Keep Texans Talk Google Ad Free!
Venmo Tip Jar | Paypal Tip Jar
Thanks for your support! 🍺😎👍

KC @ Green Bay Monday night 9/28

thunderkyss

thunderkyss

Just win baby!!!
Staff member
Contributor's Club
Did y'all see that ****?

Aaron Rodgers takes a snap & overthrows his receiver on third down. They fail to convert. However, Rodgers goes to the referees & tells them the Packers had 12 men on the field. The referees converse for a few minutes, then decides to throw a flag... 12 men on defense.

Packers continue their drive, & are in scoring range.

Isn't that some ****, or is it just me?

IMO, if the referee doesn't see it, it's not a foul. If they didn't throw a flag, they didn't see it.
 
Also seems that they moved the NRG fake grass to Green Bay, considering there was what looked like a non contact knee injury in the end zone.
 
Over the course of the 1st half I've grown to feel sorry for Tyvon Branch, the Chief who took over for the player that got hurt in the end zone.
 
If you've got Kelce & Macklin on one side, why would you throw the ball to Kelce, the better blocker, & ask Macklin to block.. the better receiver.
 
thunderkyss said:
Did y'all see that ****?

Aaron Rodgers takes a snap & overthrows his receiver on third down. They fail to convert. However, Rodgers goes to the referees & tells them the Packers had 12 men on the field. The referees converse for a few minutes, then decides to throw a flag... 12 men on defense.

Packers continue their drive, & are in scoring range.

Isn't that some ****, or is it just me?

IMO, if the referee doesn't see it, it's not a foul. If they didn't throw a flag, they didn't see it.
Click to expand...

Lol, they just showed a Rodgers discount double check commercial that looked eerily like it was inspired by your post.
 
What's up with the Chiefs? They can beat Brian Hoyer but they can't beat an elite quarterback like Peyton Manning or Aaron Rodgers. Are the Chiefs just a fluke team? People were blowing smoke up their ass just because they defeated the Texans 27-20 back in Week 1. They didn't even score any points in the entire second half. It was just a fluke I'll tell ya.

I'm just messing with you guys but the Chiefs rub me the wrong way. I hope they go on a losing streak and we end up with a better record than them this season. In case there are some playoff implications involved. Go Texans! The Chiefs can suck it, B! Andy Reid is the Kool-Aid Man.
 
Defenseless receiver there. Brutal hit. But since the defender didn't hit the receiver in the head, didn't launch himself into the receiver, & didn't use the crown of his helmet.. it's all good.
 
Two-point conversion failed....ballgame. If KC didn't dig such a hole...oh well. Good result from a Texans point of view so I'll take it.
 
Showtime100 said:
Over the course of the 1st half I've grown to feel sorry for Tyvon Branch, the Chief who took over for the player that got hurt in the end zone.
Click to expand...

Poor guy.

KC's #1 CB Sean Smith has been out on suspension. That leaves them with rookie Marcus Peters and second year Rice product Phillip Gaines as their starters. Gaines tweaks his knee and suddenly you're looking at throwing your #4 CB out there on every play and your #5 for nickel.

They go with their #3 S instead and try to cover him up by putting him in the slot. GB laughs, puts Cobb in the slot, and forces KC to man him up. Branch proceeds to get abused, but what can he do? In what world is he supposed to cover Randall Cobb one on one?
 
bah007 said:
On a pass behind the line of scrimmage, yes.
Click to expand...

I know that's the way it is in college. I couldn't find the rule that says as much for the NFL.

If that's the case, then that's the reason we can't run a frig'n screen. We're teaching it wrong. Our guys usually don't block... looks like they're avoiding contact, when the ball is in the air.
 
I honestly don't think I've seen the position of qb played on this level since prime Peyton Manning back in like 04' somewhere. Defenses are like puty in his hands the way he manipulates them and he consistently fires rockets on a line from like 30 yds away & he's putting it straight on the numbers....dude's feet aren't even set half the time he throws and he's losing 0 accuracy......that's just bananas.

Release, arm strength, feet, smarts, leadership...fine ass girlfriend....he is the prototype in every sense of the word.
 
Lol, so he completed 24 passes in total, 5 of which were for TD's and he recieved a negative grade b/c of 2 throws that almost resulted in bad plays? Pretty much the most ridiculous thing i've heard/read ever and further proof that pro football focus performance metrics have a long way to go.
 
Mr teX said:
Lol, so he completed 24 passes in total, 5 of which were for TD's and he recieved a negative grade b/c of 2 throws that almost resulted in bad plays? Pretty much the most ridiculous thing i've heard/read ever and further proof that pro football focus performance metrics have a long way to go.
Click to expand...

How is it ridiculous though? They gave credit on Cobb's TD's mostly to Cobb for his work running after the catch. Those throws weren't really anything more than run of the mill. And the fact that those negative plays didn't have actual negative results doesn't stop them from being negatively gradable plays. PFF is trying to take luck out of the equation.

Giving credit where it's due and taking luck out of it gives Rodgers a couple touchdown passes and a couple of turnovers. It's just showing you a little more than the box score does. It's simply more information and grading with a finer toothed comb.
 
Aaron Rodgers had 333 passing yards, five touchdown passes, no interceptions, a 138.5 passer rating in a game the Packers won. That's all I really care about.

It doesn't matter to me that his receiver helped him out tremendously on some of those Touchdowns, or that the Chiefs dropped a potential pick six interception, or that he fumbled once. If those stat geeks want to give him a negative grade more power to them but he's still the best quarterback in the game.
 
Mollywhopper said:
https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2015/09/29/why-aaron-rodgers-earned-a-slightly-negative-grade/

The other three touchdowns, however, were passes thrown short of the end zone on speed outs to Randall Cobb. Were they bad throws? No, they were expected throws with the credit going to Cobb for fighting through contact or defeating the coverage with speed to the edge. That makes these zero-graded throws: Three passes that have a massive effect on Rodgers’ statistical performance but do not increase his grade.

However, those touchdown passes aren’t the story of what takes Rodgers’ grade from a grade with a plus in front of it to a grade with a minus in front of it. The story of what takes Rodgers’ grade below zero are two plays that you aren’t likely to see mentioned anywhere else today, but are taken into account of in a play-by-play grading system.

1. Rodgers had a fumble, which displayed poor pocket management, with 8:39 remaining in the second quarter. That play earned a negative grade.

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,
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

That's just awesome... two plays that had no effect on the game whatsoever.

I'm not an expert, & I really don't pretend to be. But my eyeball saw an above average QB performance for a large majority of QB snaps. No way two plays can drive his score "slightly negative"
 
Mollywhopper said:
Giving credit where it's due and taking luck out of it gives Rodgers a couple touchdown passes and a couple of turnovers. It's just showing you a little more than the box score does. It's simply more information and grading with a finer toothed comb.
Click to expand...

Does he get credit for all the free plays he took advantage of? Does he get credit for the one the referees didn't see, but gave him (the first 12 men on defense)? Does he get credit for extending plays? Then there were several throws that were money, above average.

There's no way that was an "avg" QB performance much less a "slightly negative" performance. No way.

I understand what they're trying to do, but with that grade, they missed the mark.
 
thunderkyss said:
That's just awesome... two plays that had no effect on the game whatsoever.

I'm not an expert, & I really don't pretend to be. But my eyeball saw an above average QB performance for a large majority of QB snaps. No way two plays can drive his score "slightly negative"
Click to expand...

People don't grade performances all the time like that? Judging Mallett's "shoelace" throws or taking drops into account.

It's not a result based score, it's about process. The process by which they get the score is looking at each play individually in a vacuum. And it is a better way to predict sustainability of performance.

If this had been Josh McCown or Jameis Winston no one would have a problem with it because there would be no benefit of the doubt of greatness on their side. But when the pff skews the box score from Aaron Rodgers ... noooo.
 
Bulls on Parade said:
Aaron Rodgers had 333 passing yards, five touchdown passes, no interceptions, a 138.5 passer rating in a game the Packers won. That's all I really care about.

It doesn't matter to me that his receiver helped him out tremendously on some of those Touchdowns, or that the Chiefs dropped a potential pick six interception, or that he fumbled once. If those stat geeks want to give him a negative grade more power to them but he's still the best quarterback in the game.
Click to expand...

Those things do matter though. If it were Mallett instead of Rodgers people here would be picking all those very same plays apart.

And largely justifiably.
 
thunderkyss said:
Does he get credit for all the free plays he took advantage of? Does he get credit for the one the referees didn't see, but gave him (the first 12 men on defense)? Does he get credit for extending plays? Then there were several throws that were money, above average.

There's no way that was an "avg" QB performance much less a "slightly negative" performance. No way.

I understand what they're trying to do, but with that grade, they missed the mark.
Click to expand...

They're just showing that he didn't have the monster game his box score indicated.

If he doesn't have some luck on his side and he's throwing to Chandler Worthy instead of Randall Cobb in the flat his box could have just as easily read 2 tds with 2 turnovers. That isn't saying Rodgers is bad or had a particularly bad game. It's just giving you more information. And it's useful if to anyone who wants to take advantage of it.

I don't see the problem with having more information. It's viewing box scores in high-def instead of standard.
 
Mollywhopper said:
How is it ridiculous though? They gave credit on Cobb's TD's mostly to Cobb for his work running after the catch. Those throws weren't really anything more than run of the mill. And the fact that those negative plays didn't have actual negative results doesn't stop them from being negatively gradable plays. PFF is trying to take luck out of the equation.

Giving credit where it's due and taking luck out of it gives Rodgers a couple touchdown passes and a couple of turnovers. It's just showing you a little more than the box score does. It's simply more information and grading with a finer toothed comb.
Click to expand...

I see what you're saying, I just don't agree...This isn't baseball where the play to be made most times is built in and obvious where the guy either makes the play to be made or he doesn't. There's too many moving parts in football..and too many things that can effect a play to where you can't possibly take all of the luck out of any 1 play. Secondly, there are lots of assumptions being made in the article for it to be credible to me. That "near" interception that they are talking about could just as easily be considered just a great play made by the lb or any other player who happens to come up with it. Instead, they're making the leap that it was a "forced" throw that could've and should've been picked off and it would've lead to a pick 6............. Why not instead credit the defensive player in varying degrees for making a good play?...........assuming it actually happens of course. Likewise, the author of the article fully acknowledges that the metric doesn't take into account the intangibles of blitz recognition, getting the ball out quickly, exploiting defensive schemes etc.. and those are arguably the greatest qualities of a qb....& were executed to damn near perfection with Rodgers last night.
 
Mr teX said:
I see what you're saying, I just don't agree...This isn't baseball where the play to be made most times is built in and obvious where the guy either makes the play to be made or he doesn't. There's too many moving parts in football..and too many things that can effect a play to where you can't possibly take all of the luck out of any 1 play. Secondly, there are lots of assumptions being made in the article for it to be credible to me. That "near" interception that they are talking about could just as easily be considered just a great play made by the lb or any other player who happens to come up with it. Instead, they're making the leap that it was a "forced" throw that could've and should've been picked off and it would've lead to a pick 6............. Why not instead credit the defensive player in varying degrees for making a good play?...........assuming it actually happens of course. Likewise, the author of the article fully acknowledges that the metric doesn't take into account the intangibles of blitz recognition, getting the ball out quickly, exploiting defensive schemes etc.. and those are arguably the greatest qualities of a qb....& were on executed to damn near perfection with Rodgers last night.
Click to expand...

It's not a perfect metric. No one is arguing that. It's just a finer look at a guy's play. And it's taking into account more than just reputation and box score.

And yes, you can objectively take the luck out of plays. We do it here all the time because we grade our team as harshly as PFF grades everyone else.

Like I said, and the end of the day it's just more information. Ball it up and throw it away or mix it in with all other information to discern performance. I don't really care. I personally think it's great to have more tools in the shed.
 
Mollywhopper said:
People don't grade performances all the time like that? Judging Mallett's "shoelace" throws or taking drops into account.

It's not a result based score, it's about process. The process by which they get the score is looking at each play individually in a vacuum. And it is a better way to predict sustainability of performance.

If this had been Josh McCown or Jameis Winston no one would have a problem with it because there would be no benefit of the doubt of greatness on their side. But when the pff skews the box score from Aaron Rodgers ... noooo.
Click to expand...

No, that's not what I'm saying. I could be wrong, because I didn't chart each & every play, but just going by memory, I feel Rodgers had more above avg plays on a snap by snap basis than negative which is why I can't understand him getting a negative score for that game.

Just thinking about all the things he did. I'm just not seeing a negative score.
 
Mollywhopper said:
They're just showing that he didn't have the monster game his box score indicated.

If he doesn't have some luck on his side and he's throwing to Chandler Worthy instead of Randall Cobb in the flat his box could have just as easily read 2 tds with 2 turnovers. That isn't saying Rodgers is bad or had a particularly bad game. It's just giving you more information. And it's useful if to anyone who wants to take advantage of it.

I don't see the problem with having more information. It's viewing box scores in high-def instead of standard.
Click to expand...

Understand what your saying here though. They're talking about 2 bad plays....really 1 bad play.....1 bad play that didn't even actually happen. Even if you don't count his 5 TD passes, He actually made at least 4 times good plays as his purported potentially bad plays that extended plays, drives and in general plays that average qbs just don't make. You said it's like seeing the box score in HD, I say it's like looking at the box score with 1 eye closed.
 
Mollywhopper said:
It's not a perfect metric. No one is arguing that. It's just a finer look at a guy's play. And it's taking into account more than just reputation and box score.

And yes, you can objectively take the luck out of plays. We do it here all the time because we grade our team as harshly as PFF grades everyone else.

Like I said, and the end of the day it's just more information. Ball it up and throw it away or mix it in with all other information to discern performance. I don't really care. I personally think it's great to have more tools in the shed.
Click to expand...

You didn't need a metric, much less a deeply flawed one, to see that that was qb played at the absolute highest level last night...Likewise, you don't need it to see when a guy is stinking up the joint either.
 
Mr teX said:
Understand what your saying here though. They're talking about 2 bad plays....really 1 bad play.....1 bad play that didn't even actually happen. Even if you don't count his 5 TD passes, He actually made at least 4 times good plays as his purported potentially bad plays that extended plays, drives and in general plays that average qbs just don't make. You said it's like seeing the box score in HD, I say it's like looking at the box score with 1 eye closed.
Click to expand...

I understand what I'm saying just fine. I'm not shunning information.

No, it was two bad plays. The fact that that one defender didn't take advantage of it doesn't make it not a bad play. If you don't want to accept that that's not my problem. And you're giving him extra credit on throws to Cobb in the flat that guy's make all the time that are not exceptional just because Cobb made the extra effort to get them in the end zone and Rodgers gets TD's in his box score. That's not really a credit to the throws Rodgers made though.

Again, take it or leave it. I prefer leaning on objective analysis.
 
Mollywhopper said:
I understand what I'm saying just fine. I'm not shunning information.

No, it was two bad plays. The fact that that one defender didn't take advantage of it doesn't make it not a bad play. If you don't want to accept that that's not my problem. And you're giving him extra credit on throws to Cobb in the flat that guy's make all the time that are not exceptional just because Cobb made the extra effort to get them in the end zone and Rodgers gets TD's in his box score. That's not really a credit to the throws Rodgers made though.

Again, take it or leave it. I prefer leaning on objective analysis.
Click to expand...

