So Aaron Rodgers learned how to win a close game last night?

[FrankRizzo]

• 
  [*]So while he was on the sideline for about 15 minutes to end the game against the Vikings Sunday Night, Aaron Rodgers apparently learned how to win a 4-point or less close game.
  
  Much was made last week in Titletown about Aaron Rodgers' miserable 1-11 record in close games. Following the Packers second straight overtime, 3-point loss, Bob McGinn highlighted the late game struggles of Rodgers.
  
  Now some of the record was Rodgers' fault, no question about it.
  
  In the Packers last four losses, three of them were in overtime, and all three of them Rodgers had the ball at least one possession, and never led his team to even field goal range. The Arizona playoff loss, he overthrew a wide-open Greg Jennings on the first play, which would have given him a heroic 1-0 playoff record, and then two plays later, he took a sack and fumbled the season away.
  
  But many of those 11 losses were not his fault. In 2008, he had led the Packers to late leads or late ties, only to watch the 2008 Packers defense, or special teams, wilt late and lose the games.
  
  What's ironic is that Rodgers did nothing late in the game this week, at all. And he threw two ugly interceptions, whereas he had only thrown one in his previous four games against the Vikings. But now he gets credited with a close, big win.
  
  That goes to show you that statistics are often a bit misleading. And all statistics can change. Now Rodgers record in games decided by 4 points or less is 2-11 and the Packers are giddy about that.
  

 

[Therran D]

The point is, it's a TEAM game! This 1-11-close-game stat is complete BS because it puts focus squarely on one player. Just think: where would Brady be without Belichick's early-2000's defense and Adam Vinatieri's game-winning field goals?

 

[Incubes12]

I think it was as much Brett throwing the game away as it was Rodgers winning it.

 

[Mr. StyleZ]

I think it was more Brett throwing the game than it was Rodgers winning it.

Fixed it..

C'mon people lets not be homers and pretend Rodgers ''won'' this game for us.

 

[Incubes12]

Fixed it..

C'mon people lets not be homers and pretend Rodgers ''won'' this game for us.

Haha, I was trying to give him some credit, despite thinking he really didn't even play all that well.

 

[SpartaChris]

Well, if Rodgers has to take credit for all the losses, I think it's fair he gets credit for the wins too.

 

[PackersRS]

Great article man. Hate the 1-11 thing, but, like you said, some were definitely his fault.

 

[Incubes12]

Well, if Rodgers has to take credit for all the losses, I think it's fair he gets credit for the wins too.

He doesn't get that credit. Seriously, only sportscasters credit a whole game to the quarterback.

 

[SpartaChris]

He doesn't get that credit. Seriously, only sportscasters credit a whole game to the quarterback.

I agree with you. There's lots of intangibles that play into whether a team wins or loses, and it's truly a team effort.
My point was, if those intangibles are going to be ignored and all the blame is to be put on Rodgers for the teams close loses, then, in all fairness, all the intangibles that led to this win should likewise be ignored and he should be given sole credit for the win.

I know it's completely ridiculous. So is pinning all the losses squarely on one guy and ignoring the big picture. Then again, the media sucks, so we really shouldn't expect anything different.