Is Aaron Rodgers prime being wasted by Thompson/McCarthy?

[Pats#1]

I just don't see how winning a SB and making it to several Conference Championships is wasting a career.

 

Comparing it to the Pats and Brady, sure...but comparing anything to their level of success over the past 17 years is going to look horrible. 

[SpeightTheVillain]

2 minutes ago, Pats#1 said:

Is that proven to be the case? I'm honestly asking.

 

Seems like lack of a run game and/or simple game planning could be a factor as well. The couple times Brady threw a bunch in the playoffs wasn't necessarily because they were down a lot, but because he had zero help from his RBs.

-.14 correlation to wins. It has the most negative effect on wins only behind Sack Rate and Interceptions. 

http://www.footballperspective.com/correlating-passing-stats-with-wins/

[CWood21]

3 minutes ago, Pats#1 said:

I just don't see how winning a SB and making it to several Conference Championships is wasting a career.

 

Comparing it to the Pats and Brady, sure...but comparing anything to their level of success over the past 17 years is going to look horrible. 

It's essentially a double-standard.  IF any other QB had the same level of success that Aaron has had, we'd be applauding them for how much they've achieved.  But since one of the elite QBs hasn't had the same team success that another elite QB has had it's disappointing.

[Pats#1]

1 hour ago, CWood21 said:

It's essentially a double-standard.  IF any other QB had the same level of success that Aaron has had, we'd be applauding them for how much they've achieved.  But since one of the elite QBs hasn't had the same team success that another elite QB has had it's disappointing.

Yea, it's a shame people are looking at Rodgers career as being wasted considering some of the incredible things he's been able to do.

Just because he hasn't been able to match another elite QBs overall success doesn't really mean he's lesser. The guy is a generational talent and one of the best to ever do it.

I look at this thread as kind of downplaying Rodgers greatness and accomplishments. 

[JBURGE]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong. In the press conference last night after the game, a reporter asked Rodgers about overtime and stated that Rodgers was 0-7 in overtime before this game, while having attempted 6 total passes. LOL 

[Pats#1]

1 hour ago, SpeightTheVillain said:

-.14 correlation to wins. It has the most negative effect on wins only behind Sack Rate and Interceptions. 

http://www.footballperspective.com/correlating-passing-stats-with-wins/

No I'm asking is it shown that throwing over 50 times is directly connected to losing a game by a lot.

I'm saying when Brady has thrown over 50 times in games it hasn't necessarily been because the Pats are losing big but because his run game was giving him zero support and game planning/adjustments replaces the run game with quick passses.

 

In your post above are you saying throwing 50 or more times has the third largest negative affect on winning games?

[SpeightTheVillain]

1 hour ago, Pats#1 said:

No I'm asking is it shown that throwing over 50 times is directly connected to losing a game by a lot.

I'm saying when Brady has thrown over 50 times in games it hasn't necessarily been because the Pats are losing big but because his run game was giving him zero support and game planning/adjustments replaces the run game with quick passses.

 

In your post above are you saying throwing 50 or more times has the third largest negative affect on winning games?

I mean that is what this is illustrating. There is nothing inherently wrong about throwing a bunch in a vacuum. The reason it has a negative correlation to wins is because you throw more when your losing. Also 50+ attempts is hard to achieve unless your defense is getting scored on quickly. 

Nothing is 100%. I'm sure there are game planned instances of that being the case, especially with Brady, but the vast majority of times its because you are down. 

Look at it in the opposite. People always say running the ball leads to wins, and yes this is also correlated, but it is not because running the ball directly leads to wins (or else every team would be Army or Navy) but because you run the ball more when you are winning.

I can only speak for Rodgers, but McCarthy runs a variation of the run and shoot with Rodgers, which is predicated on vertical routes and the run game. They are rarely ever game planning for 50+ passes a game. 

[Pats#1]

48 minutes ago, SpeightTheVillain said:

I mean that is what this is illustrating. There is nothing inherently wrong about throwing a bunch in a vacuum. The reason it has a negative correlation to wins is because you throw more when your losing. Also 50+ attempts is hard to achieve unless your defense is getting scored on quickly. 

Nothing is 100%. I'm sure there are game planned instances of that being the case, especially with Brady, but the vast majority of times its because you are down. 

Look at it in the opposite. People always say running the ball leads to wins, and yes this is also correlated, but it is not because running the ball directly leads to wins (or else every team would be Army or Navy) but because you run the ball more when you are winning.

I can only speak for Rodgers, but McCarthy runs a variation of the run and shoot with Rodgers, which is predicated on vertical routes and the run game. They are rarely ever game planning for 50+ passes a game. 

Yea I was legit asking because I can only personally speak on Brady's games where he's had to throw more than usual.

I just wasn't sure if Rodgers games where he threw an abnormal amount of passes was directly because they were losing or something else. 

 

Thanks for the info.

[strat1080]

On ‎9‎/‎24‎/‎2017 at 10:58 PM, TransientTexan said:

I disagree. Both teams' defenses have had some good years and some bad years.
---------------------------------PPG---PPG Rk---Yd/G---Yd/G Rk---Yd/play---Yd/play Rk---Sc%---SC% Rk---TO%---TO% Rk
Colts w/ Manning:    21.4-----15.5------328.5------17.4--------5.3------------19.4-------33.77-----20.5-----14.5----15.3
Packers w/ Capers:  21.2-----13.9------346.4------15.9--------5.5------------17.6-------32.80-----15.5-----15.3------9.5

So not only is GB's ranking higher in almost all cases, their actual stats are higher despite that median offensive production accross the league has gone up, making it
harder to play defense. 

Defensive stats: 
-----------------------------------------PPG---Yd/G---Yd/play---Sc%---TO%   
NFL median/1999-2010: 21.0----325.9----5.14-----30.90---13.86   
NFL median/2009-2016: 22.4----344.7----5.38-----33.33---12.62  

Sure, they've had some that didn't work out like DJones and Randall. But others like Perry & HHCD have. (too early to grade the most recent picks). if you are
expecting higher "hit" rates, you clearly did not do your own research at all. The odds of a late-1st rounder being a long-time starter are only 55-60%. And that's not even
saying a guy's a *good* longtime starter. I'm sure the odds for that are even less. 

 

GB has had plenty of offensive talent: G.Jennings, J.Nelson, R.Cobb, E.Lacy, R.Grant. Maybe their peaks don't match the Colts guys, but there is pretty good quantity there. & there is more to the NFL than skill positions. B.Bulaga, D.Bakhtiari, TJ Lang, J.Sitton all good players. And of course plenty of other good players I left off this list from the previous regime.

When you're done refuting strawman arguments, try and address the actual point I stated. I did not say Rodgers has played badly throughout the playoffs. I did not say the
defense played well in all the GB playoff losses. I did not say Manning has played better in the playoffs than Arod. I said Arod and the offense have played badly in some of
the Green Bay playoff losses. certain fans act like GB is always losing shootouts in the playoffs, but that's really a false narrative. in fact, 3 of the last 4 years, the
defense has played well in the knockout game, with the points allowed in regulation being 23, 22, and 20 (against teams that averaged 25.4, 24.6, & 30.6 ppg, respectively).
If you knew that the defense would do that going into the game, you'd have to feel pretty good about your chances of the offense outscoring that in at least one of the 3 times.
Last 4 knockout games, GB offense has averaged 20.8ppg.

I'm not going to spend much time back and forth with you because you aren't making a very coherent point or argument and you basically shifted the goal posts with your rebuttal.

I was talking defensive performance in the playoffs. Clearly the teams that Manning played for in the playoffs had more consistent and competent defensive play than the Packers. That is absolutely not up for debate. Like I said, the Packers gave up 36 PPG in their 7 playoff losses with Rodgers at the helm while the teams that Manning has played for gave up 27 PPG in the 13 playoff losses that he has been associated with. You can just look up playoff logs for both QBs and clearly the teams that Rodgers has played on have given up higher point totals.

Sure, Aaron Rodgers has had a few bad playoff games. Every QB in NFL history has. Peyton Manning had significantly more of them than Rodgers though. Peyton Manning has had quite a few 18-16, 24-13, 17-14, 43-8, 41-0 playoff losses. Rodgers hasn't. When Rodgers has 36 TDs and 10 INTs in 16 playoff games you aren't going to find many bad playoff games. Basically his first two NFC title games. In the meantime Peyton Manning has had a slew of games where the offense just didn't even show up. 8 games where the team failed to score 20 points and 3 in which they failed to score 10. That has just never happened to Rodgers. Again. 40 TDs and 25 INTs in 27 playoff games for Manning. There is a chasm as wide as the Grand Canyon between the individual playoff performance of Rodgers vs Manning. They are not even remotely comparable. You make it seem like its trivial.

You are reaching and cherry picking. I could cherry pick 4-5 playoff games that would make Peyton Manning look like Rex Grossman if I wanted to spend the time on it. Come on dude. We need to compare their entire body of work in the playoffs.  

Are you really going to try to compare R Grant and E Lacy to E James? James is the 12th all time leading rusher in NFL history and was a consistent workhorse back for the Colts. Aaron Rodgers has never had that consistent rusher behind him. R Grant was a one year wonder and E Lacy ate his way out of shape and couldn't even make the active roster for Seattle last week. Give me a break with that.

Then you talk about Nelson and Cobb. Both of these guys are constantly injured and even when healthy they don't really compare to Harrison or Wayne. You are really reaching there. I think on balance Manning has had more well rounded and complete teams than Rodgers throughout their careers.  All in all, in Rodgers 7 playoff losses his defense just simply got throttled 3 times, in 3 other playoff losses he was not on the field when the defense gave up a game winning drive as time expired or in OT, in his first playoff loss he got sacked in OT leading to a fumble recovery for a TD after putting up 400+ yards 4 TDs, and 1 rushing TD and 45 points on the road.