Articles from around the Web
NOW DISCOUNTED 40%
Discounted for midseason; buy the PDF version here for just $7.50.Buy print version here for $22.95.
Click here to buy PDF version
Official Account: @fboutsiders
Scott Kacsmar: @FO_ScottKacsmar
Rivers McCown: @FO_RiversMcCown
Ben Muth: @FO_WordofMuth
Aaron Schatz: @FO_ASchatz
Danny Tuccitto: @FO_DTuccitto
Vince Verhei: @FO_VVerhei
-- plus --
Andy Benoit: @Andy_Benoit
Bill Connelly: @SBN_BillC
J.J. Cooper: @jjcoop36
Cian Fahey: @Cianaf
Brian Fremeau: @bcfremeau
Tom Gower: @ThomasGower
Matt Hinton: @MattRHinton
Mike Ridley: @TheMikeRidley
Mike Tanier: @MikeTanier
Matt Waldman: @MattWaldman
Rob Weintraub: @robwein
22 Jan 2011
Our friend J.J. Cooper at Fanhouse takes a look at great playoff games by a quarterback in the past to see if it inspires them to "heat up" going forward.
Posted by: Bill Barnwell on 22 Jan 2011
11 comments, Last at
27 Jan 2011, 3:52pm by
This makes e wonder how the conventional stats for a particular team or player changes as they go deeper into the playoffs. On average they should be facing tougher competition each week so I'd expect average performance for winning teams/players to trend down as the playoffs progress.
I thought it funny that the article says due to regression that a QB is not going to put up two 130+ games but Manning does it in the games he lists.
Huh? He says it's not likely, not that it's impossible.
You can blame it somewhat on regression to the mean (quarterbacks aren't going to put up back-to-back 130-plus QB ratings
Peyton Manning 2004-01-11 KC W 38-31 22 30 73.3% 304 3 0 138.7 10.13
He makes a statement that quarterbacks aren't going to put up back to back 130 ratings but later in the article he puts up a chart with an example of a quarterback doing just that.
Maybe it was just sloppy reporting and he meant to say its not likely that quarterbacks aren't going to put up back to back 130 ratings, but way to go out on a limb there.
And in all fairness, we Colts fans know what happened AFTER Manning's two mind-boggling games after the 2003 season and after his one great game following the 2004 season. In the 2004 playoffs he dropped 100 pts from KC to NE, and in the 2005 playoffs his passer rating dropped from 146 to 69 from game to game. Despite being the exception, his follow-up games help support the rule.
Damn unlikely to hit 130 back to back.
Damn, did he actually have a 14.5 YPA in the first Denver game? Holy Moses.
"This doesn't mean that Rodgers is going to be a disaster this week, but it is a pretty good reminder that cutting up the Falcons secondary means very little this week."
Well, I wouldn't say "nothing". Considering that the majority of the QBs on the list are HoF-caliber (Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, Brett Favre, and Kurt Warner), I think it carving up a secondary in the playoffs (when the teams are usually really good, Seahawks excluded) is an indicator of a very good QB.
Edit: Of course, we've got a entire 16 game sample (15, I guess, for Rodgers) that already said he was the 4th most efficient QB in the league. So maybe it doesn't really say anything.
/love undermining my own arguments moments after I post them
Usually the deeper you go in the playoffs the better the next team will be ...
Rodgers has back to back 120+ rating games (this season, plus one from last season).
We have been reading the articles on your website and are very impressed with the quality of your information.
Sorry I already have the golg clubs I like
of course Rodgers played pretty poorly today (not as badly as the stats say, but still not great). As a Packers fan I'm not particularly worried about that; the Bears are always BRUTAL on him. I expect a sharper Rodgers in two weeks.
More touchdowns, more comebacks, and more snow! First impressions from a Week 14 that had it all.
See All XP | NFL XP | College XP
© Football Outsiders, Inc. // site design by B:COMPLEX Creative :: site architecture by Grossmont Designs // Partner of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties