In the Clutch: Aaron Rodgers vs. Brett Favre


The narrative emerges seemingly every time the 2008 performance of Aaron Rodgers is discussed in media circles. Yes, he had a pretty good season last year, they usually say. But. And most informed analysts and close followers of the Green Bay Packers know what’s coming next: Rodgers couldn’t deliver in the clutch. With the game on the line in the 4th quarter, he collapsed. His reputation as something of a 4th quarter dud has been sealed.

For some reason, this criticism of Rodgers is compounded by the notion that his predecessor was something of a Captain Comeback himself. Possibly because his career 4th quarter comeback numbers were displayed on the TV screen nearly every time he had the ball in his hands on the final or penultimate drive of a game, or perhaps just because legend and lore tend to exaggerate the accomplishments of a Hall-of-Fame-bound player, Brett Favre seemed to have a reputation for perpetually leading his team back from deficits, or being a money player in the 4th quarter of a close game. Whether Favre had actually earned the reputation as a clutch performer---especially in recent years---is another matter entirely.

Let’s look at some of these comeback numbers that Favre put up in the last decade. First, let’s examine his 1999 to 2007 (his post-Mike Holmgren years) come-from-behind numbers. In those 9 seasons, Brett Favre threw 2,499 passes when the Packers were trailing during the course of a game. He completed 1,515 (60.6%) of those passes for 17,068 yards (6.8 yards per attempt), with 107 (4.3%) touchdown passes and 114 (4.6%) interceptions. Favre’s overall passer rating when his team was behind from ’99 to ’07 was a rather unimpressive 76.3.

Aaron Rodgers, by comparison, threw 258 passes when the Packers were trailing in his 16 games as a starter in 2008. Of those, he completed 160 (61.9%) for 2,058 yards (8.0 yards per attempt) with 14 touchdowns (5.4 %) and 10 interceptions (3.9%) for a passer rating of 88.9. Though it’s a very small sample compared to Favre’s 9 years of work, Rodgers thus far has posted better numbers with his team trailing than Favre posted in his post-Holmgren years with the Packers. And, of course, Rodgers’ numbers don’t include the excellent performance (18 of 26 for 201 yards, 1 touchdown, no interceptions for a passer rating of 104.8) he had in late November, 2007, when the Packers trailed the Cowboys by multiple scores and Rodgers was put in the game to replace Favre.

But playing at a high level when his team is trailing at any stage of the game is one thing. Playing at a high level when it’s the 4th quarter of a close game is quite another. And it is here where Favre’s reputation for being a money player seems to crumble under the weight of the numbers, while Rodgers’ can’t-do-it reputation deserves closer inspection.

From 1999 to 2007, Brett Favre threw 1,107 passes in the 4th quarter of close games, or games in which the Packers and their opponents were within 7 points---one score---of one another. Of those 1,107 4th quarter passes in close games, Favre completed 643 (58.1%) for 7,217 yards (6.5 yards per attempt) with 44 touchdowns (4.0%) and 59 interceptions (5.3%). That’s a passer rating of just 68.7 with the game on the line in the 4th quarter in his last 9 seasons in a Packer uniform. Not exactly the stuff of legends.

In his 16 starts in 2008, Aaron Rodgers threw 129 passes in the 4th quarter with the score within 7. He completed 78 of those passes (60.5%) for 1,004 yards (7.8 yards per attempt) with 8 touchdowns (6.2%), 5 interceptions (3.9%), and a passer rating of 89.4. That 89.4 passer rating in crunch time was good enough to rank 11th out of the other 32 main starting quarterbacks in the league. Tony Romo (117.9), Philip Rivers (104.1), and Kurt Warner (102.5) rounded out the top 3, while the New York Jets’ Brett Favre’s 65.8 4th-quarter-within-7 passer rating ranked 27th in the league.

Even in 2007, when Favre had his best season since his MVP years, he was only able to manage a 74.7 passer rating in the 4th quarter of close games. It was even worse the two years before that (62.9 in 2006, 52.3 in 2005). So it is rather uncanny that Rodgers has been held to such a high standard for his clutch late-game performances when his legendary predecessor hadn’t come close to matching that standard himself---at least from a statistical point of view.

But since numbers can’t tell the whole story when it comes to assessing player performance, let’s look at the detailed narrative of each of these close 4th quarter games and/or comeback efforts to see if Rodgers deserves these can’t-comeback-like-Favre-could denunciations.


Minnesota (home): With the Packers clinging to a 17-12 lead mid-way through the 4th quarter, Rodgers completed a 13-yard pass and then rushed for the decisive touchdown after Grant’s 57-yard run. The defense ultimately held on even after Minnesota cut the lead to 5 with two minutes to go.

Detroit (road): With the Packers trailing 25-24 with 7 ½ minutes to go in the game, Rodgers threw a 60-yard pass to Jennings which led to a Mason Crosby field goal and put the Packers in the lead for good with just over 5 minutes to go in the game. Soon afterwards the game turned into a laugher. It was the first 4th quarter comeback of Rodgers’ career.

Tampa Bay: With the Packers trailing 20-7 after a Ryan Grant fumble that was returned for a touchdown mid-way through the 3rd quarter, Aaron Rodgers came back into the game with a freshly sprained shoulder after scrambling 7 yards on the previous series. Despite the severe pain, he threw a 48-yard touchdown bullet to Jennings between 3 defenders before leaving for the next 15 game-minutes. With the Packers trailing 23-21 with 2 ½ minutes to go, the injured Rodgers came back into the game (to replace his floundering backup) and threw a bad pass that was intercepted at mid-field. The defense then gave up a 47-yard run on the very next play and the Packers lost by 9.

Atlanta: The Packers were down 17-7 at half-time. Starting from their own 2-yard line, Rodgers led the Packers to a field goal in the 3rd quarter to make it 17-10, and then he threw a 25-yard touchdown pass to Jennings to tie it up at 17-17 with 12 minutes to go in the 4th quarter. The defense then gave up a field goal to make it 20-17 Atlanta with 7 minutes left in the game. On the ensuing drive, Rodgers threw an interception that led to an Atlanta touchdown drive, making it 27-17. With 3 ½ minutes to go in the game, Rodgers engineered an 8-play, 72 yard touchdown drive that took only 1:39 off the clock, going 4 of 6 for 69 yards in the process (with one of those incompletions a spike). It was 27-24, and all the defense had to do was make a stop with 1:56 to go in the game (as well as two time-outs and the 2-minute warning) to give Rodgers time to move the Packers into field goal range. The Packers knew the Falcons would run it. The Falcons knew the Packers knew they would run it. Even with 9 men in the box, the defense gave up an 8-yard run to Michael Turner which eventually yielded a 1st down and the opportunity for the Falcons to run out the clock. For the game, Rodgers was 25 of 37 for 313 yards, 3 touchdowns, and 1 interception.

Tennessee: The Packers trailed the Titans 16-10 late in the 3rd quarter. Rodgers led the Packers to a field goal on a drive in which he completed 3 of 4 passes for 78 yards. It was 16-13 until mid-way through the 4th quarter, when Rodgers led the Packers to another field goal after completing 2 of 3 passes for 35 yards. There were 5 ½ minutes to go in the game, and Rodgers had led the Packers to a tie against the undefeated Titans, but the defense couldn’t stop Tennessee from getting into field goal range on their next two possessions. Bironas missed a field goal try in regulation, but converted his next attempt in overtime after the Titans won the coin toss.

Minnesota (road): Late in the 4th quarter of a close game, Rodgers led the Packers on two drives that land them in field goal range each time. On the first of those two drives, when the Packers were leading 24-21, Rodgers was 3 for 3 for 20 yards, and Crosby converted the field goal. But the defense couldn’t hold that 6-point lead (27-21) in the final minutes. They allowed the Vikings to march 69 yards down the field in just 7 plays, and Peterson’s 29-yard touchdown run made it 28-27 with 2:22 to go. On the final drive, Rodgers completed both of his passes for 22 yards (so he went 5 for 5 for 42 yards with the game on the line), which meant that Crosby had an opportunity to convert a 53-yard field to win the game. His kick sailed wide right by about 18 inches.

Carolina: With the Packers trailing 21-13 mid-way through the 3rd quarter, Rodgers staged an impressive comeback. He went 6 of 7 for 86 yards (and ran for another 15) on an 8-play drive that went 95 yards. After completing a pass for the 2-point conversion, the game was tied at 21. On the next possession, Rodgers was 6 for 7 for 68 yards, including a 25-yard touchdown pass to Jennings. So the Packers led 28-21 early in the 4th quarter, but once again, the defense (and special teams coverage units) couldn’t hold that lead. The Panthers needed only 4 plays to tie the game at 28-28. On the Packers’ next drive, Rodgers led the Packers on another comeback drive. In fact, it was a 16-play, 9-minute field goal drive that ran the clock all the way down to 2 minutes. On that clutch drive, Rodgers was 6 for 6 for 63 yards through the air, and he ran twice for another 8 yards. All the defense (and special teams) needed to do was hold a 3-point lead with under two minutes to go. It couldn’t do it. The Panthers needed just 27 seconds to retake the lead with another touchdown. Rodgers got the ball back with 1½ minutes to go and underthrew Driver on a deep pass. Interception and ballgame.

