The Weird, Wacky and Awesome World of the NFL - General Banter thread V2

Paully D

I thought that FG conversion %'s would be way down so far this season given how it seemed kickers have been struggling so this was an interesting read. I also thought week 4 was the worst week I could remember for missed field goals, but the reality is you don't have to go all that far back for a worse week for kickers:

http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/182532/the-great-kicking-collapse-actually-its-not

Through the first quarter of the 2015 season, NFL place-kickers have converted 94 percent of extra points under the league's new PAT rule, which moved the PAT line of scrimmage from the 2-yard line to the 15. That's precisely the rate most everyone projected based on recent history from the 33-yard range.

And through Week 3, at least, those kickers were hitting 84.9 percent of all field goal attempts -- almost identical to the league's rate in 2014 (84.7) and better than 2013 (82.4) during the same span.

So exactly how much hysteria is warranted after a rough Week 4 that has included 14 missed field goals and four missed extra points, with the Monday night game left to play?

From a historical sense, what we've seen is not alarming. You don't have to go back far to find a week where the NFL saw more missed field goals. In fact, it was Week 15 of 2014, according to the Elias Sports Bureau -- six weeks in NFL terms.

It's true that late-season weather usually lowers kicking percentages, as it probably did in that Week 15. But perspective is important. In Week 2 of the 2013 season -- just two years ago! -- NFL place-kickers also missed 14 field goals. So that number of missed kicks in the good-weather part of the season is hardly unprecedented, even in the context of the massive improvement in kicking in recent years.

If there was anything alarming in Week 4's micro-trend, it was the number of errant kicks under 40 yards. In the past two-plus seasons -- 2013, 2014 and the first three weeks of 2015 -- NFL place-kickers converted 80.6 percent of such attempts. In Week 4, however, they have hit only 15 of 22 attempts (68.2 percent) from under 40 yards. (For a weighted analysis of Week 4 by distance of attempt, check out this post from Rich Hill of Pats Pulpit.)

Still, part of what is going on here is that the new PAT rule has changed perceptions. Seeing 18 missed kicks of any type -- especially when a few of them significantly impacted the game's outcome -- was jarring. It has been four years, according to Elias, since we've seen as many as 18 missed kicks in one week's worth of play.

That happened in Week 10 of 2011, when there were 20 missed kicks. That's a lifetime ago for a modern fan. I get that.

I also wouldn't disregard the concerns expressed by kicking experts. Most notably, semiretired place-kicker Jay Feely tweeted that the new PAT rule has robbed specialists of in-game practice, leaving them feeling more pressured and more apt to buckle on field goals. No one can deny there is a vital element of confidence involved in successful place-kicking, which Feely would know as well as anyone.

But this seems to be a moment when we should all take a deep breath. Amid the hysteria, let's not forget that Baltimore Ravens place-kicker Justin Tucker drilled a game-winning 52-yard field goal in windy conditions Thursday night. And the Chicago Bears' Robbie Gould hit a 54-yard field goal on a gloomy day at Soldier Field and then won the game on a 49-yard attempt. Sometimes we forget the good when obsessing over the bad.

Perhaps Week 4 opened the door to a massive set of unintended consequences. Maybe the NFL's place-kickers are melting under the pressure of 13 extra yards. Or, just as likely, it has simply been a bad week. In either event, it seems a little early to panic.

D9Male

Thanks for posting that, Paully. Very interesting.

Maybe we have had numerous kickers this season miss 2, 3 and 4 kickers. Is that the issue, maybe?

Realt Dearg Sec

Interestingly the special teams player of the week was a guy who missed a PAT. I would wonder whether that's ever happened before.

Hazys

Be more pathetic Indianapolis...you can't

http://www.indianapolisrecorder.com/sports/article_05122652-6dd0-11e5-9a4c-b3a6924f94ec.html

Forget for the moment the fact that you play the Texans next not the Patriots, that you are a cupcake team, that the Pats are playing really well right now, that the Pats have beaten you by an average 21pts the last 6 times we have played you and that the Brady & the Pats are already pissed at you, etc...You are going to fly a blimp, over a dome, at night, where no Patriots players are going to see it.

Billy86

Hazys wrote: »

Be more pathetic Indianapolis...you can't

http://www.indianapolisrecorder.com/sports/article_05122652-6dd0-11e5-9a4c-b3a6924f94ec.html

Forget for the moment the fact that you play the Texans next not the Patriots, that you are a cupcake team, that the Pats are playing really well right now, that the Pats have beaten you by an average 21pts the last 6 times we have played you and that the Brady & the Pats are already pissed at you, etc...You are going to fly a blimp, over a dome, at night, where no Patriots players are going to see it.

To be honest the most mystifying part of it all is that it wasnt exactly like they lost a close game, the score was 45-7, for crying out loud!

JCTO

Hazys wrote: »

Be more pathetic Indianapolis...you can't

http://www.indianapolisrecorder.com/sports/article_05122652-6dd0-11e5-9a4c-b3a6924f94ec.html

Forget for the moment the fact that you play the Texans next not the Patriots, that you are a cupcake team, that the Pats are playing really well right now, that the Pats have beaten you by an average 21pts the last 6 times we have played you and that the Brady & the Pats are already pissed at you, etc...You are going to fly a blimp, over a dome, at night, where no Patriots players are going to see it.

Had they thought about the Fact that Lucas Oil has a roof and there is a chance Brady and the Patriots wont even see the blimp. Idiots.

JCTO

Katie Nolan on her show Garbage time ripping into Greg Hardy other Journos and the NFL. She makes some great points:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGrL39Q99sE

Son Of A Vidic

MUFC91CS wrote: »

Probably also helps that Gisele has a net worth well in excess of €300 million

How though? Because he's always been very generous with team contracts. He had 6 playing years under his belt and was putting the team first long before Giselle arrived on the scene.

Manning's first contract after his rookie deal expired was a 7 year $99.2 million deal back in 2004 = @ $14.17 million per year.

Brady's first contract after his rookie deal expired was a 5 year $32.5 million deal back in 2002 = @ $6.5 million per year.

Brady was basically happy to play for only 46% of the money that Manning was willing to play for. Wife or no wife, that's the way he's always been.

Billy86

While largely true, Brady in 2002 had only been a starter for one year, and yes he had won a SB with them but after one year you never know if it is legit or not - Jake Delhomme came within a whisker of winning a SB with Caroina a year or two later, for example (and played a very important role if I recall, his earlier years were pretty solid). By 2004, Manning was a multple time Pro Bowler, multiple time All Pro, one of the most marketable players in the game, and the reigning MVP. He was also coming off a #1 overall contract before that had been bargained down to what it is now, while Brady was coming off a #199 overall rookie deal.

By and large though the point does stand, just that each players' circumstances at the end of their rookie contracts were very different.

Son Of A Vidic

Billy86 wrote: »

To be honest the most mystifying part of it all is that it wasnt exactly like they lost a close game, the score was 45-7, for crying out loud!

And that was one of 4 successive defeats where the average score was 47-18.

Billy86

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

And that was one of 4 successive defeats where the average score was 47-18.

I really do like Luck both on and off the field, but it has been kind of nice to see him get criticism this season, because he has been far from infallible his first three years but from the media talk you would swear he had been perfect. Wasn't there murmurs of "he's even better than Rodgers and Brady!" last season, as he was on his way to throwing the 16 (6th most) interceptions and fumbling the ball 13 times?

Luck will probably have more career interceptions than Rodgers by the end of this year than Rodgers has since assuming the starting role in 2008 or Brady has since returning in 2009 (he has 50, both Rodgers and Brady have 57). That sentence alone ends any discussion of if he is on their level yet.

Son Of A Vidic

Afaic Billy, he has a very, very long way to go to enter into that discussion. And my gut tells me that after 4 years in the league, I won't be surprised if he never does.

raze_them_all_

The one thing I always wonder when I see team players give massive home team discounts is if they get reimursed uynder the table, Though with Brady he seems to get the fact that you need more than one reciever around you to win, Can't remember who it was, could of been brees last year, signed a team friendly deal to keep jimmy G wioth the team maybe, only for said team to trade them away. You'd be disgusted

Billy86

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Afaic Billy, he has a very, very long way to go to enter into that discussion. And my gut tells me that after 4 years in the league, I won't be surprised if he never does.

I'm starting to get that suspicion myself, to be honest. He's looking more like a Brett Favre "gunslinger" which wouldn't stop him from being a great player of course and which can be the most exciting type of player full stop for the neutrals... but which can be reckless and heartbreaking at times too (it should've been us facing you in the '07/08 SB! :mad: ). But guys like Brady, Rodgers and (prime) Peyton are simply a league above that.

Alfred Borden

I wouldnt be putting Rodgers up there with Brady and Manning just yet. Fantastic QB and if he keeps it up for a few more years , he definitely will be.

matthew8

Luck was anointed as an elite QB before he ever stepped foot on an NFL field. He has made plenty of mistakes but has an undoubtable playmaker ability to win games by himself, and though he's very much a cut below Brady and Rodgers, I'd still pick him over the likes of Rivers and Ryan in a heartbeat.

Billy86

Alfred Borden wrote: »

I wouldnt be putting Rodgers up there with Brady and Manning just yet. Fantastic QB and if he keeps it up for a few more years , he definitely will be.

Not in terms of overall career achievement no, but in terms of level of peak play there is not really even any debate to be had on the matter.

Son Of A Vidic

raze_them_all_ wrote: »

The one thing I always wonder when I see team players give massive home team discounts is if they get reimursed uynder the table, Though with Brady he seems to get the fact that you need more than one reciever around you to win, Can't remember who it was, could of been brees last year, signed a team friendly deal to keep jimmy G wioth the team maybe, only for said team to trade them away. You'd be disgusted

Brady just kinda got used to making Johnny nobody into a star. The unknown Welker was replaced by another unknown Edelman ect. But speaking off dodgy under the table stuff. The Broncos probably pulled off the biggest scam of the lot. When their blatant cap cheating with Elway and their star players, won them two Superbowls. Titles they won with players they legally shouldn't have been able to afford. Christ if that was us, we'd still be hearing about it.:pac:

Billy86

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Brady just kinda got used to making Johnny nobody into a star. The unknown Welker was replaced by another unknown Edelman ect. But speaking off dodgy under the table stuff. The Broncos probably pulled off the biggest scam of the lot. When their blatant cap cheating with Elway and their star players, won them two Superbowls. Titles they won with players they legally shouldn't have been able to afford. Christ if that was us, we'd still be hearing about it.:pac:

Elway fell under the 'NFL Golden Boy Narrative'. If you fall under that, all is typically forgiven.

Not that it was necessarily Elway's fault per se, but the QB tends to be what the narrative rotates around, and "Elways quest" is something the league simply did not want to have questioned, as he was one of the faces of the sport (and one of only 4-5 players in the NFL I even knew of at the time, started watching in 2002 and I had no idea who this "Brett" lad in There's Something About Mary was the first time I saw it :pac: )

matthew8

One thing I always wonder about the contracts is how much they actually get paid. Most players don't end up with near the amount of money they're reportedly paid because there's a lot of money that is not guaranteed in NFL contracts. I'd imagine a lot of the players who sign relatively small contracts would have a higher guaranteed proportion.

Billy86

matthew8 wrote: »

One thing I always wonder about the contracts is how much they actually get paid. Most players don't end up with near the amount of money they're reportedly paid because there's a lot of money that is not guaranteed in NFL contracts. I'd imagine a lot of the players who sign relatively small contracts would have a higher guaranteed proportion.

Highly recommend if you have not seen it yet:

Son Of A Vidic

matthew8 wrote: »

One thing I always wonder about the contracts is how much they actually get paid. Most players don't end up with near the amount of money they're reportedly paid because there's a lot of money that is not guaranteed in NFL contracts. I'd imagine a lot of the players who sign relatively small contracts would have a higher guaranteed proportion.

True, many contracts are artificially inflated with incentives. Maybe some players agree because it's an ego thing and on paper the final numbers look good. But looking good is one thing, being realistically achievable is another. The wise player goes for a smaller contract but with more guaranteed money.

matthew8

Billy86 wrote: »

Highly recommend if you have not seen it yet:

Yeah, that's where I was getting my info from. :pac:

Son Of A Vidic

Billy86 wrote: »

Highly recommend if you have not seen it yet:

I've seen that and it's a fascinating insight alright.

Alfred Borden

Alfred Borden wrote: »

I wouldnt be putting Rodgers up there with Brady and Manning just yet. Fantastic QB and if he keeps it up for a few more years , he definitely will be.

Rodgers is playing at a higher peak now than I think I've seen Brady or Manning play at. Loses Nelson. Makes it work. Brady loses gronk, the offence slows down.

Disclaimer: Personal opinion.

Knex*

Matt Hasselbeck was drafted 4 years before Houston were even a franchise.

j8wk2feszrnpao

Deleted User wrote: »

Rodgers is playing at a higher peak now than I think I've seen Brady or Manning play at. Loses Nelson. Makes it work. Brady loses gronk, the offence slows down.

Disclaimer: Personal opinion.

Brady in 2013. Lost just about all weapons from the previous season. He had Tompkins, Edelman (who hadn't done much to that point), a non performing (and injured) Amendola, Boyce, Collie, Hoomanawanui, Vereen/Gronk missing half the season......
A few of those names will be unrecognizable to most people.
They go 12:4, lose the AFC title game by just 10pts (and would IMO have given a better game than the Bronco's did in the SB).

Brady, stats wise, did not have a good season. But he won games, and got close to getting his team to another SB. Brady (2007) and Manning (2013) had record breaking seasons, but didn't win it all. Regular season stats and performances are great, but winning when it counts most of all is a different level IMO.

adrian522

Frank Gore is up to 16 All time in terms of rushing yards after last nights 98 yards.

Off those ahead of him 12 are in the Hall of Fame, and a further 2 are not yet eligible for the Hall, only Edgerrin James is eligible and not yet in.

Gore is closing in on quite a few, if he was to play this season and one more you could see him moving into the 10 all time (needs 881 yards on the ground).

What do you think are his chances of getting into the Hall of Fame?

Putin

Deleted User wrote: »

Rodgers is playing at a higher peak now than I think I've seen Brady or Manning play at. Loses Nelson. Makes it work. Brady loses gronk, the offence slows down.

Disclaimer: Personal opinion.

That make no sense at all. You say what if Brady losses Gronk? That's the same as saying what if Rodgers losses Cobb? Same difference.

I don't know how you could forget that Brady got to the AFC title game in 2013 after starting the season missing an entire offense.:eek:

Then of course let's not forget that Brady has played in 4 super bowls and won 3 of them without ever having a Gronk on the team or an elite WR.

Statistically speaking Bray is the best QB in the league right now, he's averaging a superhuman 32 completions per game for 370 yards at 72% for 3 TD's a game and 0 int's.

Rodgers is second averaging 22 completions per game for 248 yards at 72% for 2.75 TD.s and 0 int's.

Brady is throwing 10 more passes for game, for 122 more yards per game and for a higher TD average.

Afaic, Rodgers and Brady are always out on their own in the league, but stats wise Brady edges it.

HigginsJ

Putin wrote: »

Statistically speaking Bray is the best QB in the league right now, he's averaging a superhuman 32 completions per game for 370 yards at 72% for 3 TD's a game and 0 int's.

Rodgers is second averaging 22 completions per game for 248 yards at 72% for 2.75 TD.s and 0 int's.

Brady is throwing 10 more passes for game, for 122 more yards per game and for a higher TD average.

Afaic, Rodgers and Brady are always out on their own in the league, but stats wise Brady edges it.

Taking a slightly longer look, going on last season and to start this year

Rodgers 49 Td's - 5 Int's 72.4% this year 65.6% last
Brady 42 Td's - 9 Int's 72.2% this year 64.1% last

Rodgers is the better stats wise QB in the last year and a half, frankly he is playing at a level that few QB's have reached. Brady is phenomenal to be playing this well at this stage of his career.

I agree that Rodgers and Brady are in a league of their own, but with-in that mini league Rodgers is the best in the business right now.

Billy86

Putin wrote: »

That make no sense at all. You say what if Brady losses Gronk? That's the same as saying what if Rodgers losses Cobb? Same difference.

I don't know how you could forget that Brady got to the AFC title game in 2013 after starting the season missing an entire offense.:eek:

Then of course let's not forget that Brady has played in 4 super bowls and won 3 of them without ever having a Gronk on the team or an elite WR.

Statistically speaking Bray is the best QB in the league right now, he's averaging a superhuman 32 completions per game for 370 yards at 72% for 3 TD's a game and 0 int's.

Rodgers is second averaging 22 completions per game for 248 yards at 72% for 2.75 TD.s and 0 int's.

Brady is throwing 10 more passes for game, for 122 more yards per game and for a higher TD average.

Afaic, Rodgers and Brady are always out on their own in the league, but stats wise Brady edges it.

To be fair, it would not be like Rodgers missing Cobb - it would be like Rodgers missing Nelson. Which he has been all season.

It bares mentioning that Rodgers has never had a weapon like 2007 Moss or Gronk, I think Nelson last year was the first WR or TE to get named all pro in Rodgers' career... and we dont have him this season.

And Rodgers has likewise played without an offense in 2012, where he had an atrocious offensive line, a very poor running game (apart from two guys who combined for 70-odd carries all season in Harris and Grant, nobody averaged over 3.6 YPC, while the leading rusher on the team had less than 500 yards on 3.4 YPC), his #1 target out for over half the year, and his other targets placing 5th (Cobb), 6th (Nelson) and 7th (Finley) for drops in the league over 45 catches. The line was so bad that they could not contain 3 or 4 man rushes... all game long, allowing the other 7-8 players drop into coverage. And he did not have a defense playing lights out in the games where he was missing more players. He still kept the highest passer rating in the league, was 3rd in accuracy, 5th in YPA, 2nd in TDs, and first in TD:INT ratio. He also led the packers to the division title and an 11-5 record, and the NFC Divisional Game, which GB lost... while putting up 31 points. Much like last season against Seattle, you can't blame that loss at all on Rodgers unless he was part of the defense that gave up 45 points and an all time record 181 scrambling yards to Kaepernick.

Not a shot at Brady, just pointing it out since I still think 2012 might well be Rodgers best year of his career because of this. He was as close to a one man offense as I've probably ever seen since watching the league... and I forgot to mention he was GB's second leading rusher and highest in YPC (4.8) that season, also.

to be honest i think rodgers is playing better than brady right now but if we take both at there peaks its almost a pointless debate as both where/are insane and both at there peak are top tier of all time.

i think rodgers obviously has way more mobility outside the pocket but bradys mobility within the pocket is unmatched also i think brady has the ability to get the ball out/get through his reads quicker but i would argue rodgers has the better natural arm talent.

i think both where all time great at there peak rodgers probably just has to do it for a few more years before you can really consider him an all time great (an i know thats not the argument that was being made)

munstermagic11

munstermagic11 wrote: »

Brady in 2013. Lost just about all weapons from the previous season. He had Tompkins, Edelman (who hadn't done much to that point), a non performing (and injured) Amendola, Boyce, Collie, Hoomanawanui, Vereen/Gronk missing half the season......
A few of those names will be unrecognizable to most people.
They go 12:4, lose the AFC title game by just 10pts (and would IMO have given a better game than the Bronco's did in the SB).

Brady, stats wise, did not have a good season. But he won games, and got close to getting his team to another SB. Brady (2007) and Manning (2013) had record breaking seasons, but didn't win it all. Regular season stats and performances are great, but winning when it counts most of all is a different level IMO.

i hate the rings argument to be honest there are far more things that a qbs play that count towards that rings are a terrible way to judge any player

Billy86

Clementine Scary String wrote: »

i hate the rings argument to be honest there are far more things that a qbs play that count towards that rings are a terrible way to judge any player

Wait, you mean Brandon Bostick's inability to catch an onside kick, or the defense giving up touchdowns in three consecutive drives to end the game (one of which was the game ender, in OT) were not Rodgers fault? Surely if he was as good as billed he would be calling the defensive plays and contirbuting on special teams though, right!? :eek:

j8wk2feszrnpao

Clementine Scary String wrote: »

i hate the rings argument to be honest there are far more things that a qbs play that count towards that rings are a terrible way to judge any player

Who's making a 'rings argument'? This line has been trotted out before.

The vast majority of my post went through Brady's receiving corps in 2013 and showed the limited lineup he had and he still did the business and got to the AFC game.
I only had one line about Brady/Manning's amazing record seasons not winning the SB, I never discounted them, I actually said they were great seasons.

My guess is that if Rodgers had another 2 rings, they'd somehow become a lot more relevant than QBR.

JCTO

This thread proves how pointless the debate of QB vs QB is. Revolving door arguments.

Billy86

munstermagic11 wrote: »

My guess is that if Rodgers had another 2 rings, they'd somehow become a lot more relevant than QBR.

Can't speak for everyone, but I've been saying it's a terrible argument for years. It was always telling that the majority who use it a lot had a strong tendency to throw in the disclaimer of "oh except Marino, that's different..."

JCTO

I think a new thread is needed for QB debates:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057505901

Realt Dearg Sec

Billy86

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

Jay Cutler; in a league of his own!!

Knex*

Rodgers is on pace to reach 400 TDs at something like over 1000 fewer pass attempts than the current record - Brady.

Brady took over 7000, Rodgers on pace for just over 6000.

Pherekydes

Knex. wrote: »

Rodgers is on pace to reach 400 TDs at something like over 1000 fewer pass attempts than the current record - Brady.

Brady took over 7000, Rodgers on pace for just over 6000.

Yeah, but he'll never beat Favre's interception record.

