Originally Posted by: Barfarn 

With as much time as you spent typing out a novel you'd think you'd bother providing more than a single example of Rodgers not winning a game-winning drive and putting into an actually relevant context (what is his overall QB rating, success/fail rate in potential gamewinning drive situations?). Then again that would mean you can't just cherrypick the worst possible example or would have to actually critically examine Rodgers' performance versus other NFL quarterbacks.

If you want to talk about logical fallacies, how about Proof by Example?

Originally Posted by: Porforis 

We don't know that he doesn't work on his breathing. He never said he ONLY does it in scary end of the game situations. I remember when it was reported Donovan McNabb barfed in the huddle in the one SB he played in. Now, that's a story. Someone working on their breathing is an acknowledgment that they might be vulnerable to a choke and want to prevent it. From that aspect, I can see what you're saying about possibly changing his approach. However, the outcome of the game disproves that he choked as choking is used when someone comes up short in a situation that they normally would've succeeded in 99% of the time. The situation was far from ideal so had he not driven us into FG range that's hardly a choke job as the situation was not overly conducive to success.

I like the fact that he's self aware enough to take action to combat something that might be an issue or maybe has been an issue for him in the past. Clearly, it worked....maybe, not so much on the Heath sack which is what you're saying but I read somewhere Aaron thought the guy was going to be blocked and accounted for. Having 88 on his right and not his left makes that questionable but there's no reason 88 couldn't have moved over to block Heath. Some hailed Montgomery for getting just enough of Heath to prevent him from stripping Rodgers. I would agree that it's odd he got blindsided like that. We don't see that very often...but if he was hyper focused on making a play down field assuming Heath was blocked, then there's nothing to see here at all as you're picking out ONE play. 1st down wasn't bad. A Cook drop if memory serves...then the big sack, and non fumble, and then 3rd and 20 to Cook. So, 2 of the 3 plays in ultra crunch time were very very good. 33% weren't. This argument makes all kinds of sense, potentially, had Rodgers fumbled and we ended up losing either in regular time or OT...but he didn't!!!!

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 

Luigis said Rodgers wasn't good in the fourth quarter. I refuted that. If he doesn't want to talk about 4th quarters as a whole, then he should be more precise with his language. That isn't a red herring, that's responding to what someone said.

Originally Posted by: mi_keys 

What’s the fallacy for fallaciously identifying a fallacy?😂

An example of a proof by example fallacy is: Jane, a woman, has black hair; therefore all women have black hair.

I’ve stated a hypothesis supported by a "novel" of connecting arguments backed by a "novel" of facts. A proper response entails either challenging the facts or to assert the facts fail to support the hypothesis.

Originally Posted by: Barfarn 

You can't evaluate this in a vacuum, though, and that's what you're doing. The Cowboys shifted more to a pressure scheme later in the game which was obviously causing problems. Aaron wasn't facing the same milquetoast D he was earlier in the game...it became considerably more aggressive which changes the equation. It isn't your typical straight apples to apples as you would say. Aaron's performance has tanked in the midst of games due to defensive adjustments. Not sure this wasn't one of those cases more than it was he altered his approach.

Still, I don't think his play dropped as precipitously as you stated. 2 of the 3 plays on the final drive were solid with everything on the line. The one bad one could've cost us the game. It makes me wonder what play he had next in AZ after the fateful kick 6.

If we're really going to Freud this one, I would offer this all cemented in Seattle. Watching that devastation had to affect him and the entire org. He was horrible the next year and most of this year. He was funkified after Seattle and likely from the other playoff near misses and debacles. He may have an issue remaining calm knowing his defense is likely to blow it IF he doesn't play like a legend. Honestly, our defense could make anyone hyperventilate. Can you imagine caring the way Rodgers does and all the work he puts in only to have our D blow it when it matters most? I think of how that feels just watching it as a fan...it's freaking tough to handle. It may have fractured his psyche. Nobody knows the full mental makeup of anyone and perhaps this is something he's been dealing with for some time. That would explain his horrible on field body language and frustrated facial expressions that he played with for 18 months. Now, that guy is gone. He told TJ Lang after a TD pass vs. the Lions at Lambeau...I'M BACK...perhaps, mentally speaking from blaming everyone and everything for those terrible playoff losses where he just didn't want to keep committing like he had been to watch his defense, TT, Mike McCarthy or whomever he blamed cost him again. It's hard going full tilt if you don't trust it's going to lead anywhere because someone else is going to just let you down anyway.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 

With as much time as you spent typing out a novel you'd think you'd bother providing more than a single example of Rodgers not winning a game-winning drive and putting into an actually relevant context (what is his overall QB rating, success/fail rate in potential gamewinning drive situations?). Then again that would mean you can't just cherrypick the worst possible example or would have to actually critically examine Rodgers' performance versus other NFL quarterbacks.
If you want to talk about logical fallacies, how about Proof by Example?

Originally Posted by: Porforis 

Yeah, why don't I just go ahead and spend 30 minutes digging up stats and writing out a compelling argument so you can go ahead and just ignore the post. Sounds like a blast and like we've NEVER had arguments on this exact same topic or very similar topics before. Or even every single year, if you're talking about the forum as a whole and not you specifically. :D

Originally Posted by: Porforis 

This argument constitutes a logical fallacy called "ad hominem" [an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself].

Something annoying about Packer fans: we won, so praise is effusive; but, if GB left 1 second on clock and Dallas got another “Music City miracle” and we lost, then everyone gets over Uffda critical [This phrase was officially accepted by Merriam Webster in July 2016😂 ]. Fans portending to be analysts cannot let the outcome of a game or a play prejudice the evaluation the game or play. Or just because someone is an idol or had some big statistics doesn't mean they did everything right.

Rodgers SAID he had took the conscious effort to control his breathing on the last drive; the mention of this in this way infers he does not do it at other times in the game. He changed what he did at crunch time. Have you ever heard another athlete say such a thing? Then some absolute absurdities in his play are pointed out at the same time he talks about he was thinking about his breathing. Why would anyone take time to respond to this with an ad hominem?

Originally Posted by: Barfarn