I hear ya man...but I'm not giving him extra anything for throws to Cobb, primarily b/c i'm not grading him only on his throws like the PFF article is. I'm grading the whole performance...& i'll leave it, thanks lol.
 
I frequently differ with how PFF weighs things but agree with their goal. E.g.to me in judging QB play Mallett's inexplicable incompletion to Washington was a better play than Hoyer's TD pass to Shorts. Or a classic in the last game, the tipped INT should only minimally detract from Mallett's overall game. It's not as serious as failing to see an ILB dropping back who ends up with an INT.
 
That's it. The aim here isn't to tout PFF as the end all be all, it's just to allow more than the traditional stats and ratings.

They all have their flaws, but the discerning fan can use them in different ways to make more honest evaluations.
 
3 of Rodger's TD passes were audibles where he read blitz and changed the play and threw a 2 yard pass to Cobb. In real football, excellent play. But in a performance metric like PFF it just doesn't really grade because you aren't taking the audible into account. You're taking the 2 yard pass into account and the grade is "yea, every single QB should make that throw".

The beauty with Rodgers, Brady, and Manning isn't the throws. It's the absolute manipulation of a defense that just can't be graded on a scale. It's art.
 
infantrycak said:
I frequently differ with how PFF weighs things but agree with their goal. E.g.to me in judging QB play Mallett's inexplicable incompletion to Washington was a better play than Hoyer's TD pass to Shorts. Or a classic in the last game, the tipped INT should only minimally detract from Mallett's overall game. It's not as serious as failing to see an ILB dropping back who ends up with an INT.
Click to expand...

I've long thought that ints should be handled like baseball handles errors. Mariota had an int on his stat line sunday that really wasn't his fault..the WR just bungled the throw. YAC shouldn't be part of a qb's stat line either imo..
 
Mr teX said:
I've long thought that ints should be handled like baseball handles errors. Mariota had an int on his stat line sunday that really wasn't his fault..the WR just bungled the throw. YAC shouldn't be part of a qb's stat line either imo..
Click to expand...

I think YAC should be a broken out stat - passing yds X of which Y are YAC. Same with receivers. Some of YAC is on the QB, some on the receiver and some on the OC.
 
I like what PFF does. I don't always agree but I see the big picture and I appreciate the effort to see the game from a different angle.

In this case, I think their process is biased. I agree that Rodgers should get dinged for the bad plays, even if worst case result didn't occur. But it seems to me that the rest of the grade is flawed. They say the score is dictated on how an average QB should perform. Plus for above average. Minus for below average.

I disagree in this case. I think the human element can't ignore the fact that it is Aaron Rodgers being graded. So he is graded based on how Aaron Rodgers should be expected to perform.

Aaron Rodgers doesn't usually have a fumble and a bad throw in the same game. So he gets a negative score. On the Aaron Rodgers scale he probably did perform below what is expected, and was saved by some good plays by others and missed plays by the defense.

On the average QB scale, you can't sell me on that performance being a negative. The grader let the name on the jersey dictate how tough he was going to grade the game. If Brett Hundley is playing instead of Rodgers and literally every play in the game happens the exact same way, I absolutely guarantee that he is not given a negative grade.
 
bah007 said:
I like what PFF does. I don't always agree but I see the big picture and I appreciate the effort to see the game from a different angle.

In this case, I think their process is biased. I agree that Rodgers should get dinged for the bad plays, even if worst case result didn't occur. But it seems to me that the rest of the grade is flawed. They say the score is dictated on how an average QB should perform. Plus for above average. Minus for below average.

I disagree in this case. I think the human element can't ignore the fact that it is Aaron Rodgers being graded. So he is graded based on how Aaron Rodgers should be expected to perform.

Aaron Rodgers doesn't usually have a fumble and a bad throw in the same game. So he gets a negative score. On the Aaron Rodgers scale he probably did perform below what is expected, and was saved by some good plays by others and missed plays by the defense.

On the average QB scale, you can't sell me on that performance being a negative. The grader let the name on the jersey dictate how tough he was going to grade the game. If Brett Hundley is playing instead of Rodgers and literally every play in the game happens the exact same way, I absolutely guarantee that he is not given a negative grade.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I think happens/happened.
 
bah007 said:
I like what PFF does. I don't always agree but I see the big picture and I appreciate the effort to see the game from a different angle.

In this case, I think their process is biased. I agree that Rodgers should get dinged for the bad plays, even if worst case result didn't occur. But it seems to me that the rest of the grade is flawed. They say the score is dictated on how an average QB should perform. Plus for above average. Minus for below average.

I disagree in this case. I think the human element can't ignore the fact that it is Aaron Rodgers being graded. So he is graded based on how Aaron Rodgers should be expected to perform.

Aaron Rodgers doesn't usually have a fumble and a bad throw in the same game. So he gets a negative score. On the Aaron Rodgers scale he probably did perform below what is expected, and was saved by some good plays by others and missed plays by the defense.

On the average QB scale, you can't sell me on that performance being a negative. The grader let the name on the jersey dictate how tough he was going to grade the game. If Brett Hundley is playing instead of Rodgers and literally every play in the game happens the exact same way, I absolutely guarantee that he is not given a negative grade.
Click to expand...

So what you're saying then is that you think there is no general avg. qb scale..only the scale relative to how you normally play. If so i agree...That's the only way the metric makes sense to me if he and Bridgewater supposedly got the same grade according to the comments section on the article. Carson Palmer supposedly graded out better & he had 2 int's i believe.
 
Mr teX said:
So what you're saying then is that you think there is no general avg. qb scale..only the scale relative to how you normally play. If so i agree...That's the only way the metric makes sense to me if he and Bridgewater supposedly got the same grade according to the comments section on the article. Carson Palmer supposedly graded out better & he had 2 int's i believe.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's designed that way. But I think it can end up that way on accident. All the data is subjective so there will be flaws. And on top of that, you have humans collecting the data. Two people can see the same exact thing and subjectively grade it differently on a subconscious level.

And how many people are doing the grading? Is it just one person grading every player in the league? How many different scales are there?

I think it's a good tool overall. I don't totally dismiss it. But you have to look at it in the right context. In this particular instance, I am certain that Aaron Rodgers was graded low because he is Aaron Rodgers and the person grading him had higher expectations.
 
Aaron Rodgers had a superstar-esque effort as always.
His 2015 stats are in line with another league MVP award.
He may even win a second Super Bowl this year. #Cheesehead
 
bah007 said:
I don't think it's designed that way. But I think it can end up that way on accident. All the data is subjective so there will be flaws. And on top of that, you have humans collecting the data. Two people can see the same exact thing and subjectively grade it differently on a subconscious level.

And how many people are doing the grading? Is it just one person grading every player in the league? How many different scales are there?

I think it's a good tool overall. I don't totally dismiss it. But you have to look at it in the right context. In this particular instance, I am certain that Aaron Rodgers was graded low because he is Aaron Rodgers and the person grading him had higher expectations.
Click to expand...
Is there any possibility that the opposite is true? Is it possible that the system is "flawed," not because the rating is low, but because there is a distorted view of how good Aaron Rodgers is? Could he be benefiting, at least in part, from the strength of his team mates and coaches more than we care to admit?
 
Marshall said:
Is there any possibility that the opposite is true? Is it possible that the system is "flawed," not because the rating is low, but because there is a distorted view of how good Aaron Rodgers is? Could he be benefiting, at least in part, from the strength of his team mates and coaches more than we care to admit?
Click to expand...

No.

Rodgers is that good.
 
Marshall said:
Is there any possibility that the opposite is true? Is it possible that the system is "flawed," not because the rating is low, but because there is a distorted view of how good Aaron Rodgers is? Could he be benefiting, at least in part, from the strength of his team mates and coaches more than we care to admit?
Click to expand...

Did you watch the game?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top