JS ARTICLE "WITH SB IN SIGHT< RODGERS DOES NOT DELIVER

[Patler]

You can forget everything earlier and focus on just the final drive. A legend would be cemented by Rodgers driving the team to a final TD, and the win. He started out fantastically, but couldn't seal the deal when the drive fizzled out with two incomplete passes and a throw short of the first down. You can question (second-guess) his decision on each of the final three plays:

- On first down, knowing the critical nature of the situation, and with positive yardage in front of him, gimpy or not, should he have just kept the ball, picked up whatever yardage he could, and not risk the incomplete pass?

- On second down, some say he had lots of running room again, and/or he had Adams wide open on the opposite side. Did he pick the worst of three options?

- On third down, no one else to throw to already in 1st down territory?

We've all seen athletes come through in the most dire of situations, sometimes throwing caution to the wind regarding their own injuries, and doing everything they can to win the game. We've seen athletes make astounding plays, finding opportunities most would not. We've seen athletes take huge gambles to win the game. For whatever reason, Rodgers did none of those in his final three plays. Was he too cautious? Should he have been more daring with his own well-being and with the plays he went to?

I don't know the answers to any of those questions, but there is no disputing that an opportunity to win was there, and Rodgers delivered only the tie, which proved to be inadequate.

[pbmax]

I don't know the answers to any of those questions, but there is no disputing that an opportunity to win was there, and Rodgers delivered only the tie, which proved to be inadequate.

Which would be about the same conclusion you would draw about the last offensive drive in ANY close game a team loses. Which makes it virtually useless as analysis.

I think, rather than blame the QB for not being the hero in a situation where the leverage is against him (the one thing the Seattle D couldn't do was allow a TD, it was happy with a FG attempt), is why the coach puts his offense in that situation way too often and usually too early.

Players do need to make plays, but far too often the offense and defense have to reverse course in order to prevent what was unlikely just a few drives before.

[Patler]

Which would be about the same conclusion you would draw about the last offensive drive in ANY close game a team loses. Which makes it virtually useless as analysis.

No, it is not useless as analysis. In fact, it is very cut a dried, especially if you subscribe to the theory that QBs make the league, team and coach. They are paid for just those situations.

I think, rather than blame the QB for not being the hero in a situation where the leverage is against him (the one thing the Seattle D couldn't do was allow a TD, it was happy with a FG attempt), is why the coach puts his offense in that situation way too often and usually too early.

Players do need to make plays, but far too often the offense and defense have to reverse course in order to prevent what was unlikely just a few drives before.

No one is BLAMING Rodgers for not coming through; just remarking that as the key player in the most critical situation, he did not deliver. He had the ball in his hand for three consecutive plays and could not gain 10 yards when it was needed the most. I could pass it off like you have, and maybe I should; but for discussion purposes it can not be ignored that he may have made poor decisions in at least two, and maybe all three of the plays.


How about Russell Wilson the two series before, he came through twice when the Packer D could do almost anything but allow TDs. Two separate drives, and they didn't even slow him down.

In many ways, you can ignore everything before that. It all came down to a final drive. some might say he made three successive bad plays, which sealed their fate. In three successive drives in the same situation (perhaps even more dire) Wilson came through again, and again and again.

It's not blame, it's fact. It may not be entirely his fault, but that does not change the fact.

[woodbuck27]

Which would be about the same conclusion you would draw about the last offensive drive in ANY close game a team loses. Which makes it virtually useless as analysis.

I think, rather than blame the QB for not being the hero in a situation where the leverage is against him (the one thing the Seattle D couldn't do was allow a TD, it was happy with a FG attempt), is why the coach puts his offense in that situation way too often and usually too early.

Players do need to make plays, but far too often the offense and defense have to reverse course in order to prevent what was unlikely just a few drives before.

What are you saying pbmax!? The 'Packer Pucker' really harmed Packer Nation. There's no accounting for all the (hopefully temporary damage) it's done to even the best Packer forum posters.

I don't mean insult pbmax but that post reminds me so much of this fella. How he might view your post? :



Foghorn Leghorn Rant!

