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

[mraynrand]

If writers at espn and sporting news aren't enough, cowherd,dilfer, stephen a, bayless, locally bob mcginn....just off the top of my head. I don't have specific quotes at the moment but i recall it being mentioned. I gave you the math. Google. It is a known concept, not a figment of my imagination. Are you arguing that by NFL standards he has been good in those spots? He hasn't. I kinda feel sorry for some of you guys. It really is denial at this point. He is not the only factor, the quarterback is a huge factor whenever a team fails or succeeds.

Nice straw men. You keep 'winning' these against people and arguments that are pure figments of your imagination. most of the analysis here of Rodgers has been sober and even-handed, looking for the truth - except it seems on your side. Plus, a lot of this has been discus here. I suggest you follow those leads PBmax suggested. How many late leads or ties engineered by a late Rodgers drive were given up by defense or special teams? (Hint, there was one in the last game).

Next, and again: Who are your analysts? If it's some ESPN article, who wrote it? Where's the link? Who of any note was cited, or was it just an ESPN Bob McGinn who wrote it? Did the same guy who wrote it vote for Rodgers for MVP?

[Pugger]

Nice straw men. You keep 'winning' these against people and arguments that are pure figments of your imagination. most of the analysis here of Rodgers has been sober and even-handed, looking for the truth - except it seems on your side. Plus, a lot of this has been discus here. I suggest you follow those leads PBmax suggested. How many late leads or ties engineered by a late Rodgers drive were given up by defense or special teams? (Hint, there was one in the last game).

Next, and again: Who are your analysts? If it's some ESPN article, who wrote it? Where's the link? Who of any note was cited, or was it just an ESPN Bob McGinn who wrote it? Did the same guy who wrote it vote for Rodgers for MVP?

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?

[th87]

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?

This is why I hate using numbers to analyze these things. So imperfect.

However, while it was a good effort to get to FG range, I hated the lack of urgency once we got there. Rodgers seemed to get "safe".

[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.

[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.

[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.

[yetisnowman]

Nice straw men. You keep 'winning' these against people and arguments that are pure figments of your imagination. most of the analysis here of Rodgers has been sober and even-handed, looking for the truth - except it seems on your side. Plus, a lot of this has been discus here. I suggest you follow those leads PBmax suggested. How many late leads or ties engineered by a late Rodgers drive were given up by defense or special teams? (Hint, there was one in the last game).

Next, and again: Who are your analysts? If it's some ESPN article, who wrote it? Where's the link? Who of any note was cited, or was it just an ESPN Bob McGinn who wrote it? Did the same guy who wrote it vote for Rodgers for MVP?

I can't link anything with my phone at the moment plus i am not savvy tech wise. I will get back to you. I am not sure why i have to walk you through it. Can't you google stats and articles? My perception is that Aaron isn't very good late in close games and the numbers bear that out. Please don't trot out the NFCCG as an example of anything. The ineptitude of the offense was the only reason that game was even in question. I really don't think that scenario has happened much at all. We are trailing late in the 4th aaron takes the lead then we lose it again? The dude has to play better. More clutch for sure. And clutchness only doesn't exist to people validating someone has limited amounts of it

[th87]

I can't link anything with my phone at the moment plus i am not savvy tech wise. I will get back to you. I am not sure why i have to walk you through it. Can't you google stats and articles? My perception is that Aaron isn't very good late in close games and the numbers bear that out. Please don't trot out the NFCCG as an example of anything. The ineptitude of the offense was the only reason that game was even in question. I really don't think that scenario has happened much at all. We are trailing late in the 4th aaron takes the lead then we lose it again? The dude has to play better. More clutch for sure. And clutchness only doesn't exist to people validating someone has limited amounts of it

I hear the general gist of your argument, but you're somewhat off on this one. Rodgers has had some terrible luck in this regard.

Close losses in 2008:

TB: Packers down 23-21. Rodgers (with dislocated shoulder) throws interception with 2:19 remaining. TB scores TD on the subsequent play to put the game out of reach.
ATL: Packers down 20-17. Rodgers throws interception with 4:43 remaining. ATL scores TD to put the game out of reach.
TEN: Packers tie Titans 16-16 on FG with 5:35 remaining. Subsequent Titans and Packers drives stall, followed by the Titans missing the game winner. Titans get the ball in OT and win.
MIN: Packers down 28-27 with 2:30 remaining. Packers drive down to FG range and miss 52 yard FG.
CAR: Packers take 31-28 lead on a FG with 2:00 remaining. Panthers score TD 2 plays later. Rodgers throws interception with 1:19 remaining.
HOU: Packers tie game at 21-21 on a Rodgers TD pass. Subsequent Texans and Packers drives stall, and on the next drive, Texans kick game-winning FG.
JAX: Packers down 14-13, and drive to kick a FG with 5:40 remaining. Jaguars score TD on subsequent drive. Rodgers throws interception with 0:46 remaining
CHI: Bears tie game 17-17 with 3:16 remaining. Packers drive to Bears 20 on subsequent drive, and game winner is blocked with 0:25 remaining. Bears get the ball in OT and win.

[yetisnowman]

I hear the general gist of your argument, but you're somewhat off on this one. Rodgers has had some terrible luck in this regard.

Close losses in 2008:

TB: Packers down 23-21. Rodgers (with dislocated shoulder) throws interception with 2:19 remaining. TB scores TD on the subsequent play to put the game out of reach.
ATL: Packers down 20-17. Rodgers throws interception with 4:43 remaining. ATL scores TD to put the game out of reach.
TEN: Packers tie Titans 16-16 on FG with 5:35 remaining. Subsequent Titans and Packers drives stall, followed by the Titans missing the game winner. Titans get the ball in OT and win.
MIN: Packers down 28-27 with 2:30 remaining. Packers drive down to FG range and miss 52 yard FG.
CAR: Packers take 31-28 lead on a FG with 2:00 remaining. Panthers score TD 2 plays later. Rodgers throws interception with 1:19 remaining.
HOU: Packers tie game at 21-21 on a Rodgers TD pass. Subsequent Texans and Packers drives stall, and on the next drive, Texans kick game-winning FG.
JAX: Packers down 14-13, and drive to kick a FG with 5:40 remaining. Jaguars score TD on subsequent drive. Rodgers throws interception with 0:46 remaining
CHI: Bears tie game 17-17 with 3:16 remaining. Packers drive to Bears 20 on subsequent drive, and game winner is blocked with 0:25 remaining. Bears get the ball in OT and win.

I don't see much bad luck in those losses, minus the bears loss with chip shot being blocked. The others displayed all involve Aaron having an opportunity to lead us to a win or at least putting us in a better situation to win, and failing to do so. The mentality that stalling drives and throwing interceptions is one of bad luck, I don't understand.