Rodgers Gambling Problem

[pbmax]

Of the few criticisms of his game, does Rodgers not gamble enough when down late?

2014 NFL Preview: Great Players And Gambling Problems In The NFC North

Interceptions are often (even largely) a product of completely rational risk-taking by desperate quarterbacks. A logical implication of this is that if a quarterback is too conservative, he can throw too few interceptions, which can be just as bad as throwing too many.

Despite his various successes, it’s possible Rodgers fits this description of an overly conservative quarterback. For example, with his team down by two or more scores (9+ points) he has thrown only three interceptions out of 354 passes attempted (0.8 percent) in his career. This is typically when quarterbacks throw the most INTs, because they’re trying to get their teams back into the game, and high-risk strategies often give them the best chance to win. Overall, quarterbacks throw interceptions about 3.5 percent of the time on average in those situations, with even most great quarterbacks breaking 3.0 percent. Peyton Manning, for example, has averaged 3.1 percent, Drew Brees has averaged 3.3 percent, and even Tom Brady has thrown 2.3 percent (slightly above his career average).

Throwing too few interceptions in the first paragraph should be qualified. There is probably no doubt throwing fewer interceptions on even an average team is beneficial. But there are always specific game situations where the risk is worth it.

[channtheman]

I would like to know how often Rodgers wins or loses games when his team is down by 9 or more points compared to those other QB's before passing too much judgment.

[Zool]

I prefer to not watch a guy blow 3 games and win 2 by making bad decisions that sometimes work out.

[pbmax]

5-24 (.172) in games when Rodgers had the ball in the fourth quarter, trailing by 1-8 points

That is the only number I have, other than JSO's favorite W-L record un games closer than 4 points.

[pbmax]

I prefer to not watch a guy blow 3 games and win 2 by making bad decisions that sometimes work out.

I agree the writer fails to make the distinction. But I think there is something to the too conservative when losing late theory. I think the numbers he gives for P Manning, Brady and Brees bear that out.

Mr. Blonde (of all people) made this very salient point during a loss while I was trying to figure out what went wrong on the last play the Packers would get on offense (4th down and long while losing and not enough time or TOs to get ball back).

In that situation, you HAVE to throw the ball. A sack is just dumb, it gives you no chance. Run from the pocket, throw a shovel pass, do something but the sack is just giving up that late.

[Zool]

I agree the writer fails to make the distinction. But I think there is something to the too conservative when losing late theory. I think the numbers he gives for P Manning, Brady and Brees bear that out.

Mr. Blonde (of all people) made this very salient point during a loss while I was trying to figure out what went wrong on the last play the Packers would get on offense (4th down and long while losing and not enough time or TOs to get ball back).

In that situation, you HAVE to throw the ball. A sack is just dumb, it gives you no chance. Run from the pocket, throw a shovel pass, do something but the sack is just giving up that late.

Give me the comparative numbers for each QB on the drives that end in points in the 4th quarter when trailing. Wins and losses depend too much on defense and special teams to be a good measure. If he's conservative and way behind in points per drive in that situation, then they'll have something.

[ThunderDan]

I would like to know how often Rodgers wins or loses games when his team is down by 9 or more points compared to those other QB's before passing too much judgment.

I think the sample size for ARod is extremely small. I know the year of the Super Bowl win we were never trailing by more than 7 points the whole year. A high power offense that puts up a lot of points is rarely down by 9 or more.

[Patler]

Rodgers has had a lot of games, especially his first year as a starter, when he did bring the team back in the 4th quarter to take the lead or tie, only to have the defense or ST's give it right back in short order. I summarized them a few years ago. There was at least one game during which he brought them back twice in the fourth quarter, only to come away with an "L" for his efforts. He's had a couple in which Crosby has missed FGs. after he drive them into scoring position.

With the defense he has played with most years, especially the last 3 years, an interception at the end is almost assured to be points the other way before he would see the ball again.

Granted, on 4th down he should throw the ball, even if intercepted, rather than take a sack. I dislike that as much as I used to hate #4 throwing a dumb pass on 1st or 2nd down on final drives. High risk on 1st down is particularly stupid, just as is no risk on 4th down.

[smuggler]

I can think of a few games where Rodgers got us into FG range and Crosby missed the kick... thpse count against him evem though he succeeded in his job - give the team a chance to wim/tie with a FG

[Joemailman]

Rodgers isn't 5-24 bad. But he hasn't been really good when behind late in games either. I've felt for some time he'd be more successful if he would utilize his backs more in the passing game. When teams are playing prevent, a back can find some pretty good running room after catching a short pass. Now Lacy did catch 35 passes last year, which was the most by a Packer back in a while, so maybe things are starting to change.

