p>

Was sent this trade proposal today in my pay league.</p><p> </p><p>

Any ideas on a yay or nay?</p><p> </p><p>

My back up qb is Sam Bradford if that helps make a decision.</p>

[lazorbeak]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="moon_lit_tears" data-cite="moon_lit_tears" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="26529" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Send Drew Brees, NO QB from QB to grrr<p> Receive Alshon Jeffery, Chi WR from grrr to Bench</p><p> Receive Russell Wilson, Sea QB from grrr to Bench</p><p> Receive Chris Johnson, Ten RB from grrr to Bench</p><p> </p><p> Was sent this trade proposal today in my pay league.</p><p> </p><p> Any ideas on a yay or nay?</p><p> </p><p> My back up qb is Sam Bradford if that helps make a decision.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> It looks like they want Brees for that stuff? Super-duper nay. Never trade $1 for three quarters. Nobody in that trade is as consistently good as a starter as Brees. Wilson would have to be your de facto starter, and he's a significant downgrade. If you need support at RB or WR, pick up somebody off the waiver wire, don't give up a pretty important starting QB. You shouldn't give up a regular starter unless you're getting significant improvement in an area you're weak in, and none of those guys look like they'd be significant improvements.</p>

[D-Lyrium]

I have a friend coming over at the weekend to watch Broncos/Chargers (she wants to see a game and it's the only one on ¬_¬). One of the things she's confused about is why 'nobody ever seems to be playing teams in their own league' (despite the fact that, ironically, that's happening this time).

 

So er... I'm gonna post how I *think* the NFL schedule works. Lets see how well I do.

 

- You play each of the teams in your own division home and away every year. So 6 games.

- Each division is paired with another division from that conference, and one from the other conference, on a four year cycle (so once every four years you'll play the members of each conference that isn't yours). Three years for your own conference obviously as one of those divisions is yours. You play all four teams from those two divisions once. So another 8 games.

- Finally, you play the team placed in the same position you were last year in the two divisions of your own conference you haven't played anyone from yet.

 

So the Chargers, for instance, are in AFC West. So they'll play the Chiefs, Broncos and Raiders home and away.

 

They're paired with AFC South this year, so they'll play the Colts, Texans, Titans and Jaguars, but only once.

 

Their inter-conference pairing is NFC East, so they'll play the Cowboys, Eagles, Redskins and Giants, but again only once.

 

Then because they've played teams from the AFC South, and they finished second last season in AFC West, they also play one game against the 2nd placed teams from AFC East and North (Dolphins and Bengals).

 

I think that's right... the only thing I'm confused about is, is there any pattern to who is home and who is away for the teams you only play once? For instance, the Chargers have the Bengals at home and the Dolphins away. Is that just because that's how the cookie crumbled or is there something that decides that? It looks like you play half the matches at home and half away still, but what decides which teams you play at home? Is it just how the schedule looks? Like, if say Miami Heat are at home that week, the Dolphins might have to play away due to traffic and stuff (I have no idea where their two stadiums are geographically, just an example).

 

Also, is home advantage such a big deal in NFL as it is in football over here?

[lazorbeak]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="D-Lyrium" data-cite="D-Lyrium" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="26529" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I have a friend coming over at the weekend to watch Broncos/Chargers (she wants to see a game and it's the only one on ¬_¬). One of the things she's confused about is why 'nobody ever seems to be playing teams in their own league' (despite the fact that, ironically, that's happening this time).<p> </p><p> So er... I'm gonna post how I *think* the NFL schedule works. Lets see how well I do.</p><p> </p><p> - You play each of the teams in your own division home and away every year. So 6 games.</p><p> - Each division is paired with another division from that conference, and one from the other conference, on a four year cycle (so once every four years you'll play the members of each conference that isn't yours). Three years for your own conference obviously as one of those divisions is yours. You play all four teams from those two divisions once. So another 8 games.</p><p> - Finally, you play the team placed in the same position you were last year in the two divisions of your own conference you haven't played anyone from yet.</p><p> </p><p> So the Chargers, for instance, are in AFC West. So they'll play the Chiefs, Broncos and Raiders home and away.</p><p> </p><p> They're paired with AFC South this year, so they'll play the Colts, Texans, Titans and Jaguars, but only once.</p><p> </p><p> Their inter-conference pairing is NFC East, so they'll play the Cowboys, Eagles, Redskins and Giants, but again only once.</p><p> </p><p> Then because they've played teams from the AFC South, and they finished second last season in AFC West, they also play one game against the 2nd placed teams from AFC East and North (Dolphins and Bengals).</p><p> </p><p> I think that's right... the only thing I'm confused about is, is there any pattern to who is home and who is away for the teams you only play once? For instance, the Chargers have the Bengals at home and the Dolphins away. Is that just because that's how the cookie crumbled or is there something that decides that? It looks like you play half the matches at home and half away still, but what decides which teams you play at home? Is it just how the schedule looks? Like, if say Miami Heat are at home that week, the Dolphins might have to play away due to traffic and stuff (I have no idea where their two stadiums are geographically, just an example).</p><p> </p><p> Also, is home advantage such a big deal in NFL as it is in football over here?</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Yes, that's right. I think it's just one of the league's mysteries as to why a team plays at home vs. away. The league does that such that there's always 8 games at home and away. They also try to schedule it so that west coast teams are given late afternoon (4 PM Eastern Time) home games where possible. They also deal with the national television deals for the Sunday night and Monday night games, which are usually given to rivalries or teams that were good the previous season (this week's two games were a divisional game between two playoff teams in the Colts and the Texans, and a rivalry game between the Packers and Bears). The league has also been sacrificing the occasional home game for east coast teams (usually those that have attendance issues anyway) in order to play the game in London.</p><p> </p><p> And yes, home field advantage is a pretty big deal. I crunched the numbers before this week's games and saw that the home team this year was winning about 61% of the time this year, which is above the average for the past 45 years, which is around 57% (still not as high as soccer/football, but higher than baseball). If you take out two outliers on either side (the winless Jaguars and Bucs, and the unstoppable at home Packers and Broncos), the percentage jumps all the way up to around 65% this year. You're also far more likely to see blow-outs in favor of the home team. It's far less likely for a team to go into an opposing stadium and thoroughly beat a team, unless that team is embarrassingly bad the way the Jaguars and Bucs have been. Which is why it's so bizarre that the Eagles are winless at home and just won by 29 on the road.</p>

[D-Lyrium]

Yeah, over here winning away is usually considered a slight upset between the midtable teams. The top teams will expect to win anywhere (although even Man City are struggling away this season despite some 6/7 goal home wins and Chelsea just lost in Newcastle) and the bottom teams are usually going to lose anywhere, but sometimes lesser teams like Hull and West Brom (who are now a solid team but used to be up and down the divisions like a yo-yo) have good home records. Even in the lower leagues there are some stadia that are considered 'fortresses' because of how hard it is to beat teams there even though the same team can't buy a win away.

 

I noticed that the Vikings' only win this season was away at Pittsburgh.

[lazorbeak]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="D-Lyrium" data-cite="D-Lyrium" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="26529" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Yeah, over here winning away is usually considered a slight upset between the midtable teams. The top teams will expect to win anywhere (although even Man City are struggling away this season despite some 6/7 goal home wins and Chelsea just lost in Newcastle) and the bottom teams are usually going to lose anywhere, but sometimes lesser teams like Hull and West Brom (who are now a solid team but used to be up and down the divisions like a yo-yo) have good home records. Even in the lower leagues there are some stadia that are considered 'fortresses' because of how hard it is to beat teams there even though the same team can't buy a win away.<p> </p><p> I noticed that the Vikings' only win this season was away at Pittsburgh.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> That game was played in London, so it wasn't really a home game for the Steelers, either.</p>

[IWWROCKS]

<p>Vikings were designated the home team so techincally the win was a home win (albeit a home game in a different country)</p><p> </p><p>

Support at the stadium i'd say was pretty much 50/50 but more in terms of 50% rooting for the steelers, 5% rooting for the vikings and 45% rooting against the steelers.</p>

[D-Lyrium]

Wow. That game was well advertised. I knew about Jags/49ers at Wembley but didn't hear anything about Vikings/Steelers.

[RKOwnage]

Aaron Rodgers anybody? As a huge Packers fan, I'm still crying.

[CQI13]

Could always pick up Matt Flynn again!

[Stennick]

<p>Its for the best anyway. The Packers went from being THE team in the NFC to at the very best being the fourth best team in the NFC behind New Orleons, Seattle and San Francisco and honestly they are maybe lower than that depending on how teams like Detroit and Dallas are playing. Not too mention that Atlanta is one of the best teams in the league when they aren't minus two of the top ten wide recievers in the league and a running back. So yeah the Packers sit anywhere between five and eight in terms of best team in the lague. </p><p> </p><p>

Rogers went from being the best QB in the NFC to again somewhere in the lower top five. Sadly I see the Pack declining in the coming years. </p><p> </p><p>

Really though the NFC is irrelevant this year outside of the Saints, Seahawks and Niners everybody else is just playing to lose in the playoffs.</p>

[lazorbeak]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Stennick" data-cite="Stennick" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="26529" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Its for the best anyway. The Packers went from being THE team in the NFC to at the very best being the fourth best team in the NFC behind New Orleons, Seattle and San Francisco and honestly they are maybe lower than that depending on how teams like Detroit and Dallas are playing. Not too mention that Atlanta is one of the best teams in the league when they aren't minus two of the top ten wide recievers in the league and a running back. So yeah the Packers sit anywhere between five and eight in terms of best team in the lague. <p> </p><p> Rogers went from being the best QB in the NFC to again somewhere in the lower top five. Sadly I see the Pack declining in the coming years. </p><p> </p><p> Really though the NFC is irrelevant this year outside of the Saints, Seahawks and Niners everybody else is just playing to lose in the playoffs.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Really confused by pretty much all of this. Have you just not seen a Packers game all year? Until their perennial MVP-candidate went down, they were a legit super bowl contender, and you're saying Atlanta and Dallas are better than them? That's pretty far out there.</p><p> </p><p> The idea of Rodgers "decline" is similarly pretty out there. He's posting top 5 across the board stats, but there's only two reasons he hasn't put up the completely ridiculous numbers of the last two years: one, his receiving corps has been hit with a ton of injuries, and second and most importantly, his team's running game and defense have improved to the point that he doesn't have to put up big second half stats. Of the Packers 5 wins, 4 were by 13 points or more. Only the 49ers in the NFC have consistently dominated both sides of the ball. The Seahawks and Saints each have 3 wins by that margin, for reference. Part of the reason the Packers lost on Monday is their run defense hasn't been tested in about six weeks, since they're used to sitting on two touchdown leads.</p><p> </p><p> I mean yes, I'd put Seattle and San Francisco as my #1 and #2 in the NFC in terms of power rankings right now, but neither team is so strong that they've got a Super Bowl appearance locked up. Neither has a particularly good offense. The Saints and Packers both have similar defensive issues, but the Packers also have the benefit of having a running back they trust, so they don't need to rely on 50 pass plays every game. The only place the Saints are head-and-shoulders better is Jimmy Graham. The Saints also play a brutal second half schedule, with games against Seattle and San Fran, and two games against a rejuvenated Panthers team.</p><p> </p><p> The Cowboys would be great... if the NFL was played 7 on 7. Unfortunately, they have at least 4 scrubs in the game on both sides of the ball at all times to offset the ludicrous amounts they pay their skill players. They needed a dramatic comeback to beat the Minnesota Vikings at home, a team with no defense and a carousel of poor QBs. Again, for comparison, Green Bay beat the Vikings at home by 13, and that's including giving up a kickoff return and 14 garbage time points. Minnesota needed a special teams touchdown to be down 21 in the 4th quarter, and was beating Dallas in Dallas with 5 minutes left.</p><p> </p><p> But yeah, pretty strongly disagree that the Packers don't have a shot, assuming they can get Rodgers back in a few weeks. With the right breaks, Seattle, San Fran, New Orleans, Green Bay, and even Carolina could conceivably make a Super Bowl run. It's actually pretty wide-open, because all of those teams have pretty significant flaws.</p>

[Stennick]

<p>The Packers as Super Bowl contenders? </p><p> </p><p>

They lost to the Niners who have a very good well above average winning record of 6-2</p><p> </p><p>

they beat the Redskins who are 3-5 and at that point where winless. </p><p> </p><p>

they lost to the Bengals who are having a great year, first place and are currently 6-3</p><p> </p><p>

they beat the Lions who were without Calvin Johnson the week they played each other</p><p> </p><p>

they beat Baltimore who have a losing record of 3-5</p><p> </p><p>

They beat the Browns who also have a losing record of 4-5</p><p> </p><p>

They beat Minnesota who has ONE win the entire year. </p><p> </p><p>

And then even though Rogers went down they lost to Chicago by a touchdown. Chicago is 5-3.</p><p> </p><p>

So they Packers haven't beat a single team with a winning record all year but they are Super Bowl contenders? </p><p> </p><p>

The teams they lost to have a combined winning percentage so far of .680</p><p> </p><p>

The teams they beat have a combined winning percentage of .421 </p><p> </p><p>

Shocking as it may be they won't run across any teams in the playoffs that have .421 winning percentages but they could run into multiple teams of .600 plus winning percentages and so I'm not sure where you see them as Super Bowl Contenders other than the talent that they have on the team. Even though plenty of talented teams are doing horrible and plenty of dreadfully talented teams are holding their own. No way the Packers make the Super Bowl. We will know more </p><p> </p><p>

I'm not saying the Packers are my St. Louis Rams and if Rogers can get healthy in the next few weeks they got a shot at the playoffs. They could even win their division with New York and Minnesota as their next two games if things line up right they could win those games without Rogers its not like either of those two teams have a QB better than even Wallace despite how horrible he is. </p><p> </p><p>

My point though is that you can't be a Super Bowl contender and lose to every team you play with a winning record. </p><p> </p><p>

As for Rogers only showing a decline because he lost his receivers. Remember Tom Brady up until oh I don't know last week? He lost his receivers and they still only got two losses on the year. </p><p> </p><p>

I may have jumped the gun on Rogers being in decline but he's the highest paid player in the NFL. His contract runs for five years and he takes the ball in his hands and rushes roughly on average 70 times a year. Give or take he has the same amount of rushing attemps as Michael Vick over the last three years. Mobile QB's don't stay healthy for near as long as pocket passers. </p><p> </p><p>

I'm sure you'll have some reason on why The Pack can be considered Super Bowl contenders even though they aren't even the leaders in their division (their tied), they haven't beaten a team with a winning record all year and as you pointed out they lost their receiving corps pretty ealry on in the season. They got embarrassed against the Niners and haven't looked like a contender ever since. </p><p> </p><p>

Especially not Super Bowl contenders when you see that New Orleons, Seattle and San Fran all are in the NFC and are look hundreds of miles better than The Pack have all season.They have a great shot to make the playoffs if he gets back with only Dallas, Chicago and Detroit left with winning records and all of those teams are only one game over five hundred as of right now so who knows what they look like by then. But they aren't beating the big three in the division.</p>

[lazorbeak]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Stennick" data-cite="Stennick" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="26529" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>The Packers as Super Bowl contenders?</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Yes? As mentioned, they were crushing teams at home and winning on the road. That's what good teams do to get home field advantage. And they had enough offensive firepower to compete even in tough games. </p><p> </p><p> Football teams rarely get to set their own schedules, so I'm not sure why you're hung up on it. Also, the Packers play 5 more teams with losing schedules. Also, way to introduce data that directly contradicts their own claims: they beat Detroit handily, and Detroit's a good team. So the Packers are 1-3 (1-2 if you don't count the Bears game, as my point is they <em>were </em>a contender) against .500 and above teams, with two road losses. That's not unusual. 2-2 would've been even less unusual, but I guess we'll never know, since Seneca Wallace wasn't able to pick apart the Bears defense the way Rodgers likely would have.</p><p> </p><p> Look at New England. You imply they're significantly better at 7-2, but they've played in a whopping 4 games against .500 teams, and that's only because they lost to a bad Jets team to help that team get over .500 (if they beat the Jets, their record against good teams drops to 1-1). They also looked embarrassingly poor at Cincinnati, and needed a lot of luck to get past New Orleans. They've also had close games against several bad teams, including the Falcons, Bills, and Dolphins. They won two games at home against good teams, and lost two games on the road against good teams. And guess what? They're a Super Bowl contender too.</p><p> </p><p> You bizarrely claim that the Saints are "miles" ahead of the Packers, but their record in games against teams over .500 so far? 1-2. And, as I already mentioned, they have less blowout wins, despite playing an even softer schedule. Their defense has certainly improved from "league worst" levels, but they struggled against a Jets team that isn't very good.</p><p> </p><p> Or how about the Broncos? They're a trendy Super Bowl pick and have been all year, and their record against above .500 teams is.... 1-1. One home win, one road loss. </p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Stennick" data-cite="Stennick" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="26529" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>My point though is that you can't be a Super Bowl contender and lose to every team you play with a winning record.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> They played two elite teams on the road and lost. Outside of the Bears game, they hadn't lost a game they should've won all year, and, as mentioned, they were completely dismantling their competition week after week. Something the Seahawks <em>don't </em>do. As I already mentioned, their 13 point + margin of victories put them in elite company, while the 1 loss Seahawks have to scrap out games against teams like the Rams and Texans.</p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Stennick" data-cite="Stennick" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="26529" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>As for Rogers only showing a decline because he lost his receivers. Remember Tom Brady up until oh I don't know last week? He lost his receivers and they still only got two losses on the year.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Right, but this was in response to your notion that Rodgers was somehow worse this year. Brady had been <span style="text-decoration:underline;">hugely</span> worse statistically this season, excepting one game, against an extremely bad defense. Rodgers has only declined in terms of total output, not effectiveness (he's still top 5 in basically every QB stat that matters), and, as mentioned, that's because the Packers were regularly racking up big leads and coasting; they don't need him to throw for 400 yards and 5 touchdowns, but that doesn't mean he suddenly can't. Brady was being forced to scrap out ugly wins while leaning on defense, the running game, and one of the best coaches in history, and as a result, he's looked noticeably worse. Rodgers lack of receivers had taken him out of the MVP conversation, while Brady's lack of receivers had him ranked lower than Chad Henne in completion percentage.</p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Stennick" data-cite="Stennick" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="26529" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I'm sure you'll have some reason on why The Pack can be considered Super Bowl contenders even though they aren't even the leaders in their division (their tied), they haven't beaten a team with a winning record all year and as you pointed out they lost their receiving corps pretty ealry on in the season. They got embarrassed against the Niners and haven't looked like a contender ever since.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> ....I already gave the reasons? Again, that's <em>before </em>the Rodgers injury. They were winning their division, a win over the Bears would've given them the inside track on a bye, and they were statistically playing like the third or fourth best team in football over a 5 week stretch. I think they could still be dangerous if they do decently without Rodgers, because his injury will force the defense to not rely on him as much as they did in their 15-1 season, where they weren't able to step up their level of play against top teams. If the Packers defense improves and they get Rodgers back, it's pretty crazy to write off the Packers. I mean, they did win a Super Bowl three years ago as a Wild Card based on their offense, and their offense this year was #3 in points and #2 in yards before Rodgers went down.</p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Stennick" data-cite="Stennick" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="26529" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Especially not Super Bowl contenders when you see that New Orleons, Seattle and San Fran all are in the NFC and are look hundreds of miles better than The Pack have all season.They have a great shot to make the playoffs if he gets back with only Dallas, Chicago and Detroit left with winning records and all of those teams are only one game over five hundred as of right now so who knows what they look like by then. But they aren't beating the big three in the division.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> As mentioned, the Saints are a slightly worse version of a (healthy) Packers team, and the Seahawks and 49ers have weaknesses, although one or the other is the favorite right now. And again, I'm not arguing the Packers are a lock or anything like that, just that this notion of their irrelevance or Aaron Rodgers "decline" is completely not supported by pretty much any data this season. They had a top 3 offense and an improved defense. Before that injury, they were one of a handful of teams with a legit shot to win the Super Bowl. I mean the Ravens obviously weren't the best team in the league last year, and they won it.</p><p> </p><p> Just for fun, the 2012 Ravens record at this point last year? 7-2. Their record against above .500 teams? 1-1. They won at home by 1 against New England, and lost by 30 on the road against Houston. Their other loss came on the road against a 4-win Eagles team, as they spent the entire first half of the season squeaking by bad teams. Then they got hot, got lucky (they should not have beaten Denver), and won a Super Bowl.</p><p> </p><p> It's almost like the data you used doesn't prove the thing you intended to prove!</p><p> </p><p> But seriously, my biggest issue with your statement was the idea that the Packers were "irrelevant," or the laughable notion that somehow the Cowboys are better than them. A Cowboys team that has only beaten their own division teams, the Rams, and the Vikings (in a dramatic comeback), and has huge issues on both sides of the ball. Dallas record against teams .500 or better? 0-4. Of course, they're a lot more likely to get blown out in a divisional game than to play in the Super Bowl. And that's assuming they don't end up choking and giving away the division title for what seems like the third or fourth time in recent history.</p>

[CQI13]

<p>Problem is, for the most part, team sports don't follow "A beats B, and B beats C, so A beats C 100% of the time."</p><p> </p><p>

As for the schedule, what is they say? Go .500 on the road, and take care of business at home and you're likely in the playoffs. And besides, all you can do is play the games in front of you. A win is a win.</p>

[IWWROCKS]

Rodgers decline? Really?

 

Dude is still a top 3 QB...he has the 2nd best passer rating this season behind Peyton (i'm excluding Nick Foles here for obvious reasons) and has thrown 15 TD's and not a whole lot of intereceptions. He's passing further down the field and is tied first in avg yards per pass.

 

Rodgers isnt declining he's just not throwing the ball as much. Eddie Lacy is the reason for that. In terms of pass attempts this season he's 19th in the league and despite that he's 9th in yards per game. 4th best completion percentage (who the hell knew Rivers was so accurate this year!) oh and he's top 6 in INT% and TD%

 

Rodgers is still Rodgers, he's just not having to be Rodgers all game.

 

Green Bay wont go to the superbowl, but it's not because of him, it's that defence. They have barely any turnovers and their special teams gives up the most kick off return yards in the league by quite a way.

[Stennick]

Again Green Bay has a week schedule this year and thats the reason Rogers has as good as number as he does. What defense besides Cincy and San Fran (both games he lost) has he played against?

 

I'm not bothered by everyone disagreeing with Rogers being in decline. Most of the time people rarely see someone in decline in sports until its very obvious.

 

Again the only team with a winning record Green Bay beat is Detroit and they did that without Calvin Johnson. Calvin Johnson is by far the most important skill position player outside of Manning in the entire NFL. Without him there is no way Detroit is even relevant.

 

The Packers have not looked like a Super Bowl contender. I'm not saying they are a bad team because they beat bad teams. I'm saying they are a pretty decent playoff worthy football team. However you saying they were a Super Bowl contender is just as out there as me saying Rogers is in decline when they literally have not beat a single playoff team yet. Who have they beaten that is playoff bound? Detroit? If Detroit makes it to the playoffs its only because both Rogers and Cutler are out of action for long periods of time.

 

You are the one that made the argument that Rogers doesn't have any recievers and thats why they aren't doing as well. I'm the one that pointed out that 1. Brady didn't have any recievers and 2. Brees doesn't have any WR's only Graham and Sproles and yet he's doing ok.

 

Green Bay wasn't even a lock to win their division and yet you hailed them as a legit Super Bowl contender. To me thats just as silly as me jumping the gun on Rogers.

 

Of course now you can say Rogers got hurt and THATS why they aren't Super Bowl contenders even though they weren't in the top three teams in the NFL before the injury and weren't even in sole possession of their division lead before the injury.

[IWWROCKS]

Again Green Bay has a week schedule this year and thats the reason Rogers has as good as number as he does. What defense besides Cincy and San Fran (both games he lost) has he played against?

 

I'm not bothered by everyone disagreeing with Rogers being in decline. Most of the time people rarely see someone in decline in sports until its very obvious.

 

Again the only team with a winning record Green Bay beat is Detroit and they did that without Calvin Johnson. Calvin Johnson is by far the most important skill position player outside of Manning in the entire NFL. Without him there is no way Detroit is even relevant.

 

The Packers have not looked like a Super Bowl contender. I'm not saying they are a bad team because they beat bad teams. I'm saying they are a pretty decent playoff worthy football team. However you saying they were a Super Bowl contender is just as out there as me saying Rogers is in decline when they literally have not beat a single playoff team yet. Who have they beaten that is playoff bound? Detroit? If Detroit makes it to the playoffs its only because both Rogers and Cutler are out of action for long periods of time.

 

You are the one that made the argument that Rogers doesn't have any recievers and thats why they aren't doing as well. I'm the one that pointed out that 1. Brady didn't have any recievers and 2. Brees doesn't have any WR's only Graham and Sproles and yet he's doing ok.

 

Green Bay wasn't even a lock to win their division and yet you hailed them as a legit Super Bowl contender. To me thats just as silly as me jumping the gun on Rogers.

 

Of course now you can say Rogers got hurt and THATS why they aren't Super Bowl contenders even though they weren't in the top three teams in the NFL before the injury and weren't even in sole possession of their division lead before the injury.

 

What do you want Green Bay to do, go and ask the NFL to change the schedule so they can play Denver instead?

 

Oh and defences?

 

Cleveland - 4th Ranked Defence - Win and 30+ points

Cincy - 5th ranked defence - Loss but put up 30+ points (aka not Rodgers fault)

49ers - 6th ranked defence - Loss but up 28 points (see above)

Ravens - 10th ranked defence - Win

 

So half of their games have been against top 10 ranked defences where they won 2 and lost 2 despite putting up circa 30 points.

 

I'm not arguing their super bowl contenders or not. I dont think they are favourites but once you get in the playoffs anyone can win it and you are by definition a contender.

 

My point is simply Aaron Rodgers is not in decline in any way shape or form.

 

Edit: Should probably clarify that those defensive ranks are based on yards allowed

[lazorbeak]

Rodgers decline? Really?

 

Dude is still a top 3 QB...he has the 2nd best passer rating this season behind Peyton (i'm excluding Nick Foles here for obvious reasons) and has thrown 15 TD's and not a whole lot of intereceptions. He's passing further down the field and is tied first in avg yards per pass.

 

Rodgers isnt declining he's just not throwing the ball as much. Eddie Lacy is the reason for that. In terms of pass attempts this season he's 19th in the league and despite that he's 9th in yards per game. 4th best completion percentage (who the hell knew Rivers was so accurate this year!) oh and he's top 6 in INT% and TD%

 

Rodgers is still Rodgers, he's just not having to be Rodgers all game.

 

Green Bay wont go to the superbowl, but it's not because of him, it's that defence. They have barely any turnovers and their special teams gives up the most kick off return yards in the league by quite a way.

 

Good to see I'm not the only one who's been paying attention this season.

 

Again Green Bay has a week schedule this year and thats the reason Rogers has as good as number as he does. What defense besides Cincy and San Fran (both games he lost) has he played against?

 

I'm not bothered by everyone disagreeing with Rogers being in decline. Most of the time people rarely see someone in decline in sports until its very obvious.

 

Nice to see you're just changing the goal-posts now. As pointed out below, they've actually played some pretty good defenses and blown them out. I'm glad you're not bothered by being completely statistically incorrect. People very rarely read box scores wrong.

 

Again the only team with a winning record Green Bay beat is Detroit and they did that without Calvin Johnson. Calvin Johnson is by far the most important skill position player outside of Manning in the entire NFL. Without him there is no way Detroit is even relevant.

 

The Packers have not looked like a Super Bowl contender. I'm not saying they are a bad team because they beat bad teams. I'm saying they are a pretty decent playoff worthy football team. However you saying they were a Super Bowl contender is just as out there as me saying Rogers is in decline when they literally have not beat a single playoff team yet. Who have they beaten that is playoff bound? Detroit? If Detroit makes it to the playoffs its only because both Rogers and Cutler are out of action for long periods of time.

 

No, it isn't. I already gave the stats to you as to why one statement is supported by data, and one isn't. "Who have they beaten" is an irrelevant question. Who has Denver beaten? (Answer: The Cowboys.) And yet they're a contender. You don't need to beat elite teams on the road to be a Super Bowl contender. It's like you haven't been reading.

 

You are the one that made the argument that Rogers doesn't have any recievers and thats why they aren't doing as well. I'm the one that pointed out that 1. Brady didn't have any recievers and 2. Brees doesn't have any WR's only Graham and Sproles and yet he's doing ok.

 

Green Bay wasn't even a lock to win their division and yet you hailed them as a legit Super Bowl contender. To me thats just as silly as me jumping the gun on Rogers.

 

I already explained the massive difference in Rodgers and Brady's performance, right? I'm pretty sure I did. Yes, Green Bay wasn't a "lock," but if they continued playing like they had been, yes, they were one of the four-five teams with a legitimate shot at the Super Bowl. I'm not sure how that's not getting through to you.

 

Of course now you can say Rogers got hurt and THATS why they aren't Super Bowl contenders even though they weren't in the top three teams in the NFL before the injury and weren't even in sole possession of their division lead before the injury.

 

........I said they were Super Bowl contenders BEFORE the injury. That was the point I made in my original post. They were completely controlling games and coasting to easy victories. Your statements that New Orleans or Seattle was "miles ahead" just isn't true, since those teams struggled to pick up wins against poor teams. And more "not backed up by data" statements: they were winning their division, and as far as the "top three teams," who cares? As mentioned their offense actually was top three, and as pointed out in my last post, a Baltimore Ravens team was worse last year before winning the Super Bowl.

 

Anyway, that's my last word on the subject. Just to recap: it's not unusual for good teams to lose to other good teams on the road. Rodgers continues to be an elite QB, and hopefully will continue to be after he comes back. Arguing "who have they beaten" is a silly question in the NFL, because of parity and scheduling. Even "bad" teams can compete with a good team: Miami nearly beating New England, Tampa Bay scaring Seattle, etc., so when a good team consistently beats bad teams by double digits, that is a good sign. Even good teams have problems: Seattle's offensive line, San Fran's lack of receivers, the Saints defense, etc. That's why every year there's usually at least 3-4 teams with a real chance of winning the Super Bowl every year. The New York Giants and Baltimore Ravens were not the best team in the league the seasons they won (either time), and yet they each have two championships in the past decade. Green Bay didn't even win their division the year they won the Super Bowl. That year, they lost five games on the road and one at home. They then won three games in a row on the road, including a game against two teams that had already beaten them: the Bears and the Falcons. But yeah, acting like they would have even a slim chance of doing that in a league where the top team struggles to beat Tampa Bay at home is just as nonsensical as saying a team is irrelevant.