ROUND 2: Dirty Birds Lead-Up

Post #201 » by **Wade-A-Holic** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 4:27 am

PkrsBcksGphsMqt wrote:Sal Pal picked the Eagles to win. I heard him make the prediction on Cowherd. He was also pretty salty when he was interviewed late night on ESPN radio last night.

Hmm. When he was on Homer he seemed to be leaning Packers. Maybe he was just tailoring his message to the audience... That said, I don't blame him for being salty. Philly sports is in his blood.

beyond_the_arc · Post #202 » by **beyond_the_arc** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 4:35 am

Newz wrote:
chuckleslove wrote:I disagree on the marathon statement. I think if someone runs a 90 mile marathon they can most definitely run a 100 mile marathon. I wouldn't say someone who ran a 26 mile marathon can run a 100 mile marathon though.

They probably can.

They haven't proven they can though. They showed proof they could run a 90 mile marathon, not a 100 mile marathon. How is that difficult to understand?

The gaping hole in your argument is not proof, it is probability. You're not accounting for probability at ALL.

Post #203 » by **Wade-A-Holic** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 4:43 am

Hahaha. This might be the worst lead up thread of all time.

Can we all just generally agree that if the Packers played the Falcons 10 times, we'd probably win between 6-8 of those games?

trwi7 · Post #204 » by **trwi7** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 4:46 am

5 at home and 5 on the road? I wouldn't say as high as 8. I would say between 5-7 leaning more towards 6-7.

Post #205 » by **Wade-A-Holic** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 4:49 am

trwi7 wrote:5 at home and 5 on the road? I wouldn't say as high as 8. I would say between 5-7 leaning more towards 6-7.

6-7 is probably right.

Kerb Hohl · Post #206 » by **Kerb Hohl** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 2:16 pm

I just wish people would stop talking as if "clutch" and "finishing ability" are really something that can be quantified with a team like Atlanta like you can associate "game-changing home run power" with Ruth or Fielder and also that Atlanta really has it.

Yes, they are solid and good at closing out tight games because they are normally pretty mistake-free. But they should be 11-5. They caught 2 late breaks that teams like Green Bay did not catch this season. Based on this small sample size and some overrated attribute, everyone is making Atlanta out to be gods.

And if I hear that Nate Clements not taking a knee after a game-ending INT of Matt Ryan (yes, they did subsequently come back and win it) or the Saints missing a 35 yarder FTW is proof that the Falcons "just find ways" I'm going to go ape ****.

How many times we beat them out of 10 would be close. But just because Atlanta is like 5-1 (against relatively crappy teams) closing out games as compared to Green Bay being like 2-5 in those situations just for this one year doesn't mean a ton. I agree, they do have the makeup of a team that may be slightly better at being clutch and finishing games. But it isn't some uncanny ability.

And even if it was some uncanny ability, if the game is 17-17 with 4 minutes to go and Jones drops us a pass to get into game-winning FG range just as the blueprint of how good teams can finish says, who is to say that they can't make a mistake? It isn't some 100% probability. Maybe a fumbled snap and they get pinned inside their own 5...maybe on 3rd and 3 they swing Turner out of the backfield and Bishop cuts his legs out before he can reach for the first...maybe Matt Ryan gets sacked and they get into damage control mode. Then they have to punt to us so that Rodgers can ride off into the sunset Matty Ice style with a spectacular 15 yard game-winning drive for a FG after the punt.

A Diddy2231 · Post #207 » by **A Diddy2231** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 3:23 pm

On 1250 one of the d bags on the morning show there, said he would take Matt Ryan over Rodgers...I mean even people in WI still doubt Rodgers...I don't know why but this bothers the **** out of me...

Newz · Post #208 » by **Newz** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 3:43 pm

A Diddy2231 wrote:On 1250 one of the d bags on the morning show there, said he would take Matt Ryan over Rodgers...I mean even people in WI still doubt Rodgers...I don't know why but this bothers the **** out of me...

I don't think that's as crazy as everyone else does. I like Rodgers more, but Matt Ryan is a damn good player.

PkrsBcksGphsMqt · Post #209 » by **PkrsBcksGphsMqt** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 3:58 pm

Newz wrote:
A Diddy2231 wrote:On 1250 one of the d bags on the morning show there, said he would take Matt Ryan over Rodgers...I mean even people in WI still doubt Rodgers...I don't know why but this bothers the **** out of me...

I don't think that's as crazy as everyone else does. I like Rodgers more, but Matt Ryan is a damn good player.

Only reason I might take Ryan over Rodgers would be because of age.

Newz · Post #210 » by **Newz** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 4:01 pm

PkrsBcksGphsMqt wrote:Only reason I might take Ryan over Rodgers would be because of age.

I think if you put Ryan on the Packers and Rodgers on the Falcons that their stats would look a lot different and it would change a lot of peoples minds.

Again, that's not saying I take Ryan over Rodgers. I like Rodgers more as a player, but Matt Ryan is a really good player. He doesn't put up the insane numbers (even though his numbers were great this year) because they are more of a running team.

chuckleslove · Post #211 » by **chuckleslove** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 4:02 pm

Newz wrote:
PkrsBcksGphsMqt wrote:Only reason I might take Ryan over Rodgers would be because of age.

I think if you put Ryan on the Packers and Rodgers on the Falcons that their stats would look a lot different and it would change a lot of peoples minds.

Again, that's not saying I take Ryan over Rodgers. I like Rodgers more as a player, but Matt Ryan is a really good player. He doesn't put up the insane numbers (even though his numbers were great this year) because they are more of a running team.

But he hasn't proven that he can put up those numbers

Newz · Post #212 » by **Newz** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 4:03 pm

chuckleslove wrote:But he hasn't proven that he can put up those numbers

Never said that he did.

LUKE23 · Post #213 » by **LUKE23** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 4:04 pm

I don't think age even comes into it, Rodgers just turned 27, Ryan turns 26 in May. Ryan is good, but honestly I don't think he's in the conversation with Rodgers so far.

The numbers I view as the most important for QB's:

Ryan: 66 TD, 34 INT, 1.94 TD/INT, 60.8% completion, 6.9 yards per attempt, 86.9 rating

Rodgers: 87 TD, 32 INT, 2.72 TD/INT (best of all-time for qualified players), 64.4% completion, 7.9 yards per attempt, 98.4 rating (best of all-time for qualified players)

I think the fact that Ryan was drafted as high as he is gave him a head start on the analysis of him. If he had been picked late 1st or early 2nd, I don't think he'd even be mentioned among the elite QB's, which Rodgers is. He's good, don't get me wrong, but Rodgers is clearly a tier above him. He has a stronger arm, is more accurate, and is more productive. Throw in a better runner just for another element.

Flames24Rulz · Post #214 » by **Flames24Rulz** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 4:08 pm

LUKE23 wrote:I don't think age even comes into it, Rodgers just turned 27, Ryan turns 26 in May. Ryan is good, but honestly I don't think he's in the conversation with Rodgers so far.

The numbers I view as the most important for QB's:

Ryan: 66 TD, 34 INT, 1.94 TD/INT, 60.8% completion, 6.9 yards per attempt, 86.9 rating

Rodgers: 87 TD, 32 INT, 2.72 TD/INT (best of all-time for qualified players), 64.4% completion, 7.9 yards per attempt, 98.4 rating (best of all-time for qualified players)

I think the fact that Ryan was drafted as high as he is gave him a head start on the analysis of him. If he had been picked late 1st or early 2nd, I don't think he'd even be mentioned among the elite QB's, which Rodgers is. He's good, don't get me wrong, but Rodgers is clearly a tier above him. He has a stronger arm, is more accurate, and is more productive. Throw in a better runner just for another element.

That about sums it up.

But dude, Ryan's a winner!!!

PkrsBcksGphsMqt · Post #215 » by **PkrsBcksGphsMqt** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 4:11 pm

LUKE23 wrote:I don't think age even comes into it, Rodgers just turned 27, Ryan turns 26 in May. Ryan is good, but honestly I don't think he's in the conversation with Rodgers so far.

The numbers I view as the most important for QB's:

Ryan: 66 TD, 34 INT, 1.94 TD/INT, 60.8% completion, 6.9 yards per attempt, 86.9 rating

Rodgers: 87 TD, 32 INT, 2.72 TD/INT (best of all-time for qualified players), 64.4% completion, 7.9 yards per attempt, 98.4 rating (best of all-time for qualified players)

I think the fact that Ryan was drafted as high as he is gave him a head start on the analysis of him. If he had been picked late 1st or early 2nd, I don't think he'd even be mentioned among the elite QB's, which Rodgers is. He's good, don't get me wrong, but Rodgers is clearly a tier above him. He has a stronger arm, is more accurate, and is more productive. Throw in a better runner just for another element.

Good post.

Be Here Now · Post #216 » by **Be Here Now** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 4:12 pm

Newz wrote:I think if you put Ryan on the Packers and Rodgers on the Falcons that their stats would look a lot different and it would change a lot of peoples minds.

Ryan's a good, young QB but the above isn't really true.

6th in the league attempts (even though they're a running team)
12th in completion percentage
11th in passer rating
27th in yds/attempt

After all our injuries this year, I'd say Ryan's definitely had more weapons on his side too. Rodgers is right behind Brady and Manning. Ryan's in that next tier with guys like Freeman and Flacco.

LUKE23 · Post #217 » by **LUKE23** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 4:14 pm

But dude, Ryan's a winner!!!

You joke, but it gets used a lot. It got used against Rodgers because he lost a playoff game in which the offense put up 45. Really, it's a ridiculous thing to talk about.

The stat thing really isn't true either. We throw more than the Falcons, so the pure amassed stats will be different, but you can still compare TD/INT, yards per attempt, and completion %. All are efficiency measures, not volume. Rodgers is more accurate and has a stronger arm, and makes less mistakes. That is all in the numbers. That would be the same regardless of offense. Rodgers simply has those traits that Ryan does not (at least not so far).

Newz · Post #218 » by **Newz** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 4:17 pm

Be Here Now wrote:Ryan's a good, young QB but the above isn't really true.

6th in the league attempts (even though they're a running team)
12th in completion percentage
11th in passer rating
27th in yds/attempt

Like I said, I would take Aaron Rodgers over Matt Ryan. You don't have to convince me... I know Rodgers is better.

After all our injuries this year, I'd say Ryan's definitely had more weapons on his side too. Rodgers is right behind Brady and Manning. Ryan's in that next tier with guys like Freeman and Flacco.

Matt Ryan is definitely better than Flacco or Freeman, at least IMO.

As far as how their weapons stack-up, I would say Ryan has an edge, but it isn't huge. I think ATL's offensive line is better, their running game is obviously far superior and he has Gonzo where as Finley went down, so we are left with Quarless. I think Jennings and White are about a wash, I think our 2, 3, 4 WRs blow theirs out of the water though.

A Diddy2231 · Post #219 » by **A Diddy2231** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 4:17 pm

Why dont we think what if Rodgers was playing under Belichick...then his numbers would be better..or any coach that doesn't get all conservative when leading

Then lets factor in what if Ryan had to replace a legend? And please dont compare replacing Vick comparison. At this moment Ryan is not better than Rodgers, IMO of course

PkrsBcksGphsMqt · Post #220 » by **PkrsBcksGphsMqt** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 4:19 pm

LOL Cowherd now says he doesn't feel good about the Falcons against the Packers. Despite the fact Ryan is his 2nd favorite QB to Brady and he's been hating on Rodgers forever.