Rodgers Gambling Problem

[pbmax]

Of the few criticisms of his game, does Rodgers not gamble enough when down late?

2014 NFL Preview: Great Players And Gambling Problems In The NFC North (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/2014-nfl-preview-great-players-and-gambling-problems-in-the-nfc-north/)


Interceptions are often (even largely) a product of completely rational risk-taking by desperate quarterbacks. A logical implication of this is that if a quarterback is too conservative, he can throw too few interceptions, which can be just as bad as throwing too many.

Despite his various successes, it’s possible Rodgers fits this description of an overly conservative quarterback. For example, with his team down by two or more scores (9+ points) he has thrown only three interceptions out of 354 passes attempted (0.8 percent) in his career. This is typically when quarterbacks throw the most INTs, because they’re trying to get their teams back into the game, and high-risk strategies often give them the best chance to win. Overall, quarterbacks throw interceptions about 3.5 percent of the time on average in those situations, with even most great quarterbacks breaking 3.0 percent. Peyton Manning, for example, has averaged 3.1 percent, Drew Brees has averaged 3.3 percent, and even Tom Brady has thrown 2.3 percent (slightly above his career average).

Throwing too few interceptions in the first paragraph should be qualified. There is probably no doubt throwing fewer interceptions on even an average team is beneficial. But there are always specific game situations where the risk is worth it.

[channtheman]

I would like to know how often Rodgers wins or loses games when his team is down by 9 or more points compared to those other QB's before passing too much judgment.

[Zool]

I prefer to not watch a guy blow 3 games and win 2 by making bad decisions that sometimes work out.

[pbmax]

5-24 (.172) in games when Rodgers had the ball in the fourth quarter, trailing by 1-8 points

That is the only number I have, other than JSO's favorite W-L record un games closer than 4 points. :roll:

[pbmax]

I prefer to not watch a guy blow 3 games and win 2 by making bad decisions that sometimes work out.

I agree the writer fails to make the distinction. But I think there is something to the too conservative when losing late theory. I think the numbers he gives for P Manning, Brady and Brees bear that out.

Mr. Blonde (of all people) made this very salient point during a loss while I was trying to figure out what went wrong on the last play the Packers would get on offense (4th down and long while losing and not enough time or TOs to get ball back).

In that situation, you HAVE to throw the ball. A sack is just dumb, it gives you no chance. Run from the pocket, throw a shovel pass, do something but the sack is just giving up that late.

[Zool]

I agree the writer fails to make the distinction. But I think there is something to the too conservative when losing late theory. I think the numbers he gives for P Manning, Brady and Brees bear that out.

Mr. Blonde (of all people) made this very salient point during a loss while I was trying to figure out what went wrong on the last play the Packers would get on offense (4th down and long while losing and not enough time or TOs to get ball back).

In that situation, you HAVE to throw the ball. A sack is just dumb, it gives you no chance. Run from the pocket, throw a shovel pass, do something but the sack is just giving up that late.

Give me the comparative numbers for each QB on the drives that end in points in the 4th quarter when trailing. Wins and losses depend too much on defense and special teams to be a good measure. If he's conservative and way behind in points per drive in that situation, then they'll have something.

[ThunderDan]

I would like to know how often Rodgers wins or loses games when his team is down by 9 or more points compared to those other QB's before passing too much judgment.

I think the sample size for ARod is extremely small. I know the year of the Super Bowl win we were never trailing by more than 7 points the whole year. A high power offense that puts up a lot of points is rarely down by 9 or more.

[Patler]

Rodgers has had a lot of games, especially his first year as a starter, when he did bring the team back in the 4th quarter to take the lead or tie, only to have the defense or ST's give it right back in short order. I summarized them a few years ago. There was at least one game during which he brought them back twice in the fourth quarter, only to come away with an "L" for his efforts. He's had a couple in which Crosby has missed FGs. after he drive them into scoring position.

With the defense he has played with most years, especially the last 3 years, an interception at the end is almost assured to be points the other way before he would see the ball again.

Granted, on 4th down he should throw the ball, even if intercepted, rather than take a sack. I dislike that as much as I used to hate #4 throwing a dumb pass on 1st or 2nd down on final drives. High risk on 1st down is particularly stupid, just as is no risk on 4th down.

