Aaron Rodgers - Best 4th Quarter QB In GB In Last Decade ?

[Waldo]

If we are going to be bad, dammit, let the indicators show that we are a bad team. If we are good, dammit, win games. When looking at the commonly accepted indicators, I could make a very, very convincing case that the 2008 Packers were the best "bad" team in the history of the NFL.

A valid point. Losing a bunch games by 3 points or less contributed mightily to what you suggest.

I wrote this out a while ago elsewhere, so some of you might have seen it, but:

The statistical oddity that is the '08 Packers:

1) They tied with the Rams for the most games against quality opponents (teams with winning records) with 10. 5 teams (Jets, Pats, Chargers, Giants, Eagles) averaged more PPG than the Packers against quality opponents. GB on average outscored quality opponents 24.7 pgg to 22.2 ppg, but was 3-7 overall against quality opponents. GB led the league in '08 with 12 games played against teams that were at least 8-8. (By this measure of looking at difficulty of schedule and not W-L (typically a good formula that 2 games against the Lions broke last year), the Packers had the NFL's most difficult schedule in '08).

2) The Packers were losing in 3 games with 5:00 to play in 2008. In the other 13 contests they had the lead or were tied. Yet they finished 6-10.

3) In 2008 Packers opening day starters missed 44 games due to injury, an average of 2 per player, the 2nd most on the team since the 80's (48 in 2005). In 2007 that number was 10 games. The worst string of injuries were a rash at both RDE and SS. The team started 5 different RDE's due to injury and 4 different SS's. For a while the SLB (Poppinga) was playing RDE and CB (Woodson) was playing SS, due to a lack of healthy bodies.

4) Turnovers win games, unless you are the 2008 Packers. The Packers finished the season +7 in turnovers, and were the only team with more than +5 to fail to make the postseason. Of the 16 teams with a positive turnover ratio, 4 failed to make at least a 9-7 record (Oak, KC, Cle, GB).

5) Five teams in NFL history have lost 7 or more games by less than 4 points. The record is 8, accomplished once (1984 Browns), 3 other teams tied with the Packers at 7. Net close wins is a decent season to season barometer that gives an indication to the direction the team is headed, teams tend to regress toward the mean of +/-0. In 2007 the Packers were +3, in 2008 the Packers were -7. The other 4 teams to accomplish this pitiful feat improved by at least 3 games the following season: 1984 Browns (5-11 to 8-8 in '85), 1993 Patriots (5-11 to 10-6 in '94), 1994 Oilers (2-14 to 7-9 in '95), 2001 Panthers (1-15 to 7-9 in '02), 2008 Packers (6-10 to ??? in '09).

6) 3rd down % is a decent indicator of the quality of a unit, the difference in rank between scoring and 3rd down % is somewhat an indicator of luck, or lack thereof, it takes a lot of flukes to strongly deviate from the 3rd down %. The 2008 Packers offense ranked #5 in scoring and #5 in 3rd down %. The 2008 Packers defense ranked #22 in scoring but #14 in 3rd down %.

7) The 2008 Packers had a 4,000 yard passer, 2x 1,000 yard WR's, and a 1,200 yard RB, the first time in team history that feat was accomplished.

8) The 2008 Packer scored 419 points. Five teams in the history of the NFL have scored at least 400 points and failed to reach at least 8 wins. The 4 other teams are the 2004 Chiefs (7-9, 483 pts, 10-6 in '05), the 1985 Bengals (7-9, 441 pts, 10-6 in '86), the 1981 Falcons (7-9, 426 pts, 5-4 in '82 (strike)), the 2001 Colts (6-10, 413, 10-6 in '02), the 2008 Packers (6-10, 419, ??? in '09), all improved by at least 3 wins the following season aside from the 1981 Falcons, during the strike shortened season.

9) The 2008 Packers controlled the ball. Their TOP average was 31:57 for the offense, bettering the 2007 Favre-led Packers that controlled the ball on average for 30:19.

10) The 2008 Packers scored 147 points in the 4th quarter (35.0% of total scoring), the most of any team in the NFL. The 2008 Packers gave up 138 points in the 4th quarter (36.3% of total scoring), the 2nd most of any team in the NFL.

11) The unclutch factor, the 2008 Packers opponents had 13 drives with less that 5:00 to play with the Packers leading by less than a TD. In those 13 drives the Packers defense surrendered 7 TD's and 3 FG's, allowing opponents to score 76.9% of the time.

12) All season long, Football Outsiders had them ranked fairly highly, even the defense, and had a running commentary about how the Packers had broken their formulas and forced them to recheck their assumptions, as they were showing that in fact the Packers were performing quite well. On a play by play basis, for most of the game, both units were pretty good, however the defense hemorrhaged a massive amount of points near the end of games in only a few plays over the course of the season, the defense that played the whole game pretty well collapsed in the waning moments game after game. Something not typically encountered that broke their formulas that look at per play average performance.

13) The 2008 Packers were +49 in net points (419 vs 380), the only team in the NFL to fail to reach 8-8 with a positive net points differential. The Saints were the only other team with positive net points that failed to reach at least 9-7. The last time a team with positive net points failed to reach at least 8-8 was in 2004, when both the Chiefs (7-9, +48, 10-6 in '05) and Panthers (7-9, +16, 11-5 in '05) had losing records with positive net points.

The real statistical oddity of the season is the combination of the rarity of a team with a high positive turnover margin failing to produce at least 8-8, the rarity of a team that scores more than 400 points and fails to reach 8-8, the rarity of a team with positive net points failing to reach 8-8, and the rarity of a team with 7 or more losses by less than 4 points, all in the same season, the combination of all 4 together in one season the league has never seen before, and may never see again.

The Verdict: Don't trade the guy on the cover of Madden.

[Patler]

Football is an odd sport. All of the so called rules or mantras that fans/media have come up with have limitations.

Problem is, we broke them all last season in some way or another.

Last season was a cruel hoax to rational thought. If we are going to be bad, dammit, let the indicators show that we are a bad team. If we are good, dammit, win games. When looking at the commonly accepted indicators, I could make a very, very convincing case that the 2008 Packers were the best "bad" team in the history of the NFL.

Agreed. Which could make for some very interesting discussions:

1. Since the team was very successful in 2007 and the 2008 indicators were good, was the 2008 record due to the uncertainties of change generally, Rodgers failures, Favre being gone, ineffective coaching overcome by some significant good fortune in 2007 (there is some support for that argument) or just "one of those things"?.

2. Based on your feeling regarding #1, is 2009 more likely to duplicate 2007 or 2008?

3. Is this team really headed in any direction, or is it likely to be a roller coaster team that varies significantly from year to year based on schedule and factors over which they have no control? Your opinion on this is likely to represent your true feelings about MM and his staff.

[Waldo]

LOL, I didn't even read that one thread that was basically just posting some of my giants posts from elsewhere until a second ago. Sorry for the repeat.

And no, Waldo does not need a Hooker. Waldo is married. And works for the government. Waldo has plenty of free time.

[Fritz]

Football is an odd sport. All of the so called rules or mantras that fans/media have come up with have limitations.

Problem is, we broke them all last season in some way or another.

Last season was a cruel hoax to rational thought. If we are going to be bad, dammit, let the indicators show that we are a bad team. If we are good, dammit, win games. When looking at the commonly accepted indicators, I could make a very, very convincing case that the 2008 Packers were the best "bad" team in the history of the NFL.

Agreed. Which could make for some very interesting discussions:

1. Since the team was very successful in 2007 and the 2008 indicators were good, was the 2008 record due to the uncertainties of change generally, Rodgers failures, Favre being gone, ineffective coaching overcome by some significant good fortune in 2007 (there is some support for that argument) or just "one of those things"?.

2. Based on your feeling regarding #1, is 2009 more likely to duplicate 2007 or 2008?

3. Is this team really headed in any direction, or is it likely to be a roller coaster team that varies significantly from year to year based on schedule and factors over which they have no control? Your opinion on this is likely to represent your true feelings about MM and his staff.

Waldo?

[Patler]

I've always liked the rating formula. I think once you understand it, and its limitations, you are fine.

One of the biggest things is to compare apples to apples. I don't think that a 25 att/gm QB can be compared to a 35 att/gm QB via rating. They are asked to shoulder an entirely different load. But it can compare QB's of similar workloads to one another.

And there is a significant amount of data jitter that smooths over time. Aaron was actually pretty consistent rating wise from one part of the season to the other, even if the individual games jumped around.

I understand the formula, but I still don't like it all that much, even when looking at players entire careers. I think my biggest objection is that I see no need for it. After all, we could devise a similar formula for "runningback rating" if we wanted to that would take into consideration averages per rushing attempt, averages per reception, TDs scored rushing, TDs scored receiving and fumbles. With stats available today we could easily factor in things like dropped passes, success on third and short, runs to the left, runs to the right, etc.

Football is very team oriented. Almost every player accomplishment relies significantly on the performances of team mates at the same time. If we try to accomplish too much with the statistical analysis of a players career we lose sight of that.

I prefer to look at the raw numbers and draw my own conclusions.

[CaptainKickass]

The 2008 Packers gave up 138 points in the 4th quarter (36.3% of total scoring), the 2nd most of any team in the NFL.

From watching the games last season, It was clear that the D was weak in the 4th quarter. I must've missed the above stat the first time you posted it - but that is pretty damn telling. I am absolutely amazed, flabbergasted, taken aback, whatever - that we gave up that many 4th quarter points. Another justification for a defensive revamp by the Packers.

My only question here (and really thank goodness there's room to ask it) is:

If we gave up the 2nd most points in the 4th quarter, what team gave up the most?

.

[sharpe1027]

I understand the formula, but I still don't like it all that much, even when looking at players entire careers. I think my biggest objection is that I see no need for it. After all, we could devise a similar formula for "runningback rating" if we wanted to that would take into consideration averages per rushing attempt, averages per reception, TDs scored rushing, TDs scored receiving and fumbles. With stats available today we could easily factor in things like dropped passes, success on third and short, runs to the left, runs to the right, etc.

Football is very team oriented. Almost every player accomplishment relies significantly on the performances of team mates at the same time. If we try to accomplish too much with the statistical analysis of a players career we lose sight of that.

I prefer to look at the raw numbers and draw my own conclusions.

While people often use the rating without regard for its limitations, it still provides a relative measuring stick for the effectivness of a passing attack under two QBs. For example, comparing two QBs battling for the starting position on the same team is a decent use of the rating since several of the factors are nearly identical. (They have the same teammates, style of offense and coaching).

As more variables come into play, the comparisons become more strained. Still, it is a respectable starting point and its pitfalls are pretty well known and tested. Whereas, an independent analysis is seldom peer-reviewed or tested over long-periods of time and numerous situations.

[Waldo]

Football is an odd sport. All of the so called rules or mantras that fans/media have come up with have limitations.

Problem is, we broke them all last season in some way or another.

Last season was a cruel hoax to rational thought. If we are going to be bad, dammit, let the indicators show that we are a bad team. If we are good, dammit, win games. When looking at the commonly accepted indicators, I could make a very, very convincing case that the 2008 Packers were the best "bad" team in the history of the NFL.

Agreed. Which could make for some very interesting discussions:

1. Since the team was very successful in 2007 and the 2008 indicators were good, was the 2008 record due to the uncertainties of change generally, Rodgers failures, Favre being gone, ineffective coaching overcome by some significant good fortune in 2007 (there is some support for that argument) or just "one of those things"?.

2. Based on your feeling regarding #1, is 2009 more likely to duplicate 2007 or 2008?

3. Is this team really headed in any direction, or is it likely to be a roller coaster team that varies significantly from year to year based on schedule and factors over which they have no control? Your opinion on this is likely to represent your true feelings about MM and his staff.

1) One of those things. Flukes (almost all negative), Punting, Injuries, Coaching (especially defensive), the DL, Kicking, the OL, Grant, Rodgers; each played a role. I don't think any one though should bear the burden more than others.

2) 2007. In fact many indicators I found for the 2008 team improved over 2007. I think that we in fact got a little better. One think people forget about Aaron and 2008, MM never called plays for him, and didn't have much live game tape to evaluate AR's tendencies for things that would work well. The is especially true for the no huddle offense, which perhaps isn't tweaked as much as the rest of the offense over the season and is more built off of a spring/camp knowledge base.

I know MM preached it from day 1, but I don't think even he understood what was needed. Finding success is very different than maintaining success. Early on he said the most difficult task was not to win, but to continue winning. He fell into his own trap and failed as a coach IMO. To be fair, at the most crucial time other things were on his mind, and he was missing his most important player(s).

The big mistake was to keep doing the same thing but try harder. Almost every team that fails to return to their level of success, fails for the same reason. They "think" that they are doing the right thing (after all they got this close) and try harder. One of the hallmarks of teams that get good and stay good, is that they tend to be moving targets; the only constant is change. By trying harder the players burn out faster, it was pretty apparent last year that at a point that burn out set in when they realized that they probably weren't going to win it all, guys were playing passionless and just going through the motions. True both physically and mentally for the 2008 team. It will tell a lot about MM just how much he learns from the experience, as for him as a coach it is a tremendous growth opportunity, one of those seasons that can turn a rookie coach into a veteran coach. Unfortunately when the tone is set for the team for the year, Favre just retired, QB camp was on, and he had a new QB to get ready. Bad timing. Likewise at the start of camp when the tone is set.....well, we don't need to rehash that.

Also missing were the players that the team turns to emotionally when things get tough to bring them out. For us IMO they were Favre, Harris, Barnett. Even though Harris and Barnett were still with the team, and injury brings a bit of emotional detachment. Woodson became one of those guys last year, but he just isn't enough. I think that Rodgers went a long way toward becoming one of those guys though this offseason.

3) I think the team is definitely headed in a positive direction. We all knew that the Sanders hire was a bad one from very early on, and even 2007 didn't change a lot of peoples minds. MM is going to have growing pains like every young HC, but I think that it is fair to say that he's getting better. The team undertook a very difficult task. It had to transform itself from a roster with aging and expensive players with very little depth or young talent, and a decade of inertia built up, to the next core of players. Very few parts were usable, and the transition was forced due to the fairly dire financial condition of the roster. I think that the bulk of the heavy roster turnover is over, and the team is beginning to identify the next core of the team, now the turnover will be to the less than core players, instead of replacing over the hill guys or awful guys.

When you look at a team from the acquisition standpoint, say a player lasts 10 years, and you get 10 new quality guys a year or so (FA's don't count IMO as there typically is close to a net balance of zero), so 100 guys to build you roster over, each year a moving average of the past 10 years of so. It takes guys time to be good though, really any elite or high level play you get out of a first contract player is a bonus. The gap on the Packers is really unfortunate. If Wolf wouldn't have knocked it out of the park in 2000, we would really have suffered for the last decade, that year created much of the core for the decade. There is just a huge player dead zone, we have hardly any players in their prime. A few guys over the hill, and a team of young guys that aren't yet in their prime, or are just entering it. As these guys enter their prime, and the guys that just aren't good enough are replaced by the next crop, each year the team gets deeper and deeper and in theory better and better. When you stretch out and look at the long view, the best teams over a long time are going to be the ones that acquire quality consistently over the long haul, year after year after year. When you look at the full roster, there are few positions that were in better shape going into '05 than they are today.

[Waldo]

The 2008 Packers gave up 138 points in the 4th quarter (36.3% of total scoring), the 2nd most of any team in the NFL.

From watching the games last season, It was clear that the D was weak in the 4th quarter. I must've missed the above stat the first time you posted it - but that is pretty damn telling. I am absolutely amazed, flabbergasted, taken aback, whatever - that we gave up that many 4th quarter points. Another justification for a defensive revamp by the Packers.

My only question here (and really thank goodness there's room to ask it) is:

If we gave up the 2nd most points in the 4th quarter, what team gave up the most?

.

[Bossman641]

Waldo I've just gotta say those were some great posts above.

It felt like last year was a cruel nightmare and everything that could have gone wrong did, but your posts show just how bad it was.

[CaptainKickass]

The 2008 Packers gave up 138 points in the 4th quarter (36.3% of total scoring), the 2nd most of any team in the NFL.

From watching the games last season, It was clear that the D was weak in the 4th quarter. I must've missed the above stat the first time you posted it - but that is pretty damn telling. I am absolutely amazed, flabbergasted, taken aback, whatever - that we gave up that many 4th quarter points. Another justification for a defensive revamp by the Packers.

My only question here (and really thank goodness there's room to ask it) is:

If we gave up the 2nd most points in the 4th quarter, what team gave up the most?

.

Of course.

The frickin Loins.

So we were certainly at the very bottom of the league.

I don't really consider the 2008 Loins a team, so thus the Pack actually sucked even more on D in the 4th quarter than I really suspected.

If I were McCarthy and saw that deduction - I woulda revamped the D too.

.

[Patler]

It takes guys time to be good though, really any elite or high level play you get out of a first contract player is a bonus. The gap on the Packers is really unfortunate. If Wolf wouldn't have knocked it out of the park in 2000, we would really have suffered for the last decade, that year created much of the core for the decade. There is just a huge player dead zone, we have hardly any players in their prime. A few guys over the hill, and a team of young guys that aren't yet in their prime, or are just entering it. As these guys enter their prime, and the guys that just aren't good enough are replaced by the next crop, each year the team gets deeper and deeper and in theory better and better. When you stretch out and look at the long view, the best teams over a long time are going to be the ones that acquire quality consistently over the long haul, year after year after year. When you look at the full roster, there are few positions that were in better shape going into '05 than they are today.

Couldn't agree more. We had a thread about that last year (or the year before?) It was only into TT's second or third season, and already there were as many significant players brought in by Wolf still on the team as those brought in by Sherman. It's not just finding a better rookie to replace the poor choice veteran, it also takes a few years for the new player to mature into his role. The better teams may have a rookie starting now and then, but by and large the replacement players are backups for a year or two. The Packers were put in a position of having to start rookies due to poor decisions on player selections, trades and contracts. I think they are getting beyond that a little. Hopefully, in the next couple years the early TT draft picks become that experienced core that is needed.

[pbmax]

...
3. Is this team really headed in any direction, or is it likely to be a roller coaster team that varies significantly from year to year based on schedule and factors over which they have no control? Your opinion on this is likely to represent your true feelings about MM and his staff.

I think Waldo makes a good point referencing M3 about achieving versus sustaining success. And that colors my judgment about the coaching jobs in 07 and 08.

I think McCarthy's offense looked quite different between the two years. How much of the passing game change was QB versus coach, is hard to fathom. Rodgers seemed to prefer different routes than Favre had, and for 1/3 the season I thought we would have to hope he grew out of being a checkdown artist. His yards per attempt and a lot of nice deep throws convinced me otherwise.

He has also tinkered with the run game significantly. It has been hit and miss, but he has gone from not having anyone in the middle to run block to his tackles having difficulty. Nutz or someone mentioned that inside zone runs were far more effective at times in 08 but they couldn't run outside zone nearly as well.

The scheme that didn't adjust was on defense. It would have been a monumental jolt to dump Sanders after 07, but waiting and hoping cost them another year. That is the lesson I hope McCarthy learns. I am not convinced Thompson has brought in top ten talent on defense, but we might learn much more about it with a new coordinator.

Stock also was a coaching liability in that he refused to approve outside consultants to help his punter, who he clearly had taken as far as he (Stock) could. If Ryan really needed to change, then outside help would have been a good idea. Recommending Frost was just the icing on the bad coaching cake.

[pbmax]

Couldn't agree more. We had a thread about that last year (or the year before?) It was only into TT's second or third season, and already there were as many significant players brought in by Wolf still on the team as those brought in by Sherman. It's not just finding a better rookie to replace the poor choice veteran, it also takes a few years for the new player to mature into his role. The better teams may have a rookie starting now and then, but by and large the replacement players are backups for a year or two. The Packers were put in a position of having to start rookies due to poor decisions on player selections, trades and contracts. I think they are getting beyond that a little. Hopefully, in the next couple years the early TT draft picks become that experienced core that is needed.

Some of that turnover that resulted in rookie starters was self-imposed though. Kevin Barry might have made Tony Moll or Spitz unnecessary for a year or two, but there was no way he was going to survive the new run scheme with McCarthy and Jags. Rueggamer also was a casualty as well. He has been a part-time starter on some pretty good teams.

It will be interesting to see Jags as O coordinator on a team with a Defensive background HC.

[Waldo]

It will be interesting to see Jags as O coordinator on a team with a Defensive background HC.

I think that MM is the brains behind a lot of the offense though. Innovative offensive concepts have always been a hallmark of our offensive since MM took over.

We max protected a lot in '06. While this doesn't seem very innovative, the way the TE's were used for it was kinda unorthodox. Sometimes I wonder why some teams never max protect though. MM used 5 wides as a short yardage situational play.

The way MM used slant passes in '07, and the 5 wides as a first down formation was pretty new to the NFL in recent memory. The 2 FB inverted wishbone is a pretty creative development. Sorry Miami, MM ran the Wildcat in '07, a year before they made it popular.

In '08 the 5 wides and inverted wishbone concepts remained. The wink audible route trees changed, and the team started using a dynamic pocket on occasion. MM starting motioning WR's into the backfield on running downs in his latest quest to screw up substitutions (same concept as the Wildcat, but a better application IMO). For how much the Wildcat is discussed, MM's 2008 innovation is completely unnoticed by all forms of media, including our own press.