[George Cumby]

"he can throw too few interceptions, which can be just as bad as throwing too many."

Not buying this. Had he qualified this better, I might go for it. But I still suffer from watching Favre chuck the thing around like a maniac.

[pbmax]

"he can throw too few interceptions, which can be just as bad as throwing too many."

Not buying this. Had he qualified this better, I might go for it. But I still suffer from watching Favre chuck the thing around like a maniac.

It mostly has to do with timing (in the game) and the score.

[pbmax]

Somewhere, Scott Kacsmar or Chase Stuart broke down the number of times his defense lost the lead again. If I find it I will post it.

[George Cumby]

It mostly has to do with timing (in the game) and the score.

Copy. Taking a sack late is no better than throwing a deep pick. Makes sense.

[pbmax]

From the Insider Article in question (which is the most recent compendium I know of:

“Of course, some of the 26 losses speak well for him. He has put Green Bay ahead seven times in the fourth quarter when trailing, only for the team to go on to lose the game. The defense is certainly deserving of blame for this.”

9-07-2011: http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com...rdinaire/8607/

7-17-2012: http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com...packers/15352/

9-28-2013: https://captaincomeback.wordpress.co...ers-is-clutch/

[pbmax]

His commentary on critiques of the work is in the comments of this FO post.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/fo-...comment-938803

[pbmax]

https://captaincomeback.wordpress.co...ers-is-clutch/

Final-score analysis is heavily flawed to study the closeness of games. Because it takes too long to do this, most close-game studies have always been about the final score. Those can be very misleading. The Colts/49ers from last Sunday played a game that was a tie or one-score difference for 93% of the game before the Colts pulled away 27-7. A final-score study would reject that as a close game, but it would accept trash like MNF Eagles/Redskins from Week 1 when Washington made it 33-27 late and failed to recover the onside kick. That game was not close and the only drive involving a one-score game in the 4Q that night was Michael Vick taking two knees. Forget about the final score.

Rodgers is 20-22 (.476) in games decided by one score, and I hope it’s assumed when I say Rodgers I mean “the Packers with Rodgers at QB”. Because the record with Matt Flynn or Brett Favre (under McCarthy) would be different.

Anyways, 20-22 is a hell of a difference from 9-26 (.257) at GWDs, so you can see it’s two completely different studies. That’s the one thing I would like to change in how I’ve been writing about this. It’s not so much a close-game issue for Green Bay as it is a failure to win games when they have to score the winning points in the 4Q/OT. Behind Rodgers they’re 9-26 at doing that, but 49-5 in all other games. No one has been able to explain that absurd gap in winning percentage, which is the largest in NFL history.

[bobblehead]

Of the few criticisms of his game, does Rodgers not gamble enough when down late?

2014 NFL Preview: Great Players And Gambling Problems In The NFC North



Throwing too few interceptions in the first paragraph should be qualified. There is probably no doubt throwing fewer interceptions on even an average team is beneficial. But there are always specific game situations where the risk is worth it.

So...what is the average time on the clock when said teams are down by 9+ points? I sometimes like to read the relevant statement and take it for what it says. "Rodgers throws too few interceptions" I fail to see the problem.

[bobblehead]

I agree the writer fails to make the distinction. But I think there is something to the too conservative when losing late theory.

I didn't read anything about losing LATE. Simply when trailing by 9+ points. That could be occurring most often 8 minutes into the game for all we know. NOW...I am sure that Brent generally started gambling down 1, 7 minutes in. I didn't like that.

[pbmax]

I didn't read anything about losing LATE. Simply when trailing by 9+ points. That could be occurring most often 8 minutes into the game for all we know. NOW...I am sure that Brent generally started gambling down 1, 7 minutes in. I didn't like that.

Morris at the first link makes the case for behind > 9 regardless of time. I think the difference between Rodgers and Manning, Brees and Brady is remarkable but not definitive of anything in and of itself.

I do think his work plus Kacsmar's (the later links specifically about 4th Quarter comebacks) do have some explanatory power late in games. Rodgers is clearly on another level when it comes to caution. While I thought his numbers were skewed by poor defense (something that would need to be adjusted for all the QBs in the comparison), observation does tell me Rodgers does not take enough risks late in games when behind.