49er Lead Up
Moderators: paulpressey25, MickeyDavis, humanrefutation
Re: 49er Lead Up
- MickeyDavis
- Global Mod
- Posts: 92,098
- And1: 44,776
- Joined: May 02, 2002
- Location: The Craps Table
Re: 49er Lead Up
BIg game for SF and they're at home. I wouldn't touch this one betting wise.
I'm against picketing but I don't know how to show it.
Re: 49er Lead Up
- thomchatt3rton
- Head Coach
- Posts: 6,386
- And1: 2,228
- Joined: Jun 11, 2009
Re: 49er Lead Up
Ron Swanson wrote:The Niners look bad.....like 4-12 bad. That said, Capers has never been able to draw up an adequate game plan against Kaepernick, so until he does, I'll still be worrying in the back of my mind that he's going to run for 100+ on us. Granted, he looks absolutely terrible right now, so I'm still expecting us to shut him down.
Their "confidence" in knowing they haven't lost to us in the last 3 years is irrelevant seeing as that was with guys like Willis, Borland, Justin and Aldon Smith, Frank Gore, Crabtree, etc. All of whom aren't on the team anymore.
W 34-17
Don't you think we'll handle Kapernick/Hyde to probably about the same extent we handled Wilson/Lynch? Or do you see something different that Kap does that makes him harder for us to stop than Wilson et al? I haven't seen SF play in a long time.
I think this D has come a long way from the squad that he ran wild on- we're getting pressure while keeping contain, guys are flying to the ball without over-pursuing, we're much stouter up front, and we're not getting completely destroyed when trying to cover TEs, etc.
Re: 49er Lead Up
- LUKE23
- RealGM
- Posts: 72,261
- And1: 6,203
- Joined: May 26, 2005
- Location: Stunville
Re: 49er Lead Up
Remember the "I'd take Kaepernick over Rodgers" posts? Those were fun.
Re: 49er Lead Up
- Iheartfootball
- Lead Assistant
- Posts: 5,742
- And1: 4,168
- Joined: May 09, 2014
- Location: The Bay Area, but not back down
Re: 49er Lead Up
I'll be there. Unfortunately I'll be sitting in a section where it wouldn't really be appropriate to go all hard core Packer. But I will represent. If they lose this one I will reconsider going to the Oakland game...
Re: 49er Lead Up
- crkone
- RealGM
- Posts: 28,534
- And1: 9,313
- Joined: Aug 16, 2006
Re: 49er Lead Up
Quarless out 4-6 weeks with a sprained MCL.
Code: Select all
o- - - \o __|
o/ /| vv`\
/| | |
| / \_ |
/ \ | |
/ | |
Re: 49er Lead Up
- Kerb Hohl
- RealGM
- Posts: 34,430
- And1: 4,141
- Joined: Jun 17, 2005
- Location: Hmmmm...how many 1sts would Jason Richardson cost...?
Re: 49er Lead Up
We'll see how the lead over the Vikings stretches (or doesn't) over the next few weeks, but the injury report is getting the feel of the 2011 15-1 season assuming we can stretch the lead out a little bit over the next few weeks. If the injury isn't to Rodgers or maybe Clay, the response is just "meh, as long as it's not season-ending."
Re: RE: Re: 49er Lead Up
- trwi7
- RealGM
- Posts: 110,797
- And1: 26,283
- Joined: Jul 12, 2006
- Location: Aussie bias
Re: RE: Re: 49er Lead Up
emunney wrote:Ask me in March if we're true contenders.
stellation wrote:What's the difference between Gery Woelful and this glass of mineral water? The mineral water actually has a source."
I Hate Manure wrote:We look to be awful next season without Beasley.
Re: 49er Lead Up
- LUKE23
- RealGM
- Posts: 72,261
- And1: 6,203
- Joined: May 26, 2005
- Location: Stunville
Re: 49er Lead Up
Hard to not see us at 6-0 at the bye if we win this week.
Re: 49er Lead Up
- LUKE23
- RealGM
- Posts: 72,261
- And1: 6,203
- Joined: May 26, 2005
- Location: Stunville
Re: 49er Lead Up
Packers 9 point road favorites.
Re: RE: Re: 49er Lead Up
- humanrefutation
- Forum Mod
- Posts: 30,351
- And1: 13,869
- Joined: Jun 05, 2006
Re: RE: Re: 49er Lead Up
LUKE23 wrote:Remember the "I'd take Kaepernick over Rodgers" posts? Those were fun.
Who the **** said that?
Re: RE: Re: 49er Lead Up
- th87
- General Manager
- Posts: 9,769
- And1: 9,320
- Joined: Dec 04, 2005
Re: RE: Re: 49er Lead Up
RRyder823 wrote:Kerb Hohl wrote:We just need to want it more unlike the last few times against SF IMO.
Maybe if we were mentality tough we'd have a shot
These don't suddenly become hilarious after the 17th time
Re: RE: Re: 49er Lead Up
- LikeABosh
- RealGM
- Posts: 18,886
- And1: 8,632
- Joined: Jun 15, 2011
Re: RE: Re: 49er Lead Up
th87 wrote:RRyder823 wrote:Kerb Hohl wrote:We just need to want it more unlike the last few times against SF IMO.
Maybe if we were mentality tough we'd have a shot
These don't suddenly become hilarious after the 17th time
You're right. It's always been hilarious
Re: 49er Lead Up
- humanrefutation
- Forum Mod
- Posts: 30,351
- And1: 13,869
- Joined: Jun 05, 2006
Re: 49er Lead Up
On an actually humorous note, Pro Football Focus actually gave Aaron Rodgers a negative grade for his performance against the Chiefs.
https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2015/09/29/why-aaron-rodgers-earned-a-slightly-negative-grade/
https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2015/09/29/why-aaron-rodgers-earned-a-slightly-negative-grade/
Re: 49er Lead Up
- trwi7
- RealGM
- Posts: 110,797
- And1: 26,283
- Joined: Jul 12, 2006
- Location: Aussie bias
Re: 49er Lead Up
humanrefutation wrote:On an actually humorous note, Pro Football Focus actually gave Aaron Rodgers a negative grade for his performance against the Chiefs.
https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2015/09/29/why-aaron-rodgers-earned-a-slightly-negative-grade/
I posted in the game thread about how we shouldn't take their statistics seriously if he got a negative grade last night. But a few highlights from that.
1. Rodgers had a fumble, which displayed poor pocket management, with 8:39 remaining in the second quarter. That play earned a negative grade.
Which was negated by a penalty on a wide receiver. Don't remember if it was illegal contact or holding but how can you be sure that Rodgers doesn't get rid of the ball before the defender gets to him if a receiver isn't fouled?
2. With 12:58 remaining in the third quarter, Rodgers forced a pass that Josh Mauga could and possibly should have been returned for six points for Kansas City. If Mauga makes this interception, it would have tacked an ugly interception onto Rodgers’ stat line. Instead, Rodgers maintained his interception-less streak at Lambeau field, but it is a negatively graded play regardless. These are poor plays on Rodgers’ part that bring his game grade down that won’t show up on any widely quoted statistical analysis of his performance.
Fair enough, that was a pretty poor pass and awareness of not seeing Mauga there.
Rodgers did his job last night, but his job was executing simple throws, putting the ball quickly in the hands of receivers like Randall Cobb in favorable matchups on short throws, and allowing others to do the heavy lifting.
You mean like when we were down by the **** goal line and there was no choice but to throw it short? Sure, he could've chucked it 50 yards through the end zone and into the 25th row and gotten a better grade from you. But he was smart and actually threw to his receivers for touchdowns. If they take away everything deep and he recognizes it and then audibles to a short route to get the ball to his receivers quickly, how is that his fault and why should he be penalized for it?
The greatness of Rodgers’ performance last night was in the intangibles. Recognizing the blitz, drawing the defense offsides, catching the Chiefs in bad situations and exploiting those scenarios with simple passes to open receivers. But you cannot — and we do not try to — quantify intangibles, or what comes pre-snap. Our system grades what can be graded — the execution of the play post-snap — and in that regard Rodgers did not stand out in the same way that his statistics did.
Is this not a huge part of being a QB? Sure he has amazing accuracy, a cannon arm and is really mobile but being able to manipulate a defense and recognize coverages the way he does is something very few QB's can do. To penalize him because others can't do that, is stupid. Especially when you're penalizing him for a play that didn't even **** count because of a penalty.
Imagine Rodgers throwing a deep ball that's picked off after he draws a player offsides. Using PFF's logic, that would be a negative play because he turned the ball over on a play that didn't count.
stellation wrote:What's the difference between Gery Woelful and this glass of mineral water? The mineral water actually has a source."
I Hate Manure wrote:We look to be awful next season without Beasley.
Re: RE: Re: 49er Lead Up
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 14,635
- And1: 10,091
- Joined: Jan 14, 2014
- Location: Hong Kong
Re: RE: Re: 49er Lead Up
trwi7 wrote:humanrefutation wrote:On an actually humorous note, Pro Football Focus actually gave Aaron Rodgers a negative grade for his performance against the Chiefs.
https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2015/09/29/why-aaron-rodgers-earned-a-slightly-negative-grade/
[img]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CQE_TwSXAAAkqta.png[/img]
I posted in the game thread about how we shouldn't take their statistics seriously if he got a negative grade last night. But a few highlights from that.1. Rodgers had a fumble, which displayed poor pocket management, with 8:39 remaining in the second quarter. That play earned a negative grade.
Which was negated by a penalty on a wide receiver. Don't remember if it was illegal contact or holding but how can you be sure that Rodgers doesn't get rid of the ball before the defender gets to him if a receiver isn't fouled?2. With 12:58 remaining in the third quarter, Rodgers forced a pass that Josh Mauga could and possibly should have been returned for six points for Kansas City. If Mauga makes this interception, it would have tacked an ugly interception onto Rodgers’ stat line. Instead, Rodgers maintained his interception-less streak at Lambeau field, but it is a negatively graded play regardless. These are poor plays on Rodgers’ part that bring his game grade down that won’t show up on any widely quoted statistical analysis of his performance.
Fair enough, that was a pretty poor pass and awareness of not seeing Mauga there.Rodgers did his job last night, but his job was executing simple throws, putting the ball quickly in the hands of receivers like Randall Cobb in favorable matchups on short throws, and allowing others to do the heavy lifting.
You mean like when we were down by the **** goal line and there was no choice but to throw it short? Sure, he could've chucked it 50 yards through the end zone and into the 25th row and gotten a better grade from you. But he was smart and actually threw to his receivers for touchdowns. If they take away everything deep and he recognizes it and then audibles to a short route to get the ball to his receivers quickly, how is that his fault and why should he be penalized for it?The greatness of Rodgers’ performance last night was in the intangibles. Recognizing the blitz, drawing the defense offsides, catching the Chiefs in bad situations and exploiting those scenarios with simple passes to open receivers. But you cannot — and we do not try to — quantify intangibles, or what comes pre-snap. Our system grades what can be graded — the execution of the play post-snap — and in that regard Rodgers did not stand out in the same way that his statistics did.
Is this not a huge part of being a QB? Sure he has amazing accuracy, a cannon arm and is really mobile but being able to manipulate a defense and recognize coverages the way he does is something very few QB's can do. To penalize him because others can't do that, is stupid. Especially when you're penalizing him for a play that didn't even **** count because of a penalty.
Imagine Rodgers throwing a deep ball that's picked off after he draws a player offsides. Using PFF's logic, that would be a negative play because he turned the ball over on a play that didn't count.
So quick release and recognizing favorable match ups all within. 30 seconds doesn't count for ****.
He makes it look easy with his short throws but it's because he's picking apart the defense and making the smart throw down after down. And so it looks easy so he gets penalized for it?
Then stop rating the qb position coz u suck at it.
The justifications for their rating proved how useless it is.
#FreeChuckDiesel
Re: 49er Lead Up
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 20,544
- And1: 1,324
- Joined: May 30, 2005
- Location: Working on pad level
Re: 49er Lead Up
trwi7 wrote:
Is this not a huge part of being a QB? Sure he has amazing accuracy, a cannon arm and is really mobile but being able to manipulate a defense and recognize coverages the way he does is something very few QB's can do. To penalize him because others can't do that, is stupid. Especially when you're penalizing him for a play that didn't even **** count because of a penalty.
Imagine Rodgers throwing a deep ball that's picked off after he draws a player offsides. Using PFF's logic, that would be a negative play because he turned the ball over on a play that didn't count.
When i watch today's NFL, quarterbacks smarts at the line of scrimmage is more important than ever.
The Packers often don't huddle, but that's usually not to play at a really fast pace. Instead, the goal is to get up to the line of scrimmage with enough time first for Aaron to completely scan over the alignment of the defense, then so he can move anyone around based on that alignment, and finally to often have enough time left to not just use his hard cadence in hopes of making a defensive lineman jump offsides, but also to try and make potential blitzers declare themselves if they move to the line of scrimmage on that cadence.
Peyton Manning has done this over most of his career, Brady does it a lot with the Patriots, and Rodgers a lot with the Packers. Obviously quarterbacks need physical gifts to thrive in the NFL and Aaron has those in abundance, but high football/quarterback IQ is another aspect in the overall arsenal which separates the great ones from the mediocre or bad ones.
The list is really really long of quarterbacks who have entered the NFL over a long time who had a strong arm and some who had both a strong arm and mobility, but failed largely because they never could master the mental part of playing the position as guys like Manning, Brady, and Rodgers have. Often enough, good or bad plays made by quarterbacks is as much a result of what they can process and do prior to the snap as after the snap.
Re: 49er Lead Up
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 38,344
- And1: 9,917
- Joined: May 12, 2002
Re: 49er Lead Up
Wouldn't they have just been better off saying, "Rodgers rating is clearly an outlier in our rating system. He had a masterful performance on the field that is not accurately demonstrated in our model. We have faith in the other qb ratings, but have missed the boat here."
...rather than trying to cobble together some half baked explanation as to why the best qb performance by anyone this year was actually one of the worst.
...rather than trying to cobble together some half baked explanation as to why the best qb performance by anyone this year was actually one of the worst.
Please reconsider your animal consumption.
Re: 49er Lead Up
- crkone
- RealGM
- Posts: 28,534
- And1: 9,313
- Joined: Aug 16, 2006
Re: 49er Lead Up
They have a real hard time rating QBs since they can't rate intangibles. When it comes to their ratings, you have to pretty much take it with a grain of salt and use their actual stats info instead. They do have good info about snap counts, hurries, hits, and sacks, coverage, etc. The arbitrary ratings are pretty dumb.
Code: Select all
o- - - \o __|
o/ /| vv`\
/| | |
| / \_ |
/ \ | |
/ | |
Re: 49er Lead Up
- Ron Swanson
- RealGM
- Posts: 22,301
- And1: 23,310
- Joined: May 15, 2013
Re: 49er Lead Up
I mean, PFF is pretty good at analyzing and grading individual players at the skill positions, but their formula for grading QB's has always been ridiculous and shouldn't be taken seriously. I thought this was pretty well known....
It's not that they gave Rodgers a negative grade that irks me, it's that they stubbornly try to defend their **** formula instead of just saying "yeah, our numbers don't always accurately reflect a player's true performance" and dismiss it as an outlier. They're not helping the "pretentious advanced stats guy" stereotype...
It's not that they gave Rodgers a negative grade that irks me, it's that they stubbornly try to defend their **** formula instead of just saying "yeah, our numbers don't always accurately reflect a player's true performance" and dismiss it as an outlier. They're not helping the "pretentious advanced stats guy" stereotype...
Re: 49er Lead Up
- crkone
- RealGM
- Posts: 28,534
- And1: 9,313
- Joined: Aug 16, 2006
Re: 49er Lead Up
Ron Swanson wrote:I mean, PFF is pretty good at analyzing and grading individual players at the skill positions, but their formula for grading QB's has always been ridiculous and shouldn't be taken seriously. I thought this was pretty well known....
It's not that they gave Rodgers a negative grade that irks me, it's that they stubbornly try to defend their **** formula instead of just saying "yeah, our numbers don't always accurately reflect a player's true performance" and dismiss it as an outlier. They're not helping the "pretentious advanced stats guy" stereotype...
They don't know the defensive play calls so they'll assign negative grade to a LB who they thought should have made a tackle when they were in the correct gap but the defensive lineman was out of position. The same thing for coverage when a LB has middle zone and comes over to try to tackle a RB on a swing pass that was supposed to be covered by a CB. I'd rather just use their basic stat collections, which are fantastic, to come to my own conclusion.
Code: Select all
o- - - \o __|
o/ /| vv`\
/| | |
| / \_ |
/ \ | |
/ | |