[pbmax]

What are you saying pbmax!? The 'Packer Pucker' really harmed Packer Nation. There's no accounting for all the (hopefully temporary damage) it's done to even the best Packer forum posters.

I don't mean insult pbmax but that post reminds me so much of this fella. How he might view your post? :

[viddeo]

I have no idea how Foghorn Leghorn views the 4 minute offense, but I have long thought that taking the air completely out of the ball is not an ideal strategy. And that in some games, M3 goes too early to this approach. Even in this game, up by more than one score with under 5 minutes left, the clock isn't everything, even if its the most important thing. Possession still counts.

There is a reason McCarthy quoted those run numbers (hopefully he doesn't view it as suggestions). When you have the lead, the offense tends to run more to bleed clock. There can be value to drain TOs and clock even if you gain no yardage, but it does surrender possession and field position, which are costs to the team with the lead.

[woodbuck27]

I have no idea how Foghorn Leghorn views the 4 minute offense, but I have long thought that taking the air completely out of the ball is not an ideal strategy. And that in some games, M3 goes too early to this approach. Even in this game, up by more than one score with under 5 minutes left, the clock isn't everything, even if its the most important thing. Possession still counts.

There is a reason McCarthy quoted those run numbers (hopefully he doesn't view it as suggestions). When you have the lead, the offense tends to run more to bleed clock. There can be value to drain TOs and clock even if you gain no yardage, but it does surrender possession and field position, which are costs to the team with the lead.

It sure looks to me that with 7:07 remaining in the 4th quarter a decision was made to remove Clay Matthews from the game. For something around 20 minutes 'real time' Clay was on the sidelines and for part of that wearing his Winter toque (2:57 remaining in the 4th Qtr.) that does come off as he's looking mighty concerned with (2:01) remaining in the 4th Qtr.

1-10-GB 35 (2:01) 24-M.Lynch right end to GB 32 for 3 yards (42-M.Burnett).

Two plays later Marshawn Lynch is in the end zone for six...and that followed by:

TWO-POINT CONVERSION ATTEMPT. 3-R.Wilson pass to 82-L.Willson is complete. ATTEMPT SUCCEEDS.

The SCORE Seattle 22 - Green Bay 19.

[mraynrand]

It sure looks to me that with 7:07 remaining in the 4th quarter a decision was made to remove Clay Matthews from the game. For something around 20 minutes 'real time' Clay was on the sidelines and for part of that wearing his Winter toque (2:57 remaining in the 4th Qtr.) that does come off as he's looking mighty concerned with (2:01) remaining in the 4th Qtr.

1-10-GB 35 (2:01) 24-M.Lynch right end to GB 32 for 3 yards (42-M.Burnett).

Two plays later Marshawn Lynch is in the end zone for six...and that followed by:

TWO-POINT CONVERSION ATTEMPT. 3-R.Wilson pass to 82-L.Willson is complete. ATTEMPT SUCCEEDS.

The SCORE Seattle 22 - Green Bay 19.

Where was Rodgers when all this failure was happening? Why didn't he stop it?

[woodbuck27]

You can forget everything earlier and focus on just the final drive. A legend would be cemented by Rodgers driving the team to a final TD, and the win. He started out fantastically, but couldn't seal the deal when the drive fizzled out with two incomplete passes and a throw short of the first down. You can question (second-guess) his decision on each of the final three plays:

- On first down, knowing the critical nature of the situation, and with positive yardage in front of him, gimpy or not, should he have just kept the ball, picked up whatever yardage he could, and not risk the incomplete pass?

- On second down, some say he had lots of running room again, and/or he had Adams wide open on the opposite side. Did he pick the worst of three options?

- On third down, no one else to throw to already in 1st down territory?

We've all seen athletes come through in the most dire of situations, sometimes throwing caution to the wind regarding their own injuries, and doing everything they can to win the game. We've seen athletes make astounding plays, finding opportunities most would not. We've seen athletes take huge gambles to win the game. For whatever reason, Rodgers did none of those in his final three plays. Was he too cautious? Should he have been more daring with his own well-being and with the plays he went to?

I don't know the answers to any of those questions, but there is no disputing that an opportunity to win was there, and Rodgers delivered only the tie, which proved to be inadequate.

Before that last drive Vs Seattle:

Aaron Rodgers had 12 game winning drives in 37 opportunities. That's a 32.34 % success rate.

[pbmax]

Unless the NFL decides to play OT rules for all game starting in the 1st quarter, then one drive is useless to determine whether a QB comes up short.

Parse it for signs of good (or bad) decision making? Sure.

But that is not the point of the article, OP or the previous commentary. Rodgers not delivering a Super Bowl berth covers the entire game and parses each failure along the way. Not to mention that in hindsight the FG was not enough. But it certainly seemed like a good idea at the time. A turnover was death at that point.

[Patler]

Unless the NFL decides to play OT rules for all game starting in the 1st quarter, then one drive is useless to determine whether a QB comes up short.

Parse it for signs of good (or bad) decision making? Sure.

But that is not the point of the article, OP or the previous commentary. Rodgers not delivering a Super Bowl berth covers the entire game and parses each failure along the way. Not to mention that in hindsight the FG was not enough. But it certainly seemed like a good idea at the time. A turnover was death at that point.

A turnover then or anytime thereafter was pretty much it, as was a turnover during any of the three previous plays. You can't play the game expecting to turn it over if you play anyway but the most cautiously.

[pbmax]

A turnover then or anytime thereafter was pretty much it, as was a turnover during any of the three previous plays. You can't play the game expecting to turn it over if you play anyway but the most cautiously.

Once you are in FG territory, a TO is a game reversal, game ending error.

Prior to being in FG territory, its game ending only.

[Patler]

Once you are in FG territory, a TO is a game reversal, game ending error.

Prior to being in FG territory, its game ending only.

A difference without a distinction. Either way you lose. Besides, having 1st and 10 at the 36 likely was not yet in FG territory. That would have been a 54 yard attempt, perhaps not reachable in the rain and swirling winds at Seattle.

[pbmax]

A difference without a distinction. Either way you lose. Besides, having 1st and 10 at the 36 likely was not yet in FG territory. That would have been a 54 yard attempt, perhaps not reachable in the rain and swirling winds at Seattle.

Not at all. Virtually any risk is worth taking to get in FG range. To fail to get there is a loss. A turnover is loss. The only differential is making enough yardage to get a FG.

Once there, then incomplete or failed runs may ruin your chance to win, but only a turnover prevents you from an attempt to tie and play on. I don't know what Crosby's range was that day, but at the 36 its better odds than in the other half of the field.

[Patler]

Not at all. Virtually any risk is worth taking to get in FG range. To fail to get there is a loss. A turnover is loss. The only differential is making enough yardage to get a FG.

Once there, then incomplete or failed runs may ruin your chance to win, but only a turnover prevents you from an attempt to tie and play on. I don't know what Crosby's range was that day, but at the 36 its better odds than in the other half of the field.

So, play to tie in bad whether in perhaps the most difficult environment in the league, just because you are at the 36 rather than the 40 or 42? Sorry, I don't buy that at all. Especially on the road, play to win and settle for the tie if you must.

[pbmax]

Unless the NFL decides to play OT rules for all game starting in the 1st quarter, then one drive is useless to determine whether a QB comes up short.

Parse it for signs of good (or bad) decision making? Sure.

But that is not the point of the article, OP or the previous commentary. Rodgers not delivering a Super Bowl berth covers the entire game and parses each failure along the way. Not to mention that in hindsight the FG was not enough. But it certainly seemed like a good idea at the time. A turnover was death at that point.

Not to mention that I think the article starts its own clock ticking after the Super Bowl win.

If only Rodgers was a better winner when the game was close, between 4 and 7 points.

Oh, and we will just gloss over the "solid" qualification for his play in the Chicago NFC Championship Game when he was terrible after the undiagnosed concussion Peppers gave him.