[smuggler]

I can think of a few games where Rodgers got us into FG range and Crosby missed the kick... thpse count against him evem though he succeeded in his job - give the team a chance to wim/tie with a FG

[Joemailman]

Rodgers isn't 5-24 bad. But he hasn't been really good when behind late in games either. I've felt for some time he'd be more successful if he would utilize his backs more in the passing game. When teams are playing prevent, a back can find some pretty good running room after catching a short pass. Now Lacy did catch 35 passes last year, which was the most by a Packer back in a while, so maybe things are starting to change.

[George Cumby]

"he can throw too few interceptions, which can be just as bad as throwing too many."

Not buying this. Had he qualified this better, I might go for it. But I still suffer from watching Favre chuck the thing around like a maniac.

[pbmax]

"he can throw too few interceptions, which can be just as bad as throwing too many."

Not buying this. Had he qualified this better, I might go for it. But I still suffer from watching Favre chuck the thing around like a maniac.

It mostly has to do with timing (in the game) and the score.

[pbmax]

Somewhere, Scott Kacsmar or Chase Stuart broke down the number of times his defense lost the lead again. If I find it I will post it.

[George Cumby]

It mostly has to do with timing (in the game) and the score.

Copy. Taking a sack late is no better than throwing a deep pick. Makes sense.

[pbmax]

From the Insider Article in question (which is the most recent compendium I know of:


“Of course, some of the 26 losses speak well for him. He has put Green Bay ahead seven times in the fourth quarter when trailing, only for the team to go on to lose the game. The defense is certainly deserving of blame for this.”

9-07-2011: http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/content/aaron-rodgers-front-runner-extraordinaire/8607/

7-17-2012: http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/content/the-truth-about-the-front-running-green-bay-packers/15352/

9-28-2013: https://captaincomeback.wordpress.com/2013/09/28/nfl-week-4-predictions-i-dont-care-if-aaron-rodgers-is-clutch/

[pbmax]

His commentary on critiques of the work is in the comments of this FO post.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/fo-espn-feature-columns/2013/aaron-rodgers-hidden-weakness#comment-938803

[pbmax]

https://captaincomeback.wordpress.com/2013/09/28/nfl-week-4-predictions-i-dont-care-if-aaron-rodgers-is-clutch/


Final-score analysis is heavily flawed to study the closeness of games. Because it takes too long to do this, most close-game studies have always been about the final score. Those can be very misleading. The Colts/49ers from last Sunday played a game that was a tie or one-score difference for 93% of the game before the Colts pulled away 27-7. A final-score study would reject that as a close game, but it would accept trash like MNF Eagles/Redskins from Week 1 when Washington made it 33-27 late and failed to recover the onside kick. That game was not close and the only drive involving a one-score game in the 4Q that night was Michael Vick taking two knees. Forget about the final score.

Rodgers is 20-22 (.476) in games decided by one score, and I hope it’s assumed when I say Rodgers I mean “the Packers with Rodgers at QB”. Because the record with Matt Flynn or Brett Favre (under McCarthy) would be different.

Anyways, 20-22 is a hell of a difference from 9-26 (.257) at GWDs, so you can see it’s two completely different studies. That’s the one thing I would like to change in how I’ve been writing about this. It’s not so much a close-game issue for Green Bay as it is a failure to win games when they have to score the winning points in the 4Q/OT. Behind Rodgers they’re 9-26 at doing that, but 49-5 in all other games. No one has been able to explain that absurd gap in winning percentage, which is the largest in NFL history.

[bobblehead]

Of the few criticisms of his game, does Rodgers not gamble enough when down late?

2014 NFL Preview: Great Players And Gambling Problems In The NFC North (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/2014-nfl-preview-great-players-and-gambling-problems-in-the-nfc-north/)



Throwing too few interceptions in the first paragraph should be qualified. There is probably no doubt throwing fewer interceptions on even an average team is beneficial. But there are always specific game situations where the risk is worth it.

So...what is the average time on the clock when said teams are down by 9+ points? I sometimes like to read the relevant statement and take it for what it says. "Rodgers throws too few interceptions" I fail to see the problem.

[bobblehead]

I agree the writer fails to make the distinction. But I think there is something to the too conservative when losing late theory.

I didn't read anything about losing LATE. Simply when trailing by 9+ points. That could be occurring most often 8 minutes into the game for all we know. NOW...I am sure that Brent generally started gambling down 1, 7 minutes in. I didn't like that.

[pbmax]

I didn't read anything about losing LATE. Simply when trailing by 9+ points. That could be occurring most often 8 minutes into the game for all we know. NOW...I am sure that Brent generally started gambling down 1, 7 minutes in. I didn't like that.

Morris at the first link makes the case for behind > 9 regardless of time. I think the difference between Rodgers and Manning, Brees and Brady is remarkable but not definitive of anything in and of itself.

I do think his work plus Kacsmar's (the later links specifically about 4th Quarter comebacks) do have some explanatory power late in games. Rodgers is clearly on another level when it comes to caution. While I thought his numbers were skewed by poor defense (something that would need to be adjusted for all the QBs in the comparison), observation does tell me Rodgers does not take enough risks late in games when behind.

[Pugger]

I don't care about all these stats and facts. All I know is there is no other QB in the game today I'd want in Green Bay other than Mr. Rodgers.

[3irty1]

Gambling could mean chucking it up for grabs but choosing to try extending the play in order to buy time for receivers to beat coverage also seems like gambling.

[pbmax]

Gambling could mean chucking it up for grabs but choosing to try extending the play in order to buy time for receivers to beat coverage also seems like gambling.

I agree. However, there are still situations where a sack is nonsensical.

[3irty1]

I agree. However, there are still situations where a sack is nonsensical.

Sure like a crumple on the ground without getting touched sack. But if you're trying to avoid the sack that's the gamble.

[MadtownPacker]

Shit if anything Rodgers is a greedy MFer and wants a TD in one play. That sack issues from his early days would drive me crazy but now that I think about it he was probably gambling that he could get the big pass off.

[pbmax]

Sure like a crumple on the ground without getting touched sack. But if you're trying to avoid the sack that's the gamble.

Sure. However a lot depends on what kind of scrambler you are, do you slide left and right or bail backwards? Rodgers used to dance his way into trouble while waiting for someone to break free. He hasn't really done that since 2008 and maybe early 2009. He generally gets himself in good positions on moves so I don't have much of a beef with that choice.

However, holding the ball until sack time on 4th down is just a waste.

[pbmax]

Shit if anything Rodgers is a greedy MFer and wants a TD in one play. That sack issues from his early days would drive me crazy but now that I think about it he was probably gambling that he could get the big pass off.

But we really haven't changed the critique. The article sees few interceptions in situations that seem to call for more risk and says he needs to gamble more by throwing earlier.

If observers or reporters say he IS gambling by waiting for something big to break, the decision is still a poor one when down late. Whether its wrong because he is gambling too much or too little is of more importance to McCarthy than to an observer looking to find the hole in his game. The goal in such situations is to want to engage in MORE risk to tilt the field toward you when losing late. Rodgers waiting for a big play is a feature of his game in any quarter.

The real question is whether there is a way to measure if holding in the pocket increases his chances of success in these situations. I am not sure it does but have no figures for it. Kacsmar is working on data that will show the reason for a sack (coverage, free rusher, failed scramble, etc.).

[3irty1]

Sure. However a lot depends on what kind of scrambler you are, do you slide left and right or bail backwards? Rodgers used to dance his way into trouble while waiting for someone to break free. He hasn't really done that since 2008 and maybe early 2009. He generally gets himself in good positions on moves so I don't have much of a beef with that choice.

However, holding the ball until sack time on 4th down is just a waste.

If he were to run out of bounds its a waste. If he were to throw the ball away its a waste. If he gets sacked trying to extend the play to get a higher percentage pass that's too greedy if anything. That's reasoning that he'll always be able to fire off a 50/50 ball and flying too close to the sun while trying to get something better.

I actually don't think any of these situations are what set Rodgers apart though. These situations would be memorable and I can't recall any. My guess is that he'll make a guy try for a circus catch on the sideline or rely on a WR's yards after the catch in situations where Manning, Brees, and Brady would throw a contested ball. Something like that.

[pbmax]

If he were to run out of bounds its a waste. If he were to throw the ball away its a waste. If he gets sacked trying to extend the play to get a higher percentage pass that's too greedy if anything. That's reasoning that he'll always be able to fire off a 50/50 ball and flying too close to the sun while trying to get something better.

I actually don't think any of these situations are what set Rodgers apart though. These situations would be memorable and I can't recall any. My guess is that he'll make a guy try for a circus catch on the sideline or rely on a WR's yards after the catch in situations where Manning, Brees, and Brady would throw a contested ball. Something like that.

He did throw some very tightly contested balls in the Super Bowl, esp. that one to Jennings where I still cannot believe Polamalu didn't take Greg's head off (post route into a deep Cover 2).

