ARE WE GIVING AROD A FREE PASS ??????????????????

[Patler]

Right. In the last game in Seattle Rodgers did orchestrate a game tying drive late in the 4th but never saw the ball again in OT. Is a game like this included in the list of those where AR had a failed come back?

Perhaps it should be. What was needed was the winning TD, not the tieing FG, and he failed to deliver that. As was discussed for several days following the game, it can be argued that AR did not make the best choices in the final three plays after getting into FG range.

If you kick the FG to tie because you run out of time, that's one thing. But if you kick the FG to tie because the drive stalled, it's not much to brag about. GB still had plenty of time left.

[mraynrand]

Perhaps it should be. What was needed was the winning TD, not the tieing FG, and he failed to deliver that. As was discussed for several days following the game, it can be argued that AR did not make the best choices in the final three plays after getting into FG range.

If you kick the FG to tie because you run out of time, that's one thing. But if you kick the FG to tie because the drive stalled, it's not much to brag about. GB still had plenty of time left.

a drive for a tie works both ways, obviously. "What was needed was the winning TD" - absolutely wrong: what was NEEDED was the tie. That keeps you alive. What was optimal, what you wanted, was the win. The tie is better than no points and a loss, and gives you a chance to win with a score on a subsequent drive. Yes a TD there probably wins and a TD in overtime wins, without having to depend on defense (assuming you get the ball). But it's a team game, and sometimes a QB has to depend on teammates to get him the ball. I seem to recall Brady needed his defense in 2001 - he tied and won with a collection of FGs in that post-season. But I guess that's not much to brag about, because he didn't win those with TDs.

[Pugger]

a drive for a tie works both ways, obviously. "What was needed was the winning TD" - absolutely wrong: what was NEEDED was the tie. That keeps you alive. What was optimal, what you wanted, was the win. The tie is better than no points and a loss, and gives you a chance to win with a score on a subsequent drive. Yes a TD there probably wins and a TD in overtime wins, without having to depend on defense (assuming you get the ball). But it's a team game, and sometimes a QB has to depend on teammates to get him the ball. I seem to recall Brady needed his defense in 2001 - he tied and won with a collection of FGs in that post-season. But I guess that's not much to brag about, because he didn't win those with TDs.

And was Brady clutch in the SB on Sunday because he won even tho his defense had to win it for him?

[yetisnowman]

And was Brady clutch in the SB on Sunday because he won even tho his defense had to win it for him?

Obviously yes, my God. He was down 10 with 8 minutes left, and led his team to 2 consecutive touchdown drives. He made the most of his opportunities when he had the ball in his hands when his team needed him to do it. Are you arguing he wasn't clutch in that game?

[Pugger]

Obviously yes, my God. He was down 10 with 8 minutes left, and led his team to 2 consecutive touchdown drives. He made the most of his opportunities when he had the ball in his hands when his team needed him to do it. Are you arguing he wasn't clutch in that game?

I'm talking about the last couple of minutes of the game. If Seattle would have come back and won that game nobody would be calling Brady clutch. Brady has won a hell of a lot of games with last minute heroics, that's for sure. But if Seattle wins Wilson is the hero and most likely MVP of that game.

[yetisnowman]

I'm talking about the last couple of minutes of the game. If Seattle would have come back and won that game nobody would be calling Brady clutch. Brady has won a hell of a lot of games with last minute heroics, that's for sure. But if Seattle wins Wilson is the hero and most likely MVP of that game.

Yeah there is some truth to that, the winner gets the glory. I still believe people would be praising Tom for bringing his team back in the fourth, when basically on more failed drive seals the win for Seattle. I don't fault the qbs if they don't have a chance to get the ball back.

[pbmax]

Obviously yes, my God. He was down 10 with 8 minutes left, and led his team to 2 consecutive touchdown drives. He made the most of his opportunities when he had the ball in his hands when his team needed him to do it. Are you arguing he wasn't clutch in that game?

No, you are claiming that. Because according to your analysis of Rodgers, only the last offensive drive of the game matters. What was done to comeback or take the lead prior to that last drive is immaterial.

Otherwise you would be discussing 4th Quarter instances of Rodgers taking the lead after being behind. Somehow that is absent your discussion of Rodgers.

Yet you allow credit for defensive stands to accrue to other quarterbacks.

[woodbuck27]

And was Brady clutch in the SB on Sunday because he won even tho his defense had to win it for him?

Before the score was NE 28 - Seattle 24...the Score was Seattle 24-NE 21.

When New England drove to get the go ahead TD 'of course' Tom Brady was clutch (if that's the buzz word now) leading that drive for the go ahead score..

[mraynrand]

And was Brady clutch in the SB on Sunday because he won even tho his defense had to win it for him?

He was still clutch, but he gets a stat point that some think is highly coveted, but required a defensive stand to count. Compare that to Bart Starr back in 1966, when he threw a fourth quarter TD to McGee to go up 34-20 on Dallas. The defense gave up a TD and then had a goal-line stand to win. That doesn't count for Starr as a 'clutch' win according to some of the criteria posted here, because Starr didn't have to mount a late comeback. But he still had to build up those 34 points. So much like many of Rodger's wins, he gets no credit for being 'clutch' because he was so efficient and competent that the game wasn't really close until the last drive.

[yetisnowman]

He was still clutch, but he gets a stat point that some think is highly coveted, but required a defensive stand to count. Compare that to Bart Starr back in 1966, when he threw a fourth quarter TD to McGee to go up 34-20 on Dallas. The defense gave up a TD and then had a goal-line stand to win. That doesn't count for Starr as a 'clutch' win according to some of the criteria posted here, because Starr didn't have to mount a late comeback. But he still had to build up those 34 points. So much like many of Rodger's wins, he gets no credit for being 'clutch' because he was so efficient and competent that the game wasn't really close until the last drive.

Starr was 9-1 in the playoffs with 5 championships. If you win playoff games, and you win close games, and you win championships every time you play in one, then I am willing to overlook that he didn't come from behind to do it a lot. But when you lose close games, lose playoff games, and fall short more often than not you deserve scrutiny. Everyone. Coaches, players, and especially Aaron.

[mraynrand]

Starr was 9-1 in the playoffs with 5 championships. If you win playoff games, and you win close games, and you win championships every time you play in one, then I am willing to overlook that he didn't come from behind to do it a lot. But when you lose close games, lose playoff games, and fall short more often than not you deserve scrutiny. Everyone. Coaches, players, and especially Aaron.

I see, so it isn't about principle, it's about wins.

[Pugger]

Perhaps it should be. What was needed was the winning TD, not the tieing FG, and he failed to deliver that. As was discussed for several days following the game, it can be argued that AR did not make the best choices in the final three plays after getting into FG range.

If you kick the FG to tie because you run out of time, that's one thing. But if you kick the FG to tie because the drive stalled, it's not much to brag about. GB still had plenty of time left.

So a QB is more clutch if his drive stalls and they kick a FG because they were down less than 3 points?

[Patler]

So a QB is more clutch if his drive stalls and they kick a FG because they were down less than 3 points?

Did I say that? Did I even hint at that?

My God.......

[Pugger]

Did I say that? Did I even hint at that?

My God.......

Kinda. You made it sound like getting a game winning FG was more clutch than getting a game tying FG late in the game. Perhaps I misunderstood?

[woodbuck27]

Kinda. You made it sound like getting a game winning FG was more clutch than getting a game tying FG late in the game. Perhaps I misunderstood?

This isn't your fault but sometimes threads get over complicated.

The Thread Title is:

ARE WE GIVING AROD A FREE PASS ??????????????????

Now we're discussing .... Comebacks by QB's and Aaron Rodgers { and clutch performance (s) }

Football terms are introduced and definitions may need clarifification ... and .... it gats more complicated.

From: http://www.pro-football-reference.co...cks_career.htm

Comebacks led by quarterback.

Must be an offensive scoring drive in the 4th quarter, with the team trailing by one score, though not necessarily a drive to take the lead.

Only .... games ending in a win or tie are included.