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

[ThunderDan]

So in conclusion, the Rodgers-led Packers are 10-25 in close (one score) games in which they were behind in the 4th quarter.

Of the 25 losses, 7 are truly and completely the defense's fault.
Therefore, of the 25 losses, the Packers had a reasonable chance to win in 18 of them.

So I'd say that Rodgers' adjusted record in close games is 10-18. This is definitely something I'd like to see him improve.

So we know that Rodgers is 76-38 as a starter. So in non-close games we are 66-20. That should really point to how good our offense has been over the last 7 years with ARod at the helm.

I already see where your stats are wrong. ARod did lead GB back to a tie in the SEA game so he was 3 of 4 this year. So that makes him 11-17? Who knows? How do you grade that one out? Ugh, I don't want to think about that game any more.

[th87]

So we know that Rodgers is 76-38 as a starter. So in non-close games we are 66-20. That should really point to how good our offense has been over the last 7 years with ARod at the helm.

I already see where your stats are wrong. ARod did lead GB back to a tie in the SEA game so he was 3 of 4 this year. So that makes him 11-17? Who knows? How do you grade that one out? Ugh, I don't want to think about that game any more.

That would fall under category 5:

5. Of losses, times lead or tie achieved, but defense gave up lead/tie with no chance to come back:

Losses like this were removed to arrive at the adjustment.

Not wrong.

[th87]

So we know that Rodgers is 76-38 as a starter. So in non-close games we are 66-20. That should really point to how good our offense has been over the last 7 years with ARod at the helm.

This is true, but we are not discussing this.

[ThunderDan]

This is true, but we are not discussing this.

So many reasons why that game was f'cked up on so many levels.
But not many seem to be focusing on Aaron Rodgers
Does he get a free pass due to the calf ?

If you want to be that way about it, I think this is what this thread is really about.

I think thread drift is allowed.

[Smidgeon]

If you want to be that way about it, I think this is what this thread is really about.

I think thread drift is allowed.

I've never heard that expression before, but I like it.

[George Cumby]

I've never heard that expression before, but I like it.

That's because threads don't drift here, they veer madly off course.

[ThunderDan]

So we know that Rodgers is 76-38 as a starter. So in non-close games we are 66-20. That should really point to how good our offense has been over the last 7 years with ARod at the helm.

I already see where your stats are wrong. ARod did lead GB back to a tie in the SEA game so he was 3 of 4 this year. So that makes him 11-17? Who knows? How do you grade that one out? Ugh, I don't want to think about that game any more.

Then I am wrong here.

ARod is in fact 66-13 in non-close games. So as a starter ARod has won 57.9% of his start by a large margin. I wonder how that compares to other starting QBs with at least 80 starts.

It also points out that in 114 starts GB has only lost a non-close game 13 times or 11.4%. I wonder how that stacks up against other QBs.

[th87]

Then I am wrong here.

ARod is in fact 66-13 in non-close games. So as a starter ARod has won 57.9% of his start by a large margin. I wonder how that compares to other starting QBs with at least 80 starts.

It also points out that in 114 starts GB has only lost a non-close game 13 times or 11.4%. I wonder how that stacks up against other QBs.

My analysis only counts games in which we were tied or behind by one possession in the 4th quarter. It doesn't count games in which we were ahead the whole game and ended up winning narrowly.

In going back, I also noticed a distressing amount of games in which we jumped out to a 2+ possession lead, and ended up winning by only one possession.

[Smidgeon]

My analysis only counts games in which we were tied or behind by one possession in the 4th quarter. It doesn't count games in which we were ahead the whole game and ended up winning narrowly.

In going back, I also noticed a distressing amount of games in which we jumped out to a 2+ possession lead, and ended up winning by only one possession.

To me, that's less a sign of distress and more a sign of managing the clock to guarantee a victory. I'd be more concerned about (if) the games where they had a two possession lead and lost. **cough**

[th87]

To me, that's less a sign of distress and more a sign of managing the clock to guarantee a victory. I'd be more concerned about (if) the games where they had a two possession lead and lost. **cough**

I just don't like that approach. Dance with the girl who brought you there. There have been too many situations where we've had to rely on a final stop to seal the victory. Finally bit us in the ass.

[woodbuck27]

My analysis only counts games in which we were tied or behind by one possession in the 4th quarter. It doesn't count games in which we were ahead the whole game and ended up winning narrowly.

In going back, I also noticed a distressing amount of games in which we jumped out to a 2+ possession lead, and ended up winning by only one possession.

I'm imagining:

" I'll take responsibility for that. I like to keep it fun." Mike McCarthy (satire)