Obviously. I enjoy when we lead wire to wire and/or blow people out, but that rarely happens late in the playoffs. Games are tight. I am not faulting him when he doesn't have the opportunity because we were winning the entire 4th quarter. His percentages are low given the opportunities he has had.Originally Posted by ThunderDan
Does the Dallas game count? I mean Arod did bring us back from 21-13 down. Of course we had the ball again and just ran out the clock on our last possession.
But Rodgers leads the league in frumpy expressions and negative body language on the sideline, which makes him, like Josh Allen, a unique double threat.
-Tim Harmston
Yes it counts. Like I said if you read back a little bit, he made great strides this season in that regard. Dallas, Miami, and NE. Those games he showed great poise and leadership late in the games.
How does the NE game count?
We were up 23-14 at half and at the beginning of the 4th quarter. We won 26-21. That doesn't meet the criteria you have thrown out. In fact, it shows that Brady is not clutch.
But Rodgers leads the league in frumpy expressions and negative body language on the sideline, which makes him, like Josh Allen, a unique double threat.
-Tim Harmston
I never said 4qcbs was a perfect metric or the ONLY criteria relevant to analyzing qb play. It is just one statistical example of the team and aaron's struggles in those spots. That is the point that he isn't typically great in those spots. And that particular stat i think validates that claim. It isn't perfect, but it certainly isn't innaccurate.
I don't care if we are behind or ahead in a close game . Late in those games the way a qb executes is extremely important. That is why i consider the NE game to be clutch from aaron. He threw what would have been game clinching TD that was dropped.
really? Well, then you need to get deep in the weeds and analyze each play of each game to determine culpability for 'lack of comeback' because in other comeback attempts, Rodgers is either getting planted, guys are dropping passes, or they're running incorrect routes. Either way, you're in trouble because as a casual fan you're gonna have difficulty assigning a missed connection to the QB or WR - see Rodgers to Finley, 2011 Divisional game for example.
"Never, never ever support a punk like mraynrand. Rather be as I am and feel real sympathy for his sickness." - Woodbuck
You would think then that every QB's "comeback" numbers would be dampened by these types of misfortunes, right, given a large enough sample space? Is Rodgers really the only victim of this?
[QUOTE=mraynrand;827275]really? Well, then you need to get deep in the weeds and analyze each play of each game to determine culpability for 'lack of comeback' because in other comeback attempts, Rodgers is either getting planted, guys are dropping passes, or they're running incorrect routes. Either way, you're in trouble because as a casual fan you're gonna have difficulty assigning a missed connection to the QB or WR - see Rodgers to Finley, 2011 Divisional game for example.[/QU
If i felt like dropped passes and receivers running the wrong route were the rule and not the exception I would agree with you.
With a big enough sample size these things tend to even out with qbs. Is Arod the unluckiest qb ever? No. The Packers aren't the only team that struggles in special teams and has drops sometimes. Remember Welker's huge drop in the 2011 super bowl?
Why so defensive? YS is providing a nuanced take - that the Packers have had difficulties in close games in the 4th quarter, in which Rodgers wasn't fully culpable, but was a factor; difficulties which have been improved upon recently.
I think that's totally fair.
I am not being defensive. I am trying to understand what the actual measurements are and how they actually work. It seems like YS method penalizes teams that are offensively explosive or start fast in games and win. I pointed out that our 19 game winning streak, which included a Super Bowl, earned ARod zero on YS rating scale.
Football is such a team game that it is very hard to blame a QB for winning or losing just on the last drive or a "clutch factor" in a game.
The perfect example to me is the Seattle game. If Ha Ha knocks down Wilson's balloon ball prayer two point conversion or instead of jumping to go after the ball tackles the TE after he catched the ball short of the end zone, ARod would be deemed clutch for leading the team down for a FG to win the game. Instead, ARod isn't clutch and gets blamed in this thread.
But Rodgers leads the league in frumpy expressions and negative body language on the sideline, which makes him, like Josh Allen, a unique double threat.
-Tim Harmston
Again this is not the end all be all of stats, and it is not my scale. I didn't come up with it. It removes some context, I am not disputing that. And "my" scale is referring to when he has had the OPPORTUNITY to lead us on a game winning drive/fourth quarter comeback and failed. It has nothing to do with blowout wins, and of course blowout wins have nothing to do with Aaron's lack of clutchness.
We could go around and around on the Seattle game, yes the 2 point conversion was maddening...among other plays. But I could easily argue that if Aaron is more competent and accurate in the first half we are up 26-7 or 29-7 with 5 minutes left.
Fair. Perhaps a better measure would be a percentage of 4QCB wins by opportunity. Though if HaHa knocks the ball down, I don't know if the remaining game transpires the same way (butterfly effect and all).
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote