But then his lower INT rate in games where he is behind would result in better performance, not worse.Originally Posted by Patler
There would need to be other factors acting with even larger impacts to offset Rodgers increased performance.
The D is responsible for 7 of those losses while losing late in close games. There would need to be another large factor.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
Better performance would occur only if the receivers are actually catching the ball. Maybe he is putting it where they have a chance, but not a good chance, and the DB has little to no chance. He could actually be attempting more difficult (riskier) passes than just throwing it up for grabs.
Defense choking, ST choking, Finley dropping a ball here and there (his infamous complaint "I don't do backshoulder" was a late game one as I recall) can account for a lot of his failures.
I guess it all depends on how you define risk. Is it risk of an interception, or risk of an incompletion?
Well, we have stepped through to looking glass to admire the problem from the other side about how to label risk. The article posits the risk at issue is INTs and the failure to engage is riskier throws hampers the ability to produce a comeback. We know Rodgers get more cautious with his throws while the other top QBs don't. If you have evidence he is also doing something positive they are not, I would love to see it.
Given the record, that declining INT rate looks like a culprit. Remember that while we all remember teammate failures, defensive breakdowns and ST nightmares in Rodgers game, those all happen while they are winning the majority of their games. More important is which of these gets worse while trailing late in a game. We know the INT rate looks that way, but does anyone have any evidence the defense, Finley or the ST are worse in the fourth Quarter? Which of these factors gets worse late while trailing?
Additionally, defensive breakdowns, receivers not heeding their QB wishes and ST problems are not exclusive to the Packers.
Its looks exculpatory that the Defense failed him in seven games and it is, partially. But the other QBs had to deal with them as well.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
If his lower INT rate doesn't result in more catches, then the behavior is self defeating.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
Looking back at the article I think this is just oversimplification from the author. We're talking about a low sample size to begin with but there is also no qualifiers on this 9+ points which one must trail. Certainly playing the clock is just as important as playing the scoreboard. Getting behind early and going into Brad Childless mode isn't accepted as good stategy. In those situations he could have made a 1st, 2nd, or 3rd quarter comeback, won the game and still fit the chosen metrics as an overly conservative QB.
We've also got a case where the author may well have reversed the causation and correlation about interceptions while down by 9 points. If any of these offenses led by elite passers is ever down by 9 points, it probably took a great defensive showing by the opposition to get them there. It would seem to me that throwing more picks in this situation would need to be corrected for the quality of the defense before any kind of reasonable speculation on how much a QB gambles can be made.
I think its also worth noting that none of these 354 attempted passes occurred in 2010 and nearly none in 2011 as the packers famously never trailed by more than a TD for a huge stretch spanning multiple seasons aka the best two years of his career and the two healthiest ever since.
70% of the Earth is covered by water. The rest is covered by Al Harris.
That begs the question though, and the author makes note of it. The Packers are a hugely successful front running offense. They are much less successful when behind (esp. behind late).
I think this has as much to do with McCarthy as Rodgers. McCarthy purposefully does not vary his game plan mid game so he can avoid making emotional decisions based on one off occurrences or swings of emotion. But this works less well when you have a game where the offense isn't automatic and a small number of drives left to score.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
I don't know about that, McCarthy's balls are so big they have lesser testicles orbiting around them. Think of the ballsy onside kicks, the ballsy deep shots on 3rd/4th and 1. He has no aversion to high variance strategies but definitely favors calculated risks over straight gambling.
70% of the Earth is covered by water. The rest is covered by Al Harris.
Not too conservative, but the lesson he learned about no panicking over your game plan in the middle of the game has been learned a little too well.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
Offense isn't like defense where you make drastic adjustments. By nature the offense is imposing their will on the defense, the defense is the side that doesn't know what's coming. On offense your preparation, your game plan is all you've got. Abandoning it would mean going to plan B but if you have a plan B that must have been part of your game plan anyways.
I still think the difference is just Arod but the stats are cherry picked and bogus. The down by 9+ and the 4th quarter comeback stast have little in common other than Rodgers is an outlier in both. I'm not convinced it has anything to do with averting risk to a fault.
70% of the Earth is covered by water. The rest is covered by Al Harris.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote