@Indigo999
Fading cappers can be extremely successful......We have a few here that are consistently 30% on any given sport... ...
One of my old buddies who reads but never posts has done very well with this strategy here on covers...
@Indigo999
Fading cappers can be extremely successful......We have a few here that are consistently 30% on any given sport... ...
One of my old buddies who reads but never posts has done very well with this strategy here on covers...
@Indigo999
Fading cappers can be extremely successful......We have a few here that are consistently 30% on any given sport... ...
One of my old buddies who reads but never posts has done very well with this strategy here on covers...
Sounds good, as long as I am not one of those your buddy fades.....wink.
In the past I've looked at cbssports' "experts" and where they ask 10-12 of them to make a pick on each game, and when 80% of them are on one side to go the other way....that usually hits 55% or higher.
I've also used covers' KOC football contest(s) and when over 50% of those handicappers are on an underdog, it is a signal to at least stay away....this works in football, but not for hockey as there seems to be a super sharp hockey handicapping population.
Sounds good, as long as I am not one of those your buddy fades.....wink.
In the past I've looked at cbssports' "experts" and where they ask 10-12 of them to make a pick on each game, and when 80% of them are on one side to go the other way....that usually hits 55% or higher.
I've also used covers' KOC football contest(s) and when over 50% of those handicappers are on an underdog, it is a signal to at least stay away....this works in football, but not for hockey as there seems to be a super sharp hockey handicapping population.
The off-season should be a time of making opinions and then information gathering....opinions should change as things get closer to the season...this thread is a "thinking out loud" thingy that crystallizes my thoughts and gets things down on paper that I can't lose, nor is it something the dog can destroy.
I've found some further information on my cycles theory which gets the Lions off of my radar. No shock, the Lions are a long, long ways from becoming a contender with a bottom 5 quarterback.
As losing franchises often do, they got rid of what I thought was an asset in Anthony Lynn as their O-coordinator. Perhaps they'll have a season of covering as a dog, but not quite getting the Ws, as running dominated teams do quite well these days, especially on the road.
The off-season should be a time of making opinions and then information gathering....opinions should change as things get closer to the season...this thread is a "thinking out loud" thingy that crystallizes my thoughts and gets things down on paper that I can't lose, nor is it something the dog can destroy.
I've found some further information on my cycles theory which gets the Lions off of my radar. No shock, the Lions are a long, long ways from becoming a contender with a bottom 5 quarterback.
As losing franchises often do, they got rid of what I thought was an asset in Anthony Lynn as their O-coordinator. Perhaps they'll have a season of covering as a dog, but not quite getting the Ws, as running dominated teams do quite well these days, especially on the road.
@Indigo999
"No shock, the Lions are a long, long ways from becoming a contender with a bottom 5 quarterback."
I am interested in what you think/see him as a bottom 5 quarterback in or at? Or did you just mean he is not a top level QB?
Because, to me, he is clearly not a bottom 5 QB by any metric or by any skill set. The team is bottom 5 -- so their/his record is bottom 5. But that is it.
@Indigo999
"No shock, the Lions are a long, long ways from becoming a contender with a bottom 5 quarterback."
I am interested in what you think/see him as a bottom 5 quarterback in or at? Or did you just mean he is not a top level QB?
Because, to me, he is clearly not a bottom 5 QB by any metric or by any skill set. The team is bottom 5 -- so their/his record is bottom 5. But that is it.
If your
Jared Goff reminds me of Sam Bradford...tall guy, distinguished college career, no pocket presence, frequently sacked and ineffective.
If you perceive he is above the bottom of the league at the quarterback position, then we'd have quite different perceptions....and, as this is a gambling forum where opinions are free, there will disagreements, FREQUENTLY.
Two people will look at the very same game, or the very same stats and will decide based on what they saw or read to be on opposite sides of a game....happens all the time. It's well documented 2 or more individuals seeing the very same accident in a court of law under oath will have much different testimonies.
You seem irritated that someone might disagree with your opinion of quarterbacks. I will be the first to admit I am or will be wrong, quite a lot....as long as I am right 55-60% of the time, I am satisfied with that. I am not here to try to influence your perception of quarterback play.
All the best.
If your
Jared Goff reminds me of Sam Bradford...tall guy, distinguished college career, no pocket presence, frequently sacked and ineffective.
If you perceive he is above the bottom of the league at the quarterback position, then we'd have quite different perceptions....and, as this is a gambling forum where opinions are free, there will disagreements, FREQUENTLY.
Two people will look at the very same game, or the very same stats and will decide based on what they saw or read to be on opposite sides of a game....happens all the time. It's well documented 2 or more individuals seeing the very same accident in a court of law under oath will have much different testimonies.
You seem irritated that someone might disagree with your opinion of quarterbacks. I will be the first to admit I am or will be wrong, quite a lot....as long as I am right 55-60% of the time, I am satisfied with that. I am not here to try to influence your perception of quarterback play.
All the best.
@Indigo999
No sir, not irritated at all. I did not say my opinion of him. I just questioned what you based yours on? The stats nor my eyes show him to be bottom 5 is all I am saying.
I have no problem with other people's opinions -- I simply want to know what they base them on.
@Indigo999
No sir, not irritated at all. I did not say my opinion of him. I just questioned what you based yours on? The stats nor my eyes show him to be bottom 5 is all I am saying.
I have no problem with other people's opinions -- I simply want to know what they base them on.
For example, you say 'frequently sacked'. He is not in the top 5 most sacked and never has been. He gets rid of the ball in a timely manner and makes decent decisions -- way better then the bottom 5 QBs do.
That is all I am saying. He took a less-talented Rams team than Stafford had last year to the SB. He did, more or less, as well as Stafford did with a bottom 5 team in Detroit last year. No one thinks Stafford is a bottom 5 QB.
You are correct -- he does seem somewhat like Bradford though -- maybe not as injury-prone.
