Chicago Fanatics Message Board :: View topic

Remember when it was a big deal when a QB eclipsed the 300-yard mark? Seems like anything under 300 yards now is considered a "bad" game. Then again, a good portion of those inflated passing numbers can be attributed to playing from behind, such as RGIII this year. The passing numbers just seem ridiculous anymore, or am I just a curmudgeon?

redskingreg wrote:

I think you hit it with playing from behind. Brees does it a lot, partially because he's good and partially because he's played with some bad defenses through the years (not always). Yardage, to me, means very little. It is largely circumstantial.

Other than the game for you, how was the trip up to Lambeau?

redskingreg wrote:

Hawg Ass wrote:

Other than the game for you, how was the trip up to Lambeau?

Posted a bit in the NFL week 2 schedule thread. Had a great time. Got to GB around 9 a.m. It rained the entire drive and didn't stop until right around kickoff. We "tailgated" a bit in the Shell parking lot, where we parked. I love Lambeau. GB fans were friendly as could be before, during, and after the game. Guy a row behind me was drunkenly yelling throughout. Guess he didn't really give a sh*t that there were kids all around us.

It isn't. There are a lot of good QB's now. Vick and Rivers weren't playing from behind. It was a back and forth game. Neither was Rodgers and he almost threw for 500 yards.

redskingreg wrote:

If Otto Graham were playing to day, he'd throw for 500 yards a game.

Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:

redskingreg wrote:

If Otto Graham were playing to day, he'd throw for 500 yards a game.

Isn't he too old, slow, and white? That's what Dan Berstein tells me.

leashyourkids wrote:

redskingreg wrote:

This is what fans of teams with QB's who don't throw for many yards say.

The statistic can lie in small sample sizes, but your team will almost always be better in the modern NFL with a QB who puts up big yardage numbers unless he's also turning the ball over a lot.

Eli Manning, Sam Bradford, RGIII, and Matt Stafford are all currently in the top ten in yardage in the NFL. Doesn't exactly strike fear, in my opinion.

See: Rivers, Philip - Always huge yardage numbers with a mediocre team. The huge yardage has to be paired with huge touchdown numbers to be meaningful.

Eli Manning, Sam Bradford, RGIII, and Matt Stafford are all currently in the top ten in yardage in the NFL. Doesn't exactly strike fear, in my opinion.

leashyourkids wrote:

See: Rivers, Philip - Always huge yardage numbers with a mediocre team. The huge yardage has to be paired with huge touchdown numbers to be meaningful.

He's done that though. He wasn't good last year though. San Diego had some really good teams that didn't get it done. I don't think Rivers is an example of overinflated numbers.

leashyourkids wrote:

Eli Manning, Sam Bradford, RGIII, and Matt Stafford are all currently in the top ten in yardage in the NFL. Doesn't exactly strike fear, in my opinion.

It's a small sample size but I'd gladly take Eli Manning or Matt Stafford on my team, and if healthy, RGIII.

Do you think some teams intentionally limit the amount of passing yards the quarterback throws for?

1 Drew Brees, QB
2 Matthew Stafford, QB
3 Tony Romo, QB
4 Tom Brady, QB
5 Matt Ryan, QB
6 Peyton Manning, QB
7 Andrew Luck, QB
8 Aaron Rodgers, QB
9 Josh Freeman, QB
10 Carson Palmer, QB

In my opinion, 8/10 of those are good to great QBs. Freeman and Palmer are not.

Looks like it is a pretty good indicator of QB performance and skill. It's not perfect but no statistic is.

Of course you can win without a QB who throws for a ton of yards. No one thinks otherwise. The Ravens are a good example of that but that is because Joe Flacco goes into playoff mode and had a great postseason.

Boilermaker Rick wrote:

So what are we arguing about?

leashyourkids wrote:

Boilermaker Rick wrote:

So what are we arguing about?

Nothing. Seems like everyone agrees no team will win Super Bowl with Jay Cutler under center.

leashyourkids wrote:

Boilermaker Rick wrote:

So what are we arguing about?

Nothing. Seems like everyone agrees no team will win Super Bowl with Jay Cutler under center.

Boilermaker Rick wrote:

So what are we arguing about?

Author:	redskingreg [ Mon Sep 16, 2013 9:25 am ]
Post subject:	Is 400 the new 300?
Remember when it was a big deal when a QB eclipsed the 300-yard mark? Seems like anything under 300 yards now is considered a "bad" game. Then again, a good portion of those inflated passing numbers can be attributed to playing from behind, such as RGIII this year. The passing numbers just seem ridiculous anymore, or am I just a curmudgeon?

Author:	leashyourkids [ Mon Sep 16, 2013 9:26 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Is 400 the new 300?
redskingreg wrote: Remember when it was a big deal when a QB eclipsed the 300-yard mark? Seems like anything under 300 yards now is considered a "bad" game. Then again, a good portion of those inflated passing numbers can be attributed to playing from behind, such as RGIII this year. The passing numbers just seem ridiculous anymore, or am I just a curmudgeon? I think you hit it with playing from behind. Brees does it a lot, partially because he's good and partially because he's played with some bad defenses through the years (not always). Yardage, to me, means very little. It is largely circumstantial.

Author:	redskingreg [ Mon Sep 16, 2013 9:30 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Is 400 the new 300?
leashyourkids wrote: redskingreg wrote: Remember when it was a big deal when a QB eclipsed the 300-yard mark? Seems like anything under 300 yards now is considered a "bad" game. Then again, a good portion of those inflated passing numbers can be attributed to playing from behind, such as RGIII this year. The passing numbers just seem ridiculous anymore, or am I just a curmudgeon? I think you hit it with playing from behind. Brees does it a lot, partially because he's good and partially because he's played with some bad defenses through the years (not always). Yardage, to me, means very little. It is largely circumstantial. It hit me last night when I heard some jamokes (sp?) on the radio raving about Rivers and Vick each passing for 400+. Guess I need to have Scott from Davenport (beep, beep, beep, boop, boop, boop, beep, boop, beep, beep) whip up some 300 v. 400 stats.

Author:	Hawg Ass [ Mon Sep 16, 2013 9:37 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Is 400 the new 300?
Other than the game for you, how was the trip up to Lambeau?

Author:	redskingreg [ Mon Sep 16, 2013 9:41 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Is 400 the new 300?
Hawg Ass wrote: Other than the game for you, how was the trip up to Lambeau? Posted a bit in the NFL week 2 schedule thread. Had a great time. Got to GB around 9 a.m. It rained the entire drive and didn't stop until right around kickoff. We "tailgated" a bit in the Shell parking lot, where we parked. I love Lambeau. GB fans were friendly as could be before, during, and after the game. Guy a row behind me was drunkenly yelling throughout. Guess he didn't really give a sh*t that there were kids all around us.

Chicago Fanatics Message Board https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/

Is 400 the new 300? https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/viewtopic.php?f=90&t=81773	Page 1 of 2

Author:	Brick [ Mon Sep 16, 2013 9:45 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Is 400 the new 300?
leashyourkids wrote: redskingreg wrote: Remember when it was a big deal when a QB eclipsed the 300-yard mark? Seems like anything under 300 yards now is considered a "bad" game. Then again, a good portion of those inflated passing numbers can be attributed to playing from behind, such as RGIII this year. The passing numbers just seem ridiculous anymore, or am I just a curmudgeon? I think you hit it with playing from behind. Brees does it a lot, partially because he's good and partially because he's played with some bad defenses through the years (not always). Yardage, to me, means very little. It is largely circumstantial. This is what fans of teams with QB's who don't throw for many yards say. The statistic can lie in small sample sizes, but your team will almost always be better in the modern NFL with a QB who puts up big yardage numbers unless he's also turning the ball over a lot.

