Brett Favre retiring today?

Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share
41

[QUOTE=Enginerd]
I said I’d take statistics over a fan’s evaluation. IMO, you think Grossman’s better than he is because you want him to be a good QB - that’s the same reason I defended Kyle Boller’s playing for as long as I did. I wanted him to be a good quarterback and lead the Ravens into the playoffs for the next ten years. He’s not going to do that.

That doesn’t mean I’ll ignore game observations or intangibles at all - I’ll certainly consider them. I will go with the numbers if I think the observations are biased, though. I haven’t heard anybody who doesn’t have an emotional stake in the Bears’ performance say that they think Grossman will be a good quarterback.
[/QUOTE]

Bengals fan, don’t care about the Bears.

I did watch Grossman in college, when Florida was running roughshod over most of the SEC. I said then that he was going to be a great QB, because he had the Brett Favre “gunslinger” mentality and one hell of an arm. I thought the Bears made a good move in drafting him, and I’m still not sure he won’t turn out to be a good QB. The injuries have stunted his development quite a bit, and he needs to stay healthy if he’s going to do anything.

42

Brett was a great player. I actually wanted the Packers to get to the Super Bowl 3 or 4 years ago when his fathered died. I figured he would have retired then and go out on top. It would have made a great story as well.

This year is going to get real ugly for Favre. Next week they play the Saints, a team that they beat 52 to 3 last year. Can you see a revenge stomping coming? If the Packers cannot beat the Lions they may only win 1 game this year (49ers).

The only way Favre goes out on top plays like this: Dec 31st. The Bears have clinched the division and secured home field advantage weeks earlier. Bears rest the starters. Favre gets one last win against the hated Bears. Good luck Packer fans, it going to be a long year!

43

[QUOTE=Enginerd]
That doesn’t mean I’ll ignore game observations or intangibles at all - I’ll certainly consider them. I will go with the numbers if I think the observations are biased, though. I haven’t heard anybody who doesn’t have an emotional stake in the Bears’ performance say that they think Grossman will be a good quarterback.
[/QUOTE]

ESPN’s Ron Jaworski pimps Grossman pretty regularly and there were more than a couple experts including Mel Kiper who had Grossman pegged as a top 3 QB, some even had him ahead of Leftwich, coming into the league.

Yeah, I’m a fan, but if you’ve ever heard me talk about Cedric Benson you’ll know I’m not the type who waxes poetic about my guys. I mention the almost overwhelming support within the Bears fanbase because, if you’re at all familiar with Chicago sports, you know we’re not the most optimistic bunch especially about Bears QBs.

bat312, don;t presume that 49ers game, they looked pretty solid on the road against a good Cardinals team. They’ll hand the Pack their lunch, I’m guessing.

44

I think Rex needs to last through a season before he gets to be called a good QB. There is a reason I saw Brian Griese out there holding a clip board.

As for the original post, never believe a rumor about Favre that comes out of Minnesota. They hate him there with a passion, and I’ve been getting hounded by the local Vikes fan who pulls up stuff from the Vikings boards all the time.

I’m a Packer fan, I want to see Rodgers play at some point since he’ll be the QB, but Favre has really earned the right to go out how he wants to.

45

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
It looks like nothing has come of this. At least not yet. Let’s see what happens after Reggie Bush runs on that Packer defense for about 12 miles next week.
[/QUOTE]

Dio, I can appreciate your allegience to the Vikings. It’s your team and you cheer them on no matter what happens.

Now, I’ll ask you to remove the mask and allow a little cold water to hit your face. And this goes to all Viking’s fans. This rivalry you’ve hyped since '98 is all in your heads. I moved to ND in '94 and couldn’t hit a Vikes fan if I dropped a nuke. Now, they’re more prevalent than sugar beets. That’s not questioning your loyalty, but telling in what is a self-imposed rivalry.

Think about this. The Vikings have been around since 1060. (Edit, 1960. Thought it was a funny typo so leaving it in). They’ve gone 0-4 in title games. Green Bay leads professional football with 13 titles. Chicago isn’t far behind in that stat. Minnesota? Umm…

What makes me laugh is the joy bitter Vikes fans have in the loss to Chicago. To paraphrase, “The way to the NFC North is through me”, sayeth Chicago. Packer fans don’t really concern themselves with the Vikings. We know if Minny gets to anything close to an important game, they’ll find a way to screw it up. 41-0 in an NFC title game? let me put on the wig and take a guess.

The point is, the rivalry you hold near and dear is in your own head. When Lovie Smith was hired he said his goal was to beat the Packers. That was continuation of a real rivaly. hell, the Lions are more important overall than the Vikes. Not in the last few years as Minny has cobbled together some good seasons, but for rivalries Dallas is more important emotionally.

Ask any true Packer fan. A 2-14 season is a success if those 2 wins were against…

46

[QUOTE=Omniscient]
You’re kidding right? Lies, damn lies and statistics my friend. For example:



2004 Season
  Comp   Att   PCT    YD   Y/A  TD INT |  Att  Yards  TD |
Player 1
  309   542  57.0  3810   7.0  21  16 |    58   173   4 |
Player 2
  196   295  66.4  2621   8.9  17  11 |    56   144   1 |





2001 Season
Player 1
   264   413  63.9  2843   6.9  18  12 |    36    43   0 |
Player 2
  327   568  57.6  3764   6.6  19  16 |    39    73   0 |





2005 Season
Player 1
   262   454  57.7  3050   6.7  23  10 |    42   111   0 |
Player 2
  294   449  65.5  3455   7.7  24   9 |    36   124   1 |

There are three examples of reasonably comparable QB statistics from 3 of the last 5 seasons. Ponder briefly the talent levels such impartial statistics must surely reflect.

Now, realize that those QBs, in order are:

Aaron Brooks
Ben Roethlisberger

Tom Brady
Kerry Collins

Mark Brunell
Matt Hasselbeck
You can have the statistics anytime. I’ll take my biased, subjective opinions based on game observation and intangibles.
[/QUOTE]
On first glance, I didn’t consider any of your examples to be “reasonably comparable.” After further research, they end up with passer ratings of:

Aaron Brooks 79.5
Ben Roethlisberger 98.14

Tom Brady 86.46
Kerry Collins 77.08

Mark Brunell 85.88
Matt Hasselbeck 98.18

You considered the raw numbers to be reasonably comparable, but I would ask why? In the first set, I thought the wildly disparate YPA figures and TD-Int ratios painted a picture of “first guy sucks, second guy rocks the house.” The second set includes a significant edge in completion % and TD-Int ratio to the first guy, and the third set shows a big edge in completion % to the second guy.

The guys (I assume) you would subjectively consider superior are also shown to be superior through nothing more than cold, objective statistics. The underlying assumption is that you buy into rate stats.

IIRC, we had some involved debates about the legitimacy of rate stats last season when discussing Big Ben.

I would use your assertion of “reasonably comparable” as an example of why I consider rate stats to be the be-all end-all when comparing passers, and also as an excellent example of the intended purpose of the passer rating formula.

Do you still downplay the relevance of rate stats? (Not “still” as in after reading this post, but “still” as in now, a year later.)

47

Dit-ka

48

[QUOTE=Ellis Dee]
Do you still downplay the relevance of rate stats? (Not “still” as in after reading this post, but “still” as in now, a year later.)
[/QUOTE]

Nope, totally agree with you in the case of those examples. I still back off from the “end all, be all” of QB stats. Rate stats are important, in many ways moreso than the others, but counter stats still have value. The simplest example is a QB on a run-first team versus a QB on a run-and-shoot team. The latter will almost certainly have a lesser QB Rating, but you cannot always state that the QB with the play action passing game is a better QB or a more valuable one. They sometimes might be, but rate stats are too system dependent to be the final say.

My whole point was to cherry pick stats which could be shown to compare players. They don’t tell the whole story, and that was the point of the post. Not to imply that those QBs are truly comparable.

49

[QUOTE=duffer]
Ask any true Packer fan. A 2-14 season is a success if those 2 wins were against…
[/QUOTE]

The Bears of course, although there may have never been a more satisying moment than this (or here as a sound bite).

50

[QUOTE=Enginerd]
I said I’d take statistics over a fan’s evaluation. IMO, you think Grossman’s better than he is because you want him to be a good QB - that’s the same reason I defended Kyle Boller’s playing for as long as I did. I wanted him to be a good quarterback and lead the Ravens into the playoffs for the next ten years. He’s not going to do that.

That doesn’t mean I’ll ignore game observations or intangibles at all - I’ll certainly consider them. I will go with the numbers if I think the observations are biased, though. I haven’t heard anybody who doesn’t have an emotional stake in the Bears’ performance say that they think Grossman will be a good quarterback.
[/QUOTE]

So, are you starting to hear me yet?

51

<grumble grumble grumble>

OK, I’m listening. Still not a believer, but he’s got my attention.

52

[QUOTE=Enginerd]
<grumble grumble grumble>

OK, I’m listening. Still not a believer, but he’s got my attention.
[/QUOTE]

So, still paying attention?

53

I remain unconvinced.

54

6/19 for 34 yards and 3 picks against the NFL’s 31st ranked pass defense.