Of course the Green Bay Packers who rightfully earned the #1 seed in the NFC did not play last weekend as they rested during their bye week. They are still in the playoffs. However, the worst case scenario happened last weekend. The two NFC teams that won their playoff game- the New Orleans Saints and the New York Giants- are the two teams that can have a chance at defeating Aaron Rodgers and the Packers. The Atlanta Falcons and Detroit Lions are good match ups for the Packers. While the Lions have the talent to beat Green Bay, Week 17's shellacking of the Lions against Matt Flynn and the Packers back ups in a game Detroit was trying in was all the proof needed to show that Detroit is still a year or two away from hanging with the big dogs. And while people may like Matt Ryan and the Falcons, there have been no evidence to suggest that Atlanta can either score with Aaron Rodgers or has the pass defense to stop Aaron Rodgers.
However, the Giants and the Saints do have the potential to defeat the Packers. If the Saints beat the San Francisco 49ers next week, the Green Bay Packers will have to face two teams that are bad match ups for them.
Why The New York Giants Are A Bad Match Up
The Giants front four and their ability to bring pressure on the quarterback is incredible. The same defensive formula that helped defeat the undefeated New England Patriots in the Superbowl in 2007 is still in place here in 2011. That 2007 Patriots looked like the best offense ever and it looked like nothing could stop them. As it turns out, Michael Strahan, Osi Umenyiora, Jutsin Tuck, and Mathias Kiwanuka could stop them. Replace Straham with potential Defensive Player Of The Year Jason Pierre-Paul and you still have a dominant pass rush. The Giants have the ability to rush effectively with four to stop Aaron Rodgers. This also allows them to throw seven back into the secondary to guard against the plethora of receivers Green Bay has.
Not only can the Giants stop Aaron Rodgers but they can also score with them. Eli Manning has stepped up his game and taken it into the elite level stratosphere. Led by wide receivers Victor Cruz and Hakeem Nicks, the Giants passing attack is explosive and they have the will and ability to score on anyone. Eli has been cool under pressure in the 4th quarter as well which does not bode well for the Packers.
The Giants lost to the Packers during the regular season back in early December where Green Bay barely scraped by with a win. Hakeem Nicks caught a touchdown pass with 58 seconds left to tie up the game and it took a Mason Crosby field goal to win the game as time expired in order for the Packers to win. Aaron Rodgers and The Pack essentially won because they had the ball last. They might not be so lucky the second time around.
Why The New Orleans Saints Are A Bad Match Up
First of all, it is no guarantee that the Saints will make it past the 49ers as the game is played in Candlestick Park, but either way, their win during Wild Card Weekend was still much worse for the Packers than if the Lions had won. However, if the Saints and the Packers do end up playing in the NFC Championship Game (which of course is now realistically possible considering New Orleans won on Wild Card weekend), the Green Bay Packers will yet again be faced with another bad match up.
While I dislike the Saints defense immensely and don't think they will be able to stop Aaron Rodgers in the slightest, I also do not believe the Packers will be able to stop Drew Brees either. Not only can Drew Brees throw the ball well (no shit, Sherlock) but they have a surprisingly good ground game as well. While their rushing offense might be split up between three running backs, the combination of Darren Sproles, Pierre Thomas, and Chris Ivory is a lethal one for any team.
In 2009, when Aaron Rodgers and the Green Bay Packers faced Kurt Warner and the Arizona Cardinals during Wild Card Weekend, Rodgers and The Pack were able to score 45 points. Unfortunately, it was not enough as the Cardinals scored 51 points and won the game. There was obviously no defense whatsoever but considering the Cardinals had the ball last, they won the game. If there was ever an offense that can put up 50+ points at Lambeau it is this 2011 New Orleans Saints offense.
Again, I believe the Packers will go to the Superbowl and will defeat the Saints if they play them but it will be an offensive explosion and it will not be a guaranteed win in the slightest.
Why The Packers Will Win The NFC
Despite the Giants and the Saints being bad match ups, the Packers are also a really bad match up for those teams as well.
NEW YORK GIANTS
The Giants secondary is atrocious. It's awful and now its weak and thin as well. It gets hidden from time to time because their pass rush is so good but it is still bad. Aaron Rodgers is mobile enough to elude the pass rush and accurate enough to be able to hit receivers, even with seven guys in the secondary. Plus, if no one is open, Rodgers will just run with the ball which in turn will cause less defenders in the secondary which means Rodgers will have more open receivers to hit as the game goes on. Plus, as good as Eli has been, I just think Rodgers can go up so big so quickly on the Giants that it will not be enough.
NEW ORLEANS SAINTS
In a recent ESPN The Magazine article, Aaron Schatz of Football Outsiders said that Drew Brees is terrible on blitzes- especially on corner blitz. The Packers have a little corner back named Charles Woodson who is fantastic at blitzing. Packers can get to Drew Brees and get to him early. Plus, the Saints are terrible outdoors and on grass. They look explosive and unbeatable at home and in domes but have a terrible track record on the road- especially in cold whether games. Just look to their loss to the 7-9 Seattle Seahawks in 2010. The Saints were by far the better team on paper but could not handle the arena in January. Even if the Saints do manage to defeat the 49ers outdoors I don't think they can win on the road twice in a row.
Showing posts with label Aaron Rodgers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Aaron Rodgers. Show all posts
Drew Brees Does Not Deserve The MVP: Why The New Orleans QB Is Not Having As Good Of A Season As You Might Think And Why Dan Marino Is Still The Best
And How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Bomb
In Week 16 of the 2011 season, New Orleans quarterback Drew Brees set the record for most passing yards in a single season- surpassing Dan Marino's record that he set in 1984. Through 15 games Brees has thrown for 5,087 yards. Through 16 games in 1984, Marino threw for 5,084.
But let's break this down further.
First, it's a lot easier to throw in today's football than it was 30 years ago. The NFL has changed drastically it's really to make it easier for wide receivers to get separation and it makes it harder for defensive backs (or any defensive player) to touch and cover their intended receiver. What Dan Marino did in 1984 is like what Babe Ruth did in 1927. Ruth hit 60 home runs when the rest of the league was hitting 12. Marino putting up the numbers he did at the time he did it in was that much more incredible.
Second, Drew Brees throws it a lot. I mean A LOT. Drew Brees currently leads the NFL in pass attempts with 622. He averages 1.2 more pass attempts per game than second place (Matthew Stafford- and the Lions have spent a lot of games down big by halftime/the 3rd quarter) and 3.067 more attempts per game than third place (Tom Brady). Brees' 2011 season currently ranks him 10th all time among passing attempts.
Having that many attempts hurts Brees tremendously. Through advanced statistics in all sports, we know now that it is not the absolute numbers you put up, but how you get to your total numbers that's most important. Leading the league in strike outs is not very impressive if you also happen to lead the league in innings pitched as well. What's more important is strikeouts per 9 innings as well as strike out to walk ratio. Keep this analogy in mind as we'll get to it later.
Drew Brees was able to set the single season passing record just because he threw it so damn much. Like K/9, the most important statistic for quarterbacks is not total passing yards but rather yards per attempt. Currently, Drew Brees ranks only SIXTH in YPA behind Aaron Rodgers, Tom Brady, Matt Schaub, Eli Manning, and Carson Palmer. Ranking outside the top five in a single season for YPA is not very impressive in the least. This statistic alone should take Brees out of MVP discussions.
However, we're going to go further. Like K/BB ratio for pitchers, quarterbacks have TD/INT ratio. Pitchers can get away with not striking a lot of guys out if they also do not walk very many guys (see: most Minnesota Twins pitchers since Johan Santana left). Likewise, it's possible to get away with walking very many guys if you have the ability to strike guys out with batters on base. In baseball, one of the worst things a pitcher can do is walk a batter. We know know that's it's all about on base percentage (and not batting average) for hitters. Likewise for football, one of the worst things a quarterback can do is turn the ball over. Turn overs have been proven to be one of the leading factors to determine which teams wins the ball game. Also, a QB can make up for his turnovers if he's able to score a lot of touchdowns.
Through 15 games, Drew Brees currently has 13 interceptions and 41 touchdowns. This is good for a 3.15 TD/INT ratio. Anything above 2:1 is impressive so Brees has a fantastic TD/INT ratio. However, Brees currently ranks 4th in this category in 2011 behind Aaron Rodgers (7.5), Tom Brady (3.27), Tony Romo (3.22), and Alex Smith (3.20).
But wait Adam, Brees currently on pace to set the single season mark for most completions? Shouldn't that count for something?
Yes, random naysayer I just made up, yes it does. That completion percentage is another amazing accomplishment. Right now Brees has a completion percentage of 71.2%. Who's in second place? Bress and his 2009 season when he completed 70.6% of his passes (as well as Ken Anderson in 1982 when he also completed 70.6% of his passes).
However, I would be more impressed with that completion percentage if 1) It wasn't painfully obvious the percentage was a result of Sean Payton's system and 2) if New Orleans did not have three out of the top 15 receivers in terms of yards after the catch. Two of which are running backs and the third one being a tight end.
New Orleans running back Darren Sproles currently leads the league in YAC with 649, running back Pierre Thomas is 12th with 443 and tight end Jimmy Graham is 15th with 407.
What this tells me is that Drew Brees gets a lot of completions coming from dink and dumps and easy passes over the middle. While I would rather have my quarterback completing passes than not completing passes, if I'm going to say a quarterback absolutely deserves to win the MVP, he needs to not derive so much of his value from being Chad Pennington-esque.
What's even more telling about Drew Brees and his MVP chances if that he ranks 3rd in terms of DVOA (a metric that measures how valuable a player is per play), 3rd in WPA/game, and 2nd in EPA/game (WPA and EPA are metrics that takes into account not only total yards and such but time in the game, down, and distance. Think about it- a 3 yard gain is more impressive on 4th and 2 late in the 4th quarter than on 1st and 10 early in the first. WPA and EPA takes things like that into consideration).
Despite all my Drew Brees bashing that I have just done, do not get it twisted and think that I hate Drew Brees. I do not. Brees' 2011 season has been stellar and amazing and I would love for Brees and his system to be on the team that I root for. Brees absolutely deserved his Pro Bowl berth and he should get all the kudos in the world for having a great season in 2011. What I am saying is that he does not deserve to be the MVP.
That honor belongs to (ugh, this pains me to say as a Bears fan): Aaron Rodgers. First of all, there has been only two seasons where a quarterback has had a TD/INT ratio of over 6:1- Tom Brady in 2010 (9:1) and Tom Brady in 2007 (6.25:1). As mentioned earlier, Aaron Rodgers has a TD/INT ratio of 7.5:1. ESPN and the shitty hype machine that it is should be making a much bigger deal of Aaron Rodger's TD/INT ratio than of Drew Brees' single season passing record.
Rodgers currently leads the NFL in: TD/INT ratio, passing touchdowns, passer rating, QBR, Yards Per Attempt, DVOA, and EPA. That also doesn't take into account his 257 rushing yards (4.3 YPC) and 3 rushing touchdowns. Rodgers is also 2nd in DYAR (total passing value) and WPA. To add to that, Rodgers has a sub par offensive line. According to Football Outsides, the Green Bay Packers have the 23rd ranked passing O-line (In contrast, the New Orleans Saints have the 3rd best). PLUS, Rodgers passes the eye test with flying colors. Every time I see Rodgers play it looks like every ball he throws should be completed. Every pass looks right on the money and I am baffled to as how Rodgers doesn't have a 100% completion percentage.
There should be no co-MVP in 2011 and Drew Brees should not get any first place votes for MVP. This award is Aaron Rodgers' award and HE should get every single first place vote. I don't care that the Packers lost a game. If you're gonna be that petty then I'll point out Drew Brees and the Saints lost to the St. Louis Rams. THE 2-13 RAMS! (as well as two others- including Aaron Rodger's Packers). You are a very good and talented QB Drew Brees but I'm sorry, 2011 is NOT your year.
In Week 16 of the 2011 season, New Orleans quarterback Drew Brees set the record for most passing yards in a single season- surpassing Dan Marino's record that he set in 1984. Through 15 games Brees has thrown for 5,087 yards. Through 16 games in 1984, Marino threw for 5,084.
But let's break this down further.
First, it's a lot easier to throw in today's football than it was 30 years ago. The NFL has changed drastically it's really to make it easier for wide receivers to get separation and it makes it harder for defensive backs (or any defensive player) to touch and cover their intended receiver. What Dan Marino did in 1984 is like what Babe Ruth did in 1927. Ruth hit 60 home runs when the rest of the league was hitting 12. Marino putting up the numbers he did at the time he did it in was that much more incredible.
Second, Drew Brees throws it a lot. I mean A LOT. Drew Brees currently leads the NFL in pass attempts with 622. He averages 1.2 more pass attempts per game than second place (Matthew Stafford- and the Lions have spent a lot of games down big by halftime/the 3rd quarter) and 3.067 more attempts per game than third place (Tom Brady). Brees' 2011 season currently ranks him 10th all time among passing attempts.
Having that many attempts hurts Brees tremendously. Through advanced statistics in all sports, we know now that it is not the absolute numbers you put up, but how you get to your total numbers that's most important. Leading the league in strike outs is not very impressive if you also happen to lead the league in innings pitched as well. What's more important is strikeouts per 9 innings as well as strike out to walk ratio. Keep this analogy in mind as we'll get to it later.
Drew Brees was able to set the single season passing record just because he threw it so damn much. Like K/9, the most important statistic for quarterbacks is not total passing yards but rather yards per attempt. Currently, Drew Brees ranks only SIXTH in YPA behind Aaron Rodgers, Tom Brady, Matt Schaub, Eli Manning, and Carson Palmer. Ranking outside the top five in a single season for YPA is not very impressive in the least. This statistic alone should take Brees out of MVP discussions.
However, we're going to go further. Like K/BB ratio for pitchers, quarterbacks have TD/INT ratio. Pitchers can get away with not striking a lot of guys out if they also do not walk very many guys (see: most Minnesota Twins pitchers since Johan Santana left). Likewise, it's possible to get away with walking very many guys if you have the ability to strike guys out with batters on base. In baseball, one of the worst things a pitcher can do is walk a batter. We know know that's it's all about on base percentage (and not batting average) for hitters. Likewise for football, one of the worst things a quarterback can do is turn the ball over. Turn overs have been proven to be one of the leading factors to determine which teams wins the ball game. Also, a QB can make up for his turnovers if he's able to score a lot of touchdowns.
Wow! This analogy is perfect *pats himself on the back*
Through 15 games, Drew Brees currently has 13 interceptions and 41 touchdowns. This is good for a 3.15 TD/INT ratio. Anything above 2:1 is impressive so Brees has a fantastic TD/INT ratio. However, Brees currently ranks 4th in this category in 2011 behind Aaron Rodgers (7.5), Tom Brady (3.27), Tony Romo (3.22), and Alex Smith (3.20).
But wait Adam, Brees currently on pace to set the single season mark for most completions? Shouldn't that count for something?
Yes, random naysayer I just made up, yes it does. That completion percentage is another amazing accomplishment. Right now Brees has a completion percentage of 71.2%. Who's in second place? Bress and his 2009 season when he completed 70.6% of his passes (as well as Ken Anderson in 1982 when he also completed 70.6% of his passes).
However, I would be more impressed with that completion percentage if 1) It wasn't painfully obvious the percentage was a result of Sean Payton's system and 2) if New Orleans did not have three out of the top 15 receivers in terms of yards after the catch. Two of which are running backs and the third one being a tight end.
New Orleans running back Darren Sproles currently leads the league in YAC with 649, running back Pierre Thomas is 12th with 443 and tight end Jimmy Graham is 15th with 407.
What this tells me is that Drew Brees gets a lot of completions coming from dink and dumps and easy passes over the middle. While I would rather have my quarterback completing passes than not completing passes, if I'm going to say a quarterback absolutely deserves to win the MVP, he needs to not derive so much of his value from being Chad Pennington-esque.
What's even more telling about Drew Brees and his MVP chances if that he ranks 3rd in terms of DVOA (a metric that measures how valuable a player is per play), 3rd in WPA/game, and 2nd in EPA/game (WPA and EPA are metrics that takes into account not only total yards and such but time in the game, down, and distance. Think about it- a 3 yard gain is more impressive on 4th and 2 late in the 4th quarter than on 1st and 10 early in the first. WPA and EPA takes things like that into consideration).
Despite all my Drew Brees bashing that I have just done, do not get it twisted and think that I hate Drew Brees. I do not. Brees' 2011 season has been stellar and amazing and I would love for Brees and his system to be on the team that I root for. Brees absolutely deserved his Pro Bowl berth and he should get all the kudos in the world for having a great season in 2011. What I am saying is that he does not deserve to be the MVP.
That honor belongs to (ugh, this pains me to say as a Bears fan): Aaron Rodgers. First of all, there has been only two seasons where a quarterback has had a TD/INT ratio of over 6:1- Tom Brady in 2010 (9:1) and Tom Brady in 2007 (6.25:1). As mentioned earlier, Aaron Rodgers has a TD/INT ratio of 7.5:1. ESPN and the shitty hype machine that it is should be making a much bigger deal of Aaron Rodger's TD/INT ratio than of Drew Brees' single season passing record.
Rodgers currently leads the NFL in: TD/INT ratio, passing touchdowns, passer rating, QBR, Yards Per Attempt, DVOA, and EPA. That also doesn't take into account his 257 rushing yards (4.3 YPC) and 3 rushing touchdowns. Rodgers is also 2nd in DYAR (total passing value) and WPA. To add to that, Rodgers has a sub par offensive line. According to Football Outsides, the Green Bay Packers have the 23rd ranked passing O-line (In contrast, the New Orleans Saints have the 3rd best). PLUS, Rodgers passes the eye test with flying colors. Every time I see Rodgers play it looks like every ball he throws should be completed. Every pass looks right on the money and I am baffled to as how Rodgers doesn't have a 100% completion percentage.
There should be no co-MVP in 2011 and Drew Brees should not get any first place votes for MVP. This award is Aaron Rodgers' award and HE should get every single first place vote. I don't care that the Packers lost a game. If you're gonna be that petty then I'll point out Drew Brees and the Saints lost to the St. Louis Rams. THE 2-13 RAMS! (as well as two others- including Aaron Rodger's Packers). You are a very good and talented QB Drew Brees but I'm sorry, 2011 is NOT your year.
The Detroit Lions Are A Bad Match-Up For The Green Bay Packers
This pains me to say. I hate to say it. I hate to say anything good about them. They are my hated rival and I go to school with a bunch of their fans and they annoy the crap out of me. Yet I'm objective. The Green Bay Packers are a really good football team. In fact they are probably going to repeat as Superbowl champs.
OK, now that that is out of the way, let me tell you why they are not going to be undefeated.
This Thanksgiving (in four days as of the writing of this post) they face the new-and-improved Detroit Lions IN Detroit. As good as the Packers look and as good as they Packers have been, they face their toughest game of the year against the Lions.
There are two ways to defeat Aaron Rodgers. The first is match Rodgers in scoring. Aaron Rodgers is going to put up points but if you have the ball last and end up scoring on the final drive of the game, you can defeat the Packers. During the 2009-10 playoffs in the Wild Card Round, Kurt Warner and the Arizona Cardinals was able to defeat Aaron Rodgers- by putting up 51 points. In overtime. Kurt Warner had to throw five touchdown passes just to defeat Rodgers and the Packers 51-45.
The second way to defeat Aaron Rodgers is to not allow him to throw. This is no easy feat. Rodgers has a plethora of targets who are speedy route runners and Rodgers is extremely mobile and accurate and releases the ball very quickly. However, the last team to shut down Aaron Rodgers- the Detroit Lions.
In Week 14 of the 2010 season, the 6-10 Lions (2-10 before the start of the game) was able to beat the Packers by a score of 7-3. Aaron Rodgers' numbers in the game: 7 for 11, 46 passing yards, 0 TDs, 1 INT. I've heard people have the audacity to say "Well, Aaron Rodgers had to leave the game so of course the Lions were able to win." B.S. First, the Lions suffocated every play Rodgers was in on. Second, Rodgers played all of the first quarter and 95% of the second- and still only allowed him to score three points.
(QUICK NOTE: It is not a good idea to stop Rodgers' receivers. He has too many guys to throw to and if you give Rodgers time, he will make plays, get first downs, and eventually score)
Unfortunately for the Green Bay Packers, the Detroit Lions can do both. Their amazing defensive line that stopped the Packers last year has been improved by the addition of rookie Nick Fairley and their overall defense is better than it was last year. This defense line is amazing at pass blocking and are athletic enough to get to Rodgers.
Plus, the Lions have something they did not have last year: Matthew Stafford. Just watching the few games Stafford has played in before 2011, you knew the talent and skills were there it was just that he couldn't stay healthy. Now that Stafford has started all 10 games this season, he has proven how good he is. Further, Green Bay ranks 31st in passing yards given up per game and 24th in YPA allowed.
Now the best way to defeat the Lions is to run on them. Detroit currently ranks 5th in passing yards allowed per game but only 28th in rushing yards allowed. Good for the Lions because the Packers do not really run the ball (Green Bay ranks 17th in rushing attempts) and they're not very good at it (they rank 24th in YPA).
It is true that Stafford and the Lions have shown vulnerability (see: their loses to Chicago and San Francisco) and they too have an extremely one dimensional offense and a one dimensional defense. However, the dimensions the Lions are good at are the reasons that they are a bad match up for the Green Bay Packers.
OK, now that that is out of the way, let me tell you why they are not going to be undefeated.
This Thanksgiving (in four days as of the writing of this post) they face the new-and-improved Detroit Lions IN Detroit. As good as the Packers look and as good as they Packers have been, they face their toughest game of the year against the Lions.
There are two ways to defeat Aaron Rodgers. The first is match Rodgers in scoring. Aaron Rodgers is going to put up points but if you have the ball last and end up scoring on the final drive of the game, you can defeat the Packers. During the 2009-10 playoffs in the Wild Card Round, Kurt Warner and the Arizona Cardinals was able to defeat Aaron Rodgers- by putting up 51 points. In overtime. Kurt Warner had to throw five touchdown passes just to defeat Rodgers and the Packers 51-45.
The second way to defeat Aaron Rodgers is to not allow him to throw. This is no easy feat. Rodgers has a plethora of targets who are speedy route runners and Rodgers is extremely mobile and accurate and releases the ball very quickly. However, the last team to shut down Aaron Rodgers- the Detroit Lions.
In Week 14 of the 2010 season, the 6-10 Lions (2-10 before the start of the game) was able to beat the Packers by a score of 7-3. Aaron Rodgers' numbers in the game: 7 for 11, 46 passing yards, 0 TDs, 1 INT. I've heard people have the audacity to say "Well, Aaron Rodgers had to leave the game so of course the Lions were able to win." B.S. First, the Lions suffocated every play Rodgers was in on. Second, Rodgers played all of the first quarter and 95% of the second- and still only allowed him to score three points.
(QUICK NOTE: It is not a good idea to stop Rodgers' receivers. He has too many guys to throw to and if you give Rodgers time, he will make plays, get first downs, and eventually score)
Unfortunately for the Green Bay Packers, the Detroit Lions can do both. Their amazing defensive line that stopped the Packers last year has been improved by the addition of rookie Nick Fairley and their overall defense is better than it was last year. This defense line is amazing at pass blocking and are athletic enough to get to Rodgers.
Plus, the Lions have something they did not have last year: Matthew Stafford. Just watching the few games Stafford has played in before 2011, you knew the talent and skills were there it was just that he couldn't stay healthy. Now that Stafford has started all 10 games this season, he has proven how good he is. Further, Green Bay ranks 31st in passing yards given up per game and 24th in YPA allowed.
Now the best way to defeat the Lions is to run on them. Detroit currently ranks 5th in passing yards allowed per game but only 28th in rushing yards allowed. Good for the Lions because the Packers do not really run the ball (Green Bay ranks 17th in rushing attempts) and they're not very good at it (they rank 24th in YPA).
It is true that Stafford and the Lions have shown vulnerability (see: their loses to Chicago and San Francisco) and they too have an extremely one dimensional offense and a one dimensional defense. However, the dimensions the Lions are good at are the reasons that they are a bad match up for the Green Bay Packers.
Aaron Rodgers Is Not An Elite Quarterback
A few months ago, I criticized John Clayton for ranking Aaron Rodgers as the sixth best quarterback currently playing. I thought Aaron Rodgers should AT LEAST be top five and ranked him #3. The "Bright" One ranked Rodgers as #3. Cubsfan went so bold and said Rodgers was THE BEST in the game right now. We were all wrong. Mea culpa John Clayton.
Before coming into this season and especially his 2009 campaign, Rodgers showed us some great things. He should us great mobility and did amazing things and put up amazing numbers with one of the WORST offensive lines in the game. Rodgers was on the cusp of greatness, if not there already. But this year he has regressed and is now not an elite quarterback.
Before I continue, let me clarify something, I'm not saying Aaron Rodgers isn't good. Quite the contrary, he's superb. I would absolutely love to have him on my beloved Bears and he's an upgrade to probably at least 26 teams. But what I'm talking about is ELITE. The best of the best. The cream of the crop. The guy who can win games single-handedly. The guy that can make 6th round talent pro bowlers. The guy that can
make the perfect throw in between double coverage.
And Rodgers is just not that guy. At least not yet.
I have seen Rodgers play at least three games this year and by just watching him, he doesn't look elite. He looks very good, but not elite. You watch him play and I'm jealous that a quarterback can actually tell his offensive lineman to pick up a blitz, they do it, and then have the QB throw a 45 yard TD pass. I wonder why Chicago hasn't had a guy under center do that in over 60 years. But when you look down at the stat sheet and you look at the score of the game and you see how Rodgers played, I just can't held but ask myself, "why isn't he better"?
I'll admit I'm not making that good of an argument, but the evidence for what is elite is pretty subjective and weak to begin with. You can point to all the numbers you want and like I said, the mofo can play very well. He's just not at the highest tier yet.
To me I think it's the little, subtle things that separate the Peyton Manning's and the Tom Brady's from the Aaron Rodger's and I don't believe Rodgers is doing all those little things that you can only get while watching a game. I think the biggest thing is his receivers numbers. Greg Jennings is still a top ten talent, but he most certainly does not have top ten talent numbers right now. There's no reason that in a seven game stretch, that Greg Jennings does not have at least three 100 yard games. (This year he only has one). The record also helps. Now I won't put TOO much stock in this because defense and special teams plays a huge part in this and the record not ALL on the quarterback. But with Green Bay's offense and talent, the Packers should have the best record in the NFC right now and it should be because of Rodgers.
I have actually talked to many Packers fan and I have noticed many of them say the same thing. Fans that watch Rodgers play week in and week out I think will agree with me. "Why hasn't Rodgers taken the next step?"
Call me foolish. Call me crazy. Call me what you will. I don't believe Rodgers is in the elite class just yet. I still foresee him getting there. But here's just not there now.
Before coming into this season and especially his 2009 campaign, Rodgers showed us some great things. He should us great mobility and did amazing things and put up amazing numbers with one of the WORST offensive lines in the game. Rodgers was on the cusp of greatness, if not there already. But this year he has regressed and is now not an elite quarterback.
Before I continue, let me clarify something, I'm not saying Aaron Rodgers isn't good. Quite the contrary, he's superb. I would absolutely love to have him on my beloved Bears and he's an upgrade to probably at least 26 teams. But what I'm talking about is ELITE. The best of the best. The cream of the crop. The guy who can win games single-handedly. The guy that can make 6th round talent pro bowlers. The guy that can
make the perfect throw in between double coverage.
And Rodgers is just not that guy. At least not yet.
I have seen Rodgers play at least three games this year and by just watching him, he doesn't look elite. He looks very good, but not elite. You watch him play and I'm jealous that a quarterback can actually tell his offensive lineman to pick up a blitz, they do it, and then have the QB throw a 45 yard TD pass. I wonder why Chicago hasn't had a guy under center do that in over 60 years. But when you look down at the stat sheet and you look at the score of the game and you see how Rodgers played, I just can't held but ask myself, "why isn't he better"?
I'll admit I'm not making that good of an argument, but the evidence for what is elite is pretty subjective and weak to begin with. You can point to all the numbers you want and like I said, the mofo can play very well. He's just not at the highest tier yet.
To me I think it's the little, subtle things that separate the Peyton Manning's and the Tom Brady's from the Aaron Rodger's and I don't believe Rodgers is doing all those little things that you can only get while watching a game. I think the biggest thing is his receivers numbers. Greg Jennings is still a top ten talent, but he most certainly does not have top ten talent numbers right now. There's no reason that in a seven game stretch, that Greg Jennings does not have at least three 100 yard games. (This year he only has one). The record also helps. Now I won't put TOO much stock in this because defense and special teams plays a huge part in this and the record not ALL on the quarterback. But with Green Bay's offense and talent, the Packers should have the best record in the NFC right now and it should be because of Rodgers.
I have actually talked to many Packers fan and I have noticed many of them say the same thing. Fans that watch Rodgers play week in and week out I think will agree with me. "Why hasn't Rodgers taken the next step?"
Call me foolish. Call me crazy. Call me what you will. I don't believe Rodgers is in the elite class just yet. I still foresee him getting there. But here's just not there now.
Could Matt Leinart Be The Next Aaron Rodgers?
Let me start off by saying that I DO NOT truly believe that Leinart will be the next Aaron Rodgers. Let me repeat, I am NOT saying Leinart, with 100% certainly, will be the next Aaron Rodgers. But if he did, it would not surprise me.
I was doing research for my QB rankings talent post and I came across this post I wrote in February of oh-ten where I said to not be down on Matt Leinart- at least not yet. I wrote this post before the 2010 pre-season and before the Arizona Cardinals cut Leinart from their team.
But I still think Leinart got an unfair rap.
First, let me discuss why I think Leinart had the potential to be the next Aaron Rodgers. Leinart's career resembled Rodger's a whole lot (before last week). First, Leinart was an elite prospect. Here was a guy, who had he come out the year he was eligible; the same year as Rodgers (and Alex Smith), he would have been the number one overall pick. There was some controversy and some flip-flopping when the 49ers had to choose between Rodgers and Smith. There would have been no doubt though that had Leinart been in that draft, the 49ers would have taken Matt Leinart over Smith. But Leinart chose to be dumb and stay at USC for another year for the sole purpose to take ballroom dancing, knock up his girlfriend, and lose to Vince Young in the Rose Bowl.
The next year, Leinart's 'stock dropped' when he went 10th overall to Arizona while his Rose Bowl counterpart Vince Young got drafted 3rd overall and combine superstar Jay Cutler got drafted 11th overall to Denver. Despite what you may think of Cutler and Young, both men are clear NFL starting quarterbacks who clearly deserve to start.
In Leinart's rookie year, starting 11 games, he sucked. But so does every other quarterback known to man. Now just because Peyton Manning and Troy Aikman sucked their rookie year does NOT suggest nor do I mean it to suggest that Leinart will be as good as these players, but it does mean that just because Leinart was bad in his first 11 games does not necessarily mean he will be bad throughout his entire career.
Like Aaron Rodgers, Matt Leinart held a clipboard for his first few years being on the team and watched a future hall of fame quarterback do awesome things for their team and win many many games as a starter. So when Aaron Rodgers finally got a chance to start, it seemed like he learned a lot from watching his future hall of famer do well and in turn performed well himself. So when Kurt Warner retired, Leinart seemed poised to do the exact same thing.
Secondly, Leinart got a bad rap because Derek Anderson is not a good quarterback. I has the 'privilege' of watching Anderson play when the Browns played the Bears last year. During that game, the announcer said that one of the keys for the Browns to win that game was for Anderson to actually make good throws to his receivers. This seemed like a REALLY dumb thing for a commentator to say (because they key for any QB to do well and thus for any team to do well is for their QB to complete passes to their receivers) but the man was right. I saw SO many wide open receivers (i.e. a wide open Josh Cribbs) not be able to catch passes, even dink and dump passes, because Anderson was just so bad at being a QB.
Think about this, a lot of people are saying Matt Moore is a QB upgrade for the Panthers this year, Jake Delhomme is a QB upgrade for the Browns this year, but Derek Anderson deserves to start and stay on the team over Matt Leinart? Huh?
During this pre-season, everyone is saying Matt Leinart sucked. But from my perspective, it seems like it was just a few guys at ESPN saying so and now the whole world agrees with them because we blindly believe everything SportsCenter tells us.
During this pre-season Leinart had a better passer rating (104.6 to 73.1), completion percentage (78.6% to 58.9%), and average (7.95 to 6.00) to Derek Anderson. Last year, Anderson completed less than 50% of his passes (44.5%), was the 5th worst quarterback according to Football Outsiders and 3rd worst per individual play. Even during his breakout 2007 campaign, he completed less than 57% (56.5%) of his passes. (Having Butterfingers McGee Braylon Edwards didn't help that, but still). Derek Anderson is not a good quarterback.
On the 8.24.10 The B.S. Report with Bill Simmons podcast, Football Outsiders founder Aaron Schatz said that Matt Leinart is awesome against zone coverage defenses and bad against man to man coverage defenses throughout his career and Anderson being the exact opposite. (That's why Leinart had that amazing game against the mighty Chicago Bears in 2006). Schatz joked that the Cardinals should have a QB by committee and play Leinart and Anderson against defenses to their strengths.
Despite the unfortunate unrealism to Schatz' comments, the Cardinals should not have outright cut Matt Leinart. I truly believe they should have let Leinart start all 16 games and at least give him the opportunity to be worth his first round draft pick. And when Derek Anderson starts to be the worst QB in the league halfway through the season, Cardinal fans will be begging to have Leinart back.
I was doing research for my QB rankings talent post and I came across this post I wrote in February of oh-ten where I said to not be down on Matt Leinart- at least not yet. I wrote this post before the 2010 pre-season and before the Arizona Cardinals cut Leinart from their team.
But I still think Leinart got an unfair rap.
In Leinart's rookie year, starting 11 games, he sucked. But so does every other quarterback known to man. Now just because Peyton Manning and Troy Aikman sucked their rookie year does NOT suggest nor do I mean it to suggest that Leinart will be as good as these players, but it does mean that just because Leinart was bad in his first 11 games does not necessarily mean he will be bad throughout his entire career.
Like Aaron Rodgers, Matt Leinart held a clipboard for his first few years being on the team and watched a future hall of fame quarterback do awesome things for their team and win many many games as a starter. So when Aaron Rodgers finally got a chance to start, it seemed like he learned a lot from watching his future hall of famer do well and in turn performed well himself. So when Kurt Warner retired, Leinart seemed poised to do the exact same thing.Secondly, Leinart got a bad rap because Derek Anderson is not a good quarterback. I has the 'privilege' of watching Anderson play when the Browns played the Bears last year. During that game, the announcer said that one of the keys for the Browns to win that game was for Anderson to actually make good throws to his receivers. This seemed like a REALLY dumb thing for a commentator to say (because they key for any QB to do well and thus for any team to do well is for their QB to complete passes to their receivers) but the man was right. I saw SO many wide open receivers (i.e. a wide open Josh Cribbs) not be able to catch passes, even dink and dump passes, because Anderson was just so bad at being a QB.
Think about this, a lot of people are saying Matt Moore is a QB upgrade for the Panthers this year, Jake Delhomme is a QB upgrade for the Browns this year, but Derek Anderson deserves to start and stay on the team over Matt Leinart? Huh?
During this pre-season, everyone is saying Matt Leinart sucked. But from my perspective, it seems like it was just a few guys at ESPN saying so and now the whole world agrees with them because we blindly believe everything SportsCenter tells us.
During this pre-season Leinart had a better passer rating (104.6 to 73.1), completion percentage (78.6% to 58.9%), and average (7.95 to 6.00) to Derek Anderson. Last year, Anderson completed less than 50% of his passes (44.5%), was the 5th worst quarterback according to Football Outsiders and 3rd worst per individual play. Even during his breakout 2007 campaign, he completed less than 57% (56.5%) of his passes. (Having Butterfingers McGee Braylon Edwards didn't help that, but still). Derek Anderson is not a good quarterback.On the 8.24.10 The B.S. Report with Bill Simmons podcast, Football Outsiders founder Aaron Schatz said that Matt Leinart is awesome against zone coverage defenses and bad against man to man coverage defenses throughout his career and Anderson being the exact opposite. (That's why Leinart had that amazing game against the mighty Chicago Bears in 2006). Schatz joked that the Cardinals should have a QB by committee and play Leinart and Anderson against defenses to their strengths.
Despite the unfortunate unrealism to Schatz' comments, the Cardinals should not have outright cut Matt Leinart. I truly believe they should have let Leinart start all 16 games and at least give him the opportunity to be worth his first round draft pick. And when Derek Anderson starts to be the worst QB in the league halfway through the season, Cardinal fans will be begging to have Leinart back.
How Do Sacks Affect a QBs Performance?
Here's some data I did from a recent post of how Matt Cassel, Jay Cutler, and Kyle Orton have performed on new team with a new offensive line. I talked about the reason for the poor/better performance of these players is because of the new offensive line these players had. Now I would love to to a full on regression analysis/ correlation chart to prove truly how QB performance is based upon the O-line. Unfortunately, I have neither the time nor the knowhow. However, I thought I'd do some more analysis of players that have switched teams to see if my data still holds a little bit of water. I decided to do analysis on Brett Favre (both this year and last year), Chad Pennington (two years ago he was on the Jets and last year he was on the Dolphins), and Aaron Rodgers (Yes, he's been a Packer both years but is O-line is drastically different this year/ my outlier to again to show how awesome Rodgers is this year).
NOTE: S/100 = how many times the QB has been sacked per every 100 passing attempts and the (+/-) equals how often or how little the QB was sacked per every 100 attempts compared to the previous year. i.e. +2.00 S/100 means that that QB was sacked 2 more times this year than he was in the previous year per 100 passing attempts.
So here's what I did earlier:
Cassel (2009/2008)(+2.66 S/100)
YPA: -1.2
Completion Percentage: -8.4
Passer Rating: -11.5
TD/INT ratio: +.09
Cutler (2009/ 2008)(+1.79 S/100)
YPA: -0.7
Completion Percentage: -0.6
Passer Rating: -11.5
TD/INT ratio: -0.56
Orton (2009/2008)(-1.41 S/100)
YPA: +0.6
Completion Percentage: +3.5
Passer Rating: +8.2
TD/INT ratio: +0.7
And some my new data:
Brett Favre (2008/2007) (+2.94 S/100)
YPA: -1.1
Completion Percentage: -0.8
Passer Rating: -14.7
TD/INT ratio: -0.87
Brett Favre (2009/2008) (-1.03 S/100)
YPA: +1.3
Completion Percentage: +4.0
Passer Rating: +31.1
TD/INT ratio: +6.0
Chad Pennington (2008/2006) (-1.14 S/100)
Pennington only had 260 passing attempts in 2007. He had 450+ in '06
YPA: +0.8
Completion Percentage: +2.9
Passer Rating: +14.8
TD/INT ratio: +1.65
Aaron Rodgers (2009/2008) (+6.27 S/100)
YPA: +0.7
Completion Percentage: +1.2
Passer Rating: +8.8
TD/INT ratio: +1.65
Analysis:
Take out Aaron Rodgers for a moment and what do you consistently notice? When a QB moves to a new team a thus gets sacked more, his major stats go down. When he moves to a new team and he gets sacked less, his major stats go up (the exception being Matt Cassel and his TD/INT ratio). I think this should come as no big surprise. When a QB is getting sacked more, that means the O-line is allowing more defenders to break penetration and getting to the QB more. And when the defense is getting to the QB more often, it makes the QBs job tougher and makes it harder for the QB to complete throws. This is a simple aspect of the game. Defenses tend to be better when they can get to the QB and offenses tend to be better when the O-line has great pass protection. This again just reinforces the extreme importance of an offensive line and how overrated people make out the QB position to be.
Now we move to Aaron Rodgers. He's not only one of the best QBs in the league right now, he's doing it with an AWFUL O-line. I mean they've been dreadful. Yes, they're injured, but awful nonetheless. Yes, despite this and in the face if statistical data, Rodgers puts up great numbers. Look at his S/100 spike. Out of the seven players, no spike has gone above or below 3.00. Yes, Rodgers S/100 has taken a huge hit this year; he's getting sacked over 12 times per every 100 passing attempt and is getting sacked over six times more per every 100 passing attempt than he was last year. But he's STILL improved. I don't think people realize what an amazing feat this is! (as shown by my crude poll ranking NFC QBs, I was the only one to vote for Rodgers).
