Randle...   I am not a Packers fan.  I do work in Green Bay, Wisconsin though and consequently, have seen every Packers game since I moved to the area in 2001.

There is no doubt that the best QB in the NFL right now is Aaron Rodgers.  The Packers have no running game at all, and the defense KNOWS what is coming.  And yet, he has thrown for almost 4700 yards, 45 TDs and 6 INTs on the season.  In addition, the offensive line has been shredded with injuries all season.  The mobility and ability to extend plays he has shown has been remarkable and his accuracy while on the run is better than any QB I have ever seen.  Drew Brees has been excellent this season, no doubt, but if you delve deeper into the stats, it isn't close.

• Rodgers has 4643 yards on 502 attempts (9.25 YPA)     Brees has 5087 yards in 622 attempts (8.18 YPA)
• Rodgers has 257 yards rushing     Brees has 81
• Rodgers has 45 passing TDs 3 Rushing and 6 INTs     Brees has 41 passing TDs 1 rushing TD and 13 INTs
• Rodgers has an Adjusted YPA of 10.5       Brees has an Adjusted YPA of 8.6
• Rodgers current 122.5 QB rating is 1.4 points higher than the previous best of all time, 2004 Peyton Manning's 121.1 (which was 4 points higher than any other season)

There is really no defending someone saying that there is a QB out there right now who is better than Aaron Rodgers.  This isn't even the best statistical season for Drew Brees (his 2009 season has him with a higher QB rating).  And if you want to argue career numbers....  Aaron Rodgers has a 104.1 career QB rating which is 11 points higher than Drew Brees, and is ranked #1 all-time for any QB by a whopping 7.3 points over the 2nd best QB rating of all time, Steve Young at 96.8.

Posted by eschwartz67 on 12/28/2011 11:19:00 AM (view original):
Randle...   I am not a Packers fan.  I do work in Green Bay, Wisconsin though and consequently, have seen every Packers game since I moved to the area in 2001.

There is no doubt that the best QB in the NFL right now is Aaron Rodgers.  The Packers have no running game at all, and the defense KNOWS what is coming.  And yet, he has thrown for almost 4700 yards, 45 TDs and 6 INTs on the season.  In addition, the offensive line has been shredded with injuries all season.  The mobility and ability to extend plays he has shown has been remarkable and his accuracy while on the run is better than any QB I have ever seen.  Drew Brees has been excellent this season, no doubt, but if you delve deeper into the stats, it isn't close.

• Rodgers has 4643 yards on 502 attempts (9.25 YPA)     Brees has 5087 yards in 622 attempts (8.18 YPA)
• Rodgers has 257 yards rushing     Brees has 81
• Rodgers has 45 passing TDs 3 Rushing and 6 INTs     Brees has 41 passing TDs 1 rushing TD and 13 INTs
• Rodgers has an Adjusted YPA of 10.5       Brees has an Adjusted YPA of 8.6
• Rodgers current 122.5 QB rating is 1.4 points higher than the previous best of all time, 2004 Peyton Manning's 121.1 (which was 4 points higher than any other season)

There is really no defending someone saying that there is a QB out there right now who is better than Aaron Rodgers.  This isn't even the best statistical season for Drew Brees (his 2009 season has him with a higher QB rating).  And if you want to argue career numbers....  Aaron Rodgers has a 104.1 career QB rating which is 11 points higher than Drew Brees, and is ranked #1 all-time for any QB by a whopping 7.3 points over the 2nd best QB rating of all time, Steve Young at 96.8.

Yes, I didn't look up the stats, but this is the what I was trying to point out.

In those 3 posts I ignored by randletard, I guarantee the word "heartless" was used.  What a f*cking idiot if he still actually believes that.

Odd image for "heartless"

 I would love nothing more than the Packers repeating , but i thought GB was a Little lucky to win that first game of the year ,stats aside i just have a gut feeling that this is Brees and the Saints year..i hope im wrong...and who gives a rats a$ss what Muddy posts ...take your gutless QB and 7-9  record and tell us all how they got screwed by the league or its officials d!psh!t

Posted by mudbone1969 on 12/28/2011 6:58:00 PM (view original):
In those 3 posts I ignored by randletard, I guarantee the word "heartless" was used.  What a f*cking idiot if he still actually believes that.

Im sorry ... I still believe Heartless is relevent but i would also like to add gutless and non team player if i may?..

This is the same f*cking idiot who posts about Tebow being a loser and defends Gutless Cutler??  Tebow has more heart and Guts than gutless ,gutlesses family and gutlesses skank all combined...go back to braiding jimbo's back hair than posting this crap ..

3 more posts by the retard.  I can't imagine randletard has gotten less retarded, am I right?

Posted by mudbone1969 on 12/28/2011 10:41:00 PM (view original):
3 more posts by the retard.  I can't imagine randletard has gotten less retarded, am I right?

He is where the Muddy's yes men show up ..Jimbo is obvious ..who else takes the Mud stick?

, but i thought GB was a Little lucky to win that first game of the year

Randall..  I am not a Packer fan.  But make no mistake, the SAINTS were lucky to be that close in that game.  They played a near flawless game on offense against the Packers on opening day.  And yet, with 2:18 left in the game, they were down 42-27.  Yes, they scored a TD to make it 42-34, but to even get to the situation where Ingram was stuffed at the 1 yard line, they had to score the TD before the 2 minute warning to save a timeout, recover an onside kickoff, and then go 60 yards for a TD and then get a 2 point conversion to tie it.  To the Saints credit, they scored the TD before the 2 minute warning, recovered the onside kick and went 59 yards before losing on the final play.  But if they played a near flawless game on offense and were down 15 with 2:18 to go, what happens if they DON'T play flawlessly on offense this time?  And also consider this....   They REALLY need the 2nd seed.  I dont see them beating either Green Bay OR San Francisco on the road.  Here are their 8 road games and how they fared....

• @ Green Bay  34 points in a loss against a 14-1 team in an outdoor stadium (Their only stellar performance in an outdoor stadium)
• @ Jacksonville 23 points in a 13 point win against a 4-11 team in an outdoor stadium
• @ Carolina  30 points in a 3 point win over a 6-9 team in an outdoor stadium
• @ Tampa Bay 20 points in a 6 point loss to a 4-11 team in an outdoor stadium
• @ St. Louis 21 points in a 10 point loss to a 2-13 team in a dome
• @ Atlanta  26 points in a 3 point GIFT WIN against a 9-6 team in a dome
• @ Tennessee  22 points in a 5 point win against a 8-7 team in an outdoor stadium
• @ Minnesota  42 points in a 22 point win against a 3-12 team in a dome

The Saints have not been "The Saints" on the road.   They have 284 points in 7 home games for a 40.57 PPG average.  They have scored 218 points on the road in 8 games for an average of 27.25 PPG, and only 25.8 PPG in outdoor stadiums and those games were in GOOD weather (Green Bay on Labor Day then Carolina, Tampa & Jacksonville early in the season and Tennessee in early December with the temp at 52 for kickoff).  Take the Saints into a cold and/or windy Lambeau in January and I dont see them scoring 40. 

How many "bad weather" games did GB or SF play?

Football isn't a regional game.    I bet the Packers and the Niners have players that came from the B12, SEC or ACC.   Hell, some of them may have even been born in FL or SoCal!!!!   Does a 10 year pro who played college ball in Wisconsin and pro ball in NY have an advantage over those who haven't?  You'd think so.  But there just aren't that many who lived their entire lives in freezing weather.  I certainly don't think of the current GB team as a "cold weather" team.   SF, yep.  GB, nope.

Mike...  While football is not a regional game, you cannot disagree that teams who play their home games in domes have historically done poorly in outdoor stadiums in postseason.  If you do want to argue that fact, I can bring up the records of playoff teams who made their home in domes and what their home record was, and what the road record in outdoor stadiums was and prove that it is WAY worse in outdoor stadiums.

The stats I showed were from this season's Saints results.  They average 40+ PPG at home and 25 PPG in outdoor stadiums (more than a TWO TOUCHDOWN PER GAME DIFFERENCE).  After looking at that huge difference in offensive output, over a season's worth of data....  It was my opinion that New Orleans would not beat SF or GB in a game played in an outdoor stadium.  I'm not saying that there is no way on earth it could happen.  However, if I were to give my opinion...  The Saints are not going to beat either one of those teams on the road.  And this was said in rebuttal of a statement made by someone who said that the Saints were the team to beat this season based on how they have played in his opinion.  I didn't say he was "wrong".  Nor that I was "right".  I was just supporting why I came to the conclusion that I did.

And where the players come from has little to do with practicing every day in the elements.  If you play on the Green Bay Packers, you practice at the Don Hutson Center which has 2 outdoor fields and 2 indoor fields.  If the Packers are playing in a dome the next week, they practice inside.  If they are playing at home, they practice outside.  Practicing every day in 10 degree wind chill and high winds in Green Bay gives them an advantage over a dome team who will practice all week in New Orleans and not be fully prepared for the weather like Green Bay will.  And that advantage of practicing immediately preceding the game in the cold and wind doesnt change if the entire Packer team played at Southern California or the University of Hawaii.   

I'm almost certain is has less to do with indoor/outdoor and more to do with home/away.  I have nothing to back that up because I'm far too lazy to check historical stats on such things although the Saints averaged a whopping 1.45 points less outside/away than inside/away.

I do think dome teams are built differently(more passing/speed) simply because they aren't as concerned with the elements.  Just using the most recent good dome teams, NO/Indy, neither had a power run game.    However, you'd be hard-pressed to convince me that GB isn't an indoor/dome team playing outdoors. 

GB doesnt run like many other teams who played in the elements (Steelers, Giants, etc....)  But other teams who were similar to the Packers in makeup and weather were the 90s Bills who threw all over the field in a no huddle frenzy.  They ran with Thurman Thomas, but out of the shotgun.  It wasnt smashmouth football.  And they went to 4 Super Bowls, with the majority of them going via the route of playing at home in frigid weather.  One game was even a 51-3 beating of the Raiders if I remember right.

And the Saints averaged 25.8 in outdoor away games and averaged 29.7 in indoor away games.  Thats 3.9 points a game difference.  Not 1.45.  And if the main difference is how you see it...  that being away matters more than being home....  Playing in Green Bay is a road game.  And so is at San Francisco.  And the Saints were losing and barely beating 4-11, 2-13, 6-9 type teams on the road this season.  In fact, only Atlanta & Green Bay were winning teams that the Saints played on the road (if Tennessee who is 8-7 loses this week)