No QB is the perfect.

---

Rodgers is carving teams up in quarters 1-3 and plays like an average quarterback in the fourth? Choker.
Defense routinely blows large leads and Rodgers is meh at gaining them back in the fourth? Gee I wish we had a great fourth quarter comeback quarterback like Jay Cutler. Rodgers is a choker!
Rodgers carves teams up early in the game, the defense blows a large lead and rodgers mounts not one but two fourth quarter comeback drives for the victory? Choker.

I know people will interpret this as blind Rodgers fanboyism but I just find this hilarious, especially the people acting like Callahan and Huntley would have more situational awareness on a play than Rodgers. I LIKE Callahan and was thrilled when we got him back. Thinking that he or Huntley would have gotten this team to even 8-8 is delusional. Until he completes 100% of his passes and throws a TD every time, people will find some way to complain. And I'm sure if he did, people would just double down on the "He's not running the offense and he's a stat whore!" stuff.

This is a “Red Herring” logical fallacy [a seemingly plausible, though an ultimately irrelevant, diversionary tactic].

How about something relevant, give me Rodgers’ passer rating when he has the ball and can end a game or a playoff game.

In 2015 Carolina game, Rodgers had a 118 4th Q passer rating. Then on last play Cobb was wide open for winning TD, he looked at him, but threw an INT in Jones’ direction. Rodgers said, “I got scared by something. I can’t explain it.” Uhhh, I just explained it!



It is admitted freely by Mason that he was choking in 2012. He did not miss every kick, he actually made 2 [of 9] FGs over 50. You can’t point to one made 50 yarder made and say he wasn’t choking.




Interesting point Dodd, I really think this is a valuable insight. There has never been a stud clutch athlete that didn’t at one point have a doubt and that doubt caused them to miss a free throw, throw a wild pitch, drop a pass or miss a throw. Also, on reconsideration, I'll bet there have been things that I'd list as crunch time failures, that look like a "choke," but Rodgers was 100% in charge of his faculties and he [or another player] just randomly screwed up because even Aaron Rodgers is not perfect.

But, we have two examples [2015 Carolina and this game] of Rodgers admitting something mental was off. And a QB going to line and not checking the safeties is like going to drive somewhere and forgetting to put the key in the ignition [Or hitting button if you got a FOB]. It is the central key from which most QB decisions emanate. It is otherwise inexplicable, this was not a mental error, this was a mental meltdown; just like "something scarring" Rodgers in Carolina.



As I said earlier Rodgers needs to find the 2 safeties to even decide what to do. He cant be off guard, it's not possible for Rodgers not to know where the safeties are.

Let’s try to define choking, I grabbed this off some random sports psychiatric website:

Choking happens when you get in your own way mentally or your mind prevents you from performing at your best. Athletes report experiencing physical changes, such as tension, increased heart rate, and rapid breathing or mental changes, such as anxiety, apprehension, and confusion. Athletes often change their strategy when choking and often perform more tentatively. Most athletes and coaches would agree that choking happens when you are firmly in command of your performance or the competition and you lose because of a change in your mental state, which learns to a mental meltdown of sorts.

When asked, Rodgers didn’t say, “It’s just like any other drive [or words of similar import];” He said he was just thinking about his breathing. Not taking “just” too literally; but I doubt in 2nd Q, he gave his breathing any thought whatsoever. And then look at what he says about being calm, being positive. I’d bet my right nut that Rodgers has been to a sports psychiatrist or two. It is as if he’s saying, “this time I was calm and positive;” as if he hasn’t been calm and positive in past similar situations. Rodgers' admits that his mental process changed on last drive, then he does things that are totally whacked out [see more below].

If he is seeing a psychologist, I think that bodes well for the future; both in terms of him better handling pressure and not returning back to doppleganger.

When GB got the ball w/ 4 minutes we all knew the deal: ya cant leave Dallas any time on clock. And we had ‘em: 2nd and 7, 1:48, Dallas 2 TOs, one more 1st down and the game is over. We get a first followed by 3 handoffs, Dallas burns 2 TOs, 1:20 ticks off on last 2 plays, the 4 plays and FG burn minimum 20 seconds. Leaving Dallas no more than 8 seconds, no TOs, and 35 yards to go for a long FG.

McCarthy calls a run [Rodgers, Cook, Monty, Rip and Spriggs elligible] and Dallas loads with 11 in the box…ELEVEN IN THE BOX. Now let’s stop for a minute. Defensive coordinators either use 1 gap or 2 gap methods to stop the run; w/ ELEVEN in box you can 1 gap all the gaps and still 2 gap; that means you have 3 defenders for every gap. Here’s a fact: if this were any other time in game, it would be mentally impossible for Rodgers not to utilize the pass option on that play, which was designed and practiced EXACTLY for this situation. Rodgers Choked 100000%.

It was not Monty’s idea to run wide; that was the play call and I’d bet my left nut [In case I lose my right one in the bet above] Mike called the run inside. So Rodgers could have left the play as called, so we only lose 1 or optioned to pass; but he optioned to the dumbest thing, a run wide.

On 3rd down Cobb’s guy blitzes, Cobb is hot, he looks back, no throw, though Cobb would have had to juke his way to first. But Cook was WIDE OPEN 5 yards in front of sticks in middle of field running a slant. With 5 guys rushing and a spy on Rodgers, Church trailing by 3-4 yards, this is a first, Dallas uses last TO and GAME OVER when Mason boots a less than 35 yard FG after 3 kneels! But Rogers throws INC to Adams with his bum ankle.



You dont have to be so hard on Rodgers; this is not intentional like his bullcrap stat whoring, throwing the team and players under the bus and refusing the game plan bull crap he did for over a year.



This is a strawman; it is not about youngster QBs having more situational awareness on play; its about them having more awareness of where the safeties were, since that is what they were first taught to look at when they approach the LOS; when Rodgers showed no awareness whatsoever on that play. If you evaluated what you see, instead of what you expect, then you'd see that Hundley could do what Dak does. Now would he win 8 in a row? Maybe, maybe not, but GB would have finished better than 10-6 if Dak or Hundley was the QB. And that's a damn shame given what Rodgers can do.

Do you not see how impossible it is for Rodgers not to know where the safeties are? This was a mental breakdown, not a mental error. Uffda said he read that Rodgers thought he had it blocked backside; that's poppycock! Well, if you hallucinate away the safety, then Dallas has 2 players and GB has two; so yes, if he doesn't know the safety's there, he believes he's in good shape. But, knowing the safety is there means knowing Dallas has 3 guys on you only got 2 blockers, so if they all come ya gotta problem.

Where did I bring up Mason's struggles in this thread?

---

People hear what they want to hear or read into comments what they want to see. If you are not a fan of a person it is pretty easy to interpret comments the way that you want and to twist them into something that fits your agenda. We have a couple of experts at that on this forum.

this is just my opinion because there is no way to know, but I don't think there is any way we would have made the playoffs with either Callahan or Hundley at QB instead of Rodgers this season.

Even when he was off his game and many of us were complaining that he was doing something wrong, or at least very different than what he used to do, I still believe he was our best chance to win.

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?

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?

Is this your photo on Twitter, Barfarn, or is it Luis? :)


BTW, I've been on the receiving of countless ad hominem attacks over the years. It's hilarious and I agree with the substance of what you're saying above.

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!!!!

---

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.

---