I think we see two repeated patterns late when he could actively make a different choice;

1. Short throw to back. I understand he might not trust Lacy and Starks hands, but sometimes someone else has to make a play.

2. Contested ball. Perhaps not as true of Nelson as it used to be (especially along sidelines) but Driver and Jones weren't bad at them.

[3irty1]

He did throw some very tightly contested balls in the Super Bowl, esp. that one to Jennings where I still cannot believe Polamalu didn't take Greg's head off (post route into a deep Cover 2).

I think we see two repeated patterns late when he could actively make a different choice;

1. Short throw to back. I understand he might not trust Lacy and Starks hands, but sometimes someone else has to make a play.

2. Contested ball. Perhaps not as true of Nelson as it used to be (especially along sidelines) but Driver and Jones weren't bad at them.

Finley was the king of being able to highpoint jump ball. I miss the big guy.

[CaliforniaCheez]

Rodgers' attempts when down by 9 points or more (for his career) is 11.97% of his throws.

As I do not expect him to be down by that much this season, that percentage should go down.

[pbmax]

Finley was the king of being able to highpoint jump ball. I miss the big guy.

Odd thing about that was that it was all prior to game 7 of 2010. Rodgers record then in late, trailing games was more miserable.

[Patler]

If he were to run out of bounds its a waste. If he were to throw the ball away its a waste. If he gets sacked trying to extend the play to get a higher percentage pass that's too greedy if anything. That's reasoning that he'll always be able to fire off a 50/50 ball and flying too close to the sun while trying to get something better.

I actually don't think any of these situations are what set Rodgers apart though. These situations would be memorable and I can't recall any. My guess is that he'll make a guy try for a circus catch on the sideline or rely on a WR's yards after the catch in situations where Manning, Brees, and Brady would throw a contested ball. Something like that.

That's a very good point. Perhaps Rodgers is taking just as many chances, but is putting the ball in better spots so that the WR has the better chance of getting it than the DB. Could be he is throwing to the same guys that the other QBs would, just does it more accurately, so with fewer interceptions.

[pbmax]

That's a very good point. Perhaps Rodgers is taking just as many chances, but is putting the ball in better spots so that the WR has the better chance of getting it than the DB. Could be he is throwing to the same guys that the other QBs would, just does it more accurately, so with fewer interceptions.

But then his lower INT rate in games where he is behind would result in better performance, not worse.

There would need to be other factors acting with even larger impacts to offset Rodgers increased performance.

The D is responsible for 7 of those losses while losing late in close games. There would need to be another large factor.

[Patler]

But then his lower INT rate in games where he is behind would result in better performance, not worse.

There would need to be other factors acting with even larger impacts to offset Rodgers increased performance.

The D is responsible for 7 of those losses while losing late in close games. There would need to be another large factor.

Better performance would occur only if the receivers are actually catching the ball. Maybe he is putting it where they have a chance, but not a good chance, and the DB has little to no chance. He could actually be attempting more difficult (riskier) passes than just throwing it up for grabs.

Defense choking, ST choking, Finley dropping a ball here and there (his infamous complaint "I don't do backshoulder" was a late game one as I recall) can account for a lot of his failures.

I guess it all depends on how you define risk. Is it risk of an interception, or risk of an incompletion?

[Fritz]

He's got to know when to hold 'em.

Know when to throw 'em.

Know when to twist away.

Know when to run.

He better take more chances

when he's sittin' in the pocket

There'll be time enough for healin'

when the game is done.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Kind of interesting. Hawkradamus

http://host.madison.com/sports/decision-rekindles-memories-favre-s-love-for-tgame-never-faded/article_28c55640-9679-5003-9501-5810a2a900a8.html


"I think if you ask anyone on our team, the confidence level in Aaron is really high. I've only been around for two years, but I've seen what he can do in practice, how he prepares, everything he does. The Dallas game was a big test, and he stepped in to what at that time was the biggest game of the year and had a great game for us and handled all the pressure.

"You can tell in practice that Aaron has that 'It' factor. Whatever 'It' is. You can't know for sure until someone's been tested for many seasons, but Aaron's a confident guy, he knows the offense very well, and I wouldn't want anyone else leading this team. If you can't have Brett, I'm taking Aaron for us - ahead of anybody."