But, sure, we can disagree on how good he is. I agree with you he is not elite -- but think you over-emphasized how bad the guy is by saying he is bottom 5 is all.
For example, you say 'frequently sacked'. He is not in the top 5 most sacked and never has been. He gets rid of the ball in a timely manner and makes decent decisions -- way better then the bottom 5 QBs do.
That is all I am saying. He took a less-talented Rams team than Stafford had last year to the SB. He did, more or less, as well as Stafford did with a bottom 5 team in Detroit last year. No one thinks Stafford is a bottom 5 QB.
You are correct -- he does seem somewhat like Bradford though -- maybe not as injury-prone.
But, sure, we can disagree on how good he is. I agree with you he is not elite -- but think you over-emphasized how bad the guy is by saying he is bottom 5 is all.
2021/2018:
Comp%
Goff 67.2% - 11th 64.9% - 17th
Stafford 67.2% - 10th 66.1% - 14th
Catchable%
Goff 86.4% - 10th 84.7% - 9th
Stafford 83.3% - 25th 84.1% - 11th
On Target%
Goff 78% - 9th 78.5% - 16th
Stafford 74.4% - 22nd 80.6% - 8th
Y/A
Goff 6.6 - 26th 8.4 - 3rd
Stafford 8.1 - 3rd 6.8 - 24th
ANY/A
Goff 5.6 - 22nd 7.7 - 4th
Stafford 7.4 - 4th 5.8 - 24th
2021/2018:
Comp%
Goff 67.2% - 11th 64.9% - 17th
Stafford 67.2% - 10th 66.1% - 14th
Catchable%
Goff 86.4% - 10th 84.7% - 9th
Stafford 83.3% - 25th 84.1% - 11th
On Target%
Goff 78% - 9th 78.5% - 16th
Stafford 74.4% - 22nd 80.6% - 8th
Y/A
Goff 6.6 - 26th 8.4 - 3rd
Stafford 8.1 - 3rd 6.8 - 24th
ANY/A
Goff 5.6 - 22nd 7.7 - 4th
Stafford 7.4 - 4th 5.8 - 24th
TD%
Goff 3.8% - 22nd 5.7% - 8th
Stafford 6.8% - 2nd 3.8% - 21st
INT%
Goff 1.6% - 6th 2.1% - 16th
Stafford 2.8% - 24th 2.0% - 14th
Sack%
Goff 6.5% - 19th 5.4% - 10th
Stafford 4.7% - 8th 6.6% - 20th
RTG
Goff 91.5 - 17th 101.1 - 8th
Stafford 102.9 - 6th 89.9 - 22nd
IQR
Goff 94.3 - 15th 104.9 - 11th
Stafford 102.3 - 10th 89.9 = 22nd
Pressure%
Goff 32.9% - 16th 30.0% - 5th
Stafford 26.7% - 3rd 32.4% - 11th
PE/Play
Goff .105 - 22nd .137 - 11th
Stafford .222 - 2nd .091 - 26th
Positive%
Goff 47.1% - 15th 52.5% - 5th
Stafford 49.9% - 4th 45.5 - 22nd
TD%
Goff 3.8% - 22nd 5.7% - 8th
Stafford 6.8% - 2nd 3.8% - 21st
INT%
Goff 1.6% - 6th 2.1% - 16th
Stafford 2.8% - 24th 2.0% - 14th
Sack%
Goff 6.5% - 19th 5.4% - 10th
Stafford 4.7% - 8th 6.6% - 20th
RTG
Goff 91.5 - 17th 101.1 - 8th
Stafford 102.9 - 6th 89.9 - 22nd
IQR
Goff 94.3 - 15th 104.9 - 11th
Stafford 102.3 - 10th 89.9 = 22nd
Pressure%
Goff 32.9% - 16th 30.0% - 5th
Stafford 26.7% - 3rd 32.4% - 11th
PE/Play
Goff .105 - 22nd .137 - 11th
Stafford .222 - 2nd .091 - 26th
Positive%
Goff 47.1% - 15th 52.5% - 5th
Stafford 49.9% - 4th 45.5 - 22nd
PAR
Goff 38.4 - 22nd 64.1 - 11th
Stafford 117.5 - 4th 34.3 - 22nd
WAR
Goff 1.2 - 22nd 2.0 - 11th
Stafford 3.5 - 4th 1.1 - 22nd
Boom%
Goff 20.4% - 21st 27.4% - 2nd
Stafford 26.3% - 1st 20.5% - 23rd
Bust%
Goff 16.3% - 14th 11.1 - 3rd
Stafford 13.3% - 5th 17.1 - 24th
PAR
Goff 38.4 - 22nd 64.1 - 11th
Stafford 117.5 - 4th 34.3 - 22nd
WAR
Goff 1.2 - 22nd 2.0 - 11th
Stafford 3.5 - 4th 1.1 - 22nd
Boom%
Goff 20.4% - 21st 27.4% - 2nd
Stafford 26.3% - 1st 20.5% - 23rd
Bust%
Goff 16.3% - 14th 11.1 - 3rd
Stafford 13.3% - 5th 17.1 - 24th
This is an interesting study in two quarterbacks and two teams. It shows that even a very inexperienced QB can take a good team to a SB. It shows that when those two QBs switched teams that the younger guy still did as well as the more experienced guy with a sorry team.
So, my point is that Goff at this point still has more upside, whereas, Stafford has topped out. Stafford had to move to a better team to go to a SB -- that was even more upgraded from when Goff went with that same team. Then Goff goes to a for-sure bottom 5 team and had some numbers that were even better than Stafford when he was with Detroit.
No matter what type of numbers you look at Goff is not a bottom 5 QB. He is not elite -- but still has enough upside potential to one day be considered decent, or even good.
It is somewhat amazing, and expected at the same time that when these two QBs switched teams -- their numbers reflect it so closely.
If Goff was that much worse than Stafford, his stats would have been way worse at both places -- they were not. They were even better in some categories.
Numbers do not reflect everything, of course. But when you take two QBs and switch them like this and the numbers adjust like this -- then to me, one QB is not that much better than the other.
This is an interesting study in two quarterbacks and two teams. It shows that even a very inexperienced QB can take a good team to a SB. It shows that when those two QBs switched teams that the younger guy still did as well as the more experienced guy with a sorry team.
So, my point is that Goff at this point still has more upside, whereas, Stafford has topped out. Stafford had to move to a better team to go to a SB -- that was even more upgraded from when Goff went with that same team. Then Goff goes to a for-sure bottom 5 team and had some numbers that were even better than Stafford when he was with Detroit.
No matter what type of numbers you look at Goff is not a bottom 5 QB. He is not elite -- but still has enough upside potential to one day be considered decent, or even good.
It is somewhat amazing, and expected at the same time that when these two QBs switched teams -- their numbers reflect it so closely.
If Goff was that much worse than Stafford, his stats would have been way worse at both places -- they were not. They were even better in some categories.
Numbers do not reflect everything, of course. But when you take two QBs and switch them like this and the numbers adjust like this -- then to me, one QB is not that much better than the other.
Put the numbers out there to back up what I said is all. Supposedly, I am supposed to be good at this. But don't take my word for it -- research what others say if you like.
I do not think either of us are considering Goff to be a guy that we would want to build a team around. But, I think I can make a good enough case that he makes better decisions than Stafford and takes less sacks than Stafford and handles the pressure better. Sure, from time to time, Stafford's experience will help -- and Goff should get more of that as time goes by. In other words, surround either one with enough talent and they can both carry a team. Put either on a sorry team and neither can carry a team.
This is way different than, for example, when Brady went to Tampa Bay.
Bottom line, to me -- Detroit has way more problems than QB. They need to fix that whole organization.
Put the numbers out there to back up what I said is all. Supposedly, I am supposed to be good at this. But don't take my word for it -- research what others say if you like.
I do not think either of us are considering Goff to be a guy that we would want to build a team around. But, I think I can make a good enough case that he makes better decisions than Stafford and takes less sacks than Stafford and handles the pressure better. Sure, from time to time, Stafford's experience will help -- and Goff should get more of that as time goes by. In other words, surround either one with enough talent and they can both carry a team. Put either on a sorry team and neither can carry a team.
This is way different than, for example, when Brady went to Tampa Bay.
Bottom line, to me -- Detroit has way more problems than QB. They need to fix that whole organization.
Yes you make some good points, but as you say, for me it goes way further than numbers....I look at Goff and Cousins, in comparison to a Josh Allen or Russell Wilson (excluding Wilson's last season) and Goff and Cousins never lift their teams....when it gets down and dirty, when it's winning time they shrink from the load of the task at hand. You might show me numbers that say that Cousins, or Goff for that matter are good in the last part of a close game, but I don't recall them doing it much at all. The ability to elevate a team and to win when things look bad is the "IT" factor that neither of them have, and you couldn't show me any stat that would make me want to have them on my football team.
I watched the Timberwolves play the Clippers in a NBA game last night that mattered (the only time the NBA is worth watching). Clippers had Paul George, a perennial All-Star and the Clippers shut down a questionable all-star at best in Karl Anthony Towns,...the Clippers were in control of the game for much of the second half and Paul George had put up 15 points in the 3rd quarter. When it came to winning in the last five minutes, late in the 4th, the guy who made the difference in the game was Patrick Beverley, a guy that the Clippers didn't want....his stat line was 2-8 from the floor, 2-4 from the line and he was a -5 for the game. Yet, he was everywhere at the end.....he is a winning basketball player, the best compliment you can give a player.
The Timberwolves the season before finished 23-49 and their defense ranked in the bottom 5 in the league...yeah they got a new coach this season who is very good, that certainly played a part in it, but Beverley was the only new player on the team. George is infinitely more talented and pretty to watch than Beverley. Those stats we look at all the time say George is the far better player, but he's not the more valuable player.
If I am the Timberwolves GM and the Clippers' GM calls me up and says, "I'll trade you Paul George straight-up for Patrick Beverley."
I'd say, "No, not a chance, I like our guy."
So, as I've said, we have a different perception of what kind of guy we'd have on our football team....it seems as if you use hardcore numbers/stats as your core way of evaluating a football player, which I wouldn't prioritize as number one.
Rick Spielman, the former GM of the Vikings used hardcore numbers for justifying paying Kirk Cousins 45 million dollars for this upcoming season and tens of millions for a few seasons before that....Spielman is now out of a job because he coupled his job security with the idea that Cousins could get his team to the winner's circle.....it was a mistake, and where exactly do the Vikings go from where they are next year?....Cousins will expect a raise of which almost anything would put him on par with Mahomes' yearly salary....better to cut bait than prolong the agony.
Yes you make some good points, but as you say, for me it goes way further than numbers....I look at Goff and Cousins, in comparison to a Josh Allen or Russell Wilson (excluding Wilson's last season) and Goff and Cousins never lift their teams....when it gets down and dirty, when it's winning time they shrink from the load of the task at hand. You might show me numbers that say that Cousins, or Goff for that matter are good in the last part of a close game, but I don't recall them doing it much at all. The ability to elevate a team and to win when things look bad is the "IT" factor that neither of them have, and you couldn't show me any stat that would make me want to have them on my football team.
I watched the Timberwolves play the Clippers in a NBA game last night that mattered (the only time the NBA is worth watching). Clippers had Paul George, a perennial All-Star and the Clippers shut down a questionable all-star at best in Karl Anthony Towns,...the Clippers were in control of the game for much of the second half and Paul George had put up 15 points in the 3rd quarter. When it came to winning in the last five minutes, late in the 4th, the guy who made the difference in the game was Patrick Beverley, a guy that the Clippers didn't want....his stat line was 2-8 from the floor, 2-4 from the line and he was a -5 for the game. Yet, he was everywhere at the end.....he is a winning basketball player, the best compliment you can give a player.
The Timberwolves the season before finished 23-49 and their defense ranked in the bottom 5 in the league...yeah they got a new coach this season who is very good, that certainly played a part in it, but Beverley was the only new player on the team. George is infinitely more talented and pretty to watch than Beverley. Those stats we look at all the time say George is the far better player, but he's not the more valuable player.
If I am the Timberwolves GM and the Clippers' GM calls me up and says, "I'll trade you Paul George straight-up for Patrick Beverley."
I'd say, "No, not a chance, I like our guy."
So, as I've said, we have a different perception of what kind of guy we'd have on our football team....it seems as if you use hardcore numbers/stats as your core way of evaluating a football player, which I wouldn't prioritize as number one.
Rick Spielman, the former GM of the Vikings used hardcore numbers for justifying paying Kirk Cousins 45 million dollars for this upcoming season and tens of millions for a few seasons before that....Spielman is now out of a job because he coupled his job security with the idea that Cousins could get his team to the winner's circle.....it was a mistake, and where exactly do the Vikings go from where they are next year?....Cousins will expect a raise of which almost anything would put him on par with Mahomes' yearly salary....better to cut bait than prolong the agony.
Yes, you are right the numbers are not what people 'remember' most. Yes, I can show you where Goff is better than, say, Stafford in a on-score game in the 4th quarter. But that will not change someone's mind. Because they just do not perceive Goff as a 'winner' or 'more valuable'. Maybe they recall one or two bad, critical throws more than one or two crucial great throws late in a game.
I am not real clear on what you are saying a 'more valuable player' is? Are you saying you would rather build a team with Beverly instead of George? I am confused about this. For example, you can go to the landofbasketball and compare the two. The stats are not close at all, in any category. So, offensively and defensively, it is obvious who the better player is. But you are making the case that there are intangibles where he is better? Just because he was everywhere on the court? He obviously did not out-play George. They won because they are just a better team and were better all year long. I get that sometimes a change of scenery is good for a player. With basketball the chemistry becomes more important -- so is that your point? That he has better chemistry with the new coach, etc.? Sure, he may disrupt the other team on defense and the stats do not reflect that. But no real basketball guy is taking Beverly over George. There was a good article some time ago about him being the 'real' leader on the Clippers -- but no serious person thinks he could make that difference on a team without the supporting cast he had there or with 'wolves and better coaching. For sure, he is better that normally given credit.
For example, I always say Draymond Green has been vastly underrated on the reasons why the Warriors did so well. But, I am not taking him instead of Curry or Durant or Thompson to build my team --but I will take him ON my team. Just like Rodman before those two guys.
This is all perception with QBs -- for example: who would you compare to as a below average stat QB but brings the intangibles to that position? Most folks say Fitzgerald or Tanneyhill, etc. But are they anywhere near the upper tier of QBs --no, they are not. So, no one is taking them to build a team around. They are not Brady or Brees or Big Ben or Manning, etc.
Yes, you are right the numbers are not what people 'remember' most. Yes, I can show you where Goff is better than, say, Stafford in a on-score game in the 4th quarter. But that will not change someone's mind. Because they just do not perceive Goff as a 'winner' or 'more valuable'. Maybe they recall one or two bad, critical throws more than one or two crucial great throws late in a game.
I am not real clear on what you are saying a 'more valuable player' is? Are you saying you would rather build a team with Beverly instead of George? I am confused about this. For example, you can go to the landofbasketball and compare the two. The stats are not close at all, in any category. So, offensively and defensively, it is obvious who the better player is. But you are making the case that there are intangibles where he is better? Just because he was everywhere on the court? He obviously did not out-play George. They won because they are just a better team and were better all year long. I get that sometimes a change of scenery is good for a player. With basketball the chemistry becomes more important -- so is that your point? That he has better chemistry with the new coach, etc.? Sure, he may disrupt the other team on defense and the stats do not reflect that. But no real basketball guy is taking Beverly over George. There was a good article some time ago about him being the 'real' leader on the Clippers -- but no serious person thinks he could make that difference on a team without the supporting cast he had there or with 'wolves and better coaching. For sure, he is better that normally given credit.
For example, I always say Draymond Green has been vastly underrated on the reasons why the Warriors did so well. But, I am not taking him instead of Curry or Durant or Thompson to build my team --but I will take him ON my team. Just like Rodman before those two guys.
This is all perception with QBs -- for example: who would you compare to as a below average stat QB but brings the intangibles to that position? Most folks say Fitzgerald or Tanneyhill, etc. But are they anywhere near the upper tier of QBs --no, they are not. So, no one is taking them to build a team around. They are not Brady or Brees or Big Ben or Manning, etc.
No way numbers are number one way to evaluate.
For example, Rodgers is the best numbers-wise and it is not close at all! But I will take Brady every single time. Because he is clutch and Rodgers is not. AND the numbers back that part up.
People too often are ready to let their QB go because they are not 'elite' -- because they compare them in their minds to Brady, Manning, etc. But they want numbers guys like Rodgers, Allen, etc. Let those guys prove they can carry a team, instead of the team carrying them. People do not like Cousins, Jimmy G, or Goff, etc. But they are in love with Rodgers, Mahomes, Jackson and now Allen. Flashy and more stats -- but these same people say it is not the numbers. That those guys have something else? What do they have? Nothing but more talent around them --by-and-large. Sure, a little more talent. But so what? They have more talent than Brady and Brees and maybe Ben, etc.
For example, was Alex Smith -- at that time-- worse than, say Colin?
People want to win and are always looking for the next Montana -- I get that. But how often do you really see QB change that is worthwhile and really makes a difference?
