Adamjk wrote:
You can use stats to support arguments in loads of different ways. Green Bay have been opportunistic on defense this season and have 29 interceptions and 5 fumble recoveries, compared to New Orleans having 8 interceptions and 6 fumble recoveries. That obviously affects starting field position and would likely have given Rodgers a shorter field in those situations.
It would be interesting to see what the average starting field position was for each team and whether they were driving their team down the length of the field or half of it.
Not including this week
Average starting field position for each of us is:
New Orleans- 28.29 (14th)
Green Bay- 30.19 (6th)
NO are #1 in the league at yards per drive average (41.36 to 39.27 (2nd)), lowest punt per drive average (.274 to .331 (3rd)) and drive success rate (.780 to .771 (2nd)).
In contrast GB are #1 in the league at points per drive average (3.04 to 2.88 (2nd)), TD per drive average (.370 to .341 (2nd)), turn over per drive average (.058 to .110 (9th)), fumbles per drive (.013 to .030 (8th)).
Other than average starting position the only stat which neither GB or NO rank first in is averge interceptions per drive. GB have .045 (2nd) and NO have .079 (16th). SF lead that stat at .029.
Defences also start around the same area. The average starting position for the NO defence is 25.82 (5th) and GB on the 25.17 (3rd).
Adamjk wrote:
Again, you're using that word 'clearly'. I think it's going to be a lot closer than you think, especially with Brees breaking the passing yardage record!
Incredible to break that record, and i hope nobody thinks i'm trying to diminish that. However with the exception of that (and a marginally higher completion percentage) Rodgers is better in most stats, has the worst offensive line, worst defence (yardage), has won the head to head, and lost once in a year. Not to mention playing 3 games in domes compared to 11.
The result.....Rodgers is clearly better.