[pbmax]

Better performance would occur only if the receivers are actually catching the ball. Maybe he is putting it where they have a chance, but not a good chance, and the DB has little to no chance. He could actually be attempting more difficult (riskier) passes than just throwing it up for grabs.

Defense choking, ST choking, Finley dropping a ball here and there (his infamous complaint "I don't do backshoulder" was a late game one as I recall) can account for a lot of his failures.

I guess it all depends on how you define risk. Is it risk of an interception, or risk of an incompletion?

Well, we have stepped through to looking glass to admire the problem from the other side about how to label risk. The article posits the risk at issue is INTs and the failure to engage is riskier throws hampers the ability to produce a comeback. We know Rodgers get more cautious with his throws while the other top QBs don't. If you have evidence he is also doing something positive they are not, I would love to see it.

Given the record, that declining INT rate looks like a culprit. Remember that while we all remember teammate failures, defensive breakdowns and ST nightmares in Rodgers game, those all happen while they are winning the majority of their games. More important is which of these gets worse while trailing late in a game. We know the INT rate looks that way, but does anyone have any evidence the defense, Finley or the ST are worse in the fourth Quarter? Which of these factors gets worse late while trailing?

Additionally, defensive breakdowns, receivers not heeding their QB wishes and ST problems are not exclusive to the Packers.

Its looks exculpatory that the Defense failed him in seven games and it is, partially. But the other QBs had to deal with them as well.

[pbmax]

Better performance would occur only if the receivers are actually catching the ball.

If his lower INT rate doesn't result in more catches, then the behavior is self defeating.

[3irty1]

Looking back at the article I think this is just oversimplification from the author. We're talking about a low sample size to begin with but there is also no qualifiers on this 9+ points which one must trail. Certainly playing the clock is just as important as playing the scoreboard. Getting behind early and going into Brad Childless mode isn't accepted as good stategy. In those situations he could have made a 1st, 2nd, or 3rd quarter comeback, won the game and still fit the chosen metrics as an overly conservative QB.

We've also got a case where the author may well have reversed the causation and correlation about interceptions while down by 9 points. If any of these offenses led by elite passers is ever down by 9 points, it probably took a great defensive showing by the opposition to get them there. It would seem to me that throwing more picks in this situation would need to be corrected for the quality of the defense before any kind of reasonable speculation on how much a QB gambles can be made.

I think its also worth noting that none of these 354 attempted passes occurred in 2010 and nearly none in 2011 as the packers famously never trailed by more than a TD for a huge stretch spanning multiple seasons aka the best two years of his career and the two healthiest ever since.

[pbmax]

I think its also worth noting that none of these 354 attempted passes occurred in 2010 and nearly none in 2011 as the packers famously never trailed by more than a TD for a huge stretch spanning multiple seasons aka the best two years of his career and the two healthiest ever since.

That begs the question though, and the author makes note of it. The Packers are a hugely successful front running offense. They are much less successful when behind (esp. behind late).

I think this has as much to do with McCarthy as Rodgers. McCarthy purposefully does not vary his game plan mid game so he can avoid making emotional decisions based on one off occurrences or swings of emotion. But this works less well when you have a game where the offense isn't automatic and a small number of drives left to score.

[Rutnstrut]

IMO, Rodgers plays it TOO safe at times. This is where I have heard people accuse him of being a stat whore. I don't think it's so much that he doesn't gamble, I think we were just so used to Bret gambling a little to much. I will say that is one of the things I liked about Favre, he wasn't scared to "swing for the fences". I have also said before that Rodgers is just not a come from behind type player imo. He doesn't seem to thrive on that kind of pressure.

[3irty1]

That begs the question though, and the author makes note of it. The Packers are a hugely successful front running offense. They are much less successful when behind (esp. behind late).

I think this has as much to do with McCarthy as Rodgers. McCarthy purposefully does not vary his game plan mid game so he can avoid making emotional decisions based on one off occurrences or swings of emotion. But this works less well when you have a game where the offense isn't automatic and a small number of drives left to score.

I don't know about that, McCarthy's balls are so big they have lesser testicles orbiting around them. Think of the ballsy onside kicks, the ballsy deep shots on 3rd/4th and 1. He has no aversion to high variance strategies but definitely favors calculated risks over straight gambling.

[pbmax]

I don't know about that, McCarthy's balls are so big they have lesser testicles orbiting around them. Think of the ballsy onside kicks, the ballsy deep shots on 3rd/4th and 1. He has no aversion to high variance strategies but definitely favors calculated risks over straight gambling.

