GREEN BAY—One answer was obvious. The other was curious.

After one of this spring’s OTA practices, wide receiver Jordy Nelson was asked by a reporter which two statistics he thinks matter the most to his quarterback, Aaron Rodgers.

Nelson’s first thought was interceptions. No surprise there.

Rodgers has made it clear time and time again how much he loathes throwing the ball to the other team, and with just 32 interceptions in 2,070 pass attempts over the past four regular seasons, Rodgers’ minuscule 1.55 interception percentage ranks first in the league from 2009-12. Only Tom Brady, at 1.61, is even close to him.

Nelson’s second choice, however, wasn’t the expected touchdowns or passer rating or yards. It was completion percentage.

The way Nelson explained it, the two key stats go hand in hand.

“The rest comes with it,” Nelson said. “If you don’t turn the ball over, you get more opportunities. If your completion percentage is high, that means as receivers we’re doing our job, he’s putting the ball in the right spots, and again, it allows you to get more opportunities.

“The more opportunities you get, the more yards you get and the more touchdowns you’ll get, so I think it all starts with those two.”

Packers.com  wrote:

In 2011, Rodgers had 6 picks.

That is fairly impressive until you look deeper into it.

There is another stat that is a little more accurate.

It is on Football outsiders site.

It doesn't include INTs that went off the WRs hands or were desperation heaves like a hail Mary. It also includes passes that the defense dropped, that should have been INTs.

In 2011, of Rodgers' 6 picks, 2 of them went off the intended receiver. Including a potential TD that Finley had in his hands that would have won the KC game.

Rodgers was also very unlucky because in addition to the 4 bad passes he threw and the 2 that went off his WRs, the defenses dropped 0 of his passes.

In one entire year, Rodgers threw 4 bad passes for a 0.8% adjusted INT rate.

Last year, Andrew Luck threw 30 including 14 dropped INTs. Sometimes it is better to be lucky than good.

Originally Posted by: Dexter_Sinister 

The Colts weren't really that good without any Luck!!! If completion percentage is that important to him Aaron should take more of those opportunities to short passes over the middle. That doesn't compute for me.

Originally Posted by: PackerTraxx 

The Luck comments was just a play on words. But I believe nearly everybody would agree without him their record would have been about as bad as the year before. Certainly he didn't do it alone, no team ever does.

Originally Posted by: PackerTraxx 

I would say that luck had more to do with it than Luck.

14 dropped INTs. With 30 total, they probably have the same record as last year.

Originally Posted by: Dexter_Sinister