PFT: Bob McGinn, longtime Packers writer on Aaron Rodgers

In comment 15612320 Big Blue '56 said:

Quote:

In comment 15612298 Mike from Ohio said: Quote: when someone is unpopular you can write a hit piece with no evidence because there is an audience wanting to believe it is true. Without some concrete examples of Rodgers losing a game by being too conservative on specific throws, this is nothing more than a hit piece. And to be clear, I am no Aaron Rodgers superfan. You and I know that it’s IMPOSSIBLE to prove either way..It is an opinion piece from a Packers writer/reporter who has been with them forever. It’s what he feels he’s observed. No one is claiming it’s indisputable, just that it’s possible or it isn’t possible.

Right, which is sort of the definition of a hit piece.

"I think Rodgers is a selfish guy who is compromising the franchise and his teammates for personal reasons. I don't have any evidence to support that, it's just what I think."

Ironically, using his media platform to share unsupported opinions is why many people have started to dislike Rodgers in the first place.

if you are going to accuse someone of something very publicly, you have a responsibility to provide some evidence to support the accusation. Not proof in a court of law, but a basis beyond "this is what I think."

Help me understand how this piece would be different if it were authored by Stephen A. Smith about the Giants being a racist organization?

Hey, just an opinion and impossible to prove!

Brady (47 games)

27.4 PPG; 63%; 7.0 YPA; 90.4 rating; 278 YPG; 29/12 (prorated for 16 games)

Rodgers (21 games)

27.8 PPG; 65%; 7.6 YPA; 100.1 rating; 281 YPG; 35/10 (prorated)

"deliberately" he makes it borderline ridiculous based on the volume of big plays Rodgers puts up every year, every game and every quarter. In fact, a You-Tube video of the biggest plays of his career would probably take a few hours to watch.

Quote:

"When a quarterback, especially one with a powerful, usually accurate arm like Rodgers, deliberately minimizes chances to deliver a big play for fear of an interception . . . that’s just hurting his team."

I guarantee ego is part of Aaron Rodgers not throwing interceptions because he probably thinks he is so good at what he does that it should almost never happen.

And he's pretty much right...

Quote:

Aggressiveness tracks the amount of passing attempts a quarterback makes that are into tight coverage, where there is a defender within 1 yard or less of the receiver at the time of completion or incompletion. AGG is shown as a % of attempts into tight windows over all passing attempts.

Guess who is ranked higher in this stat throughout the year than Jimmy G? Guess who has a pretty similar % in the regular season as the playoffs? A. Rodgers had the third highest aggresiveness stat of all the QBs in divisional weekend.

You can make the same idiotic claim about Joe Burrow. 9.1% aggresivenss in the SB but 19.3% during the regular season. I guess Joe Burrow was also looking for a contract by losing the super bowl.

If the Giants don’t blow the 16 point lead to the Eagles in 2010 (the Desean Jackson return), the Packers don’t make the playoffs. This conversation would be very different with AR never winning the SB

In comment 15612389 Jerry in_DC said:

Quote:

Brady (47 games) 27.4 PPG; 63%; 7.0 YPA; 90.4 rating; 278 YPG; 29/12 (prorated for 16 games) Rodgers (21 games) 27.8 PPG; 65%; 7.6 YPA; 100.1 rating; 281 YPG; 35/10 (prorated)

Brady was clutch, big time clutch..

In comment 15612399 BigBluePuma said:

Quote:

If the Giants don’t blow the 16 point lead to the Eagles in 2010 (the Desean Jackson return), the Packers don’t make the playoffs. This conversation would be very different with AR never winning the SB

Continuing down that slippery slope do we win the SB the next year? Maybe things played out they way they were suppose to 😂

In comment 15612399 BigBluePuma said:

Quote:

If the Giants don’t blow the 16 point lead to the Eagles in 2010 (the Desean Jackson return), the Packers don’t make the playoffs. This conversation would be very different with AR never winning the SB

You can do stuff like this for almost anyone. Not really notable.

or is he simply risk-averse? How would McGinn know if he was one or the other? McGinn’s a good writer, but this sounds a lot like projection, and it’s a shitty thing to write. Unless he has a source who knows for certain that Rodgers is trying to protect his QBR, this kind of projection is entirely unprofessional.

Avoiding INT’s is a QB’s job. It’s not like Kurt Warner, who openly admitted to preferring to take a sack rather than throw an incompletion. I wonder if this is GB trying to undermine Rodgers’ credibility as they look to trade him?

In comment 15612406 BigBluePuma said:

Quote:

In comment 15612399 BigBluePuma said: Quote: If the Giants don’t blow the 16 point lead to the Eagles in 2010 (the Desean Jackson return), the Packers don’t make the playoffs. This conversation would be very different with AR never winning the SB Continuing down that slippery slope do we win the SB the next year? Maybe things played out they way they were suppose to 😂

Ray in Arlington pointed out the error in your (and mine and lots of others) point about if we won that Philly game, GB wouldn’t have made the playoffs. According to Ray, they would have anyway..Something like a tiebreaker thing. Perhaps if Ray sees this he can clarify

of the point but:

Rodgers Packers are 39-6 in the regular season over the last 3 years. They have lost 6 games which matches are single season high in wins these last 3 years.

In comment 15612399 BigBluePuma said:

Quote:

If the Giants don’t blow the 16 point lead to the Eagles in 2010 (the Desean Jackson return), the Packers don’t make the playoffs. This conversation would be very different with AR never winning the SB

Another interesting note is the week after the Giants blew that Philly game, the Packers put a whoopin' on NY to the tune of 45-17. Rodgers went 25 for 37 for over 400+ yards and 4 touchdowns.

He also didn't throw any interceptions in that game. So one can just wonder how many big plays he left out on the field because he was deliberately trying not to throw any picks and ultimately hurting his team...

The Giants had an opportunity the next week to keep Green Bay out of the playoffs, and Aaron Rodgers beat them like a bag.

The Packers smoked the Giants. This was after Rodgers missed time with a concussion and Matt Flynn kept them in contention.

The what if isn’t Giants vs. Philly. It got settled Giants vs. Packers the next week.

How many times have we all seen him throw passes right by the defenders ear hole.

First of all, who cares about Passer Rating? It's a stat that doesn't make any adjustments for garbage time, dropped passes, blocking, etc. QBR, AY/A and Y/A are much better metrics.

Rodgers's job is to score points. And Green Bay, when Rodgers has been healthy, has been a top 5-top 10 team in PPG.

Furthermore, Rodgers has a responsibility to not give the other team the ball. So, limiting turnovers is a great thing.

If Rodgers is being overly careful with the ball, then why isn't his completion % higher? For his career, it's 65%+. The guy has led the league in AY/A 3X in his career.

In his 14 seasons since he started at QB, Rodgers is averaging 32+ TDs per year. JFC - are you kidding me?

at all. And I like McGinn

The story comes up about the GB not making the playoffs if the Giants don't blow the lead to philly.

If you change the Giants loss to PHI to a win, the Giants win the NFC East and are no longer competing with GB for a wild card spot.

GB finishes in a tie with TB and takes a wild card.

PHI finishes 9-7 and is out.

Why does this keep coming up?

Ray, I think many Giants fans were punch drunk from the Eagles comeback and can’t remember that time accurately.

In comment 15612470 christian said:

Quote:

Ray, I think many Giants fans were punch drunk from the Eagles comeback and can’t remember that time accurately.

As you point out, the Giants played GB the next week and missed a chance to knock GB out. So I think people got the idea that they could have accomplished the same thing by beating PHI the previous week. But beating PHI would have changed the NFC East standings as well.

What actually happened was that the Giants finished in a 3-way tie with GB and TB and that GB got in on strength of victory (not because of the head-to-head win over the Giants, because neither NYG or GB played TB).

Kyle: I had 22 points and 8 rebounds!
Coach Rollins: And we lost.

if that doesn't do it for you... here's another one closer to home

"It's not about stats, it's about winning games"
-Eli Fucking Manning

In comment 15612249 Kevin_in_Pgh said:

Quote:

He plays not to lose a little more often than he plays to win.

Uh, Rodgers is 5th all-time in regular season TDs. And he's averaging 32+ TDs/per year during his 14 years when he's been the starter. How is that playing not to lose?

And he's third all-time in TDs in the playoffs. His teams have averaged 27+ PPG in those playoffs, btw.

If playing to lose leads to my QB having a career record of 139-66-1, or 68% winning %, I'll take that every time.

Oh, in the Super Bowl that Rodgers won, he was 24/39, 300+, 3 TDs/0 INTs. I'm sure there is a lot of regret in Green Bay for Rodgers's decision to play not to lose that day...

He cares about making plays and winning games. And he knows interceptions are game-killers. Talk about nit-picking. What a reach.

I'm wondering what this writer thinks about Rodgers personal health decisions. I'm guessing he disagrees with them.

for years about a lack of playoff winning. He also had to contend with BB and TB and I thought the AFC early in career was the better conference.

For some reason people get in a hissy when the criticism is launched at AR. Whatever excuse you want to give the fact stands his team goes home early come playoff time. Does not take away that he is a all time great (at least regular season).

Game late, fantastic sideline throw, GB goes on to win...
Nuff said, case closed. Jimmy Brown, Aaron Rogers... two best football players I've ever seen

If you think that Rodgers deliberately avoided big plays to keep his stats in order is valid criticism then you're a chucklehead in my book...

In comment 15612560 Jimmy Googs said:

Quote:

If you think that Rodgers deliberately avoided big plays to keep his stats in order is valid criticism then you're a chucklehead in my book...

I read the whole article including King's comments and have made some comments regarding AR's lack of winning in big games before. Now this article with the specific quote may be a little over the top but I see what he is getting at.

Now if you don't a think a QB can perform differently in the playoffs while in the pocket then I would not know what to call you.

In comment 15612528 Kmed6000 said:

Quote:

I'm wondering what this writer thinks about Rodgers personal health decisions. I'm guessing he disagrees with them.

It’s what it boils down to with a lot of players that aren’t liked - Rodgers, LeBron, ARod, etc. many things are made up about them to justify just not liking the player.

I can’t stand LeBron, but he’s earned everything he worked for and is one of the 5 best players of all time. I can make up something up to reinforce not liking him, but it shouldn’t be something anyone takes seriously.

In comment 15612557 Grizz99 said:

Quote:

Game late, fantastic sideline throw, GB goes on to win...

I linked that play a few weeks ago. That was a 4th down throw in Dallas with everything on the line. One of the best throws I've ever seen.

IMV, these anti-Arod threads are designed, ultimately, to bring up Eli's two improbable playoffs runs and get right on the edge of suggesting that Eli was a better QB than AR.

people don’t like Rodgers, that’s the main thing. If you take a guy that most people don’t hate like Brees, most of not all would say he had the better career despite the 1 title. And if you think Brees is better than by default you know Rodgers is better.

recognize he has been to the playoffs 11 times and his team went home early 10 times. That is a pattern. Since he holds the ball at the most important position on the field sending some criticism his way is not out of line. I don't see anyone not saying he is a overall great QB. Just some who are questioning his ability to be a finisher. McCarthy is not the HC anymore and he just won 12 games in Dallas.

if not for the botched onside kick by Brandon Bostick in Seattle, Rodgers is at least in his second SB. That was a devastating mistake that crushed the Packers and Rodgers.

Seattle had NO reason winning that game. And the Football Gods validated that two weeks later when Butler picked off Wilson at the goal line to seal the Pats win.

In comment 15612627 Lines of Scrimmage said:

Quote:

recognize he has been to the playoffs 11 times and his team went home early 10 times. That is a pattern. Since he holds the ball at the most important position on the field sending some criticism his way is not out of line. I don't see anyone not saying he is a overall great QB. Just some who are questioning his ability to be a finisher. McCarthy is not the HC anymore and he just won 12 games in Dallas.

To clarify, this article has nothing to do with him not being "a finisher." It is suggesting he does not even try to win games by making tough throw if it means it may hurt his stats.

This is not a critique of Rodgers' career. It is a very specific accusation that he puts his stats above winning.

In comment 15612632 Mike from Ohio said:

Quote:

In comment 15612627 Lines of Scrimmage said: Quote: recognize he has been to the playoffs 11 times and his team went home early 10 times. That is a pattern. Since he holds the ball at the most important position on the field sending some criticism his way is not out of line. I don't see anyone not saying he is a overall great QB. Just some who are questioning his ability to be a finisher. McCarthy is not the HC anymore and he just won 12 games in Dallas. To clarify, this article has nothing to do with him not being "a finisher." It is suggesting he does not even try to win games by making tough throw if it means it may hurt his stats. This is not a critique of Rodgers' career. It is a very specific accusation that he puts his stats above winning.

Point taken and I noted that it is a little over the top. I also can see where he is coming from although his arguments are pretty lame. I read the whole article with some of the other comments. The finisher is my own comment. Overall, I think I see what he is trying to convey but it could have been done better.

In comment 15612630 bw in dc said:

Quote:

if not for the botched onside kick by Brandon Bostick in Seattle, Rodgers is at least in his second SB. That was a devastating mistake that crushed the Packers and Rodgers. Seattle had NO reason winning that game. And the Football Gods validated that two weeks later when Butler picked off Wilson at the goal line to seal the Pats win.

I believe Nelson was going to grab that before Bostick jumped in front of the ball.

HOFers at the most important position in the game for going on 30 years & only have 2 Lombardis. And yes, I get winning it all tough & you need a lot of luck, but you'd think they'd have won more.

In comment 15612672 SFGFNCGiantsFan said:

Quote:

In comment 15612630 bw in dc said: Quote: if not for the botched onside kick by Brandon Bostick in Seattle, Rodgers is at least in his second SB. That was a devastating mistake that crushed the Packers and Rodgers. Seattle had NO reason winning that game. And the Football Gods validated that two weeks later when Butler picked off Wilson at the goal line to seal the Pats win. I believe Nelson was going to grab that before Bostick jumped in front of the ball.

Yeah, Bostick was supposed to block. He lost his focus, and, well, the Packers lost a golden opportunity.

In comment 15612678 SFGFNCGiantsFan said:

Quote:

HOFers at the most important position in the game for going on 30 years & only have 2 Lombardis. And yes, I get winning it all tough & you need a lot of luck, but you'd think they'd have won more.

Well, Favre went to back-to-back SBs. Just lost a real tough one to Elway in '97.

I thought so. I watched that game @ a beer garden in Charleston, SC. I thought GB had it multiple times. Even before the Bostick fuck up, the Pack intercepted Wilson with late in the 4th up double digits. They then proceeded to absolutely nothing on offense & punted it right back to the 'Hawks.

I think GB beats the Patriots in the Super Bowl that year too.

Yup. That Broncos Super Bowl win was the AFC's first since the Raiders in the '83 season.

GB was double digit favorites. I thought they were going to destroy Denver too.

Packers have been a really well run franchise since Ron Wolf came in 30 years ago. One issue I think has impacted the WCO has been when they face the very talented physical teams. I do think some HC’s who utilize that offense have adjusted over time. As great as Favre and AR were/are the franchise has good players around them. They have usually always been good on the OL as well.

Just about every team has faced one or two plays that if they went a different way you maybe get a different outcome. That’s football.

No doubt. It just sometimes blows my mind that if you take their regular season record since '92 & compare it with ours...I'd bet theirs is much, much better. And yet both of us have been to 3 Super Bowls & won 2.

As you said, a play here or there...

What if Osi doesn't strip sack Rodgers in the '11 divisional round game? Rodgers probably hits a wide open Greg Jennings. Of course we got screwed in that game with the officials overturning the earlier Jennings fumble, which is still one of the biggest BS calls ever.

You would think they would have won more. As I mentioned that WCO style can be vulnerable to the physical style teams. Giants gave the Niners problems in the 80’s. Giants beat the pack twice more recently. The right type of team can throw that offense off track. Most recently the Niners gave the Pack problems. So while it can assist production it’s vulnerable imv.

I know many teams have gone this route and than the variants of it but I always hated when the Giants made the switch. It certainly is a efficient offense.

Brady ...

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/B/BradTo00.htm

Career TD Percentage - 5.5%
Career INT Percentage - 1.8%

Rogers ....

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/R/RodgAa00.htm

Career TD Percentage - 6.3%
Career INT Percentage - 1.3 %

Just looking at these limited stats, seems to me Rogers edges Brady, protecting the ball and getting into the End Zone. Overall, Brady played on better teams, Rogers has had to be a bit more careful, that's all.

In comment 15612468 ray in arlington said:

Quote:

The story comes up about the GB not making the playoffs if the Giants don't blow the lead to philly. If you change the Giants loss to PHI to a win, the Giants win the NFC East and are no longer competing with GB for a wild card spot. GB finishes in a tie with TB and takes a wild card. PHI finishes 9-7 and is out. Why does this keep coming up? My fault. Sorry

In comment 15612566 Lines of Scrimmage said:

Quote:

In comment 15612560 Jimmy Googs said: Quote: If you think that Rodgers deliberately avoided big plays to keep his stats in order is valid criticism then you're a chucklehead in my book... I read the whole article including King's comments and have made some comments regarding AR's lack of winning in big games before. Now this article with the specific quote may be a little over the top but I see what he is getting at. Now if you don't a think a QB can perform differently in the playoffs while in the pocket then I would not know what to call you.

You wouldn't have to call me anything...because I don't debate a QB in the playoffs, in the heat of the moment, could fall to the pressure and not perform as well as he does in regular season. There probably are many examples of this in NFL history...and it's not a confrontational point. But it also has nothing to do with my post.

I am specifically calling out the ridiculous point made that Rodgers is deliberately not trying hard enough to win games in order to improve his stats. That is a silly hot take used to make a headline and/or take a pot shot at Rodgers. And anybody that truly thinks it has merit, I'll stand by the chucklehead comment...

The only quarterbacks I've seen that I'm pretty certain I'd take over Rodgers are Montana and Brady. Pretty certain...not 100% certain. If someone were to say Rodgers is the best QB ever (or at least of the modern era), I wouldn't agree...but it's not a crazy view to take. He is that good.

Think whatever you want about the person, but as a player...the criticisms are ridiculous.

In comment 15612367 Big Blue '56 said:

Quote:

and it could be semantical, with the exception of their 2010 run, he’s been good, not great by any means, imho.

Take out 2010, and he's played exactly 17 games, one full season, with 4,800 yards, 36 TD's and 11 INT's. Considering the quality of competition and the pressure of playoff games, and that is pretty damn elite.

Not the Greatest of all time - to me that requires more accomplishments, big moments, and post-season success.

But when it comes to actually playing the position of QB, I think he's the best I've ever seen.