i just said I cherished the superbowl runs. He had 2 great games, the ones you mentioned. I was just pointing out the 13 game winning in 2011 doesn't mean much to me, because the team wet the bed in the first playoff game. The implication seems to be, that because we had a great run where we beat the crap out of a lot of people, the close losses when taking in the entirety of A-rod's career don't matter that much. I couldn't disagree more.Originally Posted by ThunderDan
I fully recognize that he isn't good, or even average by the 4QC measure. But the 4QC is not a measure solely within the control of the QB. Its very problematic to judge. So much depends on your coach, the defense and the special teams. The best that can be done within it is to find instances where the QB leads his team to a comeback 4QLead, and then determine if the rest of the team is able to hold onto it.
However, you seem to prefer to look at the last offensive possession to isolate the QB from the D and ST. Problem is, outside of going game by game like we have for 2008, we don't have that data for other QBs. Perfect example is Brady in the SB. He took a lead, but his defense had to make it stand up with a last second near-miracle.
So when, in your breakdown of his 2008 close games, there is a consistent failure to recognize where he had driven the team to a late lead. You recognize only one FG that was blocked as bad luck, the rest were not enough because they weren't determinative. So the 4QC info is telling us something about the Packers, but it may not be telling us something about Rodgers. You have data that is inextricably linked to the coach, the D and the ST and does not isolate the QB at all.
There are two areas that have been further pursued; one was 538 breaking down late INTs, as an estimate of risk taking late. The other was either Chase Stuart or Scott Kacsmar doing a breakdown of defensive breakdowns after its team (and its QB) had retaken the lead. Guess what? Rodgers was among the leaders in his defense giving up a lead. Both these sets of data are in threads on this site.
The conclusion I draw from this is that its a terrible stat to judge QBs on as is. It is by no means clear it can capture a finite quality or capability of a QB, and by no means is it good at distinguishing good QB play from excellent QB play.
Last edited by pbmax; 02-04-2015 at 12:59 PM.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
If we were discussing archery, then we could attribute the failure of fourth quarter comebacks solely to the archer.
"Never, never ever support a punk like mraynrand. Rather be as I am and feel real sympathy for his sickness." - Woodbuck
Lindsey Vonn took 3rd yesterday in the World Cup Super G because of a gust of wind.
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro ~Hunter S.
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.
"Never, never ever support a punk like mraynrand. Rather be as I am and feel real sympathy for his sickness." - Woodbuck
I chose archery as there is no effect from weather - because I knew one of you smart asses would post something like this.
"Never, never ever support a punk like mraynrand. Rather be as I am and feel real sympathy for his sickness." - Woodbuck
We aim to please.I chose archery as there is no effect from weather - because I knew one of you smart asses would post something like this.
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro ~Hunter S.
No stat is perfect. I don't mean to diminish the role that coaching, defense, special teams play in all these things. But how a quarterback executes the offense late in close games is as pertinent as anything. You say it's a terrible stat, I disagree. In the 8 examples provided I would argue that all but one involved Aaron and the offense failing to put his team in a good position to win when the game was up for grabs. Or at the very least all but one, offered an example of a qb that could have done more to contribute to a victory when he had the opportunity.
No the implication is it is pretty hard to lead your team back from being behind when you win and lead in each and every game going into the 4th quarter.
So for a stretch of 19 games there was no way that ARod could win one of your special "I brought the team back in the 4th quarter points". It couldn't be done.
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
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.
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.
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 see, so it isn't about principle, it's about wins.
"Never, never ever support a punk like mraynrand. Rather be as I am and feel real sympathy for his sickness." - Woodbuck
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
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.
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?
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
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote