mike pettine is an idiot

[Raptorman]

Total rushing yards has alot of factors involved with it, comparing the YPG averages between Lynch and the Packers/Patriots RBs would be far more appropriate, would you not agree?

I certainly never changed the target of which Wilson needs to hit to be considered elite, sounds like a personal matter of perception on your part, nor did I ever state 'you cant have help from the team', but I really would like to ask what season prior to maybe this one of Wilsons would you consider 'Elite'? Seriously.

Well let me say this. According to your standards of 4,000 yards and 30 TD's a year. None. But then I guess I have a different standard for what an elite QB actually is.

As to the RB's.

2013 Lynch,Turbin for Seattle, Lacy, Starks for the Packers and Ridley, Blount for the Patriots.

Code: Select all

        Yard     APG    YPC
Lynch   1257    18.8    4.2 
Turbin   264     4.8    3.4
        1521    23.6    4.0

Lacy    1178    18.8    4.1 
Starks   493     6.8    5.5
        1671    25.6    4.1

Ridley   773    12.7    4.3 
Blount   772     9.0    5.0
        1545    21.7    4.4
 

Seattle rushing attack, so much more than the Packers and Patriots. Now of course that's only the top two running backs. NE also had Bolden 271 yards, and Veren 208 yards. Packers had Fanklin 107 yard and Kuhn 38 yards. Seattles other back was Michael 79 yards. Now here is were it gets interesting.

TD's by RB's in 2013
Packers, 16.
Patriots, 18
Seattle, 12.

Of course once your throw Wilson in there, the Seattle rushing attack TD's climb all the way to........13, and if you toss in T. Jackson's 1, 14. So, want to tell me again how Seattle's running backs helped carry the way for Wilson? Should I mention here that in 2013 Tom Brady may have had 4300 yards, but he only threw 25 TD's. While Wilson threw for 3300 yards and 26 TD's. But then I guess throwing 26 TD's on 407 attempts isn't anywhere near as good a throwing 25 TD's on 628 attempts.

[Jordysghost]

Well let me say this. According to your standards of 4,000 yards and 30 TD's a year. None. But then I guess I have a different standard for what an elite QB actually is.

As to the RB's.

2013 Lynch,Turbin for Seattle, Lacy, Starks for the Packers and Ridley, Blount for the Patriots.

Code: Select all

        Yard     APG    YPC
Lynch   1257    18.8    4.2 
Turbin   264     4.8    3.4
        1521    23.6    4.0

Lacy    1178    18.8    4.1 
Starks   493     6.8    5.5
        1671    25.6    4.1

Ridley   773    12.7    4.3 
Blount   772     9.0    5.0
        1545    21.7    4.4
 

Seattle rushing attack, so much more than the Packers and Patriots. Now of course that's only the top two running backs. NE also had Bolden 271 yards, and Veren 208 yards. Packers had Fanklin 107 yard and Kuhn 38 yards. Seattles other back was Michael 79 yards. Now here is were it gets interesting.

TD's by RB's in 2013
Packers, 16.
Patriots, 18
Seattle, 12.

Of course once your throw Wilson in there, the Seattle rushing attack TD's climb all the way to........13, and if you toss in T. Jackson's 1, 14. So, want to tell me again how Seattle's running backs helped carry the way for Wilson? Should I mention here that in 2013 Tom Brady may have had 4300 yards, but he only threw 25 TD's. While Wilson threw for 3300 yards and 26 TD's. But then I guess throwing 26 TD's on 407 attempts isn't anywhere near as good a throwing 25 TD's on 628 attempts.

I never said 25 TDs 407 attempts wasn't near as good as 26 TDs on 628 attempts, stop putting words in mouth, can you make a single post that isn't making heavy handed implications as to what I believe?

I never said 'Wilson was carried by his running game' I simply asked for you to post the Rushing YPG averages, and you did, and I appreciate as much. But why are you comparing Lynch's YPG from 2013 to the Packers/Patriots RBs YPG averages from 2013? Would it not be more applicable to compare the 2013 Packers/Patriots RBs YPG to Lynch's 2012 YPG in this situation? It only makes sense being that you are comparing Wilsons 2012 to Bradys 2013. Did the fact that Lynch's 2012 5.0 YPG doesn't suit your point as well come into play?


I find it telling, that you compare Wilsons best statistical year to Bradys worst since the early 2000s, wasnt Bradys passer rating 83.5 or something that year? Elite though he may be, that was far from an elite year, but I shouldnt be surprised that you are apparently using that as your standard for 'elite' being that you appear to imply that a 26-10 TD INT ratio, 3350 yard season qualifies,. Different Ideas of elite indeed! You must have been all over Aaron Rodgers case for being elite after just his first season as starter, huh? By your standards, Ryan Tannehill even had an 'elite' year in there, and Flacco, and Eli..

I think there are alot of QBs who wish attaining your 'lofty' statistical standards were all it took to be considered 'Elite'.

[Raptorman]

I agree Pettine should'nt have said it, but really, he is still right, all of those guys are bona fide HOFers, Wilson isn't, and while he still has alot to prove, and he clearly is a very good player, nothing about his statline implies that he is on par with guys like Rodgers, Brady or Brees, not currently, and not ever in his career to this point..

Pretty sure I posted stats that shows he is on par with what both Brady and Rodgers did in the past. Wait, Brady had a off year in 2013 with only 25 TD's. So Brady was not elite his first 7 years. And according to your standards, well part of your standards, Luck should be close to elite because he has 4,000 yard year and 40 TD's. Of course Luck will be better than Wilson. Someday. Maybe. Luck is the reason I don't consider 4,000 yards and 30 TD's needed to be elite. He just shows if you throw the ball enough, eventually you will get to those numbers.

So when Wilson hits 4,000 yards this year and over 30 TD's, what part of his statline will imply that he is not elite?

I know Rodgers has the highest career passer rating in NFL history. Something Packer fans have been bragging about for several years now. Want to guess who number 2 is? Don't worry, he's not elite.

The 8 ranked Seattle Offense was spearheaded by a fantastic rushing game, one of which Rodgers/Brady have never had

Pretty sure my stats showed Brady did have as good of a running game if not better than Seattle did in 2013. As well as the Packers. But Rodgers was hurt that year for a while. But Brady has a consistent running game year in and year out. But according to you, he has never had one. Packer had one in 2013 and 2014, 1917 yards but my count. But Rodgers never had RB's like Seattle. OK then.


As to my idea of elite. It entails more than 4,000 yards and 30 TD's year. It involves leadership, the ability to adapt, and most importantly, the ability to help your team win. Something Wilson has shown time and again over the last 4 years. But to most, all they want to focus on is how good the defense is, or the Running game. Always finding something to discredit the QB play. Something they don't do with Brady, or Rodgers.

[Jordysghost]

Pretty sure I posted stats that shows he is on par with what both Brady and Rodgers did in the past. Wait, Brady had a off year in 2013 with only 25 TD's. So Brady was not elite his first 7 years. And according to your standards, well part of your standards, Luck should be close to elite because he has 4,000 yard year and 40 TD's. Of course Luck will be better than Wilson. Someday. Maybe. Luck is the reason I don't consider 4,000 yards and 30 TD's needed to be elite. He just shows if you throw the ball enough, eventually you will get to those numbers.

So when Wilson hits 4,000 yards this year and over 30 TD's, what part of his statline will imply that he is not elite?

I know Rodgers has the highest career passer rating in NFL history. Something Packer fans have been bragging about for several years now. Want to guess who number 2 is? Don't worry, he's not elite.

Pretty sure my stats showed Brady did have as good of a running game if not better than Seattle did in 2013. As well as the Packers. But Rodgers was hurt that year for a while. But Brady has a consistent running game year in and year out. But according to you, he has never had one. Packer had one in 2013 and 2014, 1917 yards but my count. But Rodgers never had RB's like Seattle. OK then.


As to my idea of elite. It entails more than 4,000 yards and 30 TD's year. It involves leadership, the ability to adapt, and most importantly, the ability to help your team win. Something Wilson has shown time and again over the last 4 years. But to most, all they want to focus on is how good the defense is, or the Running game. Always finding something to discredit the QB play. Something they don't do with Brady, or Rodgers.

I never meant that Rodgers, Brady, or Brees never had years below elite level that compare well with Wilsons, only that they have attained levels of play that Wilson never has, I suppose i should have been more clear so that is on me. Wilson has never had the sheer production of a Rodgers, Brady, Brees in one of their better years, he just hasn't and the statline indicates as much.

You did make an excellent point on the Patriots run game being comparable in 2013 for sure, and while it is still true that neither the Packers nor Patriots had the RB talent Seattle has (and in the Packers case, rushing production period.) your case, as it pertains to his supporting running game, is duly noted.

Your point about volume vs efficiency, that really isn't here nor there, I understand your point about volume not being everything, and I agree a hundred percent, I have been measuring and comparing every stat available, from volumetric statistics like yards and TDs to efficiency statistics like Passer rating, Completion pct, and TD INT ratio, that still doesn't change the fact that the season you keep impying to be 'elite' is comparable to select seasons from players like Tannehill, Flacco, Eli, and Dalton, seasons that Im willing to bet most wouldn't consider 'elite'.

What Wilson is accomplishing right now this season is irrelevant to this discussion, as I never once denied him to be rewriting the book on his statline and where he compares to the NFL Elite. I agree if he keeps ths up he will be at the very least on the cusp of what most consider to be 'elite'.

Yea, Im sure Packers fans do bring up Rodgers highest career passer rating in NFL history up often enough, but thats only because in addition to that, he has the career yardage, TD-INT ratio, and completion pct. to back it up. Passer rating is a great statistic, but ultimately hollow without additional, more tangible on field production to back it up, lets face it, Alex Smith had the second highest rating in the league a few years ago, and we all know Phillip Rivers and Tony Romo aren't as good or better then Tom Brady.

I agree completely that Leadership, Ability to adapt, and the ability to help your team win come into play, just as tangible on field production must come into play, but the former is rather subjective while the latter really isn't.

I would like to note that you have definitely made your point on Wilson being unfairly discredited well enough, and it is a point that is duly noted, but I do counter that if Rodgers had a top 10 Defense (In one case, an all time great Defense) and one of the best RBs in the league for his entire career, people would be quicker to discredit him as well. (Not even considering the consistancy of the Seahawks upper tier Offensive Line units)

[Raptorman]

I never meant that Rodgers, Brady, or Brees never had years below elite level that compare well with Wilsons, only that they have attained levels of play that Wilson never has, I suppose i should have been more clear so that is on me. Wilson has never had the sheer production of a Rodgers, Brady, Brees in one of their better years, he just hasn't and the statline indicates as much.

You did make an excellent point on the Patriots run game being comparable in 2013 for sure, and while it is still true that neither the Packers nor Patriots had the RB talent Seattle has (and in the Packers case, rushing production period.) your case, as it pertains to his supporting running game, is duly noted.

Your point about volume vs efficiency, that really isn't here nor there, I understand your point about volume not being everything, and I agree a hundred percent, I have been measuring and comparing every stat available, from volumetric statistics like yards and TDs to efficiency statistics like Passer rating, Completion pct, and TD INT ratio, that still doesn't change the fact that the season you keep impying to be 'elite' is comparable to select seasons from players like Tannehill, Flacco, Eli, and Dalton, seasons that Im willing to bet most wouldn't consider 'elite'.

What Wilson is accomplishing right now this season is irrelevant to this discussion, as I never once denied him to be rewriting the book on his statline and where he compares to the NFL Elite. I agree if he keeps ths up he will be at the very least on the cusp of what most consider to be 'elite'.

Yea, Im sure Packers fans do bring up Rodgers highest career passer rating in NFL history up often enough, but thats only because in addition to that, he has the career yardage, TD-INT ratio, and completion pct. to back it up. Passer rating is a great statistic, but ultimately hollow without additional, more tangible on field production to back it up, lets face it, Alex Smith had the second highest rating in the league a few years ago, and we all know Phillip Rivers and Tony Romo aren't as good or better then Tom Brady.

I agree completely that Leadership, Ability to adapt, and the ability to help your team win come into play, just as tangible on field production must come into play, but the former is rather subjective while the latter really isn't.

I would like to note that you have definitely made your point on Wilson being unfairly discredited well enough, and it is a point that is duly noted, but I do counter that if Rodgers had a top 10 Defense (In one case, an all time great Defense) and one of the best RBs in the league for his entire career, people would be quicker to discredit him as well. (Not even considering the consistancy of the Seahawks upper tier Offensive Line units)

While we call them "elite", I do not think it's what they really are. Do you have QB's that put up good yards and stats? Yes. Are they elite? Well what does "elite" mean. The best? But are they really? I don't know of any QB that can carry a team by themselves. If you don't have an O-line to protect him, or the WR's to who can catch the ball(See Green Bay this year), no matter how good of a QB he is, they won't win. If "elite" QB's can do it but themselves, then bringing in good players around them would not be necessary. Take the Patriots. They have had a top 10 defense in scoring for 12 of Brady's 15 years. Now, do you really think that if they were giving up 25 ppg that they would be in double digit wins every year? I can tell you the answer is no they would not.

Prior to the start of this season Brady had 181 wins. 105 of those wins, 58%, the defense held he other team to 17 points or less. How many games did he lose when his defense held the other team to under 17 points? 7. So, 58% of all of Brady's wins come with the defense holding the other team to under 17. And he is not the only one. P. Manning. 54%. Brees. 58% Rodgers, 59%, Roethlisberger 67%. So while the idea of an elite QB is nice. They are not winning by their skills alone. They are getting a lot of help on the defensive side of the ball.

So, the term "elite Qb" is kind of a misnomer. Makes me wonder how Brady would do on the Jaguars.

[Jordysghost]

While we call them "elite", I do not think it's what they really are. Do you have QB's that put up good yards and stats? Yes. Are they elite? Well what does "elite" mean. The best? But are they really? I don't know of any QB that can carry a team by themselves. If you don't have an O-line to protect him, or the WR's to who can catch the ball(See Green Bay this year), no matter how good of a QB he is, they won't win. If "elite" QB's can do it but themselves, then bringing in good players around them would not be necessary. Take the Patriots. They have had a top 10 defense in scoring for 12 of Brady's 15 years. Now, do you really think that if they were giving up 25 ppg that they would be in double digit wins every year? I can tell you the answer is no they would not.

Prior to the start of this season Brady had 181 wins. 105 of those wins, 58%, the defense held he other team to 17 points or less. How many games did he lose when his defense held the other team to under 17 points? 7. So, 58% of all of Brady's wins come with the defense holding the other team to under 17. And he is not the only one. P. Manning. 54%. Brees. 58% Rodgers, 59%, Roethlisberger 67%. So while the idea of an elite QB is nice. They are not winning by their skills alone. They are getting a lot of help on the defensive side of the ball.

So, the term "elite Qb" is kind of a misnomer. Makes me wonder how Brady would do on the Jaguars.

I agree that even those designated 'Elite' don't just win by themselves, completely. But those players have shown that they possess the capability to carry their team, and in some cases, be the enegizing force behind a late season run.

But all in all, I feel you, I've never been one to buy into the all you need is an offense theory, and it seems like most SBs are won by teams with Top 10 Defenses.

Those are interesting statistics, in the case of Rodgers I offer that it isn't just our banged up (Really, Really banged up) WR core, or almost as much so O line, that is screwing our offense, Rodgers himself is having an off year, but an off year for Rodgers is still pretty damn good, and his performance has been good enough for a surprising 10th ranked scoring Offense.

I think the old adage QBs receive to much of the blame and too much of the credit, still rings true today.