Excuses for Aaron Rodgers (1 Viewer)

This is one of the biggest issues I have with casual NFL fans and analysts. For whatever reason, Rodgers gets all of this love and hype as the greatest ever despite only having 1 ring as well. Don't get me wrong, the dude is legit but I am so sick and tired of seeing him above Drew.

What kills me is just how stupid the numbers are for Drew. If this man played in New England, New York, Green Bay or Dallas, he'd be the unanimous goat.
 
It's the truth. Why else would he hold the ball too long? If the perfect pass isn't there, he won't throw it. He will take the sack. He has even admitted several times how much he hates picks and incompletions. He hates them so much that he would rather just take sacks because sacks don't hurt his stats. They only hurt the teams stats. And who cares about team stats when you are Aaron "Golden Boy" Rodgers?

Well to be fair, a sack is much less costly than an INT 99% of the time.
 
You're wrong. Just look at how any time Brady and Ben are sacked. They put up insane stats as well.

331INTs / 15yrs = about 22 INTs per season.

306 / 10 years = about 20 INTs per season.

By those numbers, Brees has thrown 2 more INTs per season than Rodgers has. That's not too much of a difference.

I'll check Brees' Saints INTs and see the comparison.
 
BTW, let me throw this in: there is this seeming misconception that Drew throws an exorbitant amount of interceptions. This is simply not the case.

Drew is 24th all time in interceptions with 205. He is tied with Brady for 3rd all time with 428 TD passes. To be fair, Brady only has 150 career interceptions, so comparing him to that standard of ball protection shows him to be a "gunslinger". But to be 3rd in TDs and 24th in INTs really belies this idea that Drew throws so many interceptions.

Not only that, but Drew has a career interception percentage of 2.5% which is tied for 14th best all time. The only indisputably great quarterbacks that have a lower INT % are Brady and Rodgers. The rest of those above Drew includes luminaries such as Steve Bono, Jason Campbell, David Garrard, and Jeff Garcia. And Matt Ryan. :rolleyes:

Thus far, Drew has thrown interceptions at a lower rate than both Mannings, Montana, Young, Moon, Kelly, Staubach, Aikman, Marino, and Favre (among other all-timers). The idea that he turns the ball over so prolifically is a stupid false narrative, and it should die, at least among our own fan base.
 
Well to be fair, a sack is much less costly than an INT 99% of the time.

This is assuming that every single time that Brees avoids a sack, he throws a pick. That is definitely not the case. He throws more risky passes than Rodgers, period. Most of the time it's completed. Sometimes it's incomplete, and sometimes it's picked off. But those same risky throws that Brees makes, are also the reason why he leads the league in passing every year. If he didn't make those risky throws, and instead took sacks, his numbers would look similar to Rodgers. More sacks, but less picks and less yards.

So there is a benefit to Brees not taking sacks like Rodgers. The benefits are more yards and with yards come points and or opportunities. Most of the time, sacks are drive killers. So Rodgers may not turn the ball over much with picks, but he turns it over just as much,if not more with punts.

Punts don't show up on a QB's stats obviously, but there is no denying that most of the time, sacks end up being turnovers. Sacks may not be as bad as interceptions at face value, but there is no denying how costly a sack can be to a team.
 
That can also come by not throwing the ball.

Actually, if you are behind, running the ball is even more risky:

1) you can fumble
2) you can lose yardage
3) the clock is more likely to run after the play, good result or bad.

Running is both less productive and more risky than passing. You should do some of it to make your plays less predictable. You should also do it to kill the clock when you have a big lead.

Almost every NFL team passes a lot more than they run because of the above.
 
Actually, if you are behind, running the ball is even more risky:

1) you can fumble
2) you can lose yardage
3) the clock is more likely to run after the play, good result or bad.

Running is both less productive and more risky than passing. You should do some of it to make your plays less predictable. You should also do it to kill the clock when you have a big lead.

Almost every NFL team passes a lot more than they run because of the above.

We were just talking about this in a different thread a few days ago. There was a game in which Jim Mora and Carl Smith called for 3 consecutive pass plays to run out a game, and Bobby Hebert didn't complete a single one, the opponent got the ball and scored and won.All we had to do was run out the clock, and we didn't. I can't remember which game it was, but change characters, and Sean and Drew have been guilty of that in the past as well.

A balance of a run game and a pass game makes for a great offense (09 & 11). If we can get that back, Brees' numbers will drop, and we will win more. Thats the thing with both Rodgers and Brees, both have these monster numbers, but both are forced to have monster numbers because their run games are just "meh" more often than not. Throw in that neither has a defense they can hand a lead to and expect it to still be there when they take the field. Our offense's strength is oline while their's strength is wr. These guys are really one in the same.
 
We were just talking about this in a different thread a few days ago. There was a game in which Jim Mora and Carl Smith called for 3 consecutive pass plays to run out a game, and Bobby Hebert didn't complete a single one, the opponent got the ball and scored and won.All we had to do was run out the clock, and we didn't. I can't remember which game it was, but change characters, and Sean and Drew have been guilty of that in the past as well.

A balance of a run game and a pass game makes for a great offense (09 & 11). If we can get that back, Brees' numbers will drop, and we will win more. Thats the thing with both Rodgers and Brees, both have these monster numbers, but both are forced to have monster numbers because their run games are just "meh" more often than not. Throw in that neither has a defense they can hand a lead to and expect it to still be there when they take the field. Our offense's strength is oline while their's strength is wr. These guys are really one in the same.



1992 49ers 21 Saints 20
The run game for that Saints team was also meh which is why they kept passing.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Not necessarily so.

A balance of a run game and a pass game makes for a great offense (09 & 11). If we can get that back, Brees' numbers will drop, and we will win more. Thats the thing with both Rodgers and Brees, both have these monster numbers, but both are forced to have monster numbers because their run games are just "meh" more often than not. Throw in that neither has a defense they can hand a lead to and expect it to still be there when they take the field. Our offense's strength is oline while their's strength is wr. These guys are really one in the same.

You'll note I say run the ball to kill the clock. But you still need to get first downs if you really want to run out the clock. The Patriots game a couple years ago ago is an example of run, run, miss a pass, punt that allowed us to grab defeat from victory. We've done that too much. We've also started games trying to run and given up a number of first quarter drives because Sean (foolishly in my opinion) has been trying to establish the run, rather than trying to go down the field and score.

You need to run some, but in proportion to the skill players you have on the field... 2 RBs and 3 receivers... pass to the RBs some, too ... looks to me like the proportion of running plays should be about 25% of the time if you are not attempting to kill clock. Of course if you have the very best passer of all time on your team, you might want to pass a little bit more.

Brees numbers will go up if it is like 2011. That is the year he threw for more yards than anyone in the NFL ever had... (Could say "ever has" instead of "ever had" if laterals didn't count as forward passes for Peyton Manning.)
 
It's all about the media catering to the big markets. Brees is clearly a top two QB and I say two only because Brady has more rings (albeit a Pats defense won at least a couple of those).
They actually placed Big Ben as a top tier 1 QB while putting Brees as a tier two. Really??? I'm really hoping we make some serious Super Bowl noise in the coming years before Brees retires to expose the media Bias.
ROFLsberger gets touted because of his toughness and his amazing ability to extend plays, much more than any QB outside of Russel Wilson (in my opinion). He has a great arm, and his teams are always competitive, even the years they didn't have a good Defense.

Big Ben doesn't play for stats, he plays to make plays and just get it done. I tell you what, in last minute drive scenarios, I'd want 1) Tom Brady, 2) Big Ben, and then 3) Drew Brees. You watch Big Ben and you can't quite put your finger on it.... but he just... makes it happen. Plus, given his situation, his front office has actually done an OUTSTANDING job of surrounding him top tier talent his whole career. Heath Miller, Hines Ward, Antonio Brown, Emmanuel Sanders, Santonio Holmes; the list goes on and on, and that's not including RBs. He does great things with the guys around him, can't fault the guy for that.

I still feel Drew will be the #1 QB in the NFL this year (especially now that Brady is out 4 games). We'll go 10-6 (win the Division), and Drew will get Offensive Player of the Year, but no MVP (again :idunno:)
<script>window.post_1471552201530_5 = function(win,msg){ win.postMessage(msg,"*"); }</script><script>window.post_1471552205406_15 = function(win,msg){ win.postMessage(msg,"*"); }</script>
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom