Please cite your source. Rodgers avoids INTs at a historic rate. What logic or evidence is there that this rule exists anywhere other than your imagination?Originally Posted by yetisnowman
Please cite your source. Rodgers avoids INTs at a historic rate. What logic or evidence is there that this rule exists anywhere other than your imagination?
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
Yes he does avoid interceptions at an historic rate, his interception rate would be worse if he just chucked up prayers assuming there were defensive penalties. Do you watch NFL games? Why would you ever assume a penalty in the NFL seriously? I don't need a source, there are no sources on something that obscure and obvious. It's logic. Do you have source stating that its not the qb's responsibility to be sure its a penalty? So let me get this straight, if an NFL qb THINKS there should be a defensive penalty, he should finish the play as though there is one, and is therefore absolved of any responsibility for the outcome of that play?
I do watch games and I even get replays from behind the helmet of the QB. What he can see: the defensive end jumping off-side. What he cannot see: the line judge thirty yards to his right.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
Okay, fine. That's just a minuscule aspect of the overall point: uncharacteristic sloppiness.
Rodgers was not himself this game for some reason.
That reason might be that he was playing on one leg against the NFL's best defense. He didn't have a great game, but he wasn't the reason the Packers blew a 12 point lead in the last 5 minutes.
Via EarlThomas.com:
Right from the start, the Packers did a great job of keeping us off rhythm, especially Aaron Rodgers. I have to give Rodgers a lot of credit. Going into the game, after watching the tape of their game against Dallas, I honestly didn’t think he was that injured. I was preparing for the real Aaron Rodgers, not the hurt Aaron Rodgers.
But that guy was really hurt out there. Going against him in the game, I could tell immediately that he was really in pain. And it sounds funny, but that actually caught me off-guard. Now that I’m dealing with an injury of my own, I have even more respect for him and what he did. A tremendous amount of respect.
Statistically, Rodgers didn’t have a stellar game — 19/34 for one touchdown and two picks — but Thomas goes on to say that he managed to keep the defense off balance all afternoon with his cadence amd that he wasn’t fazed by the Seahawks’ aggressive tactics. Basically, he played well enough to win (at least through three and a half quarters), despite a debilitating injury:
He used a lot of quick-strike plays against us, and he attacked certain spots on the football field. It played to his advantage that they were playing an aggressive team like us. We were flying all around, but he was moving so slow and smooth. His focus was on point. I think that gave him an edge in the game.
He also used his cadence to disrupt our rhythm. He was double counting, triple counting and the ball wasn’t getting snapped until two seconds were left on the play clock. They did a great job of controlling the game in that aspect. When you talk about a football game, the game is always won up front. We have a great secondary, but our front allows us to have a lot of leeway, and all of us were just off rhythm early on.
No but he was a big part of why we were not up by 20 plus points with 5 minutes left. He even missed open receivers on the last drive that could have won the game.
This is precisely the 20,000 ft. view I'm talking about. Let's go to the ground level and examine the individual plays. Was it injury and good defense that caused him to miss Cobb deep over the middle, or on the slant? Or Nelson on the out route? It didn't seem that the defense was a factor on those misses - he was getting good protection, and the receivers were open. I couldn't tell you if it was the calf, but Rodgers himself had said that because the injury is not on his plant foot, his accuracy isn't affected.
I've noticed some unforced misses from him in the playoffs - things that don't happen as much during the regular season (it seems).
(It should go without saying that he's still the best in the business, but I don't think he's immune to questioning)
It's his responsibility to glance to the side, or notice a flag peripherally before just chucking it up. I'll ask in a different way...is it a sound decision as a quarterback to assume anything in the way of penalties? Have you ever seen a qb giftwrap a turnover, simply because he THOUGHT there was a defensive penalty? And you really would think well, aw shucks, he thought there should be a flag so it's not his fault. If Sam Shields thought he saw a hold on the offensive line, then let his man blow by him for a touchdown would you consider that his fault?
There is a lot of grey area in this game with the calf, play calling, and scheme. But if you can't admit that pick to Sherman was a mistake on Aaron's part, then I think you just have to own you are blinded by some agenda that I don't understand.
That throw wasn't the best one he ever threw by a long shot but could that injury account for some of his inaccuracies since the Tampa game? Rodgers thought Seattle was offsides and replays show they were but we didn't get the flag.
How the calf affects accuracy can really never be proven. I am of the opinion that the calf injury didn't cause him to throw the inside and a jumpball, instead of towards the corner where the throw needed to be. But again that can never be proven. I just think you have to overcome adversity....whether it's a gimpy leg, rain, loud conditions, physical defenses, etc. Some of you see a million excuses, I see a million opportunities to rise above and succeed. Aaron's performance looked more par for the course in the playoffs, rather than some aberration due to injuries.
And I have yet to hear one good reason why what an NFL qb thinks is or isn't a penalty, is a justifiable excuse for turning the ball over.
Rodgers likes to take a shot at a big play when he thinks he has a free play. He's done this throughout his career and has had some big plays off of it. This time it backfired. That happens sometimes. The next time in one of these situations he throws into tight coverage and hits Jordy for a 50 yard TD because he thinks he has a free play, will you say he shouldn't have thrown it because he couldn't be sure the flag would be thrown? I know I won't.
Because it has been more successful than any other play the Packers run regularly. You might as well argue that running left is a bad idea because the Packers once fumbled on the left side.
You want a Rodgers criticism? The throw was late (or should have been thrown deeper/outside) or it beats Sherman for a TD.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
Happened at least twice this past season - both times the INT was called back because of offsides. Granted, Rodgers and the Packers take many more chances on free plays (than other teams), because they seem able to draw the defense offsides much more frequently.
Last edited by mraynrand; 02-01-2015 at 11:10 AM.
"Never, never ever support a punk like mraynrand. Rather be as I am and feel real sympathy for his sickness." - Woodbuck
I meant where the turnover stood, hence giftwrapping it. Hence thinking it was a penalty, without knowing it.
If Sam is seeing holding on pass plays, then he is doing his job terribly and should put his eyes back on the WR.
By contrast, a hard count or screwing with his cadence is precisely within the purview of the QB. Its his job to draw them offside.
But holding versus offside/encroachment is precisely why you fail to persuade. 99% of pre-snap penalties get called because there is nothing else happening and there are two sets of eyes on 8-10 players lined up in a row. Even if Seattle was drawn offside by a Packer flinching, there will be a penalty and the play is either free or comes back. Holding, illegal hands to face or DPI are all judgement calls and you cannot count on the flag.
Try to think of the last time one of those free shot plays bit the Packers in the ass. He's been doing it for at least five years. Name the previous times it has burned them.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
The reason why it hasn't burned them is because he was certain in all those cases it was a penalty. As he should be, if he is chucking up jumpballs. To me it is just common sense. It's not a "FREE" play unless their is a penalty, so the qb should be damn sure the play is free before treating it as though it has no consequences. And I just have to doubt that it is commonplace for a qb to have the greenlight to assume defensive penalties, otherwise we would see this exact scenario happen much more often. Have you seen Aaron or any other qb throw a jumpball free play style, only to have and INT or incompletion stand? If it has it is super rare, and I would bet the qb would admit he was at fault for assuming a penalty and wasting a play or throwing a pick.
The refs have shown just about any call, no more how obvious it may seem, is a judgement call. So I will remain adamant that a qb ASSUMING a play is free, and treating it as such, is not not sound decision making.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote