Rodgers Gambling Problem

[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



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.