I don't care about all these stats and facts. All I know is there is no other QB in the game today I'd want in Green Bay other than Mr. Rodgers.
I don't care about all these stats and facts. All I know is there is no other QB in the game today I'd want in Green Bay other than Mr. Rodgers.
Gambling could mean chucking it up for grabs but choosing to try extending the play in order to buy time for receivers to beat coverage also seems like gambling.
70% of the Earth is covered by water. The rest is covered by Al Harris.
I agree. However, there are still situations where a sack is nonsensical.Originally Posted by 3irty1
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
Sure like a crumple on the ground without getting touched sack. But if you're trying to avoid the sack that's the gamble.
70% of the Earth is covered by water. The rest is covered by Al Harris.
Shit if anything Rodgers is a greedy MFer and wants a TD in one play. That sack issues from his early days would drive me crazy but now that I think about it he was probably gambling that he could get the big pass off.
Sure. However a lot depends on what kind of scrambler you are, do you slide left and right or bail backwards? Rodgers used to dance his way into trouble while waiting for someone to break free. He hasn't really done that since 2008 and maybe early 2009. He generally gets himself in good positions on moves so I don't have much of a beef with that choice.
However, holding the ball until sack time on 4th down is just a waste.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
But we really haven't changed the critique. The article sees few interceptions in situations that seem to call for more risk and says he needs to gamble more by throwing earlier.
If observers or reporters say he IS gambling by waiting for something big to break, the decision is still a poor one when down late. Whether its wrong because he is gambling too much or too little is of more importance to McCarthy than to an observer looking to find the hole in his game. The goal in such situations is to want to engage in MORE risk to tilt the field toward you when losing late. Rodgers waiting for a big play is a feature of his game in any quarter.
The real question is whether there is a way to measure if holding in the pocket increases his chances of success in these situations. I am not sure it does but have no figures for it. Kacsmar is working on data that will show the reason for a sack (coverage, free rusher, failed scramble, etc.).
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
If he were to run out of bounds its a waste. If he were to throw the ball away its a waste. If he gets sacked trying to extend the play to get a higher percentage pass that's too greedy if anything. That's reasoning that he'll always be able to fire off a 50/50 ball and flying too close to the sun while trying to get something better.
I actually don't think any of these situations are what set Rodgers apart though. These situations would be memorable and I can't recall any. My guess is that he'll make a guy try for a circus catch on the sideline or rely on a WR's yards after the catch in situations where Manning, Brees, and Brady would throw a contested ball. Something like that.
70% of the Earth is covered by water. The rest is covered by Al Harris.
He did throw some very tightly contested balls in the Super Bowl, esp. that one to Jennings where I still cannot believe Polamalu didn't take Greg's head off (post route into a deep Cover 2).
I think we see two repeated patterns late when he could actively make a different choice;
1. Short throw to back. I understand he might not trust Lacy and Starks hands, but sometimes someone else has to make a play.
2. Contested ball. Perhaps not as true of Nelson as it used to be (especially along sidelines) but Driver and Jones weren't bad at them.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
Finley was the king of being able to highpoint jump ball. I miss the big guy.
70% of the Earth is covered by water. The rest is covered by Al Harris.
Rodgers' attempts when down by 9 points or more (for his career) is 11.97% of his throws.
As I do not expect him to be down by that much this season, that percentage should go down.
Odd thing about that was that it was all prior to game 7 of 2010. Rodgers record then in late, trailing games was more miserable.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
That's a very good point. Perhaps Rodgers is taking just as many chances, but is putting the ball in better spots so that the WR has the better chance of getting it than the DB. Could be he is throwing to the same guys that the other QBs would, just does it more accurately, so with fewer interceptions.
But then his lower INT rate in games where he is behind would result in better performance, not worse.
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?
He's got to know when to hold 'em.
Know when to throw 'em.
Know when to twist away.
Know when to run.
He better take more chances
when he's sittin' in the pocket
There'll be time enough for healin'
when the game is done.
"The Devine era is actually worse than you remember if you go back and look at it."
KYPack
HOFer
Kind of interesting. Hawkradamus
http://host.madison.com/sports/decis...0a2a900a8.html
"I think if you ask anyone on our team, the confidence level in Aaron is really high. I've only been around for two years, but I've seen what he can do in practice, how he prepares, everything he does. The Dallas game was a big test, and he stepped in to what at that time was the biggest game of the year and had a great game for us and handled all the pressure.
"You can tell in practice that Aaron has that 'It' factor. Whatever 'It' is. You can't know for sure until someone's been tested for many seasons, but Aaron's a confident guy, he knows the offense very well, and I wouldn't want anyone else leading this team. If you can't have Brett, I'm taking Aaron for us - ahead of anybody."
"There's a lot of interest in the draft. It's great. But quite frankly, most of the people that are commenting on it don't know anything about what they are talking about."--Ted Thompson
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
