Rodgers hidden turnovers

easyk83

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Messages
2,783
Reaction score
280
"When we talk about quarterback turnovers we focus on interceptions, but that’s a bit myopic, especially considering how much of the offense the quarterback controls. Rodgers is among the league leaders in sacks taken, and while you might be tempted to blame the line for that fact (and sometimes they deserve it), Rodgers is the primary culprit. He loves to hold the ball waiting for the big play and he is also willing to take a sack instead of throwing a risky pass, but while many sacks are preferable to interceptions, 3rd down sacks are a different story. 56% of Rodgers’ sacks have occurred on 3rd or 4th down, and while sacks on third down are common (because passing on 3rd down is common), Russell Wilson, who also takes a lot of sacks (32 so far this season, to Rodgers’ 30) has been sacked on 3rd or 4th down just 43% of the time.

Indeed, in this game Rodgers was sacked four times on 3rd down, killing several promising drives. Wilson was never sacked on 3rd down, and as a result, Seattle converted 6 of 15 opportunities. The Packers converted just 3 of 11 third downs. Rodgers is on pace to take 48 sacks, which wouldn’t be a career high, but would still be a lot. However, there’s reason to think that raw number understates the severity of the situation. Rodgers is on pace for just 237 rushing yards, which would be his lowest 16-game total since 2008, and he’s averaging just 5.1 yards per carry, his lowest since the injury-shortened 2013 season. Rodgers is hitting the age where nagging injuries start to build up and mobility fades. He’s already suffered a few leg injuries this year, and it’s likely his mobility, and escapability will continue to decline."

https://shepherdexpress.com/sports/packers/when-it-all-goes-bad/

Obviously I agree with the quoted text whole heartedly. This has been a problem with Rodgers for years now. What's frustrating to me is that I honestly do not believe that we're far away from having a very good offense. IMO if we'd only:

1) Commit to running the ball 40% of the time we'd still have pass heavy offense but atleast one that keeps defenses honest and slows down the rush. We'd set up more third and shorts and more favorable passing situations on first and second down. I put this one on Rodgers, this would explain the row between him and McCarthy and is consistent with smoke coming out of the locker room. It'd also explain those curious games where Rodgers is struggling the run game is on fire and we abandon it.

2) Get Rodgers to work the entire field. His obsession with the down field passing game is limiting his play and the offense. When teams are dropping back into three deep coverage and giving you a 10-15 yard bubble aside from a linebacker spy you have to hit those checkdowns make them pay for it. They get a running or fullback rumbling into their secondary enough times it'll not only loosen up the downfield game but it'll wear down their DBs... thinking of which we could use a good 230 pound bruiser who can catch. A DC sees a bruising physical back running over his CBs and safeties once or twice and he'll change the way he calls a game.

3) This is on MM, also from the article:

"One of McCarthy’s biggest flaws is telegraphing a play. He’s very likely to run from running formations, pass out of passing formations, and generally telling the defense exactly what is about to happen. At least twice in this game Davante Adams was targeted on deep passes and came out of the game for the next play. On both occasions, McCarthy ran the ball up the gut with Aaron Jones. On both occasions, the Seahawks had no fear of the Packer passing game without Adams, and easily snuffed out the run. Those were wasted, costly plays, and a better coach would never have run them."

MM has said it on many occasions that it doesnt matter if they know what youre doing as long as you do it well enough. It's a mantra well supported with our personnel groupings and play selection. My thought, what kind of fresh idiocy is this? There's a very real value to keeping teams off balance. Show pass and when they set their DEs up in 9 tech send a halfback dive right up the middle. Show a 2TE or I form run set force their line to bunch with the DEs at 5 tech and then set up the slow developing double move route outside. These aren't novel concepts, football sometimes is about creating mismatches and exploiting them. Whether it's MM telegraphing our plays or Rodgers insisting on throwing deep into 3 deep drops with end rushers at the 7 or wide 9 this Packer fan has had enough. Let's start playing smarter football on offense.
 

El Guapo

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 7, 2011
Messages
6,153
Reaction score
1,610
Location
Land 'O Lakes
MM has said it on many occasions that it doesn't matter if they know what you're doing as long as you do it well enough.
Obviously, this team has not been doing it well enough.

I don't think there are many people anymore that are holding on to the notion that Rodgers' game has flaws this year. It's quite obvious. The key is always fixing it and I think that your three points are spot on.
 
OP
OP
E

easyk83

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Messages
2,783
Reaction score
280
Good luck...

Eh you can be a Rodgers fan and acknowledge that his game has warts.

You know I used to defend Favre no matter what, tipped passes for interceptions were the receivers fault. Never mind that Brett sent a rocketball at his man from ten yards away. With Rodgers like Favre yeah we are lucky to have such a supremely talented quarterback but the defects in his game, correctable ones, are a part of what's holding this team back.

I'd liken a Rodgers to Brady comparison to a Sanders a Smith. Like Rodgers Sanders was a human highlight reel, and like Rodgers to Brady Sanders performed plays that Smith probably wished he could manage. But those sensational big runs often resulted from a running style that often eschewed 5 yard holes for homerun shots. Sure he'd manage an awful lot of spectacular runs but those often came after multiple avoidable stuffs and TFLs.

Both men had pro bowlers on their lines and offenses built to accommodate them, but it was Smith with his relentless positive yards that contributed to a dynasty.

Brady never had Rodgers arm strength mobility or escapability but he never needed it. Yeah Rodgers is on a different level talent wise, while Brady just attacks defenses where they're weak and takes what they give him. Give him those check downs and he'll take those first downs all day. Then when you defend him their he'll attack the middle of the field and if you keep a safety to help against those intermediate throws he'll start firing down field.

Like Smith his strength is a relentless execution and consistency. He doesn't try to do too much and yeah his highlights suck next to Rodgers, he only has how many Super Bowl rings again?
 
Last edited:
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
Sacks cannot be equated with turnovers unless the turnover is a deep pass interception or the sack is on 4th. down.

Following a 3rd. down sack, you get a punt or a FG attempt which goes to field position or points. 1st. or 2nd. down? Opportunities to continue a drive.
 

swhitset

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 28, 2015
Messages
4,350
Reaction score
1,217
Sacks cannot be equated with turnovers unless the turnover is a deep pass interception. Following a sack, you get a punt of FG attempt which goes to field position or points..
You have a point... but we are still giving up the ball. Not all turnovers result in points or even great field position for the opposing team, but they do all stop the original team from scoring.
 
OP
OP
E

easyk83

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Messages
2,783
Reaction score
280
Sacks cannot be equated with turnovers unless the turnover is a deep pass interception or the sack is on 4th. down.

Following a 3rd. down sack, you get a punt or a FG attempt which goes to field position or points. 1st. or 2nd. down? Opportunities to continue a drive.

I agree to an extent, taking a sack on third down obviously kills a drive stifles your offense and decreases a teams ToP. Even if you're passing short of the sticks you're atleast picking up yards and you're at least giving yourself a chance for a first down. What's the difference between an interception on their side of the field and a 3rd down sack on your side?
 
OP
OP
E

easyk83

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Messages
2,783
Reaction score
280
You have a point... but we are still giving up the ball. Not all turnovers result in points or even great field position for the opposing team, but they do all stop the original team from scoring.

I wonder how much of defensive woes could be helped if we did sustain longer drives. We'd keep our defense rested, less prone to injury and we'd also give our Defensive Coaching staff more time to adjust analyze and react.
 

swhitset

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 28, 2015
Messages
4,350
Reaction score
1,217
I wonder how much of defensive woes could be helped if we did sustain longer drives. We'd keep our defense rested, less prone to injury and we'd also give our Defensive Coaching staff more time to adjust analyze and react.
I though about mentioning that, but decided it didn’t directly address the point I was responding to.
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
You have a point... but we are still giving up the ball. Not all turnovers result in points or even great field position for the opposing team, but they do all stop the original team from scoring.
The Packers are 19th. in 3rd. down coversion rate and 4 of 11 on 4th. down. Those are not good numbers. That's what needs to be said about sacks being drive killers. Conflating sacks with turnovers is neither accurate nor constructive.

By the way, was there "something wrong" with Drew Brees when he led 4 teams over a 5 year period with 7-9 records? I don't think so. It's best to look elsewhere for where the problems may lie.
 

swhitset

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 28, 2015
Messages
4,350
Reaction score
1,217
The Packers are 19th. in 3rd. down coversion rate and 4 of 11 on 4th. down. Those are not good numbers. That's what needs to be said. Conflating sacks with turnovers is neither accurate nor constructive.

By the way, was there "something wrong" with Drew Brees when he led 4 teams over a 5 year period with 7-9 records? I don't think so. It's best to look elsewhere for where the problems may lie.
Not sure what your agenda or points are trying to prove (well I guess I do know). But I have purposely kept my argument narrow, and don’t plan to follow you down that rabbit hole.
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
Not sure what your agenda or points are trying to prove (well I guess I do know). But I have purposely kept my argument narrow, and don’t plan to follow you down that rabbit hole.
I have no idea if you do know or not. I explained it already...sacks are not turnovers vis a vis point opportunities and field position. I could not be any clear.

"Agenda"? LOL Yeah, it's caller accuracy in analysis. You went down the rabbit hole all on your own and I'm trying to pull you out. ;)
 
Joined
Oct 11, 2018
Messages
494
Reaction score
62
Eh you can be a Rodgers fan and acknowledge that his game has warts.

You know I used to defend Favre no matter what, tipped passes for interceptions were the receivers fault. Never mind that Brett sent a rocketball at his man from ten yards away. With Rodgers like Favre yeah we are lucky to have such a supremely talented quarterback but the defects in his game, correctable ones, are a part of what's holding this team back.

I'd liken a Rodgers to Brady comparison to a Sanders a Smith. Like Rodgers Sanders was a human highlight reel, and like Rodgers to Brady Sanders performed plays that Smith probably wished he could manage. But those sensational big runs often resulted from a running style that often eschewed 5 yard holes for homerun shots. Sure he'd manage an awful lot of spectacular runs but those often came after multiple avoidable stuffs and TFLs.

Both men had pro bowlers on their lines and offenses built to accommodate them, but it was Smith with his relentless positive yards that contributed to a dynasty.

Brady never had Rodgers arm strength mobility or escapability but he never needed it. Yeah Rodgers is on a different level talent wise, while Brady just attacks defenses where they're weak and takes what they give him. Give him those check downs and he'll take those first downs all day. Then when you defend him their he'll attack the middle of the field and if you keep a safety to help against those intermediate throws he'll start firing down field.

Like Smith his strength is a relentless execution and consistency. He doesn't try to do too much and yeah his highlights suck next to Rodgers, he only has how many Super Bowl rings again?

I agree with everything you said. I just worry cause I know how that talk gets received around here lol
 

swhitset

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 28, 2015
Messages
4,350
Reaction score
1,217
I have no idea if you do know or not. I explained it already...sacks are not turnovers vis a vis point opportunities and field position. I could not be any clear.

"Agenda"? LOL Yeah, it's caller accuracy in analysis. You went down the rabbit hole all on your own and I'm trying to pull you out. ;)
We have a difference opinion on the sacks v turnovers.... one that I don’t really consider being worth this much discussion... to me we are arguing semantics... apparently to you there is a finer point that is more important... Fine.

The Rabbit hole I was referring to was in regards to the comparison to Brees’ struggling years, and your mentioning the specifics of the Packers’ actual 3rd down success etc... This feels like an unnecessary defense of Aaron Rodgers where it pertains to this subject. We have been discussing him and McCarthy in many other threads and don’t want to expand the scope here.
 
OP
OP
E

easyk83

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Messages
2,783
Reaction score
280
The Packers are 19th. in 3rd. down coversion rate and 4 of 11 on 4th. down. Those are not good numbers. That's what needs to be said about sacks being drive killers. Conflating sacks with turnovers is neither accurate nor constructive.

By the way, was there "something wrong" with Drew Brees when he led 4 teams over a 5 year period with 7-9 records? I don't think so. It's best to look elsewhere for where the problems may lie.

First do you disagree with the notion that Rodgers game could be improved? Second are we under utilizing Aaron Jones? Third do you think that Rodgers is taking too many sacks?

if Rodgers TD to interception ratio comes at a cost of increased sacks then it certainly make sense to compare the two under the umbrella of offensive failings. This is especially salient when those sacks are ending possessions.
 

Patriotplayer90

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 2, 2015
Messages
1,874
Reaction score
130
On the majority of those 56% third down sacks, it's safe to assume that nobody was open and it would not have been converted anyway. So what difference does it make?
 

bigbubbatd

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 11, 2015
Messages
1,679
Reaction score
166
Rodgers definitely needs to be better on third down but a sack isn't close to a turnover most times. In fact it is about a 30 to 40 yard difference. Why not call incomplete passes on 3rd down or bad run plays turnovers too? Or third down passes that are complete but don't result in a first down.

Also not even close to all sacks are on Rodgers. Some are on ridiculous play calls - the fake reverse that took 4 seconds to develop and by the time Rodgers turned around he was sacked. Some are bad pass blocking. The non dump off to Jones everyone is complaining about this week is a good example. A dump off is obviously not the first read on that play. Rodgers looks off the safety then looks at the read which isn't there and then is flushed left away from Jones. He could dumped to Jones right away but if the right side doesn't get blown up he can actually do it after his first read like intended.

Rodgers has to play better but the takes that we need to start dumping it off all the time and not take shots down field are getting ridiculous. The takes that Rodgers getting sacked is always because he holds the ball too long is ridiculous. We need to understand he will get sacked a couple times as he scrambles and waits for thibgs to develop and he will turn those plays into big throws to the te for a TD and Adams for big gains.

It is to the point now where people are waiting to complain. Heck people were complaining after Rodgers hit Adams for the big play on third down because he shouldn't thrown deep. Do people not remember the year Jordy got hurt and he was dumping it off all the time and fans were complaining all the time?

The team needs Rodgers to play better because they are not that great. He just hasn't done it. He has saved a couple games but hasn't saved a few others. Honestly I really don't think it is lack of dumping the ball off or too many sacks (he has done those things during elite years) it is that he just hasn't been accurate. Part of that may be timing with young wrs but he has just missed open wrs in ways we are not accustomed.
 

Alex

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 24, 2012
Messages
604
Reaction score
67
Location
Eden Prairie, MN
Part of that may be timing with young wrs but he has just missed open wrs in ways we are not accustomed.

I think this is exactly it. Not practicing basically getting nothing in outside of game time with them did them no favors. Davante has really been the only target he has a hand full of experience with since Cobb and Allison can't stay on the field.
 

swhitset

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 28, 2015
Messages
4,350
Reaction score
1,217
Rodgers definitely needs to be better on third down but a sack isn't close to a turnover most times. In fact it is about a 30 to 40 yard difference. Why not call incomplete passes on 3rd down or bad run plays turnovers too? Or third down passes that are complete but don't result in a first down.

Also not even close to all sacks are on Rodgers. Some are on ridiculous play calls - the fake reverse that took 4 seconds to develop and by the time Rodgers turned around he was sacked. Some are bad pass blocking. The non dump off to Jones everyone is complaining about this week is a good example. A dump off is obviously not the first read on that play. Rodgers looks off the safety then looks at the read which isn't there and then is flushed left away from Jones. He could dumped to Jones right away but if the right side doesn't get blown up he can actually do it after his first read like intended.

Rodgers has to play better but the takes that we need to start dumping it off all the time and not take shots down field are getting ridiculous. The takes that Rodgers getting sacked is always because he holds the ball too long is ridiculous. We need to understand he will get sacked a couple times as he scrambles and waits for thibgs to develop and he will turn those plays into big throws to the te for a TD and Adams for big gains.

It is to the point now where people are waiting to complain. Heck people were complaining after Rodgers hit Adams for the big play on third down because he shouldn't thrown deep. Do people not remember the year Jordy got hurt and he was dumping it off all the time and fans were complaining all the time?

The team needs Rodgers to play better because they are not that great. He just hasn't done it. He has saved a couple games but hasn't saved a few others. Honestly I really don't think it is lack of dumping the ball off or too many sacks (he has done those things during elite years) it is that he just hasn't been accurate. Part of that may be timing with young wrs but he has just missed open wrs in ways we are not accustomed.
All of your arguments are predicated on the fact that you believe that the downfield throw should always be the first read. Well it seems that both McCarthy and Rodgers agree with this. So why are we losing games? I want to see more balance. If it is 3rd and short... the first read should be the quick underneath throw... if it is there get the damned first down. For that matter, when is the last time we ran the ball on 3rd and short. I think both Rodgers and McCarthy share the blame here.
 
Joined
Oct 11, 2018
Messages
494
Reaction score
62
I wonder if one day the moderators are going to have to patrol/create a separate section for Rodgers talk similar to how they do with Favre talk now. The arguments will be about if we over paid him on this most recent contract, stuff from this season, etc. I can see it now :rolleyes:
 

swhitset

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 28, 2015
Messages
4,350
Reaction score
1,217
I wonder if one day the moderators are going to have to patrol/create a separate section for Rodgers talk similar to how they do with Favre talk now. The arguments will be about if we over paid him on this most recent contract, stuff from this season, etc. I can see it now :rolleyes:
I hope they do not do that.
 
OP
OP
E

easyk83

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Messages
2,783
Reaction score
280
All of your arguments are predicated on the fact that you believe that the downfield throw should always be the first read. Well it seems that both McCarthy and Rodgers agree with this. So why are we losing games? I want to see more balance. If it is 3rd and short... the first read should be the quick underneath throw... if it is there get the damned first down. For that matter, when is the last time we ran the ball on 3rd and short. I think both Rodgers and McCarthy share the blame here.

I'm not trying to split hairs but I'm of a mind that that football is a lot like cards and you sometimes have to show your opponent what you're willing to do. Losing on a bluff with nothing can be a long term advantage especially when your opponents have to factor in a possible bluff and doubly so if you fed them a couple false tells. Likewise every so often its a good idea to attack downfield on 3rd and short, it's just that we do it too often.
 
Top