Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

The New Aaron Rodgers Appreciation Thread
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 7, 8, 9 ... 13, 14, 15  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Green Bay Packers
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Pugger


Joined: 01 May 2010
Posts: 7410
Location: N. Fort Myers, FL
PostPosted: Fri Jun 28, 2013 1:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

chaosisgolden wrote:
Tohnren wrote:
I think that the actual criteria used to determine rankings in these types of lists is often times a bit confusing. Is this a ranking of players in order of most valuable to their teams? How about most talented at there position relative to other players at their positions? Does it deal with historical performance? Potential future performance?

If we're using the first criteria, I see no justification for Rodgers' placement at number 6 on this list. That's just ridiculous. In fact, using almost any reasonable set of criteria Rodgers' placement at 6 seems absurd to me.


I believe it is solely based on player votes. Each player makes up their own list of 100 and it's determined from there.

So basically, it means nothing outside of NFL street cred. That's why has-been players keeping making the list. IE. Woodson.


It appears our players are not thought of very highly by their peers and if I were one of our guys I'd be a tad insulted. I too hope they use this as motivation. It is pretty bad to see Woodson on this list. We all love Woody but he isn't the player he once was by a long shot. It is almost laughable that Manning and Brady are ahead of Rodgers. All I know is if you ask any GM in the league if they could have either of these QBs I know who they'd take in a heartbeat.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tohnren


Joined: 29 Mar 2010
Posts: 860
Location: South Carolina
PostPosted: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

chaosisgolden wrote:
Tohnren wrote:
I think that the actual criteria used to determine rankings in these types of lists is often times a bit confusing. Is this a ranking of players in order of most valuable to their teams? How about most talented at there position relative to other players at their positions? Does it deal with historical performance? Potential future performance?

If we're using the first criteria, I see no justification for Rodgers' placement at number 6 on this list. That's just ridiculous. In fact, using almost any reasonable set of criteria Rodgers' placement at 6 seems absurd to me.


I believe it is solely based on player votes. Each player makes up their own list of 100 and it's determined from there.

So basically, it means nothing outside of NFL street cred. That's why has-been players keeping making the list. IE. Woodson.


Yeah, I know that the players are the ones voting, but what are they basing their votes on? I guess it really is just a popularity contest, then?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dijatool


Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Posts: 333
Location: SoCal
PostPosted: Fri Jun 28, 2013 9:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tohnren wrote:
chaosisgolden wrote:
Tohnren wrote:
I think that the actual criteria used to determine rankings in these types of lists is often times a bit confusing. Is this a ranking of players in order of most valuable to their teams? How about most talented at there position relative to other players at their positions? Does it deal with historical performance? Potential future performance?

If we're using the first criteria, I see no justification for Rodgers' placement at number 6 on this list. That's just ridiculous. In fact, using almost any reasonable set of criteria Rodgers' placement at 6 seems absurd to me.


I believe it is solely based on player votes. Each player makes up their own list of 100 and it's determined from there.

So basically, it means nothing outside of NFL street cred. That's why has-been players keeping making the list. IE. Woodson.


Yeah, I know that the players are the ones voting, but what are they basing their votes on? I guess it really is just a popularity contest, then?

The voting process seems quite strange to me. Empty sheet of paper, fill in your top 20, has to be done in some kind of crazy on camera interview process. Then NFLN makes a top 100 from what they get.

To say they fill in a ballot is to completely ignore what a ballot typically represents.
_________________

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dijatool


Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Posts: 333
Location: SoCal
PostPosted: Fri Jun 28, 2013 9:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
@PackerReport (Green Bay) at 2013-06-28 15:28:32
#Packers QBs 1973 through 1991: More TDs than INTs twice. Five times, twice as many INTs as TDs. Five other times, 1.5 as many INTs as TDs.

_________________

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
packers88


Joined: 06 Jan 2007
Posts: 2071
PostPosted: Fri Jun 28, 2013 11:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

dijatool wrote:
Quote:
@PackerReport (Green Bay) at 2013-06-28 15:28:32
#Packers QBs 1973 through 1991: More TDs than INTs twice. Five times, twice as many INTs as TDs. Five other times, 1.5 as many INTs as TDs.


I can't even imagine having to go through that.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Pugger


Joined: 01 May 2010
Posts: 7410
Location: N. Fort Myers, FL
PostPosted: Sat Jun 29, 2013 12:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

dijatool wrote:
Quote:
@PackerReport (Green Bay) at 2013-06-28 15:28:32
#Packers QBs 1973 through 1991: More TDs than INTs twice. Five times, twice as many INTs as TDs. Five other times, 1.5 as many INTs as TDs.


Those were some very bleak years and I endured them all. Sad
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
justo


Joined: 05 Aug 2012
Posts: 12318
Location: Hood River, Oregon
PostPosted: Sat Jun 29, 2013 1:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

dijatool wrote:
Quote:
@PackerReport (Green Bay) at 2013-06-28 15:28:32
#Packers QBs 1973 through 1991: More TDs than INTs twice. Five times, twice as many INTs as TDs. Five other times, 1.5 as many INTs as TDs.

>Packer fan
>born in '93
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
dijatool


Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Posts: 333
Location: SoCal
PostPosted: Sat Jun 29, 2013 3:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pugger wrote:
dijatool wrote:
Quote:
@PackerReport (Green Bay) at 2013-06-28 15:28:32
#Packers QBs 1973 through 1991: More TDs than INTs twice. Five times, twice as many INTs as TDs. Five other times, 1.5 as many INTs as TDs.

Those were some very bleak years and I endured them all. Sad

As I suspected, the numbers in 1970, 1971 and 1972 weren't any better.

Brockington and Lane along with the defense (the original Gang Green) carried the team in '72.
_________________

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Pugger


Joined: 01 May 2010
Posts: 7410
Location: N. Fort Myers, FL
PostPosted: Sat Jun 29, 2013 10:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

dijatool wrote:
Pugger wrote:
dijatool wrote:
Quote:
@PackerReport (Green Bay) at 2013-06-28 15:28:32
#Packers QBs 1973 through 1991: More TDs than INTs twice. Five times, twice as many INTs as TDs. Five other times, 1.5 as many INTs as TDs.

Those were some very bleak years and I endured them all. Sad

As I suspected, the numbers in 1970, 1971 and 1972 weren't any better.

Brockington and Lane along with the defense (the original Gang Green) carried the team in '72.


IMO 1972 and 1989 were the only 2 seasons before Wolf and company when the Packers were truly any good. They did go to the post season in 1982 but that was the year of the strike and replacement players.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Green_Bay_Packers_seasons

Since 1991 we failed to make the playoffs only 7 times. That is quite an accomplishment!
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DavidatMIZZOU


Joined: 09 Apr 2009
Posts: 8608
Location: The ZOU
PostPosted: Sat Jul 06, 2013 2:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.footballsfuture.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=525675

Laughing


Like, seriously. Why are we not allowed to call out people for being stupid? There are 3 posters in that thread that if I were mod, I would have banned from this site, on grounds of stupidity. At least when I do it, it is obvious and a joke.
_________________
GO PACK GO!

mistakebytehlak wrote:

My god it must be so terrible to have three teams that consistently make the playoffs
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CentralFC


Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 3450
Location: Evanston, IL
PostPosted: Sat Jul 06, 2013 4:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

DavidatMIZZOU wrote:
http://www.footballsfuture.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=525675

Laughing


Like, seriously. Why are we not allowed to call out people for being stupid? There are 3 posters in that thread that if I were mod, I would have banned from this site, on grounds of stupidity. At least when I do it, it is obvious and a joke.


Sigh.

That's defined as good discussion and not trolling. Interesting.

I'm going to start a thread titled "Can Tom Brady really win big games?".

And success!

[I'm drunk ATM].
_________________
Simian07:
Quote:
I'd argue Jordy is probably around the 30th-40th best receiver in the NFL, maybe 50th.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DavidatMIZZOU


Joined: 09 Apr 2009
Posts: 8608
Location: The ZOU
PostPosted: Sat Jul 06, 2013 8:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pugger wrote:
dijatool wrote:
Quote:
@PackerReport (Green Bay) at 2013-06-28 15:28:32
#Packers QBs 1973 through 1991: More TDs than INTs twice. Five times, twice as many INTs as TDs. Five other times, 1.5 as many INTs as TDs.


Those were some very bleak years and I endured them all. Sad


I got half of them. Tough team for a kid to follow. I mostly watched the beginning of the game then went outside and usually watched the end if my parents hadn't turned it off yet.
_________________
GO PACK GO!

mistakebytehlak wrote:

My god it must be so terrible to have three teams that consistently make the playoffs
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
svp


Joined: 11 Sep 2011
Posts: 929
Location: I took a football shaped pill and felt better.
PostPosted: Sat Jul 06, 2013 11:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I admit my fan base for the Packers stems from my dad being a jerk.
Unrelenting bad behavior all week, but when the game came on...
3 hours of comfortable peace. He watched the games silent and unmovable every week
no matter how bad they were playing.

Even after moving to other states I always bet on the Packers. To me
Packers means 3 hours of peace. It helps when they win and are winning
consecutively.
____________________________________________________________

I wonder if Aaron Rodgers read that "cold hard football facts" article?
All it says is that he is not clutch...? He takes alot of the blame even when
it's not his to own. If someone sent that article to him intentionally in attempts to make him more chippy?
_________________
svp wrote:
Who cares?


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Polaris


Joined: 25 Dec 2006
Posts: 3128
PostPosted: Mon Jul 08, 2013 1:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't know if he's clutch or not, but he's a big improvement over the guy we had before him in that regard. He was clearly the biggest big-game liability in NFL history. When it comes to choking away in big games, nobody else is even close.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MNPackfan32


Joined: 22 Sep 2010
Posts: 7567
PostPosted: Mon Jul 08, 2013 1:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Polaris wrote:
I don't know if he's clutch or not, but he's a big improvement over the guy we had before him in that regard. He was clearly the biggest big-game liability in NFL history. When it comes to choking away in big games, nobody else is even close.
Peyton is working on it though.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Green Bay Packers All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 7, 8, 9 ... 13, 14, 15  Next
Page 8 of 15

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group