 SBR Top-Rated Sportsbooks |
Best Sportsbooks List
|
|
| |||||
| #1 FanDuel | SBR rating 4.8/5 | Review | #6 BetRivers | SBR rating 4.1/5 | Review | #2 Caesars | SBR rating 4.7/5 | Review | #7 Fanatics | SBR rating 4.1/5 | Review |
| #3 DraftKings | SBR rating 4.7/5 | Review | #8 Betway | SBR rating 3.8/5 | Review | ||
| #4 BetMGM | SBR rating 4.6/5 | Review | #9 Borgata | SBR rating 3.5/5 | Review | ||
| #5 bet365 | SBR rating 4.6/5 | Review | #10 ClutchBet | SBR rating 2.9/5 | Review | ||
Green Bay should shoot themselves for replacing Favre with Rodgers!
Favre is 95x the QB Rodgers why sink your own organization, hell if Favre wants to come back let him come back at least hes not throwin 2 yrd wide open incompletes on 4th and goal
If you were dating a supermodel and fukin her every night then she said she wanted to breakup and you start dating a fukin hog would you tell her to fuk off when she wants to come back a month later bc youve gotten used to the hog
Last edited by bettilimbroke999; 10-05-09 at 10:39 PM.
|
This post was nominated 2
times
. To view the nominated thread please click here.
People who nominated: poochiecollins, and dwaechte
|
Who the hell is brooks?
Who the hell is Brooks ?
ha simultaneously tweets ..............
You know that Black quaterback Aaron Brooks dumbies lol ....................
LOL, i was racking my brain thinking, was there another QB GB had in between there?Originally Posted by BeatTheJerk
Lol his play reminded me of Aaron Brooks guess I had him on my mind I meant shitbag Rodgers
brooks??? go finish pulling your crank!
When I watch Rodgers I think of Brooks as QB for the Raiders, spitting image
Point is when you guys quit jerkin off to a typo is that Rodgers is pure trash
Theres other factors to football , being pressure,no protection, running game , receivers dropping TD balls, you should study the game a little
Rodgers is average at best, you've got a superstar in Favre, why trade greatness for averageness, I realize they promised the starting QB job to Rodgers when Favre retired but he changed his mind and wanted to come back, if u like the playoffs and winning let him come back, u can develop your run of the mill QB whenever Favre decides to quit for real
|
|
GB went 13-3 with Favre, then 6-10 with Rodgers.
That tells you all you need to know.
|
|
As much as I love Brett Favre, he wouldn't be able to play behind that suckass offensive line. Rodgers won't make it all season if that continues.
Exactly
!!!!! BadNina knows Fball !!!!!
Packers 2-2, Vikings 4-0, Pack will finish 8-8 or 9-7, Vikings are a lock to make the playoffs
Rodgers is much better than Brooks.
Rodgers is a good quarterback, but they couldn't protect him tonight.
So what if vikings make the playoffs. They wont win shit. Wait till Favre plays a team that can play defense.
No one can defend Peterson, no one can defend that laser guided missile Favre has especially with the 10 secs he gets to throw every time, also SF has one of the best defenses in the league and Favre picked them apart
....
Last edited by SBR Jonelyn; 02-25-15 at 12:57 PM. Reason: image does not exist
Theres Brooks prior to eatin grass and throwin INTs for Oakland, nice photoshop G jackass
Got Aaron Rodgers mistyped with Aaron Brooks and got 85 posts about that instead of what the thread was on
Last edited by bettilimbroke999; 10-05-09 at 11:27 PM.
Actually it was MS Paint. Get it right, dick.
False. Rodgers did better in purely statistical terms last year than Favre did in his last two years, the slight nudge coming over Favre's GB season when rushing is accounting for. You'd have to say Rodgers had an appreciably better supporting cast to say Favre did better. The Packers were poor last year mostly dude to defense.
78 QB rating is picking them apart? I didn't watch the game, but I read someone saying he threw a couple near-interceptions too.
The moral of the story is to do research before hastily drawing conclusions.
Favre > Rodgers but the Green Bay team is young and are building for the future, rather than clinging to the past. Good decision.
WRONG.
Favre was better statistically in 2007 with GB than Rodgers was in 2008.
Favre 66.5% to Rodgers 63.6%
Favre 4155 yds to Rodgers 4038 yds
Favre 95.7 QB rating to Rodgers 93.8
This without an established RB as Ryan Grant started just 7 games in 2007 while starting 14 games in 2008.
Didn't even watch the game yet drawing conclusions from the QB rating alone?
If he had just 2 more completions and wasn't for a bad luck on the tipped pass that was intercepted he would've had a 90+ QB rating.
But on the drive that mattered with the game on the line, he was 6-for-10, 80yds, 1 TD.... 119 QB Rating.
Green Bay had their 3rd string LT in; and that was against Jared Allen. Favre would've had a concussion by the end of the game.
Nina's right. Minnesota DESTROYED Green Bay's offensive line. WAIT, I think Allen just sacked Rodgers again.
1. The Packers are one of the youngest teams in the league and don't need a 40 yr old egomaniac with diminished skills who held the entire franchise hostage for two years for his own selfish reasons leading their team and setting a horrible example for developing players.
2. Rodgers has all the tools and, more importantly, the character (which he valiantly displayed last night), to be a perennial pro-bowler in the league for 10 years. Ask anyone who talks intelligently about the NFL.
3. Donald Lee dropped the ball on 4th down in the end zone sir.
4. I think you have Favre confused with someone if you're referring to him as the Supermodel. If he equates to any supermodel, it would be that tore up, over the hill, stomach turning, obnoxious, primadonna Janice Dickinson.
5. You saw how your "supermodel" worked out for the Jets last year.
6. His last year with the Packers was his best in a decade but that was an anomaly not the norm. He was embarrassingly bad for the several years before and a good percentage of Packer fans wanted him gone then.
Heh, you miss the point, but I'll get to that. Listing yards and completion percentage separate from QB rating is redundant since the former two are factored into the latter. GB had the same rushing average in 07 and 08 (4.1 YPC). For some reason, you ignored my mention of rushing totals, where the difference can easily account for a game or two. I forgot to look into sacks though, where I found Rodgers was taken down over 15 more times than Favre between the two seasons in question. That about cancels out the rushing difference, and Rodgers didn't lose any fumbles to Favre's two. I'm pretty sure that difference would give Rodgers the higher rating if counted instead as interceptions, so I'm still right.
Again, you ignored an important detail I mentioned, where I noted that I took what someone said, who apparently did watch the game, into account. Also, "6-10, 80yds, 1TD" is the same in the 1st quarter as it is in the 4th. The only instances where timing of stats matter are if the game's a blowout, or if keeping a team on or off the field is of particular importance.Didn't even watch the game yet drawing conclusions from the QB rating alone?If he had just 2 more completions and wasn't for a bad luck on the tipped pass that was intercepted he would've had a 90+ QB rating. But on the drive that mattered with the game on the line, he was 6-for-10, 80yds, 1 TD.... 119 QB Rating.
Back to the point I said you missed. I only brought up hard stats to illustrate how comparing two players based on individual W-L records alone in a team sport is silly. The difference in the aforementioned statistical comparisons of Rodgers and Favre is insignificant, requiring analysis of supporting casts and other circumstances to really answer that question. That question is not important, as I was addressing the implied question of the original topic: knowing recent history, was GB's move to trade Favre and play Rodgers a bad idea? Considering that where all things are equal, you play the guy in the younger part of his career cycle, the answer to me is a resounding no.
Tell me which QB had the better season:
QB #1: 356-535 66.5% 4155yds 28TD 15INT
QB #2: 55-100 55.0% 995yds 7TD 4INT
Obviously, #1 did, correct?
Well, according to your logic, QB #2 did because he has a HIGHER QB rating than #1.
So you still think listing yards & completion% seperate from QB rating is redundant?
It would be as ridiculous as saying Van Every of the Red Sox had a better year than Ichiro because he has a higher Batting AVG. You would think so if you excluded HITS & ABS...... he was just 4-for-11 on the season.
Again, mentioning YPC means squat. A passing team could rush for just 500 yds on 115 carries would have a higher YPC than GB, doesn't mean they are a better rushing team. Fact is, Packers rushed for more yards in 2008 than 2007. 206 more yds to be exact.
It's not a surprise that Rodgers was sacked more times. He holds on to the ball WAY TOO LONG. He doesn't have the quick release or the quick decision making that Favre has.
So you think a TD in the 1st qt is the same as one with seconds left in the 4th? Let me guess, you also think a HR in the 1st inning is the same as the walkoff HR in the bottom of the 9th. I mean they are statistically worth the same, right?
Brett Favre had just 1 losing season in 16 seasons with GB. Rodgers already has 1 after just 1 season. The only significant roster change between 2007 and 2008 was the QB position as their supporting cast was virtually identical.
2007 Jets finished with a 4-12 record. 2008 Jets with Favre won 5 more games with virtually the same roster. Not to mention the Vikings are off to their best start in years with virtually the same roster as prior season.
Why is it that every team Favre goes to they see an immediate improvement? I don't know, could it be...... Favre is pretty damn good?
Only QB in NFL history to beat all 32 teams.
Tell me which QB had the better season: QB #1: 356-535 66.5% 4155yds 28TD 15INT QB #2: 55-100 55.0% 995yds 7TD 4INT Obviously, #1 did, correct? Well, according to your logic, QB #2 did because he has a HIGHER QB rating than #1. So you still think listing yards & completion% seperate from QB rating is redundant?It would be as ridiculous as saying Van Every of the Red Sox had a better year than Ichiro because he has a higher Batting AVG. You would think so if you excluded HITS & ABS...... he was just 4-for-11 on the season. Again, mentioning YPC means squat. A passing team could rush for just 500 yds on 115 carries would have a higher YPC than GB, doesn't mean they are a better rushing team. Fact is, Packers rushed for more yards in 2008 than 2007. 206 more yds to be exact. It's not a surprise that Rodgers was sacked more times. He holds on to the ball WAY TOO LONG. He doesn't have the quick release or the quick decision making that Favre has. So you think a TD in the 1st qt is the same as one with seconds left in the 4th? Let me guess, you also think a HR in the 1st inning is the same as the walkoff HR in the bottom of the 9th. I mean they are statistically worth the same, right?
Heys, necromancing this thread ^_^rett Favre had just 1 losing season in 16 seasons with GB. Rodgers already has 1 after just 1 season. The only significant roster change between 2007 and 2008 was the QB position as their supporting cast was virtually identical.
2007 Jets finished with a 4-12 record. 2008 Jets with Favre won 5 more games with virtually the same roster. Not to mention the Vikings are off to their best start in years with virtually the same roster as prior season.
Why is it that every team Favre goes to they see an immediate improvement? I don't know, could it be...... Favre is pretty damn good?
Only QB in NFL history to beat all 32 teams.
I left out that I meant listing QB stats in addition to rating was redundant if assuming about the same pass attempts, except maybe with completion percentage. Does 1/10 for 99 yards not have the same end result as 10/10 @ 99? But anyway, you didn't think of checking the pass attempts of the QBs, where you'd notice they had virtually identical pass attempts when comparing the seasons in questions. So, you wasted your time making that argument :-p
Rushing yards per carry means "squat"? What? ... The '08 Packers ran more plays than the '07 team. You could argue that the latter was slightly better since the run/pass ratio was slightly higher while averaging the same per carry, but not enough to necessarily change the outcome of even one game over a season. I added up the total plays for offense and defense for both GB years:
[PACKERS '07] Offensive plays: 966, Defensive plays: 958
[PACKERS '08] Offensive plays: 978, Defensive plays: 976
Rodgers' team had to run more plays. The '08 rushing defense gave up 458 more yards, 0.7 more per carry, and allowed 89 more points than the '07 team. If the '08 team was "virtually identical," the cast, aside from Rodgers, certainly played worse collectively than the '07 squad. I started to look at special teams figures, but I've burned too much time on this, especially considering that strength of schedule isn't figured in (I'd bet it was harder for the latter team coming off a 13-3 season). Also, I've yet to hear a professional sports analyst negatively compare Rodgers to Favre, and instead criticize the defense.
Those figures you mentioned in the bottom half of your post are mostly of novelty value. They are more indicative of strength of teammates and longevity. Not even quarterbacks win games by themselves.
In conclusion, Rodgers' numbers so far are quite comparable to Favre's, and possibly better, depending on strength of opponents' defense and other variables I'm not going to blow more time looking into. Rodgers was the better player to keep in light of his rough career performance so far compared to that of Favre's, that he's not leaving the team hanging every off-season, that Rodgers was cheaper, and most importantly that Rodgers was younger; he's the future of the team.
Both are fantastic!
Both are very equal.......that being said, the PACK did the right thing.
Forgot to reply to this. What makes late points more valuable than early ones? I've read somewhere that the team leading after the first quarter won 75% of the time, so if anything, it's the other way around. What matters is playing well when the score's competitive (always early on). You're free to find a study indicating that late points matter more.So you think a TD in the 1st qt is the same as one with seconds left in the 4th? Let me guess, you also think a HR in the 1st inning is the same as the walkoff HR in the bottom of the 9th. I mean they are statistically worth the same, right?
Reply With Quote
MilfDriller gave bettilimbroke999 1 SBR Point(s) for this post.
