Packers Huddle

bud fox wrote: ↑

01 Feb 2022 14:01

Half Empty wrote: ↑

01 Feb 2022 08:53

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

31 Jan 2022 21:06

13.1% of the cap will live another year. That mark was set in 1994, the first year of the cap, by Steve Young. The more a team pays 1 player, the less quality pieces can be placed around that player.

Have looked at this for a while and still can't come up with a way anyone can refute this, even in a sports forum. However, I'm sure someone will, so I'm waiting.

Jimmy g contract is 6 mil less than Rodgers. That's basically get rid of Kevin King and you have same amount to work with.

If you have a qb on a rookie deal generally you have not been great recently and therefore have had better draft stock and obviously you have more money to spend in FA.

At the same time the young qbs winning are really good. This doesn't happen for every young qb drafted

Not that long ago top drafted QBs got big contracts and that limited the amount of talent a team could put around him and some of these kids got the hell beat out of them running for their life and getting sacked a lot. Some probably got shell shocked.

APB wrote: ↑

01 Feb 2022 07:02

Raptorman wrote: ↑

31 Jan 2022 23:08

Wrong. Look closely and tell me why Burrows made it.

Are you arguing Burrows is not a good, young QB?

No, I'm arguing the fact that the QB gets credit for wins and losses when it's more on the team than anything else. BTW, Stafford's numbers for the Rams this year, are almost identical. When the defense holds a team to under 18 points the win percentage in the NFL is around 80%. and who the QB is doesn't matter.

Raptorman wrote: ↑

01 Feb 2022 15:30

APB wrote: ↑

01 Feb 2022 07:02

Raptorman wrote: ↑

31 Jan 2022 23:08

Wrong. Look closely and tell me why Burrows made it.

Are you arguing Burrows is not a good, young QB?

No, I'm arguing the fact that the QB gets credit for wins and losses when it's more on the team than anything else. BTW, Stafford's numbers for the Rams this year, are almost identical. When the defense holds a team to under 18 points the win percentage in the NFL is around 80%. and who the QB is doesn't matter.

I think that is in essence the whole point of this thread.

We are finding the successful QBs, the one who win the Trophies, are the ones who are not a drain on the team's resources.

However, that all being said, there still is an element, especially with single elimination playoffs, to needing to step up in the big light. Say what you will about Brady, but he seems to always step up in the big light whereas Rodgers hasn't.

You keep talking defense. I think 24 points is a big threshold. Rodgers has lost games where the defense in regulation allowed the following points in overtime

2013 - 20 points
2014 - 22 points
2015 - 20 points
2021 - 13 points

That's pretty tough. Those are opportunities you need to take advantage of.

bud fox wrote: ↑

01 Feb 2022 00:29

Raptorman wrote: ↑

31 Jan 2022 23:08

bud fox wrote: ↑

31 Jan 2022 22:47

They are really good players.

Burrow, Mahomes, Wilson, Rodgers - really good players.

Also those teams built really successful rosters on the back of successful drafts and free agency. Bengals killing it in the draft.

It is so hard to get it right consistently and that is what makes Belichick so great.

Wrong. Look closely and tell me why Burrows made it.

Code: Select all

                                                        PF     PA
9/19/2021	2	CIN	@	CHI	L	17	20	
10/10/2021	5	CIN		GNB	L	22	25	
10/31/2021	8	CIN	@	NYJ	L	31	34	
11/7/2021	9	CIN		CLE	L	16	41	
12/5/2021	13	CIN		LAC	L	22	41	
12/12/2021	14	CIN		SFO	L	23	26	
					              21.8    31.2
								
9/12/2021	1	CIN		MIN	W	27	24	
9/26/2021	3	CIN	@	PIT	W	24	10	
9/30/2021	4	CIN		JAX	W	24	21	
10/17/2021	6	CIN	@	DET	W	34	11	
10/24/2021	7	CIN	@	BAL	W	41	17	
11/21/2021	11	CIN	@	LVR	W	32	13	
11/28/2021	12	CIN		PIT	W	41	10	
12/19/2021	15	CIN	@	DEN	W	15	10	
12/26/2021	16	CIN		BAL	W	41	21	
1/2/2022	17	CIN		KAN	W	34	31	
1/15/2022	19	CIN		LVR	W	26	19	
1/22/2022	20	CIN	@	TEN	W	19	16	
1/30/2022	21	CIN	@	KAN	W	27	24	
					              29.6    17.5
						 
 

Scored more points then the other team when they won and less points when they loss.

That explains it then.

Lmao.

go pak go wrote: ↑

01 Feb 2022 15:54

Raptorman wrote: ↑

01 Feb 2022 15:30

APB wrote: ↑

01 Feb 2022 07:02

Are you arguing Burrows is not a good, young QB?

No, I'm arguing the fact that the QB gets credit for wins and losses when it's more on the team than anything else. BTW, Stafford's numbers for the Rams this year, are almost identical. When the defense holds a team to under 18 points the win percentage in the NFL is around 80%. and who the QB is doesn't matter.

I think that is in essence the whole point of this thread.

We are finding the successful QBs, the one who win the Trophies, are the ones who are not a drain on the team's resources.

However, that all being said, there still is an element, especially with single elimination playoffs, to needing to step up in the big light. Say what you will about Brady, but he seems to always step up in the big light whereas Rodgers hasn't.

You keep talking defense. I think 24 points is a big threshold. Rodgers has lost games where the defense in regulation allowed the following points in overtime

2013 - 20 points
2014 - 22 points
2015 - 20 points
2021 - 13 points

That's pretty tough. Those are opportunities you need to take advantage of.

The average score in the NFL in 2021 was 23 points. It's been around 23 points for a couple of years now. If you give up 24 ppg on defense, you are most likely a .500 team. You can win in the playoffs giving up 24 points, but only for one game and only if you can keep up. No team can maintain that in the playoffs and make it to the Super Bowl. Been that way for years. Just go back and look at the scores of the teams that made it to the Super Bowl. This year there were 2 teams that gave up more than 24 ppg that had winning records, the Raider and the Chargers, every other team was at .500 or below. Why the hell do you think Brady won so much in New England? Because his average Defense during his 20 years there was 19 ppg.

bud fox wrote: ↑

01 Feb 2022 00:29

Raptorman wrote: ↑

31 Jan 2022 23:08

bud fox wrote: ↑

31 Jan 2022 22:47

They are really good players.

Burrow, Mahomes, Wilson, Rodgers - really good players.

Also those teams built really successful rosters on the back of successful drafts and free agency. Bengals killing it in the draft.

It is so hard to get it right consistently and that is what makes Belichick so great.

Wrong. Look closely and tell me why Burrows made it.

Code: Select all

                                                        PF     PA
9/19/2021	2	CIN	@	CHI	L	17	20	
10/10/2021	5	CIN		GNB	L	22	25	
10/31/2021	8	CIN	@	NYJ	L	31	34	
11/7/2021	9	CIN		CLE	L	16	41	
12/5/2021	13	CIN		LAC	L	22	41	
12/12/2021	14	CIN		SFO	L	23	26	
					              21.8    31.2
								
9/12/2021	1	CIN		MIN	W	27	24	
9/26/2021	3	CIN	@	PIT	W	24	10	
9/30/2021	4	CIN		JAX	W	24	21	
10/17/2021	6	CIN	@	DET	W	34	11	
10/24/2021	7	CIN	@	BAL	W	41	17	
11/21/2021	11	CIN	@	LVR	W	32	13	
11/28/2021	12	CIN		PIT	W	41	10	
12/19/2021	15	CIN	@	DEN	W	15	10	
12/26/2021	16	CIN		BAL	W	41	21	
1/2/2022	17	CIN		KAN	W	34	31	
1/15/2022	19	CIN		LVR	W	26	19	
1/22/2022	20	CIN	@	TEN	W	19	16	
1/30/2022	21	CIN	@	KAN	W	27	24	
					              29.6    17.5
						 
 

Scored more points then the other team when they won and less points when they loss.

That explains it then.

I'd try to explain it to you, but I won't waste my time.

Raptorman wrote: ↑

01 Feb 2022 16:43

bud fox wrote: ↑

01 Feb 2022 00:29

Raptorman wrote: ↑

31 Jan 2022 23:08

Wrong. Look closely and tell me why Burrows made it.

Code: Select all

                                                        PF     PA
9/19/2021	2	CIN	@	CHI	L	17	20	
10/10/2021	5	CIN		GNB	L	22	25	
10/31/2021	8	CIN	@	NYJ	L	31	34	
11/7/2021	9	CIN		CLE	L	16	41	
12/5/2021	13	CIN		LAC	L	22	41	
12/12/2021	14	CIN		SFO	L	23	26	
					              21.8    31.2
								
9/12/2021	1	CIN		MIN	W	27	24	
9/26/2021	3	CIN	@	PIT	W	24	10	
9/30/2021	4	CIN		JAX	W	24	21	
10/17/2021	6	CIN	@	DET	W	34	11	
10/24/2021	7	CIN	@	BAL	W	41	17	
11/21/2021	11	CIN	@	LVR	W	32	13	
11/28/2021	12	CIN		PIT	W	41	10	
12/19/2021	15	CIN	@	DEN	W	15	10	
12/26/2021	16	CIN		BAL	W	41	21	
1/2/2022	17	CIN		KAN	W	34	31	
1/15/2022	19	CIN		LVR	W	26	19	
1/22/2022	20	CIN	@	TEN	W	19	16	
1/30/2022	21	CIN	@	KAN	W	27	24	
					              29.6    17.5
						 
 

Scored more points then the other team when they won and less points when they loss.

That explains it then.

I'd try to explain it to you, but I won't waste my time.

I understand from all your other posts. I don't know how you expect people to know what your are talking about just posting a table of stats.

Your point is fair but simple. It is much more deeper. In the games kept under 18 points how many times did the winning team score first, who started with possession , what was time of possession etc.

The fact is the QBs I listed are really good and the stats agree.

bud fox wrote: ↑

01 Feb 2022 18:48

Raptorman wrote: ↑

01 Feb 2022 16:43

bud fox wrote: ↑

01 Feb 2022 00:29

Scored more points then the other team when they won and less points when they loss.

That explains it then.

I'd try to explain it to you, but I won't waste my time.

I understand from all your other posts. I don't know how you expect people to know what your are talking about just posting a table of stats.

Your point is fair but simple. It is much more deeper. In the games kept under 18 points how many times did the winning team score first, who started with possession , what was time of possession etc.

The fact is the QBs I listed are really good and the stats agree.

Take any team that won consistently over a period of time and they all have one thing in common. A good defense that limited scoring. Go back to the start of "modern" football, say 1960 and look at the teams that won over a period of years and look at the wins and losses. If you limit the other team to scoring a lower number in ppg, currently around 19, you have about an 85% chance of winning. The QB doesn't really matter as much as you think. Look at the Vikings from 69-71. No one would consider Kapp or Cuzzo a good QB, yet in that 3 year period, they went 37-10. And it's true for any team. It's true for San Fran with Montana and Young, Brady in NE and Tampa, Roethlisberger, Bradshaw. Yes, they were good QB's for the most part, but winning is a hell of a lot easier if you don't have to score more than 21 ppg. Which is something these QB's had a lot of. Rodgers and the Packers would have had more than one SB if they had defenses as Brady did in NE. Oh you may have one or two teams and QB's that win with a good high-powered offense for a year, but they don't last like a good defense.

Teams that gave up 19 or fewer points won 78.4% of the time since 1960.
https://stathead.com/tiny/gPgbc

From 2010 until today the percentage rose to 82%
https://stathead.com/tiny/0Ende

Here's the rub though, teams that gave up 100 points or less win 50% of the time.

Are we just assuming the Bengals win?

Stafford is an aging, veteran, highly-paid franchise QB.

Young QBs don't win the Super Bowl very often. It is much more likely to be won by a QB on a second contract than on a rookie contract. And even more likely to be won by Tom Brady than either of those two categories alone.

This is a debate trying to explain a phenomenon that is a myth, a lie, a fiction, a fabrication... yet that myth persists. And if Burrow wins, the myth will continue. Rookie contract QBs who win Super Bowls have been absolute phenoms. First ballot hall of fame type careers have followed. Great QBs tend to win most of the Super Bowls, no matter what their contract status--though being below market (as evidenced by the rookie deals and the Tom Brady wins) definitely helps.

No, I think the Rams will win this with their defense and the poor OL by the Bengals.

Speaking QBs, only 6 have won it being 35 or older:
Brady
P Manning
Elway
Unitas
Plunket
Staubach

5 won it at the age of 25 or younger:
Brady
Mahomes
Roethlisberger
Wilson
Montana

Aikman and Bradshaw were 26 with Rodgers and E Manning being 27.

Average age of Super Bowl participating QB is just over 30.

36 participating QBs were under 28, 35 were over 32.

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

01 Feb 2022 21:14

Are we just assuming the Bengals win?

Stafford is an aging, veteran, highly-paid franchise QB.

Young QBs don't win the Super Bowl very often. It is much more likely to be won by a QB on a second contract than on a rookie contract. And even more likely to be won by Tom Brady than either of those two categories alone.

This is a debate trying to explain a phenomenon that is a myth, a lie, a fiction, a fabrication... yet that myth persists. And if Burrow wins, the myth will continue. Rookie contract QBs who win Super Bowls have been absolute phenoms. First ballot hall of fame type careers have followed. Great QBs tend to win most of the Super Bowls, no matter what their contract status--though being below market (as evidenced by the rookie deals and the Tom Brady wins) definitely helps.

I want to say that between Elway and Brady in 2014, there was like 1 winning QB over 31 or something like that but I may be misremembering. But the point is that I noticed this back around then, and since then, we've had Brady a bunch of times, Manning once, and then young/cheap QBs.

It's definitely not a myth, lie, fiction, fabrication. When most of these franchise QBs get done with their peak years, it seems like they never get back to the top of the mountain. Brees, Roethlisberger, Rodgers, Wilson. Pretty much everyone not named Brady or Manning. Stafford even making the SB is sort of an anomaly. Yet we have the likes of Jimmy G, Foles, Jared Goff, Joe Burrow, and Mahomes in recent years making it there. It's pretty much either Brady or a guy in years 2-6.

I think there is more to it than contract though. While it is true that less dollars to go around means less money to sign talent at other positions, money doesn't always equal talent, and you can definitely have talented players on small contracts (as we did on defense this season). I think it's probably a combination of things, and maybe money is the most important factor, but I definitely think it's more than just that, and that's why I keep going to other things like ability to run or lack of the sort of starstruck reverence that a legend's teammates have. But I don't really know. Good discussion so far though.

Interesting conversation, but there is no mention of the importance of the running game. This is especially true if you start looking at the 1960's through the 1990's. For a long time, good defenses and good running games were as important of a factor as the QB. As we recently discovered, special teams really are important as well. QBs are certainly important, but there are other variables not being mentioned here.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

01 Feb 2022 21:35

Speaking QBs, only 6 have won it being 35 or older:
Brady
P Manning
Elway
Unitas
Plunket
Staubach

5 won it at the age of 25 or younger:
Brady
Mahomes
Roethlisberger
Wilson
Montana

Aikman and Bradshaw were 26 with Rodgers and E Manning being 27.

Average age of Super Bowl participating QB is just over 30.

36 participating QBs were under 28, 35 were over 32.

great job, seems like you solidified the point Yoho made , all those QB's ( jury out on Mahomes ) are first ballot HOF QB's

bud fox wrote: ↑

01 Feb 2022 14:01

Half Empty wrote: ↑

01 Feb 2022 08:53

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

31 Jan 2022 21:06

13.1% of the cap will live another year. That mark was set in 1994, the first year of the cap, by Steve Young. The more a team pays 1 player, the less quality pieces can be placed around that player.

Have looked at this for a while and still can't come up with a way anyone can refute this, even in a sports forum. However, I'm sure someone will, so I'm waiting.

Jimmy g contract is 6 mil less than Rodgers. That's basically get rid of Kevin King and you have same amount to work with.

If you have a qb on a rookie deal generally you have not been great recently and therefore have had better draft stock and obviously you have more money to spend in FA.

At the same time the young qbs winning are really good. This doesn't happen for every young qb drafted

Nothing controversial here, but I'm curious as to what it has to do with my contention/agreement that the more a team pays to a particular player, the less there is for the others.

Half Empty wrote: ↑

02 Feb 2022 08:53

bud fox wrote: ↑

01 Feb 2022 14:01

Half Empty wrote: ↑

01 Feb 2022 08:53

Have looked at this for a while and still can't come up with a way anyone can refute this, even in a sports forum. However, I'm sure someone will, so I'm waiting.

Jimmy g contract is 6 mil less than Rodgers. That's basically get rid of Kevin King and you have same amount to work with.

If you have a qb on a rookie deal generally you have not been great recently and therefore have had better draft stock and obviously you have more money to spend in FA.

At the same time the young qbs winning are really good. This doesn't happen for every young qb drafted

Nothing controversial here, but I'm curious as to what it has to do with my contention/agreement that the more a team pays to a particular player, the less there is for the others.

If your comment is just having more money means you can spend more money - yes you are right and will always be right.

bud fox wrote: ↑

02 Feb 2022 15:52

Half Empty wrote: ↑

02 Feb 2022 08:53

bud fox wrote: ↑

01 Feb 2022 14:01

Jimmy g contract is 6 mil less than Rodgers. That's basically get rid of Kevin King and you have same amount to work with.

If you have a qb on a rookie deal generally you have not been great recently and therefore have had better draft stock and obviously you have more money to spend in FA.

At the same time the young qbs winning are really good. This doesn't happen for every young qb drafted

Nothing controversial here, but I'm curious as to what it has to do with my contention/agreement that the more a team pays to a particular player, the less there is for the others.

If your comment is just having more money means you can spend more money - yes you are right and will always be right.

Sorry, Yoop.