Author:	Hawg Ass [ Mon Sep 16, 2013 9:45 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Is 400 the new 300?
redskingreg wrote: Hawg Ass wrote: Other than the game for you, how was the trip up to Lambeau? Posted a bit in the NFL week 2 schedule thread. Had a great time. Got to GB around 9 a.m. It rained the entire drive and didn't stop until right around kickoff. We "tailgated" a bit in the Shell parking lot, where we parked. I love Lambeau. GB fans were friendly as could be before, during, and after the game. Guy a row behind me was drunkenly yelling throughout. Guess he didn't really give a sh*t that there were kids all around us. Very cool and after I posted this I saw your other post. Glad you had a great time, and enjoy your time doing this with your father. One of the things I have truly missed since my dad passed away.

Author:	Nas [ Mon Sep 16, 2013 9:46 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Is 400 the new 300?
It isn't. There are a lot of good QB's now. Vick and Rivers weren't playing from behind. It was a back and forth game. Neither was Rodgers and he almost threw for 500 yards.

Author:	redskingreg [ Mon Sep 16, 2013 9:49 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Is 400 the new 300?
Nas wrote: It isn't. There are a lot of good QB's now. Vick and Rivers weren't playing from behind. It was a back and forth game. Neither was Rodgers and he almost threw for 500 yards. For the record, Rodgers was very lucky yesterday. He's lucky he played the Redskins D. He's lucky they weren't prepared. He's lucky they are awful, even when prepared. He's lucky he has Nelson, Finley, Cobb, and Jones. He's lucky he's one of the best QBs in the league. It really is all about luck in the NFL.

Author:	good dolphin [ Mon Sep 16, 2013 10:07 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Is 400 the new 300?
The short pass to the RB has replaced handing off to the RB for many teams, which has resulted in higher passing numbers. Maybe we can get Scott in Davenport to give us an analysis of receiving yards versus running yards for RB in the last 2 years.

Author:	Rod [ Mon Sep 16, 2013 10:29 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Is 400 the new 300?
redskingreg wrote: Remember when it was a big deal when a QB eclipsed the 300-yard mark? Seems like anything under 300 yards now is considered a "bad" game. Then again, a good portion of those inflated passing numbers can be attributed to playing from behind, such as RGIII this year. The passing numbers just seem ridiculous anymore, or am I just a curmudgeon? If Otto Graham were playing to day, he'd throw for 500 yards a game.

Author:	redskingreg [ Mon Sep 16, 2013 10:30 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Is 400 the new 300?
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote: redskingreg wrote: Remember when it was a big deal when a QB eclipsed the 300-yard mark? Seems like anything under 300 yards now is considered a "bad" game. Then again, a good portion of those inflated passing numbers can be attributed to playing from behind, such as RGIII this year. The passing numbers just seem ridiculous anymore, or am I just a curmudgeon? If Otto Graham were playing to day, he'd throw for 500 yards a game. Isn't he too old, slow, and white? That's what Dan Berstein tells me.

Author:	Rod [ Mon Sep 16, 2013 10:48 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Is 400 the new 300?
redskingreg wrote: Joe Orr Road Rod wrote: redskingreg wrote: Remember when it was a big deal when a QB eclipsed the 300-yard mark? Seems like anything under 300 yards now is considered a "bad" game. Then again, a good portion of those inflated passing numbers can be attributed to playing from behind, such as RGIII this year. The passing numbers just seem ridiculous anymore, or am I just a curmudgeon? If Otto Graham were playing to day, he'd throw for 500 yards a game. Isn't he too old, slow, and white? That's what Dan Berstein tells me. Well, he's too old for sure. He may even be dead.

Author:	leashyourkids [ Mon Sep 16, 2013 11:04 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Is 400 the new 300?
Boilermaker Rick wrote: leashyourkids wrote: redskingreg wrote: Remember when it was a big deal when a QB eclipsed the 300-yard mark? Seems like anything under 300 yards now is considered a "bad" game. Then again, a good portion of those inflated passing numbers can be attributed to playing from behind, such as RGIII this year. The passing numbers just seem ridiculous anymore, or am I just a curmudgeon? I think you hit it with playing from behind. Brees does it a lot, partially because he's good and partially because he's played with some bad defenses through the years (not always). Yardage, to me, means very little. It is largely circumstantial. This is what fans of teams with QB's who don't throw for many yards say. The statistic can lie in small sample sizes, but your team will almost always be better in the modern NFL with a QB who puts up big yardage numbers unless he's also turning the ball over a lot. If we assume that to be true, it is coincidental, as I don't give two cents what anybody thinks of Jay Cutler. See: Rivers, Philip - Always huge yardage numbers with a mediocre team. The huge yardage has to be paired with huge touchdown numbers to be meaningful.

Page 1 of 2	All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	Terry's Peeps [ Mon Sep 16, 2013 11:14 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Is 400 the new 300?
Spiegs wrote:

Author:	Kirkwood [ Mon Sep 16, 2013 11:33 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Is 400 the new 300?
leashyourkids wrote: Eli Manning, Sam Bradford, RGIII, and Matt Stafford are all currently in the top ten in yardage in the NFL. Doesn't exactly strike fear, in my opinion. Along with Rodgers, Peyton, Brees, and Ryan.

Author:	Brick [ Mon Sep 16, 2013 11:38 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Is 400 the new 300?
leashyourkids wrote: See: Rivers, Philip - Always huge yardage numbers with a mediocre team. The huge yardage has to be paired with huge touchdown numbers to be meaningful. He's done that though. He wasn't good last year though. San Diego had some really good teams that didn't get it done. I don't think Rivers is an example of overinflated numbers. leashyourkids wrote: Eli Manning, Sam Bradford, RGIII, and Matt Stafford are all currently in the top ten in yardage in the NFL. Doesn't exactly strike fear, in my opinion. It's a small sample size but I'd gladly take Eli Manning or Matt Stafford on my team, and if healthy, RGIII. Do you think some teams intentionally limit the amount of passing yards the quarterback throws for?

Author:	Nas [ Mon Sep 16, 2013 11:47 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Is 400 the new 300?
Bradford is the only guy I wouldn't want right now over Cutler. Stafford is borderline.

Author:	conns7901 [ Mon Sep 16, 2013 11:48 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Is 400 the new 300?
THe game has changed and 300 is almost expected now, or atleast close ot it. Its finally dying down, but anyone who makes a big deal about a 1000 yard rusher or Receiver on a 16 game schedule is an idiot. That's 62.5 yards per game. I would say at least 1300 yards is the new standard.

Author:	veganfan21 [ Mon Sep 16, 2013 12:26 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Is 400 the new 300?
Here are the top 10 leaders in passing yards for 2012: Quote: 1 Drew Brees, QB 2 Matthew Stafford, QB 3 Tony Romo, QB 4 Tom Brady, QB 5 Matt Ryan, QB 6 Peyton Manning, QB 7 Andrew Luck, QB 8 Aaron Rodgers, QB 9 Josh Freeman, QB 10 Carson Palmer, QB Three out of these ten are garbage or belong to garbage teams (Palmer, Freeman, Romo), and Stafford has the makings of a perennial big yards kind of guy, but only has one playoff appearance to show for it. You'll notice that other playoff QBs like Flacco, Dalton, Wilson, RGIII, and Schaub are not in the top ten. Kaepernick and Smith both played last year, but even when you combine their passing yards they will not make the top ten either. The point is you can be a legitimate contender with or without a guy who piles up a massive amount of yards.

Author:	Brick [ Mon Sep 16, 2013 12:41 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Is 400 the new 300?
In my opinion, 8/10 of those are good to great QBs. Freeman and Palmer are not. Looks like it is a pretty good indicator of QB performance and skill. It's not perfect but no statistic is. Of course you can win without a QB who throws for a ton of yards. No one thinks otherwise. The Ravens are a good example of that but that is because Joe Flacco goes into playoff mode and had a great postseason.

Author:	leashyourkids [ Mon Sep 16, 2013 5:20 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Is 400 the new 300?
Boilermaker Rick wrote: In my opinion, 8/10 of those are good to great QBs. Freeman and Palmer are not. Looks like it is a pretty good indicator of QB performance and skill. It's not perfect but no statistic is. Of course you can win without a QB who throws for a ton of yards. No one thinks otherwise. The Ravens are a good example of that but that is because Joe Flacco goes into playoff mode and had a great postseason. So what are we arguing about?

Author:	Kirkwood [ Mon Sep 16, 2013 6:29 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Is 400 the new 300?
leashyourkids wrote: Boilermaker Rick wrote: In my opinion, 8/10 of those are good to great QBs. Freeman and Palmer are not. Looks like it is a pretty good indicator of QB performance and skill. It's not perfect but no statistic is. Of course you can win without a QB who throws for a ton of yards. No one thinks otherwise. The Ravens are a good example of that but that is because Joe Flacco goes into playoff mode and had a great postseason. So what are we arguing about? Nothing. Seems like everyone agrees no team will win Super Bowl with Jay Cutler under center.

Author:	leashyourkids [ Mon Sep 16, 2013 6:50 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Is 400 the new 300?
Kirkwood wrote: leashyourkids wrote: Boilermaker Rick wrote: In my opinion, 8/10 of those are good to great QBs. Freeman and Palmer are not. Looks like it is a pretty good indicator of QB performance and skill. It's not perfect but no statistic is. Of course you can win without a QB who throws for a ton of yards. No one thinks otherwise. The Ravens are a good example of that but that is because Joe Flacco goes into playoff mode and had a great postseason. So what are we arguing about? Nothing. Seems like everyone agrees no team will win Super Bowl with Jay Cutler under center. Yeah. The only thing worse would be a team with an "elite" QB who perennially struggles to beat Jay Cutler. I take that back. Hanging your hat on Kyle Orton would be worse.

Author:	veganfan21 [ Mon Sep 16, 2013 8:09 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Is 400 the new 300?
Kirkwood wrote: leashyourkids wrote: Boilermaker Rick wrote: In my opinion, 8/10 of those are good to great QBs. Freeman and Palmer are not. Looks like it is a pretty good indicator of QB performance and skill. It's not perfect but no statistic is. Of course you can win without a QB who throws for a ton of yards. No one thinks otherwise. The Ravens are a good example of that but that is because Joe Flacco goes into playoff mode and had a great postseason. So what are we arguing about? Nothing. Seems like everyone agrees no team will win Super Bowl with Jay Cutler under center. Cutler has been on an upward trajectory since at least 2010: 2010: 12-6 (NFC Title Game) 2011: 7-2 (Injured) 2012: 10-6 2013: 2-0 I wouldn't be surprised at all if he led the Bears to the Super Bowl.

Author:	Don Tiny [ Mon Sep 16, 2013 10:33 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Is 400 the new 300?
I thought this was a thread about my weight ... I'm out of breath from typing that.

Author:	Brick [ Tue Sep 17, 2013 6:03 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Is 400 the new 300?
leashyourkids wrote: Boilermaker Rick wrote: In my opinion, 8/10 of those are good to great QBs. Freeman and Palmer are not. Looks like it is a pretty good indicator of QB performance and skill. It's not perfect but no statistic is. Of course you can win without a QB who throws for a ton of yards. No one thinks otherwise. The Ravens are a good example of that but that is because Joe Flacco goes into playoff mode and had a great postseason. So what are we arguing about? Yardage to you means very little when in fact it seems to be a pretty strong indicator of success.

Author:	leashyourkids [ Tue Sep 17, 2013 6:47 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Is 400 the new 300?
Yes or no: Would you feel confident looking solely at the passing yards of two quarterbacks and accurately predicting who won the game?