I am totally on board with this post right here. Rodgers, while really good in his first NFL season as a starter, was not ready to lead his team back when the whole defense on the opposing team dropped back waiting to take advantage of an offense that had no legitimate running threat at all knowing we had to pass.

---

And if it would have ended the discussion I would not have held up my end. I wanted to see for myself. And I strongly feel that Crosby could have won us TWO games, and didn't. I also feel Rodgers could have won us THREE games, but didn't.

I'm not saying we should cut Crosby or trade Rodgers or anything. Just calling it as I see it. What's wrong with that? I know it's a team sport. You know it's a team sport. They know, everyone knows.

---

Sometime last season / early offseason I went through and broke down Aaron's stats in the final five minutes of the game.. there was a notable difference in the stats.. and it really is the only aspect of Rodgers game that can be attacked at this point..

But even though I mentioned it at the time.. it is nitpicking to a certain degree.

---

I remember seeing a game late in the year and they said his rating in the last 4 minutes was like 57.7


but i don't remember the exact number, but remember a long thread about it.
I'm thinking now that he don't have nothing for pressure he should be able to relax and just play the game and hopefully learn to just move the chains at the end of the game. I think he gets his 1st one he will be fine after that.

---

I never said you thought we should cut Crosby or trade Rodgers...I was just stating the obvious.
Not everyone knows if they are placing blame on one individual. Obviously that writer doesn't know...he blamed one of the losses on Rodgers when Crosby missed a field goal.
So no, not everyone knows.

---

hah damn, good point. You used what I quoted to prove me wrong, blah. How can he not know? I mean, when you look at the game, you see 22 guys on the field? How the heck can you not know it's a team sport?

Anyhow, I'm not putting the loss ON Rodgers/Crosby. I'm saying, they both had between them five potential chances to give us a win and didn't.

---

This is the type of example that is just redulous in my mind because nothing is taken into consideration other than the final score.

I was at this game.

First of all the Jaguars not only came down and scored with 1:54 left they had also scored a TD the time before that so the momentum was all their way now.

We had 82 yards to go and no timeouts AND not needing a FG to win but a dang TD. Big difference.

By the time we got to the forty something yard line there was 40 something seconds to go. The Jaguars were absolutely covering the deep ball and got pressure on Arod every time he went back. If you don't believe that than just look at the play he threw the INT. The RDE was chasing Rodgers straight to the sidelines.

This game reached a point time-wise where we needed to get the ball down to the thirty or so (in otherwords a big play) and then take four shots in the endzone.

The odds of any QB winning this game were beyond pitiful and if anybody dragged up how many times somebody did, in fact, pull one off like this it would show exactly that.

Was it Arods fault we got down to the Bears TWENTY TWO freaking yard line and got a FG blocked? Was it ARods fault we got it to the FIVE yard line against Houston only to have a phantom holding call that screwed us?

Even against the Titans he throws a bomb dead on the money to Jennings and the CB grabs him on the right arm and the ball goes incomplete and that was a PERFECT throw that was LATE in the game that puts us on the twenty.

So don't anybody try to tell me Arod CAN'T do what he needs to do late in a game to win. The Jaguars game? Gimme a break. Nobody takes a team 82 yards with 1:54 and no timeouts needing a TD with the momentum on the other side of the field.

---

Warhawk, I don't know how old you are but there have been alot of games won like that, so you can't say noone could have done it. Elway has done it alot hell he has THE DRIVE sure it was 4:30 seconds but they ran the ball 4 of the 1st 5 plays and that started from the 2.

---

I'm 57. I think I've seen plenty of football. My dad was a college HC and I recall him winning a game like this twice in 29 years and he retired with the second highest winning percentage in his division.

It's a one out of 20+ proposition. Period. If you want to take "nobody does it" literally fine. I'm saying if a team is in that spot they don't win.

1:54 is NOT 4:30 seconds. No timeouts is no timeouts.

Your talking about having the luxury of the option to run the football vs. a defense KNOWING you don't have time to run the football. Again. I was at the game. The Jags sent the dogs on Arod every play, kept two back deep, and guarded the sidelines.

The point I'm trying to make is needing a TD to win a game is huge over needing a FG and no timeouts with under two minutes completely limits what a team can do in that time. You can't even afford to go over the middle for the time that comes off the clock to get the ball snapped again.

If this is a scenario where Arod has the two minute warning and maybe another timeout and needs a FG to win THAT is a situation where throwing an INT is unaccpetable and where a win is at least within reason.

The Jags game? No. That would take a fluke and if you put yourself there you don't deserve to win.

---

Dhazer, I would love to see you to come up with statistics showing how often John Elway won with less than 2:00 on the clock and no timeouts. 😃

---