Look at the game winning stats of Brady vs. Rodgers --- it is awful how the most talented QB of all-time lags Brady, and by how far! -- a mostly, perceived less-talented QB.
Might as well save the money and bring Goff or Jimmy G in. But folks do not understand the separation between, let's say, 6-15 and 15-25 is NOT that much. Now, if you surround them with better talent --then they get better.
Bottom line -- surround Goff with better talent and coaching --like Rams did. Do the same with Cousins. Look at the success Jimmy G has had. But SF wants to get rid of him and go with an unproven QB -- instead of adding better talent. That is a HUGE mistake -- you see this sort of thing happen over and over!
But folks always say their guy is not clutch and he doesn't win the crucial games. So? Rodgers doesn't, Allen doesn't, Jackson doesn't, and Mahomes is slipping and may not now. Even as bad a year as Big Ben had -- he could still do it. Jimmy G, Herbert, Burrow would be better choices to me -- at this point.
Wilson, Brady -- those are the guys that have proven they can do it.
No way numbers are number one way to evaluate.
For example, Rodgers is the best numbers-wise and it is not close at all! But I will take Brady every single time. Because he is clutch and Rodgers is not. AND the numbers back that part up.
People too often are ready to let their QB go because they are not 'elite' -- because they compare them in their minds to Brady, Manning, etc. But they want numbers guys like Rodgers, Allen, etc. Let those guys prove they can carry a team, instead of the team carrying them. People do not like Cousins, Jimmy G, or Goff, etc. But they are in love with Rodgers, Mahomes, Jackson and now Allen. Flashy and more stats -- but these same people say it is not the numbers. That those guys have something else? What do they have? Nothing but more talent around them --by-and-large. Sure, a little more talent. But so what? They have more talent than Brady and Brees and maybe Ben, etc.
For example, was Alex Smith -- at that time-- worse than, say Colin?
People want to win and are always looking for the next Montana -- I get that. But how often do you really see QB change that is worthwhile and really makes a difference?
Look at the game winning stats of Brady vs. Rodgers --- it is awful how the most talented QB of all-time lags Brady, and by how far! -- a mostly, perceived less-talented QB.
Might as well save the money and bring Goff or Jimmy G in. But folks do not understand the separation between, let's say, 6-15 and 15-25 is NOT that much. Now, if you surround them with better talent --then they get better.
Bottom line -- surround Goff with better talent and coaching --like Rams did. Do the same with Cousins. Look at the success Jimmy G has had. But SF wants to get rid of him and go with an unproven QB -- instead of adding better talent. That is a HUGE mistake -- you see this sort of thing happen over and over!
But folks always say their guy is not clutch and he doesn't win the crucial games. So? Rodgers doesn't, Allen doesn't, Jackson doesn't, and Mahomes is slipping and may not now. Even as bad a year as Big Ben had -- he could still do it. Jimmy G, Herbert, Burrow would be better choices to me -- at this point.
Wilson, Brady -- those are the guys that have proven they can do it.
I get that there are players a person would just never want. Because they seem to frustrate a fan so often. But it is not fair to compare them to very elite guys.
For example, WHO should Detroit go out and get to replace Goff with that they could -- and would be an instant upgrade?
I just showed that the SB winning Stafford WAS/IS not the answer. For example, Brady or Wilson do not want to go there. They cannot get Mahomes, Allen or Herbert.
So, they need to FIX that team AND then Goff will be okay. Never elite, but can win.
I get that there are players a person would just never want. Because they seem to frustrate a fan so often. But it is not fair to compare them to very elite guys.
For example, WHO should Detroit go out and get to replace Goff with that they could -- and would be an instant upgrade?
I just showed that the SB winning Stafford WAS/IS not the answer. For example, Brady or Wilson do not want to go there. They cannot get Mahomes, Allen or Herbert.
So, they need to FIX that team AND then Goff will be okay. Never elite, but can win.
Working on something else. So, I hope that was not too jumbled up and you get what I was trying to say.
Fair enough that you do not think he is the answer -- but where do they go from here? They have not had to worry about a QB in years and could not build a winning team! So, it is hard to expect them to now. But who knows?
Working on something else. So, I hope that was not too jumbled up and you get what I was trying to say.
Fair enough that you do not think he is the answer -- but where do they go from here? They have not had to worry about a QB in years and could not build a winning team! So, it is hard to expect them to now. But who knows?
If nothing else, you have to give him credit for trying to improve the Lions running game. But I would give him credit for drafting and supporting Herbert. I really think their fans are going to be happy for years to come with Herbert:
Chargers head coach Anthony Lynn doesn't buy into the negative narratives that surrounded quarterback Justin Herbert during the draft process,
And while Herbert still faces questions about his skill set, his new head coach doesn't understand the criticism.
"There's just nothing not to like about this young man," Los Angeles Chargers head coach Lynn said of Herbert on the Jim Rome Show this week. "He showed up in the Rose Bowl, he won that game. He went to the Senior Bowl, was the MVP. He went to the combine, had an outstanding combine. Had his pro day. He answered a lot of questions that you may have had on him, and he passed every single test, man."
"You know, people are talking about his leadership and things like that," Lynn said. "Well, he's a little bit more of an introvert, but he's still a leader. All you have to do is just watch the way his teammates respond to him on the football field. That's all you want. I have no problems with this young man's leadership and his skill set is off the charts."
If nothing else, you have to give him credit for trying to improve the Lions running game. But I would give him credit for drafting and supporting Herbert. I really think their fans are going to be happy for years to come with Herbert:
Chargers head coach Anthony Lynn doesn't buy into the negative narratives that surrounded quarterback Justin Herbert during the draft process,
And while Herbert still faces questions about his skill set, his new head coach doesn't understand the criticism.
"There's just nothing not to like about this young man," Los Angeles Chargers head coach Lynn said of Herbert on the Jim Rome Show this week. "He showed up in the Rose Bowl, he won that game. He went to the Senior Bowl, was the MVP. He went to the combine, had an outstanding combine. Had his pro day. He answered a lot of questions that you may have had on him, and he passed every single test, man."
"You know, people are talking about his leadership and things like that," Lynn said. "Well, he's a little bit more of an introvert, but he's still a leader. All you have to do is just watch the way his teammates respond to him on the football field. That's all you want. I have no problems with this young man's leadership and his skill set is off the charts."
@Raiders22
He deserves all the credit he gets for his part in getting Herbert to SD, no argument there. I mean, I guess we are talking about the Detroit Lions, so the bar for OC wasn't set very high. That said, if you followed his Chargers teams when he was HC then you would be hard pressed to use the term "asset" to describe him.
My original comment was a little tongue in cheek, personally I loved when Lynn coached the Chargers as they were one of the easiest teams to bet against as he would often make some boneheaded decision that ended up costing them the game. The guy that replaced him did a decent job trying to replicate Lynn's decisions this past season but with Herbert, little different betting strategy vs. going against Rivers. I'm sure Lynn is a stand up guy and well liked around the League. I wish him the best, as long as he isn't my HC.
@Raiders22
He deserves all the credit he gets for his part in getting Herbert to SD, no argument there. I mean, I guess we are talking about the Detroit Lions, so the bar for OC wasn't set very high. That said, if you followed his Chargers teams when he was HC then you would be hard pressed to use the term "asset" to describe him.
My original comment was a little tongue in cheek, personally I loved when Lynn coached the Chargers as they were one of the easiest teams to bet against as he would often make some boneheaded decision that ended up costing them the game. The guy that replaced him did a decent job trying to replicate Lynn's decisions this past season but with Herbert, little different betting strategy vs. going against Rivers. I'm sure Lynn is a stand up guy and well liked around the League. I wish him the best, as long as he isn't my HC.
Lynn would've been ranked in the bottom of the list of game managers/decision makers as a head coach, but an O-coordinator isn't in sphere of influence. I love the fact that his teams ran the ball well, as they did in Detroit last season.
Total agreement on Aaron Rodgers, probably the best pure passer in history and a superb tactician. When winning time comes in the regular season, my opinion is that he is very, very good.
But when the playoffs come, it's like he can't overcome the obstacles that are required,....he gets his team within sight of the summit, (but with the exception of one time) never quite there. Is it that he has masked his team's offensive receivers' inabilities during the regular season or the Packers' defensive liabilities, that subsequently get uncovered when going against elite competition, or is he just a choker? I give him credit....he's won one more Super Bowl than I have, but there coulda/woulda/shoulda had quite a few more.
I don't know....there's guys like that, James Harden and Clayton Kershaw come to mind....and Peyton Manning had a lot of terrible playoff performances, and he basically rode the coattails of the Broncos' last Super Bowl win.
This isn't twitter or facebook....we can have different views, and noone gets kicked out. I can have my view and others can have theirs and it's all good. I wouldn't expect you or Joe Blow to have the same view, and it's a waste of time trying to coerce someone into agreeing with me.......it takes up soooo much time and energy to attempt to do so. Those who control or castigate someone who has a different perception of reality is in the realm of tyrants and totalitarianism.....and it happens now quite often in the anonymity of the internet. Mankind benefits from having dissenting views, and history looks back at those times when rulers or governments crushed free speech and/or dissent very poorly.
Plus, it's good from a betting standpoint that people disagree with my opinion,...I think people overlook that in a gambling forum. If I think back when I loved a game that everyone else has loved, the universe almost invariably pushes back with a bad betting result where me and quite a few others then get to see an alternative version of reality I had never seen before....I'd rather not have to learn those lessons too often.
This site has been very good for the most part, and I appreciate those who give differing views...almost always it has been civil and cordial.
I'm looking forward to the coming season.
"The problem in the world is that fools and fanatics are so sure of themselves and the wiser so full of doubt." Bertrand Russell
Lynn would've been ranked in the bottom of the list of game managers/decision makers as a head coach, but an O-coordinator isn't in sphere of influence. I love the fact that his teams ran the ball well, as they did in Detroit last season.
Total agreement on Aaron Rodgers, probably the best pure passer in history and a superb tactician. When winning time comes in the regular season, my opinion is that he is very, very good.
But when the playoffs come, it's like he can't overcome the obstacles that are required,....he gets his team within sight of the summit, (but with the exception of one time) never quite there. Is it that he has masked his team's offensive receivers' inabilities during the regular season or the Packers' defensive liabilities, that subsequently get uncovered when going against elite competition, or is he just a choker? I give him credit....he's won one more Super Bowl than I have, but there coulda/woulda/shoulda had quite a few more.
I don't know....there's guys like that, James Harden and Clayton Kershaw come to mind....and Peyton Manning had a lot of terrible playoff performances, and he basically rode the coattails of the Broncos' last Super Bowl win.
This isn't twitter or facebook....we can have different views, and noone gets kicked out. I can have my view and others can have theirs and it's all good. I wouldn't expect you or Joe Blow to have the same view, and it's a waste of time trying to coerce someone into agreeing with me.......it takes up soooo much time and energy to attempt to do so. Those who control or castigate someone who has a different perception of reality is in the realm of tyrants and totalitarianism.....and it happens now quite often in the anonymity of the internet. Mankind benefits from having dissenting views, and history looks back at those times when rulers or governments crushed free speech and/or dissent very poorly.
Plus, it's good from a betting standpoint that people disagree with my opinion,...I think people overlook that in a gambling forum. If I think back when I loved a game that everyone else has loved, the universe almost invariably pushes back with a bad betting result where me and quite a few others then get to see an alternative version of reality I had never seen before....I'd rather not have to learn those lessons too often.
This site has been very good for the most part, and I appreciate those who give differing views...almost always it has been civil and cordial.
I'm looking forward to the coming season.
