A knock on Rodgers??

MNFINFAN

Premium Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2002
Messages
3,781
Reaction score
0
Age
52
Location
Grand Cayman and Minneapolis, MN
Espn today from Pastabelly http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/draft05/columns/story?columnist=pasquarelli_len&id=2039797

These were some of the issues I raised a while back after hearing Tedford on Jim Rome's Radio show a couple months ago and Tedford talking about his great QBs he has had. For all this talk on Rodgers his pedigree in terms of the QBs that came from Tedford is not all that good, maybe why ESPN has Smith closer to SF than Rodgers is, and also the reason why I have personally never been that impressed by Rodgers' potential in the NFL.
 

Awsi Dooger

Super Duper Club
Joined
Feb 8, 2005
Messages
9,431
Reaction score
2,899
Location
Las Vegas
This is the relevant paragraph from your link:

"Tedford does an excellent job, it seems, in programming his quarterbacks. He provides them more facile reads by having created a system that, sometimes even before the snap, eliminates half of the field from the pass-progression process. The offense places a high premium on completion percentage, on making the quick and accurate throws, usually in low-risk scenarios, but seems lacking in big plays and in vertical dimension."

That's exactly what I saw from Aaron Rodgers, including twice in person. If the mid-to-deep ball is not wide open, he doesn't even threaten to go there. Instead he dumps it off in the 3-8 yard catch-and-go range.

Unfortunately, that strategy is death in the NFL. The short passing game is the most ignorant approach imagineable. You lose the physical drive blocking aspect of the running game in at least a half dozen plays per game if you embrace the idiocy that a swing pass is the equivalent of a running play. It may not seem like much, but those plays and the forfeited physical dimension add up to the difference between success and failure. If your game resume shifts from 30 rushing attempts and 7 yards per pass attempt to 24 rushing attempts and 6 yards per pass attempt, the likelihood of winning is literally cut in half.
 

sports24/7

Bleeder of Aqua and Orange
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
3,146
Reaction score
0
Age
35
Location
Miami
I think the Tedford argument is garbage, but I do think he is very similar to a former Tedford QB. That QB is David Carr. To me Rogers seems like a Carr clone: same size, about the same athleticism, great arm. I think Carr will be a star so its not a bad player to be compared to.
 

GrnMtnMan

There's no school like The Old School
Joined
Apr 12, 2005
Messages
344
Reaction score
0
Location
Vermont
Awsi Dooger said:
Instead he dumps it off in the 3-8 yard catch-and-go range.

Unfortunately, that strategy is death in the NFL. The short passing game is the most ignorant approach imagineable. You lose the physical drive blocking aspect of the running game in at least a half dozen plays per game if you embrace the idiocy that a swing pass is the equivalent of a running play.
I suppose this didn't work for the Raiders or the Patriots a couple of years back?
 

Awsi Dooger

Super Duper Club
Joined
Feb 8, 2005
Messages
9,431
Reaction score
2,899
Location
Las Vegas
GrnMtnMan said:
I suppose this didn't work for the Raiders or the Patriots a couple of years back?
I understand your point a little bit with the 2002 Raiders. I remember distinctly they didn't fit my rushing attemps criteria for winning the Super Bowl. Neither did Tampa Bay. Both of them were in the 26 attempts per game range.

The trump card that year was Tampa Bay's surreal defense. They gave up something like 4.71 yards per pass attempt in road games that year. That is the NFL statistical equivalent of Secretariat's Belmont. It has never been remotely approached and will not be. Of course, the mainstream media never mentioned it at all. An average stat would be in the high 6s. A great stat would be anything below 6. Miami was something like 7.4 that year, horrific. So Tampa Bay bettered us by more than 50%.

I've emphasized in other posts here that in the salary cap era it's no longer essential to be excellent in every aspect of the game. The stats bear that out. The '99 Rams, 2000 Ravens and 2002 Buccs were somewhat lopsided teams who relied on one dominant feature. But since you can't count on that I still think it's best to do the right thing and meet the historical breakdown.

The Patriots are not a good example, IMO. In all 3 title years they ran the ball an impressive number of times, nearly 30 attempts per game in 2001 and 2003 and more than 32 times per game last year with Dillon. Bellichek is verifiied as a superior coach via all the relevant numbers.

I'm hardly thrilled with Linehan. I think his rushing attempts last year were 387. Frankly, that's base pantyhose ignorance. New England was in the 524 range. If we surrender the physical nature of the sport to that extent, we have no chance.
 

Jaj

What you say?
Joined
Jan 22, 2003
Messages
13,149
Reaction score
0
Age
41
Location
LA
Awsi Dooger said:
I understand your point a little bit with the 2002 Raiders. I remember distinctly they didn't fit my rushing attemps criteria for winning the Super Bowl. Neither did Tampa Bay. Both of them were in the 26 attempts per game range.

The trump card that year was Tampa Bay's surreal defense. They gave up something like 4.71 yards per pass attempt in road games that year. That is the NFL statistical equivalent of Secretariat's Belmont. It has never been remotely approached and will not be. Of course, the mainstream media never mentioned it at all. An average stat would be in the high 6s. A great stat would be anything below 6. Miami was something like 7.4 that year, horrific. So Tampa Bay bettered us by more than 50%.

I've emphasized in other posts here that in the salary cap era it's no longer essential to be excellent in every aspect of the game. The stats bear that out. The '99 Rams, 2000 Ravens and 2002 Buccs were somewhat lopsided teams who relied on one dominant feature. But since you can't count on that I still think it's best to do the right thing and meet the historical breakdown.

The Patriots are not a good example, IMO. In all 3 title years they ran the ball an impressive number of times, nearly 30 attempts per game in 2001 and 2003 and more than 32 times per game last year with Dillon. Bellichek is verifiied as a superior coach via all the relevant numbers.

I'm hardly thrilled with Linehan. I think his rushing attempts last year were 387. Frankly, that's base pantyhose ignorance. New England was in the 524 range. If we surrender the physical nature of the sport to that extent, we have no chance.
Who cares how many times the Pats ran the ball in 03 they were absolutely pathetic. It was almost all about the short passing game.
 

Awsi Dooger

Super Duper Club
Joined
Feb 8, 2005
Messages
9,431
Reaction score
2,899
Location
Las Vegas
Jaj said:
Who cares how many times the Pats ran the ball in 03 they were absolutely pathetic. It was almost all about the short passing game.
Fact: 85% of NFL games are won by the team that runs the ball the most number of times. That percentage has survived every era, every change in emphasis. It is basic misconception the leading team piles up rushing attempts in the 4th quarter, influencing that stat. My job requires charting games and the rushing attempts pile up early.

The 2003 Patriots would not have won the Super Bowl if Bellichek and Weis had abandoned their typical approach and rushed the ball far fewer times than normal. In fact, I just looked it up via my Excel workbooks. The 2001 and 2003 Pats ran the ball an identical number of times, 473. Brady's yards per attempt were down somewhat that year, as you imply, but not bad and hardly the numbers of a dink-and-dump team. Brady was at 6.9 yards per attempt, just below the 7.0 that is the standard cutoff.

If you want to dismiss my stats, you're also dissing Bud Goode, the longtime and legit guru of NFL statistics. He emphasizes rushing attempts, as opposed to rushing yards, and calls yards per pass attempt the "killer stat." It is infinitely superior to the NFL's overall quarterback rating, which insanely overemphasizes stuff like TD passes and INTs. If you throw an insignificant Hail Mary INT to end the half, YPPA merely treats it as an incompletion. The overall rating penalizes you to the bone. Laughable.

Run the ball often, pass the ball well.
 

Buddwalk

The Jukebox Hero
Joined
Jun 22, 2004
Messages
14,106
Reaction score
20
Age
30
Location
East Berlin, PA
sports24/7 said:
I think the Tedford argument is garbage, but I do think he is very similar to a former Tedford QB. That QB is David Carr. To me Rogers seems like a Carr clone: same size, about the same athleticism, great arm. I think Carr will be a star so its not a bad player to be compared to.
Sorry sounds like your giving rogers way too much credit...David Carr coming out of college was the sure fire #1 overall choice...his arm was amazing along with his accuracy and his very quick release. David Carr also ran a low 4.6 40 i believe, anyway Carr coming out of college was the proven #1 guy and only helped himself at the combine!
 

His Dudeness

Active Roster
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
719
Reaction score
0
i'm not a rodgers fan at all, he's quite goofy looking and doesnt strike me as a nfl qb. to me he looks childish, ****y my personal opinion is when he struggles early he'll blame others and get frustrated easily.... i dont know, i just get bad vibes when i look at him. i see kyle boller written all over him..
 

Jaj

What you say?
Joined
Jan 22, 2003
Messages
13,149
Reaction score
0
Age
41
Location
LA
Awsi Dooger said:
Fact: 85% of NFL games are won by the team that runs the ball the most number of times. That percentage has survived every era, every change in emphasis. It is basic misconception the leading team piles up rushing attempts in the 4th quarter, influencing that stat. My job requires charting games and the rushing attempts pile up early.

The 2003 Patriots would not have won the Super Bowl if Bellichek and Weis had abandoned their typical approach and rushed the ball far fewer times than normal. In fact, I just looked it up via my Excel workbooks. The 2001 and 2003 Pats ran the ball an identical number of times, 473. Brady's yards per attempt were down somewhat that year, as you imply, but not bad and hardly the numbers of a dink-and-dump team. Brady was at 6.9 yards per attempt, just below the 7.0 that is the standard cutoff.

If you want to dismiss my stats, you're also dissing Bud Goode, the longtime and legit guru of NFL statistics. He emphasizes rushing attempts, as opposed to rushing yards, and calls yards per pass attempt the "killer stat." It is infinitely superior to the NFL's overall quarterback rating, which insanely overemphasizes stuff like TD passes and INTs. If you throw an insignificant Hail Mary INT to end the half, YPPA merely treats it as an incompletion. The overall rating penalizes you to the bone. Laughable.

Run the ball often, pass the ball well.
Hmmm so I guess the 2000-2003 Dolphins were unbeatable.
 

Jaj

What you say?
Joined
Jan 22, 2003
Messages
13,149
Reaction score
0
Age
41
Location
LA
outtawack311 said:
Umm...didnt you read the PASS THE BALL WELL part????
Uhhhhh.. They passed below 7. That's not that amazing. The Patriots were a terrible running team in 03. They had one or two decent games, otherwise they were terrible. It was all about the dink and dunk.
 

DolfanNJ

Active Roster
Joined
Nov 10, 2003
Messages
608
Reaction score
0
Location
Arkansas, USA
At the same time, Linehan was taking what was given to him (two fantastic passing weapons in Culpepper and Moss) and working with them as he saw fit. He squeezed the maximum amount of success out of those players. The defense was the problem.
 

GrnMtnMan

There's no school like The Old School
Joined
Apr 12, 2005
Messages
344
Reaction score
0
Location
Vermont
I still believe that a team can substitute a short passing attack into the flat for 3-4 yards a pop and function as a winning team. You still need to run it to keep them honest. I'd be interested in seeing Oakland's or NE's 2001 team stats on the percentage of throws under 5 yards, not yards per attempt. If you throw two 30 yard attempts then you can throw 10 5 yard attempts your average yard per throw is 9.2, is this an accurate description?
 
Top Bottom