So when you go talking trash about your QB, please take a look at his O-line before you judge.
NOTE: S/100 = how many times the QB has been sacked per every 100 passing attempts and the (+/-) equals how often or how little the QB was sacked per every 100 attempts compared to the previous year. i.e. +2.00 S/100 means that that QB was sacked 2 more times this year than he was in the previous year per 100 passing attempts.
So here's what I did earlier:
Cassel (2009/2008)(+2.66 S/100)
YPA: -1.2
Completion Percentage: -8.4
Passer Rating: -11.5
TD/INT ratio: +.09
Cutler (2009/ 2008)(+1.79 S/100)
YPA: -0.7
Completion Percentage: -0.6
Passer Rating: -11.5
TD/INT ratio: -0.56
Orton (2009/2008)(-1.41 S/100)
YPA: +0.6
Completion Percentage: +3.5
Passer Rating: +8.2
TD/INT ratio: +0.7
And some my new data:
Brett Favre (2008/2007) (+2.94 S/100)
YPA: -1.1
Completion Percentage: -0.8
Passer Rating: -14.7
TD/INT ratio: -0.87
Brett Favre (2009/2008) (-1.03 S/100)
YPA: +1.3
Completion Percentage: +4.0
Passer Rating: +31.1
TD/INT ratio: +6.0
Chad Pennington (2008/2006) (-1.14 S/100)
Pennington only had 260 passing attempts in 2007. He had 450+ in '06
YPA: +0.8
Completion Percentage: +2.9
Passer Rating: +14.8
TD/INT ratio: +1.65
Aaron Rodgers (2009/2008) (+6.27 S/100)
YPA: +0.7
Completion Percentage: +1.2
Passer Rating: +8.8
TD/INT ratio: +1.65
Analysis:
Take out Aaron Rodgers for a moment and what do you consistently notice? When a QB moves to a new team a thus gets sacked more, his major stats go down. When he moves to a new team and he gets sacked less, his major stats go up (the exception being Matt Cassel and his TD/INT ratio). I think this should come as no big surprise. When a QB is getting sacked more, that means the O-line is allowing more defenders to break penetration and getting to the QB more. And when the defense is getting to the QB more often, it makes the QBs job tougher and makes it harder for the QB to complete throws. This is a simple aspect of the game. Defenses tend to be better when they can get to the QB and offenses tend to be better when the O-line has great pass protection. This again just reinforces the extreme importance of an offensive line and how overrated people make out the QB position to be.
Now we move to Aaron Rodgers. He's not only one of the best QBs in the league right now, he's doing it with an AWFUL O-line. I mean they've been dreadful. Yes, they're injured, but awful nonetheless. Yes, despite this and in the face if statistical data, Rodgers puts up great numbers. Look at his S/100 spike. Out of the seven players, no spike has gone above or below 3.00. Yes, Rodgers S/100 has taken a huge hit this year; he's getting sacked over 12 times per every 100 passing attempt and is getting sacked over six times more per every 100 passing attempt than he was last year. But he's STILL improved. I don't think people realize what an amazing feat this is! (as shown by my crude poll ranking NFC QBs, I was the only one to vote for Rodgers).
So when you go talking trash about your QB, please take a look at his O-line before you judge.
I Bow To The Greatness of Aaron Rodgers
Fuck, it pains me to say this.
No matter what, the Packers always seem to have amazing QBs. Grented, they spent 16 years with one of the greatest QBs ever, but they STILL have a grest QB, what the fuck. In fact, I think you can make the argument that Aaron Rodgers is the greatest QB playing right now. If I had to choose the best QB in the NFC, I would choose Rodgers, even over guys like Brees, Favre, Cutler (although I love him), McNabb, and Warner. Hell, I'll put him ahead of Peyton Manning.
At first glance, you look at Aaron Rodgers and they seem good, but not best in the game. He currently ranks 5th in passer rating, 6th in YPG, 3rd in YPA, and 13th in completion percentage. He doesn't seem that efficient ranking 14th in DYAR and 16th in DVOA. While these numbers may seem preety, guys like Drew Brees, Matt Schaub, Peytin Manning, and Tom Brady and essentially ahead of Rodgers of all these categories. So how can I justify that Rodgers is better than all of them? Easy
The Packers have the worst pass blocking offensive line in the game.
New England, Indianapolis, and New Orleans all rank in the top five of passing O-line. The Packers rank dead last. Yes, the Clevland Browns, Oakland Raiders, Detriot Lions, and St. Luois Rams all have better pass blocking offensive lineman than the ones Aaron Rodgers has. To add to that, Rodgers leads the league in sacks(37), 10 more than the #2 guy.
One of the biggest causal factors in determing how great a QB can perform, is by his pass blocking offenisve lineman. The best example I can think of his Jay Cutler this year. You just watch the team and that line can not block for shit and Orlando Pace let's a guy attack Cutler every other play it seems like. Cutler has proven is recent years (including this one) that he's really good. However, it's really hard to complete passes with guys in your face and tugging at your jersey. Then you look at Tom Brady or Peyton Manning. it's sure looks easy completing passes when you have time to look for multiple recievers all across the field.
Depsite the struggle and pain of completing passes when the defense is breathing down your neck, Rodgers seems to be able to do it. And he does this time and time again. I think people forget/ never realized just how important the offenisve line is. Yet despite the shittiness/ injuries of the Packers O-line, Aaron Rodgers is still able to be one of the best in the game.
We will never truely know which QB is better than another in a single season because no two offensive line, receives, play calling, offenisve in general, etc. will ever be identical between any two teams. But I think if everything was equal, Aaron Rodgers would prove that he has been the best for half if the NFL season because of closely he has perfomed to guys with better offsenive lines, receivers, and running backs, etc.