"The problem in the world is that fools and fanatics are so sure of themselves and the wiser so full of doubt." Bertrand Russell
Nice writeup. But one thing I disagree on is the Rodgers and regular season versus playoffs. It is not just the playoffs where he chokes, but the regular season as well.
I will post some numbers in here after this to show that he is a front-running QB. He will help you crush a team — but he will not bring you from behind. I will post the comparison with Brady, of course, so you can see the difference. Whether you like numbers or not — it is still an interesting contrast in the two QBs.
I agree it is mostly a waste to try to change someone’s opinion. But I always try to back mine up with something I consider reliable or credible, when possible.
That is why I always like to see what backs up other folk’s opinions or ideas. I do not have a problem changing my mind if someone gives me a reason to.
For example, I think people’s ideas of QBs are a lot of perception. Some guys do have the intangibles that show up in wins — but do not have the gaudy stats. So, if my perception is wrong and someone can show me why — I have no problem realizing I did not see something.
I like Kershaw, so I hope he has gotten over that playoff hump. In the postseason you will always be facing better opposition and ace pitchers and your chances are limited. So, 2-3-4 games are not enough to reflect true numbers, yet. At least compared to a full 3-4 seasons in MLB. But some pitchers really struggle in the post season.
I like the Russell quote — not a complete fan of some of his philosophy, and world view — but he does have some nice quotes. Was an interesting and sharp guy for sure. Nice to see others that have even heard of him.
Nice writeup. But one thing I disagree on is the Rodgers and regular season versus playoffs. It is not just the playoffs where he chokes, but the regular season as well.
I will post some numbers in here after this to show that he is a front-running QB. He will help you crush a team — but he will not bring you from behind. I will post the comparison with Brady, of course, so you can see the difference. Whether you like numbers or not — it is still an interesting contrast in the two QBs.
I agree it is mostly a waste to try to change someone’s opinion. But I always try to back mine up with something I consider reliable or credible, when possible.
That is why I always like to see what backs up other folk’s opinions or ideas. I do not have a problem changing my mind if someone gives me a reason to.
For example, I think people’s ideas of QBs are a lot of perception. Some guys do have the intangibles that show up in wins — but do not have the gaudy stats. So, if my perception is wrong and someone can show me why — I have no problem realizing I did not see something.
I like Kershaw, so I hope he has gotten over that playoff hump. In the postseason you will always be facing better opposition and ace pitchers and your chances are limited. So, 2-3-4 games are not enough to reflect true numbers, yet. At least compared to a full 3-4 seasons in MLB. But some pitchers really struggle in the post season.
I like the Russell quote — not a complete fan of some of his philosophy, and world view — but he does have some nice quotes. Was an interesting and sharp guy for sure. Nice to see others that have even heard of him.
This is a slightly out-of-date copy and paste. But you will get the idea:
Also as good as Rodgers is he is a bit overrated in terms of his ability to lead his team to tough wins. He has a lot of those flashy Hail Mary plays but when you dig in he doesn’t really do well in overcoming adverse conditions as opposed to when he leads wire to wire.
(These stats are cut and pasted in case any of the syntax or formatting seems off. Numbers updated though Brady’s win over the Jags in the AFCCG ahead of SB LII)
It is actually shocking how bad Rodgers is without a lead, at least compared to Brady...
In games they trailed by any amount at any point in the game:
Brady: 109-64 (0.630), including 15-9 (0.625) in the playoffs
Rodgers: 48-55 (0.466), including 6-7 (0.462) in the playoffs
When trailing at halftime
Brady: 36-37 (0.493), including 5-5 (0.500) in the playoffs
Rodgers: 15-38 (0.283), including 1-6 (0.143) in the playoffs
(When tied at the half Brady is 17-6 (0.739) while Rodgers is 2-7 (0.222))
When trailing to start the 4th quarter
Brady: 30-47 (0.390), including 6-6 (0.500) in the playoffs
Rodgers: 10-41 (0.196), including 1-5 (0.167) in the playoffs
(When tied to start the 4th Brady is 12-2 (0.857) while Rodgers is 4-3 (0.571))
When trailing at any point in the 4th quarter/OT
Brady: 42-64 (0.396), including 8-9 (0.471) in the playoffs
Rodgers: 12-55 (0.179), including 1-7 (0.125) in the playoffs
Okay so Rodgers isn’t so good at playing from behind. He’s probably better when he has a lead though! I mean you often hear Rodgers doesn’t have the comebacks since he is just always ahead and doesn’t need to.
When leading to start the 4th quarter
Brady: 181-14 (0.928), including 18-3 (0.857) in the playoffs
Rodgers: 89-11 (0.890), including 8-2 (0.800) in the playoffs
This is a slightly out-of-date copy and paste. But you will get the idea:
Also as good as Rodgers is he is a bit overrated in terms of his ability to lead his team to tough wins. He has a lot of those flashy Hail Mary plays but when you dig in he doesn’t really do well in overcoming adverse conditions as opposed to when he leads wire to wire.
(These stats are cut and pasted in case any of the syntax or formatting seems off. Numbers updated though Brady’s win over the Jags in the AFCCG ahead of SB LII)
It is actually shocking how bad Rodgers is without a lead, at least compared to Brady...
In games they trailed by any amount at any point in the game:
Brady: 109-64 (0.630), including 15-9 (0.625) in the playoffs
Rodgers: 48-55 (0.466), including 6-7 (0.462) in the playoffs
When trailing at halftime
Brady: 36-37 (0.493), including 5-5 (0.500) in the playoffs
Rodgers: 15-38 (0.283), including 1-6 (0.143) in the playoffs
(When tied at the half Brady is 17-6 (0.739) while Rodgers is 2-7 (0.222))
When trailing to start the 4th quarter
Brady: 30-47 (0.390), including 6-6 (0.500) in the playoffs
Rodgers: 10-41 (0.196), including 1-5 (0.167) in the playoffs
(When tied to start the 4th Brady is 12-2 (0.857) while Rodgers is 4-3 (0.571))
When trailing at any point in the 4th quarter/OT
Brady: 42-64 (0.396), including 8-9 (0.471) in the playoffs
Rodgers: 12-55 (0.179), including 1-7 (0.125) in the playoffs
Okay so Rodgers isn’t so good at playing from behind. He’s probably better when he has a lead though! I mean you often hear Rodgers doesn’t have the comebacks since he is just always ahead and doesn’t need to.
When leading to start the 4th quarter
Brady: 181-14 (0.928), including 18-3 (0.857) in the playoffs
Rodgers: 89-11 (0.890), including 8-2 (0.800) in the playoffs
Well Rodgers is definitely good, but Brady is still better…
Going back to those comebacks…
Now those numbers don’t look at how big the deficits are. Brady probably isn’t any better at making up for the team putting him in a big hole.
When they trail by 10+ points at any point in the game:
Brady: 31-45 (0.408), including 6-5 (0.545) in the playoffs
Rodgers: 8-35 (0.186), including 1-4 (0.200) in the playoffs
When they trail by 14+ points:
Brady: 10-31 (0.244), including 2-5 (0.286) in the playoffs
Rodgers: 6-22 (0.214), including 0-4 in the playoffs
When trailing by 20+ points
Brady: 4-16 (0.200), including 1-2 (0.333) in the playoffs (We of course know what that 1 game was...)
Rodgers: 1-11 (0.083) including 0-3 in the playoffs
Now for those 10+ numbers include the bigger deficits too so let’s isolate the non-blowout games:
Trailing by 10-13 points at some point in the game
Brady: 21-14 (0.600), including 4-0 in the playoffs
Rodgers: 2-13 (0.133), including 1-0 in the playoffs (hey Rodgers stepped it up in the playoffs!!!!)
Also in the biggest crunch time in over time they could not be any more different
Brady: 13-4 (0.765), including 2-0 in the playoffs.
Rodgers: 1-7 (0.125), including 0-3 in the playoffs
(Fun fact Rodgers actually lost his 1st OT game before Brady did. Rodgers in 2008 Brady in 2009, after starting 7-0)
When they get the ball first in OT:
Brady: 8-2 (0.800), including 2-0 in the playoffs
Rodgers: 0-3, including 0-1 in the playoffs (Hint: you can't blame the D if you don't score first)
When the other team gets it first: Brady: 3-2 with both losses being when he never got on the field
Rodgers: 1-4 with all 4 being when he didn't get onto the field (so tough on both guys but yeah Rodgers can't do much when the D can't get a stop)
But of course it is all about the stats not the results right?
Career in OT:
Brady: 47-68 (69.1%) for 511 yards with 1 TD and 0 INTs and a 94.7 passer rating
Including: 13-14 (92.9%) for 95 yards and a 94.9 passer rating in the playoffs
Rodgers: 3-9 (33.6%) for 91 yards with 0 TDs and 1 INT and a 32.4 passer rating
Including: 1-2 (50.0%) for 14 yards and a 72.9 passer rating in the playoffs
Rodgers also has a lost fumble that lead to a defensive score so his defense never had a shot to even try to get a stop in the playoffs.
Well what about close games in general? Surely the king of the Hail Mary’s does really well when the game is close!
Well Rodgers is definitely good, but Brady is still better…
Going back to those comebacks…
Now those numbers don’t look at how big the deficits are. Brady probably isn’t any better at making up for the team putting him in a big hole.
When they trail by 10+ points at any point in the game:
Brady: 31-45 (0.408), including 6-5 (0.545) in the playoffs
Rodgers: 8-35 (0.186), including 1-4 (0.200) in the playoffs
When they trail by 14+ points:
Brady: 10-31 (0.244), including 2-5 (0.286) in the playoffs
Rodgers: 6-22 (0.214), including 0-4 in the playoffs
When trailing by 20+ points
Brady: 4-16 (0.200), including 1-2 (0.333) in the playoffs (We of course know what that 1 game was...)
Rodgers: 1-11 (0.083) including 0-3 in the playoffs
Now for those 10+ numbers include the bigger deficits too so let’s isolate the non-blowout games:
Trailing by 10-13 points at some point in the game
Brady: 21-14 (0.600), including 4-0 in the playoffs
Rodgers: 2-13 (0.133), including 1-0 in the playoffs (hey Rodgers stepped it up in the playoffs!!!!)
Also in the biggest crunch time in over time they could not be any more different
Brady: 13-4 (0.765), including 2-0 in the playoffs.
Rodgers: 1-7 (0.125), including 0-3 in the playoffs
(Fun fact Rodgers actually lost his 1st OT game before Brady did. Rodgers in 2008 Brady in 2009, after starting 7-0)
When they get the ball first in OT:
Brady: 8-2 (0.800), including 2-0 in the playoffs
Rodgers: 0-3, including 0-1 in the playoffs (Hint: you can't blame the D if you don't score first)
When the other team gets it first: Brady: 3-2 with both losses being when he never got on the field
Rodgers: 1-4 with all 4 being when he didn't get onto the field (so tough on both guys but yeah Rodgers can't do much when the D can't get a stop)
But of course it is all about the stats not the results right?
Career in OT:
Brady: 47-68 (69.1%) for 511 yards with 1 TD and 0 INTs and a 94.7 passer rating
Including: 13-14 (92.9%) for 95 yards and a 94.9 passer rating in the playoffs
Rodgers: 3-9 (33.6%) for 91 yards with 0 TDs and 1 INT and a 32.4 passer rating
Including: 1-2 (50.0%) for 14 yards and a 72.9 passer rating in the playoffs
Rodgers also has a lost fumble that lead to a defensive score so his defense never had a shot to even try to get a stop in the playoffs.
Well what about close games in general? Surely the king of the Hail Mary’s does really well when the game is close!
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.