A mind-blowing stat about Aaron Rodgers

[-The Glove-]

Shows how worthless the 4th quarter comeback stat is..

Surely you are joking

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

I wonder what the context of that stat is? Still it's very surprising.

 

[RolandDeschain]

This is one stat that actually needs very little context, which is at odds with most stats. Make all the excuses you want, but in the end, Aaron Rodgers had 18 tries at scoring again to take the lead and win a game in the 4th quarter against winning teams, and failed on 100% of them. I'm sure some were due to receivers, some to the O-line, some to the defense, etc.; but QB is the single most "how this player goes, so goes the team" position in football, so it's absolutely impossible to put all the blame on others for this statistic.

 

[Sac]

I don't know, iRo. How many times did he take the lead in the 4th only to have his defense give up a last minute score?

 

[RolandDeschain]

Too much work to look up. You do it. Either way, this is for his whole career, and at least one of those years, his defense played exceptionally well.

 

[Sarlacc83]

Too much work to look up. You do it. Either way, this is for his whole career, and at least one of those years, his defense played exceptionally well.

All you had to do was read Volsung's compact account on the first page of this thread. It looks like 5 of those were unarguably out of Rodgers control.

 

[RolandDeschain]

...I did read it, and that's not quite the same thing. It doesn't tell the entire story. As he himself said in that post, he'd have to actually watch the games to see about some of them. Volsung was just looking up things that you could potentially not blame Rodgers for. He's asking specifically about times he did take the lead, then the defense lost it again.

What I meant by what I said is I'm not willing to go watch the 4th quarters of those 18 games. Plus, in Volsung's post, we don't know how many of those opponent scores were "last-minute scores", or not.

Volsung put in a decent amount of work for that post, and I'm glad for it; but it'd be a lot more than that to actually go watch 18 quarters, lol.

 

[Scottemojo]

Good work Vols.

I would say there was plenty of clutch play in those games. And a few bad plays.

But chalking those up as losses for Rogers is lame. How many of you blame Wilson for losing to Detroit and Atlanta?

 

[jkitsune]

Rodgers was excellent in the Super Bowl and his team won. He is excellent in the playoffs. I don't think Rodgers' performance under pressure is a genuine 'area for improvement.' It's shocking that he's 0-18, but as another poster noted, the existence of a statistic doesn't necessarily proof the usefulness of it.

I think Wilson can become every bit the QB Rodgers is, and it's phenomenal how cool Wilson is under pressure (both in the 4th quarter and in the playoffs), but (IMO) the narrative that this statistic suggests that Rodgers is subpar in the 4th quarter or under pressure is misguided.

 

[RolandDeschain]

but (IMO) the narrative that this statistic suggests that Rodgers is subpar in the 4th quarter or under pressure is misguided.

I don't think anyone's saying Rodgers sucks in the 4th quarter, or anything like that. I'm certainly not. However, he has missed a LOT of opportunities to pull out a win when it matters a lot. Also, there are different types of pressure. Under pressure after the O-line misses a block is entirely different from the mental pressure of knowing you need to get a TD no matter what to win a game, and you have one final drive to do it, nothing more. Perhaps it's this latter area that Rodgers perhaps doesn't stay really cool under. :229031_shrug:

 

[Sarlacc83]

Good work Vols.

I would say there was plenty of clutch play in those games. And a few bad plays.

But chalking those up as losses for Rogers is lame. How many of you blame Wilson for losing to Detroit and Atlanta?

I don't think he was chalking them all up as losses for Rodgers. I didn't get that out of the contextual comments, at least.

 

[volsunghawk]

...I did read it, and that's not quite the same thing. It doesn't tell the entire story. As he himself said in that post, he'd have to actually watch the games to see about some of them. Volsung was just looking up things that you could potentially not blame Rodgers for. He's asking specifically about times he did take the lead, then the defense lost it again.

What I meant by what I said is I'm not willing to go watch the 4th quarters of those 18 games. Plus, in Volsung's post, we don't know how many of those opponent scores were "last-minute scores", or not.

Volsung put in a decent amount of work for that post, and I'm glad for it; but it'd be a lot more than that to actually go watch 18 quarters, lol.

If I had thought ahead, I could have given an asterisk or something to each game where the opposing offense had the ball last. I think I did mention it in a couple of the games' comments, though.

But yeah, my post wasn't intended to be a compendium of everything that happened, but rather to highlight some of the context of those 4th quarters for anyone who sees that stat for Rodgers and automatically assumes it means he lacks some kind of "clutch gene." Based on what I saw in the game logs, I'd say it was a combination of erratic play (mostly near the beginning of his starting career), awful O-line protection, some bad D, and some bad luck.

You're definitely right that if we wanted to accurately be able to identify where things broke down for the Packers in each of those 18 games, we'd need to watch the games. Was Rodgers just off due to the elevated pressure of the 4th quarter of a close game against a good team? Was he off because blitzers were in his face within 2 seconds after the snap? How culpable was the D? I mean, I'd be happy to do something like that, but I don't invest that kind of time unless I'm either getting paid to do so or it's the Hawks we're discussing. :mrgreen:

 

[RolandDeschain]

I mean, I'd be happy to do something like that, but I don't invest that kind of time unless I'm either getting paid to do so or it's the Hawks we're discussing. :mrgreen:

Haha, tell me about it. I cringe at the thought of that much work that isn't going toward either supporting my beloved Seahawks, or making 49ers fans look dumb.

 

[heyu123]

Take a moment to guess at this, then I'll post the answer. The question is, how many 4th quarter comebacks has Aaron Rodgers led against teams above .500 in his career? (That is, teams that finished the regular season with a winning record.)

Think about it for a moment. I would say a good number for an elite quarterback would be 50%, or something around that number. You can't expect to win 'em all; and they aren't responsible for defensive breakdowns or a great special teams play by the opponent, and stuff like that. Regardless, think about what percentage you consider would be the minimum for any QB to meet if they were elite. 35% of 4th quarter comeback attempts against winning teams needed to be elite? 53%? Whatever that number is, think about it compared to what that number is for Aaron Rodgers, posted below.









Kearly, Scotte, Absolut, and other NFL minds of the forum; are you guys as blown away by this as I am? I'm flabbergasted. It makes me smile, considering how much of an "NFL Golden Boy" Rodgers is, too; not going to lie. Russell Wilson already has four 4th-quarter comebacks including the playoffs, and all four were against winning teams! http://www.pro-football-reference.com/p ... r=WilsRu00

What does this say about Aaron Rodgers when the pressure is really on?

Considering he is a super bowl champion, and had one of the best playoffs of all time that year, I don't think it says anything about his ability to play under pressure. Unless you don't believe those were pressure games. This stat just seems like a major fluke to me.

 

[RolandDeschain]

They were all games against winning teams, of course they mattered. Some of you are taking this too far; it doesn't mean Rodgers is a bad, or mediocre, or average QB. It sure seems like a strong indicator that perhaps he isn't as clutch in certain situations as everyone assume(s/d) he is/was.

 

[heyu123]

It was an interesting stat definitely and I'm glad you posted it because I never would have guessed his record was that bad. I think I'd put more stock into it though if he didn't have a lot of great playoff performances already under his belt. So it's hard for me to question his 'clutch' ability when he's gotten it done at the most pressurized times.

 

[RolandDeschain]

He's 5-3 in the playoffs. A good record thus far; but he has played approximately as well in the playoffs as he has in the regular season. In fact, the only dominant playoff performances he has had to date were all during his Super Bowl year. His best PFF QB grade in a playoff game outside his Super Bowl year is 3.1. To give you a comparison, Russell Wilson was graded at 1.1 in Washington, and 7.2 in Atlanta. 7.2 is a fantastic grading. In fact, Aaron Rodgers only has one playoff game where he ranked above Wilson; the Super Bowl he won, with an 8.7 grade. As we all know, Wilson's 1-1 in the playoffs right now; but we'll see where that number goes from here. :devil:

 

[heyu123]

Even if they were all in the same year, he had a number of incredible performances. It's hard to brush that aside.

I think all you can really ask for in a QB is he gives you consistency in the postseason, which Rodgers does. His regular season output is so incredibly high that it's unrealistic to expect him to constantly top that, so the fact he plays approximately as well in the playoffs as the regular season as you point out is a plus.

A lot of QBs can't carry over their great regular seasons into the postseason, when the competition gets better and the moment gets bigger. The guy in Denver is one.

 

[Scottemojo]

I think Rodgers quarterbacks a soft team.

When they won the title, that was an outstanding defense, and it took a defensive play from a DB to keep the Falcons from beating them in the 4th. The Pack rediscovered a dormant run game in those playoffs too.

Since then, they have squandered a 15-1 season in full on wimp style, and almost completely lost the will to run the ball. The run game is purely a changeup for them, a problem they are trying to fix with running backs. Too bad I think it is an OL issue.

The D-line has miscast players now, and they have lost the nasty they need to stop the run. Raji should not be a nose ever, and the linebackers are adequate only, with the exception of Matthews.

Point is, outside of Rodgers and his pass catchers, that is a team with holes and has been for a while now. A GB team that is not built to win in the cold is kind of dumb. Rodgers 4th quarter difficulties agianst winning teams could be a result of those things too.

 

[pehawk]

I lean (and hopefully sleep with) Scotte here. The only thing thet we differ on is that defense ever really being good. They got breaks with turnovers and played teams with zero swag offensively that year. The defense played way above their collective heads, it was a charmed season. It happens.