Rodgers: Close games can be decided early

[longtimefan]

Green Bay Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers took questions on a number of topics during a Wednesday conference call, including whether he would like to one day rekindle his iced-over relationship with predecessor Brett Favre.

(Rodgers' response: "I enjoyed the three years that we spent together, and now, he's out there and I'm out here.")

We all know Rodgers and Favre won't be breaking bread this year or anytime in the near future. But it's also worth noting that Rodgers has come under particular scrutiny this week for his team's failure in an area Favre often excelled in.

Although it's not entirely an apples-to-apples comparison, here are the two key statistics. Favre has led 42 game-saving/winning regular-season drives in his career. Rodgers, on the other hand, is 1-11 in games decided by four points or less, most recently a pair of overtime losses this month.

Just as we're not blaming the Chicago Bears' offensive line for all of the team's 23 sacks, we won't throw all of these close losses on Rodgers' shoulders. But as we noted in Tuesday's SportsNation chat, the quarterback has more opportunity to affect the outcome of a game -- close or otherwise -- than any other player on the field.

Rodgers said Wednesday that he didn't see any common threads through those 11 losses and noted that close games aren't always decided in the final minutes.

"These games come down to really a handful of plays," Rodgers said, "a small handful of plays that don't always happen at the end of games. Sometimes they happen in the first quarter, the second quarter, the first possession of the second half. ...

"If I had done my job better on a play maybe in the red zone in the first quarter and gotten seven [points] instead of three, it's a different game."

Rodgers noted one such instance, a second-quarter sequence in a 16-13 loss earlier this month to the Washington Redskins. The Packers had a second-and-goal from the 1 but couldn't convert. Rodgers' fourth-down pass to tight end Andrew Quarless fell incomplete.

"Those four-point swings, those seven-point swings." Rodgers said, "... those are the times that when you lose by three, you remember your inability to cash in on those opportunities."

We'll keep an eye on it Sunday night at Lambeau Field.

The bolded part in the land of brett favre lovers means

Rodgers is just trying to deflect the issue that he doesn't perform well in the clutch.

They are so bitter

 

[Mack_20]

He's a smart cat, and he's right, all our losses could have easily been wins, but it doesnt matter, we lost all 3 or them, now have to dogfight, but hopefully we can put a good string of wins together as our schedule gets tougher.. We need our offense to start clickin early and often starting this sunday

 

[SpartaChris]

I was glad to hear him say it. It tells me he's at least aware of what's going on and can take action to hopefully get that damn offense to start firing on all 11 cylinders again.

I think the 1-11 stat, which correct, is misleading. There's a LOT of game that he had us in a position to win but circumstances out of his control led to a loss. In '08 Houston and Carolina all came up with a HUGE play late in the game to steal the win after Rodgers led us to a narrow lead. That's on defense. Also in '08, Crosby missed a FG against Minny and had one blocked vs. Chicago. Both were potential game winners that Rodgers put us in position to win. And then there's OT vs. Tennessee- Our offense never saw the ball.

That doesn't excuse the two OT losses *this* season, but in the Chicago game, Crosby had a blocked FG and James Jones with that killer fumble. Can't really pin that one on Rodgers.

That's at least 5 of 11 close games he had us in position to win, but either our defense or special teams came up short. 6 if you want to count the Chicago game, but to be honest, there's no telling where that final drive could have gone. Either way, the 1-11 stat really doesn't paint the whole picture.

 

[longtimefan]

Chris I agree with you, but then you have the argument that Rodgers mentions

If he could have got a FG or a Td in the 1st, 2nd or 3rd q then wouldnt need the last minute thing

 

[Incubes12]

Now if only he (and the rest of the team) prove that actions speak louder than words.

 

[PackersRS]

IMHO this is BS.

He has played terribly lately, but to call him not clutch is BS. So many games he brought us close to victory, only for the D to let us down.

But it is something to keep an eye on, to see if it affects him. Though I think it's overrated, it's not like he is extremely clutch, you know?

 

[SpartaChris]

Chris I agree with you, but then you have the argument that Rodgers mentions

If he could have got a FG or a Td in the 1st, 2nd or 3rd q then wouldnt need the last minute thing

I agree completely. I was just trying to make the point that the 1-11 in close games stat is misleading. I mean, it is what it is, but it fails to tell the whole story.

 

[Mack_20]

IMO, its Rodgers who needs to pull the team and rally, thats what Favre always did, and thats what he needs to do. . He hasnt played well in either of the OT losses this year and has been off on some of his throws.. I put a lot of the blame on him and think he should tighten things up from beginning to end..

 

[SpartaChris]

IMO, its Rodgers who needs to pull the team and rally, thats what Favre always did, and thats what he needs to do. . He hasnt played well in either of the OT losses this year and has been off on some of his throws.. I put a lot of the blame on him and think he should tighten things up from beginning to end..

Agreed. I would love to see him put this team on his shoulders and be the leader we need him to be.

 

[longtimefan]

Mack....He led a drive at end of Washington game and Mason missed..

So now he is suppose to have TWO game winning drives in one game?

 

[SpartaChris]

Mack....He led a drive at end of Washington game and Mason missed..

So now he is suppose to have TWO game winning drives in one game?

He did have two OT possessions in the Washington game though.. One of those should have led to a scoring drive, but he threw a pick instead.

We did have an opportunity for two FG's earlier that Crosby missed though. He makes one of those and it's possible the game never goes to OT.

 

[Mack_20]

I could be getting my FGs mixed around, but wasnt that a 56 yard attempt? thats not really great field position, he shoulda gotten at least 10 more yards, but then again, I could be confusing FGs..

 

[SpartaChris]

In the WAS game we had a 48 and a 53 yard attempt. Both were missed.

 

[Murgen]

Brett Farve had Longwell who I recall rarely missed. Mason was horrible last year and missed one game winner this year. A kicker has to be as clutch as the QB who gets him into FG range. So Rodgers takes the blame for Mason not hitting FGs. Unfair, but the way it is.

 

[longtimefan]

NFL Forum :: - Post-Game Week 6: Packers 20, Miami 23.


Posted by a guy named waldo on football future

Don't listen to all the BS that is going to be going around this week about the inability of the team to win close games.

I did a pretty exhaustive study on the subject 2 years ago, and others have as well. I looked at the QB relationship and tried to draw conclusions from other factors as well.

Mostly what I found is that on average, over time scales to allow sufficient data, teams win games decided by less than 7 pts (6 points or less) 50% of the time. The only major QB (guys with a long enough career for good data) to break from this trend is Tom Brady. His team has a well over 50% win rate in close games over his career. Every other one, from Manning to Favre to Brees, McNabb, Hasselbeck, all were close to 50%. With Brady his early career was near perfect in close games a few years straight, later in his career he's been close to 50%, his early career performance though will likely always keep him well above 50%.

Enrage did a lot of study on this subject as well, basically with the same point, but using it to look at the upcoming season. He essentially assumed that the ratio and number of big wins/losses would remain static or roughly static, and that the number of close wins would regress to 50%.

GB this year is 1-3 in close games. They are putting the performance of a 4-2 team on the field right now. Packer fans will be bombarded from all angles regarding "the problem" when it comes to the inability to win close, but just know that it is largely a roll of the dice, a 50-50 shot. Nobody is to blame. If you want to talk about problems, talk about the fact that the game was even close. That is the root of the problem. But when it comes to this or that, unclutchness, whatever is mentioned, it is a bunch of hooey, no team is able to sustain any better than a 50% win rate in close games over time, no matter who the coach, QB, DC, whatever is. Unless you have early 2000's Tom Brady, Bill B, Adam V, etc...

When I looked it last, I took it a step further, throwing out all the close win data as noise, looking at the decisive wins/losses as being the only data that has meaning to describe the quality of a team. With that assumption things became really clear. I basially used the end season decisive ratio as almost like an end of the day stock price, and tracked team performace over time this way, thinking that you could draw conclusions about quality change this way, and you could. I might have to go dust off that study.

On average teams were involved in about 6 close games per year. This is why it is so incredibly hard to have a final record above 13-3, even a team perfect in decisive games will always need what is essentially luck to get any higher, to break through the 50-50 chance in close games.

 

[SpartaChris]

That's some pretty great information.

So since most teams are average in close games, I guess it's time for Rodgers and McCarthy to go on a 10 close game win streak!

 

[longtimefan]

I am not sure but in last 8 years or so Brett has had at least 3 playoff games to come up at the end?

Philly 4th and 26

Giants

New Orleans

am I right or can we blame the defense, or lack of running game?

But I am pretty sure he had the ball with a chance to score, and they win, right? but instead he tossed ints?

 

[longtimefan]

LOL @ Brett fans

Maybe just maybe if Rodgers would "Risk" throwing the ball into double coverage "at certain Times" when his receivers are in or near the end zone to try & get the win instead of being the Anti-Favre & playing it safe then maybe just maybe he would have a few more W's instead of L's-just sayi

Again in last 5 years how much did that work for Brett?

I only recall the Philly, NO and Giants playoff games, you know.....when it truly matters

 

[+RAY+]

IMHO this is BS.

He has played terribly lately, but to call him not clutch is BS. So many games he brought us close to victory, only for the D to let us down.

But it is something to keep an eye on, to see if it affects him. Though I think it's overrated, it's not like he is extremely clutch, you know?

Ditto.. The Playoff game against The Cards is an excellent example.

 

[SpartaChris]

Ditto.. The Playoff game against The Cards is an excellent example.

He did lead us on a game-tying drive vs. Miami to force OT also.

 

[longtimefan]

He did lead us on a game-tying drive vs. Miami to force OT also.

thats my point he has done that alot

So he is expected to do it 2 times in same game?

 

[OneHotelFoxtrot]

LOL @ Brett fans



Again in last 5 years how much did that work for Brett?

I only recall the Philly, NO and Giants playoff games, you know.....when it truly matters

It amazes me how much those guys are stuck up Brent's butt, it is quite impressive really.

 

[longtimefan]

From Jason Wilde just to prove it isnt as bad as Brett nutt huggers think

Closer examination of the numbers shows that the 1-11 record is somewhat skewed. Since Rodgers took over the offense, 20 of the Packers’ 38 games have been within a touchdown – with the Packers leading or trailing by seven points or fewer – entering the fourth quarter. Included in those 20 games are 10 of the 12 games decided by four points or fewer, and Rodgers’ record in those 20 games is 7-13. He is 2-7 in the nine games in which the Packers were trailing entering the fourth quarter, 1-1 in games in which they were tied, and 4-5 in games in which they were leading.

Also, included in the 11 losses by four points or fewer are two games in 2008 when Rodgers got the Packers into position for a game-winning field goal in the closing seconds (one was blocked, the other missed by Mason Crosby); two games that year when the Packers lost in overtime after losing the coin toss and never got the ball on offense; and three games when the defense gave up the winning points with 2 ½ minutes or less to go in regulation after Rodgers got them the lead or a tie.

If reading that right 7 games were Mason blocked or missed, defense giving up score with no time left, or losing coin toss and the opposing teams scored in o/t

So then it should be only 5 games to look at for the closing minutes and his performance?

 

[SpartaChris]

You'd look at 5 games if you were trying to find a way to criticize Rodgers for something. The point he's making is saying Rodgers is 1-11 in close games is misleading. In 7 of those games, Rodgers has put us in a position to win but something beyond his control led to the loss. He could just as easily be 8-11, were it not for missed FG's or our defense giving up huge last minute plays.

 

[3irty1]

Don't forget Mcarthy challenging dumb plays to waste Time Outs and praying for a blocked field goal @ :31 with no t/o...