Not too conservative, but the lesson he learned about no panicking over your game plan in the middle of the game has been learned a little too well.

[3irty1]

Not too conservative, but the lesson he learned about no panicking over your game plan in the middle of the game has been learned a little too well.

Offense isn't like defense where you make drastic adjustments. By nature the offense is imposing their will on the defense, the defense is the side that doesn't know what's coming. On offense your preparation, your game plan is all you've got. Abandoning it would mean going to plan B but if you have a plan B that must have been part of your game plan anyways.

I still think the difference is just Arod but the stats are cherry picked and bogus. The down by 9+ and the 4th quarter comeback stast have little in common other than Rodgers is an outlier in both. I'm not convinced it has anything to do with averting risk to a fault.

[pbmax]

Offense isn't like defense where you make drastic adjustments. By nature the offense is imposing their will on the defense, the defense is the side that doesn't know what's coming. On offense your preparation, your game plan is all you've got. Abandoning it would mean going to plan B but if you have a plan B that must have been part of your game plan anyways.

I still think the difference is just Arod but the stats are cherry picked and bogus. The down by 9+ and the 4th quarter comeback stast have little in common other than Rodgers is an outlier in both. I'm not convinced it has anything to do with averting risk to a fault.

Its a fair point about D countering the O. However, one of the reasons (and we might be up to ten at this point) for the famous 15 scripted plays was to suss out how the D was going to react to the things the 49ers wanted to do.

The offense must then adjust too. And if your still in the hole, its the plays the QB always feels he can make, some teammate input and pulling a surpass off the back page of the call sheet.

I do think one structural issue is resolved with Lacy and Starks and Harris on board. There will be less empty backfield and that will make both running and passing easier depending on how the D adjusts.

[sharpe1027]

Holding the ball longer is a risk just as throwing the ball into coverage is a risk. Without data on which risk has a better return, what is the point?

[Guiness]

Holding the ball longer is a risk just as throwing the ball into coverage is a risk. Without data on which risk has a better return, what is the point?

Wow, that is exactly what I was thinking but couldn't put it in words. Tou did it in your first sentence! +2!

[pbmax]

Holding the ball longer is a risk just as throwing the ball into coverage is a risk. Without data on which risk has a better return, what is the point?

You can just stop being sensible and ruining a good argument. :)

[pbmax]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/skeptical-football-the-aaron-rodgers-enigma/

Well, some better data here in this attempt. More specific anyway. This is the same guy who pointed out that too few INTs might point out that Rodgers takes too few chances when down late.

Here he has some data on Rodger's 4th quarter success getting TDs. The point differential should week out when M3 is playing for a 53 yard Mason Crosby FG.

https://espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/morris-feature-nflwk6-1.png?w=1024


Then the counter-factual. Rodgers interceptions grouped by size of score gap. He says he is prepared to eat crow, but ...

https://espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/morris-feature-nflwk6-51.png?w=1024

As others pointed out, we are still only looking at one kind of risk (INTs) and not running with the ball, rolling out or holding it to find an open receiver. However, the big fourth quarter discrepancy here might point out another unique situation where more risk is warranted. This analysis also is limited to a comparison only with Peyton.

[King Friday]

Statistical charts are worthless half the time.

The second chart above is for all 2ND HALF drives. That skews things greatly. Being down by 10 points in the first 10 minutes of the 3rd quarter is a hell of a lot different than the last 10 minutes of the 4th quarter...but this charts lumps both together? Meaningless unless you do a far greater dive into the numbers to establish WHEN these QBs were behind by 9+ points.

[denverYooper]

I see a frontrunner.

[pbmax]

Statistical charts are always worthless half the time.

Yogi fixed it for you.

[pbmax]

Here is a good response to the last 538 article: http://www.acmepackingcompany.com/2014/10/17/6995845/debunking-criticism-packers-aaron-rodgers-clutch-comebacks

1. Morris used four games in his sample in which Aaron Rodgers did not start.

2. Morris did not include any playoff games.

3. Several game mentioned where Rodgers mounted a huge comeback but was undone specifically by ST and Defense late, as well as the really weird FG strategy in the Delhomme Panthers game when Steve Smith decided to remind everyone he was very good and the Packer special teams rewarded McCarthy's confidence in them by surrendering back to back long KO returns. Also, bonus desperation INT.

4. The huge amount of games (15 of 21) that occurred early in his career.