Putin

HigginsJ wrote: »

Taking a slightly longer look, going on last season and to start this year

Rodgers 49 Td's - 5 Int's 72.4% this year 65.6% last
Brady 42 Td's - 9 Int's 72.2% this year 64.1% last

Rodgers is the better stats wise QB in the last year and a half, frankly he is playing at a level that few QB's have reached. Brady is phenomenal to be playing this well at this stage of his career.

I agree that Rodgers and Brady are in a league of their own, but with-in that mini league Rodgers is the best in the business right now.

Keeping it short, Rodgers did nothing against the Seahawks in 2 games last season. Brady did more in just one game, the biggest game of them all - the superbowl. He destroyed one of the best defenses of all time in the 4th quarter the kind of drives Rodgers or Manning couldn't put together against the Seahawks and with Chancellor on the field.

If Rodgers can play at the lever Brady is playing at at 38, maybe he might enter the discussion. But right now the GOAT debate is just between Montana & Brady. And Rodgers would need to seriously improve where it really matters - the postseason.

Putin

Putin wrote: »

Keeping it short, Rodgers did nothing against the Seahawks in 2 games last season. Brady did more in just one game, the biggest game of them all - the superbowl. He destroyed one of the best defenses of all time in the 4th quarter the kind of drives Rodgers or Manning couldn't put together against the Seahawks and with Chancellor on the field.

If Rodgers can play at the lever Brady is playing at at 38, maybe he might enter the discussion. But right now the GOAT debate is just between Montana & Brady. And Rodgers would need to seriously improve where it really matters - the postseason.

nobody has claimed that rodgers has a better legacy than brady that would be insane but the argument that he is playing better right now or even that he is playing better right now than brady did at his peak is a valid argument

Vandango

Clementine Scary String wrote: »

nobody has claimed that rodgers has a better legacy than brady that would be insane but the argument that he is playing better right now or even that he is playing better right now than brady did at his peak is a valid argument

But these stats prove that Brady is the best QB in the league right now.....

Putin wrote: »

Statistically speaking Bray is the best QB in the league right now, he's averaging a superhuman 32 completions per game for 370 yards at 72% for 3 TD's a game and 0 int's.

Rodgers is second averaging 22 completions per game for 248 yards at 72% for 2.75 TD.s and 0 int's.

Brady is throwing 10 more passes for game, for 122 more yards per game and for a higher TD average.

And more worrying for rivals Brady at 38, is playing better than ever.

Realt Dearg Sec

Please, someone make it stop.

adrian522

Since when is completions per game the stat that dictates which QB is best? Seems a bit arbitrary to me.

Seems like you can pick a stat for whichever side of the argument you are on, TD, TD:INT ratio, completion %, TD's, Wins, Passer Rating, QBR, Yards Per Attempt, etc, etc.

Vandango

Vandango wrote: »

But these stats prove that Brady is the best QB in the league right now.....



And more worrying for rivals Brady at 38, is playing better than ever.

but they are playing with completely different pieces around them. i think the fact that brady is doing it at his age to be insane (and a kick in the face for people like myself who though his arm strenght would wain with age it has not ) but gronk in particular is a massive part of the pats offence right now and probably the biggest weapon in the entire league

Vandango

Billy86 wrote: »

.It bares mentioning that Rodgers has never had a weapon like 2007 Moss or Gronk

Let's not forget that Moss was in the twilight of his career when he became a Pat. His season record of 23 TD's might have been 30, if Brady got Moss when he was in his peak.

As for Gronk, Brady only had a healthy Gronk in 2010 and in 2014.

Billy86 wrote: »

.And Rodgers has likewise played without an offense in 2012

I don't ever remember Rodgers ever starting a season with his top 6 WR's gone which = 94% of his pass catchers gone from the offense. How many 7th rd draft picks has Rodgers turned into stars? I know Brady has done it a lot.

And RE: O lines, over the last 5 seasons, Rodgers has been sacked on avg 33 times a year. For Brady it's been an avg of 29 times a year. So when you consider that Rodgers holds onto the ball much longer and Brady is always very fast at making his reads and releasing the ball. Then Brady's sack ratio is worse whiich also suggests his O line isn't the best.

We've also have 3 rookies playing in the interior line this year and while some have praised them. They're only doing well because Brady is lighting fast in getting rid of the ball. If Brady moved around like Rodgers or held the ball for as long, I've no doubt he probably be murdered on the field.

JCTO

Ah come on move it to the other thread at this point.