The bulk of his picks were late in games we were trailing....which is kind of what you would expect from your QB. If he was targeting Watson more that could be construed in several ways.Originally Posted by George Cumby
The bulk of his picks were late in games we were trailing....which is kind of what you would expect from your QB. If he was targeting Watson more that could be construed in several ways.
I don't hold Grudges. It's counterproductive.
Yeah, when there's 5 seconds on the clock and you need a TD, THAT's the time to take a risk. Just about any other time, hell no. It seems like Love absorbed that from Rodgers, and I'm damn glad he did. It's gonna get us a LOT of winning football for a long time.
McCarthy being constantly negative, don't do that? LaFleur being even handed - do that, don't do that? I don't know, Maybe, but I think you're reading a lot into it that there just isn't evidence of.
I don't think either Rodgers or Love did a lot of just eating the ball when nobody was open. Both used their legs to either buy time or find somebody open a lot more with safe throwaways as needed. In addition to very very few interceptions in general, both had very very very few interceptions by taking risks. And if that continues another 10 or 15 years, we'll have a whole lot of winning football.
What could be more GOOD and NORMAL and AMERICAN than Packer Football?
There was a lot of evidence at the time of McCarthy watching the game on the sideline with Rodgerv and discussing plays with them as they happened, coaching Rodgers, and teaching him with Favre's examples. It was never any secret; McCarthy and Rodgers both spoke of it openly.
Before the first game of McCarthy's first season here, he was out in front of the press openly stating that Favre needed to rein in the interceptions; that McCarthy wouldn't accept those mistakes from a veteran quarterback - and for the next 2 years, McCarthy made no secret of how pissed he was when Favre was picked.
During those first couple of years, when reporters asked McCarthy what he was telling Rodgers on the sidelines, he plainly said he was teaching him what to do and not to do from watching Favre, and of course that included the interceptions. Jennings said a couple of times it was clear to the team that Rodgers was taking that lesson seriously, and Rodgers said in interviews afterwards that one of the most important lessons he lerned in those early years was how much an interception just sucked the air out of the whole team - how excited everyone would be on the sidelines watching the drive, and all of a sudden, whomp. D back on the field, morale just shot on the whole sideline.
It's not "negativity", it's coaching. McCarth was never a really great coach, but he was good enough to not waste those opportunities to raise Aaron up right.
This Be the Verse
by Phillip Larkin
They fuck you up, your mum and dad.
They may not mean to, but they do.
Famous opening lines of a famous poem.
"The Devine era is actually worse than you remember if you go back and look at it."
KYPack
I believe there's a sweet spot between reducing interceptions and being too conservative. It's not as easy as just concluding less interceptions is always good no matter what you give up to get there.
Interceptions give the ball to the other team no different than a punt, but with different average field position. Killing several drives isn't worth saving one interception. I don't know exactly how many killed drives the stats say are worth one interception, but I suspect it's less than many think.
Clifford didn't throw a pick all season!!
I don't hold Grudges. It's counterproductive.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote