Brett Favre saw Aaron Rodgers' confidence back when

[ivo610]

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/279718152.html

 

[Forget Favre]

Peyton Manning lost a year and still managed to break his TD record.
So if one is careful with throwing the ball, they don't need to play every single game to make other records.
All you need is a band and a studio and can make records that way too.

 

[NOMOFO]

Somebody asked about this last week. This shows Rodgers ball protection skills (and Brentds lack there of).

Brett Favre Career Pass Attempts 10,169 Career INTs 336 INT % .0330
Peyton Manning Career Pass Attempts 8669 Career INTs 222 INT % .0256
Aaron Rodgers Career Pass Attempts 3,166 Careen INTs 53 INT % .0167 Basically 50% of Favre’s INT %

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Somebody asked about this last week. This shows Rodgers ball protection skills (and Brentds lack there of).

Brett Favre Career Pass Attempts 10,169 Career INTs 336 INT % .0330
Peyton Manning Career Pass Attempts 8669 Career INTs 222 INT % .0256
Aaron Rodgers Career Pass Attempts 3,166 Careen INTs 53 INT % .0167 Basically 50% of Favre’s INT %

In addition the 1.67% interception percentage is the best in NFL history with Brady being second at 1.99%.

 

[NOMOFO]

In addition the 1.67% interception percentage is the best in NFL history with Brady being second at 1.99%.

Yep... I always remind people that comment about Rodgers supposed lack of come backs. When a guy like Brendt Fvfevfr throws twice as many interceptions, he's certainly giving his team more chances for a come back!

Although I even fail to see how a Packer fan could still regurgitate that point. I have all the confidence in the world that Rodgers will come thru in the clutch more times than not these days. I had ZERO faith in brentd over his last 6 or 7 years in the league and he proved me right time and time again.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Yep... I always remind people that comment about Rodgers supposed lack of come backs. When a guy like Brendt Fvfevfr throws twice as many interceptions, he's certainly giving his team more chances for a come back!

IMO criticizing Rodgers for the lack of fourth quarter comebacks is one of the most ridiculous thing people can come up with.

 

[El Guapo]

There's a nuance to the whole protecting the football discussion. My brother forwarded an interesting article to me comparing Rodgers and Manning, who both are equally good at protecting the football. However, the author points out that when the team is really down that more risk taking is needed for a chance to win. Manning takes those chances and has been rewarded with more big comebacks while Rodgers sticks with his ball protection mantra. I'm still a fan of Rodgers and know that most players, like most of us, have flaws. However, it's an interesting wrinkle to think about when every Packers fan gloats about Rodgers' low TD-to-INT ratio. It may not always be a good thing:


http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/skeptical-football-the-aaron-rodgers-enigma/

• It’s when the quarterbacks’ teams are down 9 or more points in the second half that you really see the difference. Peyton Manning throws interceptions on 15.6 percent of his drives, compared to Rodgers’ 8.1 percent. And for that, Manning is punished … by winning 28.6 percent of these games. Rodgers, meanwhile, wins 0 percent. That’s right, Rodgers has zero comebacks of 9 or more points in the second half. Ever.

 

[longtimefan]

How does tossing an int make a win? Your offense losses the chance to score

Maybe it isnt "chance taking" but playing with better determination and will to win

 

[El Guapo]

So you're saying that Manning plays with better determination and will to win?

I wasn't going there, but just agreeing with the author that risk taking when the team is way down may lead to more victories...which is always more important than TD-to-INT stats. I think that it's obvious that tossing an INT doesn't make wins.

 

[Munch]

You hear about how many fourth quarter comebacks that a guy has and I think it means a guy screwed up in the first three quarters
Peyton Manning

 

[NOMOFO]

There's a nuance to the whole protecting the football discussion. My brother forwarded an interesting article to me comparing Rodgers and Manning, who both are equally good at protecting the football. However, the author points out that when the team is really down that more risk taking is needed for a chance to win. Manning takes those chances and has been rewarded with more big comebacks while Rodgers sticks with his ball protection mantra. I'm still a fan of Rodgers and know that most players, like most of us, have flaws. However, it's an interesting wrinkle to think about when every Packers fan gloats about Rodgers' low TD-to-INT ratio. It may not always be a good thing:


http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/skeptical-football-the-aaron-rodgers-enigma/

• It’s when the quarterbacks’ teams are down 9 or more points in the second half that you really see the difference. Peyton Manning throws interceptions on 15.6 percent of his drives, compared to Rodgers’ 8.1 percent. And for that, Manning is punished … by winning 28.6 percent of these games. Rodgers, meanwhile, wins 0 percent. That’s right, Rodgers has zero comebacks of 9 or more points in the second half. Ever.

It's honestly really a matter of trying very hard to make a point that's not even there to be made regarding Rodgers. It really is. Where does the "down by 9 or more" come in? Why is that a magic number? What about when they're "down by 8 or more"....or "down by 7, 6 0r 5"? Cold Hard Facts had a great article with historical data on this a few years ago that completely blew away the debate about late game heroics and what a compete myth it is with certain players.

What about giving us a stat when the score is tied and/or when we're up by 1,2 or 3 in close games? Can you provide us stats on how many games both Brent Fvfr and Manning LOST when leading in the second half and threw an int? ...or....when the game was close ...like a 3 point game and they threw an int? Without providing the counter measure you prove NOTHING. This idea that there's this magic number and magic threshold where a QB needs to take chances and it can be proven-out by his career stats is just ridiculous.

Every single time Packer fans come to the defense of Rodgers they're accused of being blind to some major faults he has or ignoring facts. Yet, the stats presented are so nebulous and meaningless it really is amusing. When the Pack was down to the Fins and Rodgers took that sack late in the game- THANK GOD HE DIDN'T PANIC AND TOSS A GAME ENDING INTERCEPTION. Thank God he doesn't let all this BS talk about lack of come backs bother him and impact the way he plays. Manning, Favrere, Romo, Cutler, Matty Melt... they probably would have tossed an interception in that game at that point and their career numbers prove that. hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

 

[El Guapo]

...or they would have tossed an under-handed pass to Bubba Franks that got a drive saving first down. We're just arguing about nothing here. We all like Rodgers and think that he's doing a great job. No need for you to get so worked up about it.

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[NOMOFO]

...or they would have tossed an under-handed pass to Bubba Franks that got a drive saving first down. We're just arguing about nothing here. We all like Rodgers and think that he's doing a great job. No need for you to get so worked up about it.

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

Nobody is getting worked up. If you are going to post something that's a very direct and strong statement, it should be of little surprise that somebody might reply with a direct strong statement. Here is what you said "Rodgers, meanwhile, wins 0 percent. That’s right, Rodgers has zero comebacks of 9 or more points in the second half. Ever."

Of all stats in football the 4th quarter come back is the most misleading that people often talk about.

Cutler and Matty Melt have more 4th quarter comebacks. In a million years do you think ANY coach in the NFL would choose to have either of those two as their QB with the game on the line if given the choice? Would any coach in the NFL pick to have either of those in ANY situation of ANY game REGARDLESS of the score? He## no...and you and I both know that.

Even hinting at the Brentsd Fvefer thing again is funny. I don't think there's a Packer fan alive if he's honest with himself that wishes he had Brent as his QB rather than Rodgers when a play needs to be made. It's SHOCKING to me that any Packer fan, having been put thru Brent Fvferer complete failures to deliver in big games, would actually come on the forum and hint that he was a reliable, steady "clutch" QB. THAT is really very amazing to me.

Two words... Tim Tebow. I stand by what I stated above and leave it at that.

 

[Oshkoshpackfan]

4th Qtr comebacks should not really be a positive stat imo. The 4th Qtr should be "cruise control" time for any good QB. I would rather have the lead for the first full 3 Qtrs and just ride out the 4th with good clock control.....who the hell needs to have a comeback win to be compared to other great QB's? That says to me the other guys didnt get it done in the firt 3/4ths of the game.

 

[packerfan4ever]

When your o-line has you up in points and your d-line Saunders it that make's it ******* the qb. To try and get more points that happens a few times take Sundays game we are up early, if our d-line doesn't play the way they did we would have a hard time coming back ,other team gets the edge the team as a whole has to play 4 quarters and have qb rest a.That doesn't happen much any more ,but it did for A-Rod on Sunday.

 

[El Guapo]

First of all NOMOFO, I copied & pasted the bullet point that was in the article which you obviously never read. Had you read it you would have known that was the author's assertion. You also would have known that he discussed the stats of when those quarterbacks were in close games or up. You'd also know why the author chose 9 points, which is because it meant that it was more than a one possession comeback.

Arguing with someone who can't take the time to get his facts straight is not worth the time.

 

[NOMOFO]

First of all NOMOFO, I copied & pasted the bullet point that was in the article which you obviously never read. Had you read it you would have known that was the author's assertion. You also would have known that he discussed the stats of when those quarterbacks were in close games or up. You'd also know why the author chose 9 points, which is because it meant that it was more than a one possession comeback.

Arguing with someone who can't take the time to get his facts straight is not worth the time.

lol... you're right! I have zero interest in reading something like that when your cliff notes version reads: That’s right, Rodgers has zero comebacks of 9 or more points in the second half. Ever.

I have no interest in even reading any further. Like somebody else said earlier, for people to even be going there anymore is ridiculous.

Second, you stated your position pretty clearly and I'm not confused in the least with your opinion. You posted a photo of the great Bert to prove your point. Don't get upset with me that you can't run from that now. Don't act like I did something wrong because you are presenting something that's so ridiculous.

 

[Forget Favre]

I think the main things that Air-Run learned from watching BrINT was to not make those same mistakes and I think Air-Run takes the game a lot more seriously and has a lot more determination to win.

 

[PackwillBEback]

You learn three ways:

1st. By messing up yourself.
2nd. By seeing someone else mess up.
3rd. By seeing someone do it right.

Aaron saw a lot of the 2nd and 3rd from Brett. That NFC Championship appearance season, he saw Brett do a ton of good stuff, he also saw him mess up royally in the NFC Championship game.

Brett won the Pack a lot of games, he unfortunately wiped the chances for the Pack a few times. Vs. the Lambs and then vs. the Giants.

 

[lambeaulambo]

never heard of Blair Kiel or Brent or whatever his name is...

 

[longtimefan]

So you're saying that Manning plays with better determination and will to win?

I wasn't going there, but just agreeing with the author that risk taking when the team is way down may lead to more victories...which is always more important than TD-to-INT stats. I think that it's obvious that tossing an INT doesn't make wins.

No, I said maybe better will to win.....Another option or reason why Manning has a comeback stats that are better.

My point is if you toss an int---isnt that ANOTHER lost series on your offense????? So again you need another chance to make a comeback.

From that same article.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/skeptical-football-the-aaron-rodgers-enigma/

In a surprise, I found that Rodgers actually has a history of being great in comeback situations like the one he faced against the Dolphins. In the fourth quarter, with his team needing a touchdown to tie or take the lead (that is, down 4 points to 8 points), only Peyton Manning has led his team to a higher percentage of touchdown drives:

Did this guy include games Rodgers took over for Brett? or when he left with injury? He also mentioned 21 games, I sent him an email asking for all those answers.

When leading by 4 or more points in the second half, both Rodgers (6.2 percent) and Manning (7.9 percent) throw a pretty low percentage of interceptions. About 30 percent of their drives end in touchdowns (29.8 percent and 29.5 percent, respectively) and both win at a very high rate (90.9 percent and 92.9 percent of the time, respectively).

When the game is close — up or down 3 or fewer points — Manning’s interception rate drops a little (to 5.8 percent), while his touchdown percentage goes up a little (to 31.4 percent). Overall, Manning is still winning 77.7 percent of these games, while Rodgers’s (8.3 percent interception rate, 26.6 percent TD rate) winning percentage drops all the way down to 55.1 percent.

If I am understanding this correctly...

when up or down by 3, Rodgers int rate rises from 6.2 to 8.3 and td rate drops from 29.8 to 26.6 and winning drops from 90.9 to 55.1--(when compared to up by 4 more more points)

So this author says more chances led to more wins...Yet when down by 3 or fewer, Rodgers int rate rises, and winning drops...Isnt Rodgers "Taking more chances" but is losing more?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

There's a nuance to the whole protecting the football discussion. My brother forwarded an interesting article to me comparing Rodgers and Manning, who both are equally good at protecting the football. However, the author points out that when the team is really down that more risk taking is needed for a chance to win. Manning takes those chances and has been rewarded with more big comebacks while Rodgers sticks with his ball protection mantra. I'm still a fan of Rodgers and know that most players, like most of us, have flaws. However, it's an interesting wrinkle to think about when every Packers fan gloats about Rodgers' low TD-to-INT ratio. It may not always be a good thing:


http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/skeptical-football-the-aaron-rodgers-enigma/

• It’s when the quarterbacks’ teams are down 9 or more points in the second half that you really see the difference. Peyton Manning throws interceptions on 15.6 percent of his drives, compared to Rodgers’ 8.1 percent. And for that, Manning is punished … by winning 28.6 percent of these games. Rodgers, meanwhile, wins 0 percent. That’s right, Rodgers has zero comebacks of 9 or more points in the second half. Ever.

One of the things the author doesn´t mention though is the role of the Packers defense in all of it. Since Rodgers became a starter the Packers trailed by 9 or more points in only 17 games out of 94 starts (Packers rank 2nd in the league in such games with 24 since 2008, 7 of those coming from last season when Rodgers was hurt). In those games Rodgers and the offense were able to take the lead four times and tying the score in two more games, just for the defense not being able to hold on to the lead or getting them to OT.