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

[th87]

I think the argument here is awfully flawed. What is a 4th quarter comeback anyway?

It seems to be defined as any situation in which a team takes a lead in the 4th quarter PLUS the defense holds the other team until time runs out.

If that's the case, there are two entities in the equation, no? Quarterback and defense. Therefore, the concept of a 4th quarter comeback MUST take into account the performance of the defense after the score to take the lead.

So in using this metric, there have been 42 occurrences in which Brett Favre has helped take the lead, AND the defense has held to close out the game.

And for Rodgers, there have been 6(?) occurrences in which he has helped take the lead or put the team in position to do so, but the defense/special teams did not hold up its side of the bargain.

Therefore, to make this a truly fair comparison, we have to find out how many times Favre has helped take a 4th quarter lead or put the team in position to do so, with say, 5:00 or less to go, regardless of whether we ended up winning the game or not. And then compare it to Rodgers' total. It's the only way to make it an apples to apples comparison.

[Patler]

I think the argument here is awfully flawed. What is a 4th quarter comeback anyway?

It seems to be defined as any situation in which a team takes a lead in the 4th quarter PLUS the defense holds the other team until time runs out.

If that's the case, there are two entities in the equation, no? Quarterback and defense. Therefore, the concept of a 4th quarter comeback MUST take into account the performance of the defense after the score to take the lead.

So in using this metric, there have been 42 occurrences in which Brett Favre has helped take the lead, AND the defense has held to close out the game.

And for Rodgers, there have been 6(?) occurrences in which he has helped take the lead or put the team in position to do so, but the defense/special teams did not hold up its side of the bargain.

Therefore, to make this a truly fair comparison, we have to find out how many times Favre has helped take a 4th quarter lead or put the team in position to do so, with say, 5:00 or less to go, regardless of whether we ended up winning the game or not. And then compare it to Rodgers' total. It's the only way to make it an apples to apples comparison.

Does the original post have anything at all to do with comebacks? I don't think so. It is simply a look at the QB's performance in the 4th quarter when his team is behind by 7 or less. I don't interpret it to have anything at all to do with whether they won the game or not. So, in that regard it is an apples to apples comparison for what it states, how the QB performs (by QB rating calculation) when his team is behind by 7 or less in the 4th quarter. No outside factors are needed. How the defense or special teams performed is not needed, because it changes nothing the way I interpret the data presented.

[SkinBasket]

Therefore, to make this a truly fair comparison, we have to find out how many times Favre has helped take a 4th quarter lead or put the team in position to do so, with say, 5:00 or less to go, regardless of whether we ended up winning the game or not. And then compare it to Rodgers' total. It's the only way to make it an apples to apples comparison.

Until you start regarding how much time the various offensive lines gave the QB, the quality of the WRs, how much the defense had to account for whatever RB was in the game, and the quality of the opposing pass defenses...

It's almost like there's no real way to compare the two. Almost. And maybe doing so is a fruitless exercise no matter what numbers, impressions, or recollections anyone might have.

[Patler]

What is the statistical significance level for this analysis?
That is, how many games did this cover for each.

That is, you can probably prove Tavarious Jackson is better than Dan Marino, if you look at games in a dome, in October, when down 14 or more points, in the third quarter, outside temperature is below 40 degrees, on games played before 2 pm.

In fairness to the original post, it is not a far fetched or extreme set of factors. It is a season by season analysis of their QB rating when playing with the team down by 7 or less in the fourth quarter. I would expect that the number of games in which those conditions applied would be high in some seasons and low in others. It seems to address a fairly direct question:

What is the QB's rating when his team is within one score of a tie or lead in the 4th quarter?

That is a fairly direct, and I would argue at least somewhat relevant set of conditions for looking at a QB's performance. It's not necessarily overly significant, but at least relevant. Does he perform well (as determined by QB rating) when under pressure in the 4th quarter?

I think it does point out one thing that some of us have argued about last season. Much has been made of "Rodgers failures" late in games. Many have pointed out that Rodgers did his job many times, but other aspects of the team failed. This data would seem to support that. I'm not suggesting that he never failed, but many times he did what he had to and the ultimate result was do to others not doing what they should have done.

[Patler]

Chevelle, I understand the point you're trying to make, but please refrain from calling folks names.

This type of post inevitably leads to fights. I won't hesitate to shut it down if it goes there.

FWIW - I think your "statistical analysis" leaves out a few facts.

Admin: I'm going to let you have it here a little!

What's the point in criticizing his statistical analysis without justifying your criticism? You belittle it by putting the term in quotes (carrying an inference that it is not really a statistical analysis) and you say it leaves out facts. Why not tell us what facts you believe are omitted? Otherwise, you are simply criticizing the post based on the poster, the exact type of thing you are asking us to refrain from doing. It adds nothing to the discussion, yet carries the weight of the Administrators authority.

You stated, "FWIW". Without support of the statement, I would suggest the comment from you was worth absolutely nothing.

[MJZiggy]

Joe got Patlerized! It means you're official now.

[th87]

I think the argument here is awfully flawed. What is a 4th quarter comeback anyway?

It seems to be defined as any situation in which a team takes a lead in the 4th quarter PLUS the defense holds the other team until time runs out.

If that's the case, there are two entities in the equation, no? Quarterback and defense. Therefore, the concept of a 4th quarter comeback MUST take into account the performance of the defense after the score to take the lead.

So in using this metric, there have been 42 occurrences in which Brett Favre has helped take the lead, AND the defense has held to close out the game.

And for Rodgers, there have been 6(?) occurrences in which he has helped take the lead or put the team in position to do so, but the defense/special teams did not hold up its side of the bargain.

Therefore, to make this a truly fair comparison, we have to find out how many times Favre has helped take a 4th quarter lead or put the team in position to do so, with say, 5:00 or less to go, regardless of whether we ended up winning the game or not. And then compare it to Rodgers' total. It's the only way to make it an apples to apples comparison.

Does the original post have anything at all to do with comebacks? I don't think so. It is simply a look at the QB's performance in the 4th quarter when his team is behind by 7 or less. I don't interpret it to have anything at all to do with whether they won the game or not. So, in that regard it is an apples to apples comparison for what it states, how the QB performs (by QB rating calculation) when his team is behind by 7 or less in the 4th quarter. No outside factors are needed. How the defense or special teams performed is not needed, because it changes nothing the way I interpret the data presented.

Sorry, I should've clarified. My last post is a cut and paste from another board, in which they are discussing Rodgers' ability to come back in games.

The post in particular is a criticism of the general belief that Rodgers can't close out games (as Packnut also appears to imply here). However, if one wants to compare to Favre's comeback ability, the above-mentioned adjustment needs to be made.

As far as the original post, I agree that no other variables are necessary, and it does definitively show that Rodgers performs well in the 4th quarter. However, there will be the Administrators and the Packnuts that will attempt to rebut these statistics by going back to the "Yeah, but he can't win" angle, and it is for them that the previous post is aimed. Sorry if that was confusing.

[pbmax]

I apologize for the name calling. I will edit the thread, but honestly, Ive seen far worse here.

To do my best Woodie interpretation here: Good man for taking other viewpoints into consideration.

But can you post a link any of the stats above? Do all plays in the fourth quarter count in this analysis once the conditions are met in the fourth quarter? Or is it just plays that occur while this condition was true in the 4th?

[bobblehead]

Christ almighty you have all become a bunch of panty wastes. I mean the nut huggers and the TT leg humpers as well. Have we really reached the point where a little name calling gets the teachers tone and the finger wagging?

Don't get me wrong, if chevelle had lead with Bobblehead you fucking nut hugging ARod slurping prick, that would have been personal and uncalled for (not that I would have been bothered by it). But he ended with a general jab...no biggie.

So...in conclusion all you oversensitive panty waste girly men (and girly girls) get over it. I hope ty responds by calling me a name so I can show people how an adult reacts. See, ty and I raz all the time, but then we can come back and agree on something 2 posts later. Grow up everyone, and don't get your panties in a bunch over a little razzing.

[falco]

[falco]

Caption:

Bobblehead and Ty teach the forum how to interact with each other.

[Administrator]

Admin: I'm going to let you have it here a little!

What's the point in criticizing his statistical analysis without justifying your criticism? You belittle it by putting the term in quotes (carrying an inference that it is not really a statistical analysis) and you say it leaves out facts. Why not tell us what facts you believe are omitted? Otherwise, you are simply criticizing the post based on the poster, the exact type of thing you are asking us to refrain from doing. It adds nothing to the discussion, yet carries the weight of the Administrators authority.

You stated, "FWIW". Without support of the statement, I would suggest the comment from you was worth absolutely nothing.

:P Ok, lets explain this one. My comment was directed at the OP's intended meaning of his statistical analysis. As you so eloquently stated there is nothing wrong with the statistics as presented. Where we differ is that the statistics don't support the OP's conclusions. As I read it, the OP was implying that all things equal, the Green Bay Packers should want Rodgers behind center as opposed to Favre. If that is the intended conclusion, I do believe he is missing many things to make that justification.

I think you have to look at the other "team" personnel, the defense, the coaching, the strength of schedule, and the play calling and game plan. Those are all significant factors in how the QB is able to perform the job.

Then, you also need to include the intangibles. What kind of relationship does the QB have with his teammates? Does he make you want to strive for your best and do the impossible? What about luck?

All those things impact the "success" or "failure" of a QB. I would say that all QB's in the NFL have the talent to "make it". But most don't succeed because of all of the other factors that go with the pure "talent" of an NFL QB.

Personally, I think we've got the QB we need to field a decent team, as compared to the over-the-hill 39/40 year old Brett Favre (which is the commonly stated only other option - which I also disagree with). I don't disagree with the OP or with you on that one. I just disagree with how the OP reached his conclusion, and I disagree with the "tone" used to convey said conclusion.

You can "let me have it" anytime you'd like.

[SkinBasket]

I hope ty responds by calling me a name so I can show people how an adult reacts.

You can keep hoping, but he's banned until August or something, so I don't think he'll be calling you anything.

Names: Nut hugger.


Does that fill the void?

[Brando19]

I hope ty responds by calling me a name so I can show people how an adult reacts.

You can keep hoping, but he's banned until August or something, so I don't think he'll be calling you anything.

Names: Nut hugger.


Does that fill the void?

Ty is banned?

[Rastak]

I hope ty responds by calling me a name so I can show people how an adult reacts.

You can keep hoping, but he's banned until August or something, so I don't think he'll be calling you anything.

Names: Nut hugger.


Does that fill the void?

Ty is banned?

Yup.