Houston: Trailing 13-7, Rodgers completed a 63-yard pass to Jennings on the last play of the 3rd quarter. Ryan Grant ran in the end zone for the last 6 yards on the first play of the 4th quarter, and the Packers had another 4th quarter lead. The very next drive, the Texans retook the lead with a touchdown and a two-point conversion. Rodgers then threw a 9-yard touchdown pass to knot the game up at 21 with 6 minutes left. After the Packer defense forced the Texans to punt, Rodgers and the Packers got the ball back at their own 16-yard line with 4:37 left on the clock. Rodgers’ first pass on that final drive was a completed 59-yard pass to Donald Driver, which put the Packers at the Texans’ 25-yard line. But then the offensive line gave out. A stuffed run by Grant, a holding call on the RT, and a 9-yard sack of Rodgers forcer the Packers to punt the ball from the 41 rather than attempt a game-winning field goal. The Green Bay defense then gave up a 75-yard scoring drive to clinch the game for the Texans. Rodgers was 6 for 8 for 86 yards and a touchdown in the 4th quarter.

Jacksonville: After leading the game 13-7 heading into the 4th quarter, the Green Bay defense gave up a touchdown on the Jaguars’ next possession. On the next drive, Rodgers went 2 for 3 for 34 yards and scrambled for another 11 yards on a 9-play, 54-yard field goal drive that gave the Packers the lead again (16-14). The defense, once again, couldn’t hold that 4th quarter lead. It gave up a 6-play, 80-yard touchdown drive on Jacksonville’s next possession. After the Packers got the ball back at their own 16 with 1:50 to go in the game, Rodgers completed 3 of his next 5 passes for 32 yards before throwing an inaccurate deep pass to Donald Lee that was intercepted at the Jacksonville 27-yard line with 40 seconds left on the clock.

Chicago (road): The Packers were leading 17-10 mid-way through the 4th quarter against the Bears. The defense then gave up a game-tying touchdown drive with a little over 3 minutes left in the game. After a solid kickoff return by Blackmon, Rodgers and the Packers got well into field goal range with 25 seconds left on the clock. Mason Crosby lined up for the game-winning 38-yard field goal attempt. It was blocked. The Bears won the OT coin flip and immediately scored a game-winning field goal on their first possession.


Did Rodgers fail to come through for the Packers in the 4th quarter of close games last season? Yes, sometimes he did. But as the above game narratives suggest, all too often it was the defense or special teams (missed field goals and long returns allowed) that wilted when the game was on the line. Unfortunate events, like losing overtime coin tosses, also contributed. Of the 10 games the Packers lost in 2008, they had the lead or were tied in the 4th quarter in 7 of them. Had the Green Bay defense consistently stymied their opponents in crunch time, or had the defense not ranked second worst in the league in 4th quarter points allowed (135), the Packers could easily have won 3, 4, or even 5 more games and achieved a division crown as opposed to a 3rd place finish in the NFC North.

Further compromising the notion that Rodgers was a crunch-time failure in 2008 was his stellar performance on 3rd downs. Third down is when the pressure is on, especially for the quarterback. He has to come through by completing a pass for the necessary yardage when facing defenses poised to thwart him with their best pass rushers and with the customary 5 or 6 defensive backs and closer coverage. And despite these tougher odds, Rodgers sparkled through the air on 3rd down. He threw 161 3rd down passes and completed 103 of them (64.0%) for 1,327 yards (8.2) with 14 touchdowns (8.7%) and 5 interceptions (3.1%). Rodgers’ 105.8 passer rating on 3rd down ranked 3rd best in the NFL in 2008.

And Rodgers’ passing numbers weren’t achieved via the dink-and-dunk method either. Performing like a big-time playmaker, he shared the league lead (Drew Brees) in pass completions of 40 yards or more (16), with many of those long completions coming on 3rd down. Head coach Mike McCarthy was best served when he allowed Rodgers to keep the ball in his hands in critical spots.

But getting back to the frequent comparisons of Rodgers’ clutch performances in ’08 to Favre’s in recent years, it is something of a mystery as to why Favre has garnered a reputation as a give-him-the-ball-when-the-game’s-on-the-line player. He probably didn’t deserve it.

Favre also may not have even deserved his reputation as a great player in cold-weather games either---especially recently. From the 1992 season until January, 2003, Brett Favre reportedly owned a 35-0 record (including playoffs) when the game time temperature was 34 degrees or colder. But from January, 2003, to January, 2008, his record was 8-10 with the game time temperature 34 degrees or colder. (Favre was 0-1 and performed woefully in the one cold-weather game he started for the Jets in ’08.)

In the last 18 cold-weather games with the Packers, Favre threw 628 passes and completed 369 of them (58.8%) for 4,090 yards (6.5 yards per attempt), with 22 touchdowns (3.5%), 26 interceptions (4.1%), and a 72.6 passer rating. After the home playoff loss to the Giants in January, 2008, Bill Michaels of Milwaukee’s WTMJ reported the career statistics of Brett Favre when the game time temperature is really, really cold---21 degrees or lower. In those 9 games, Favre posted a 72.3 passer rating with 9 touchdowns, 12 interceptions, and 7 lost fumbles. That’s 19 turnovers in 9 games when it was 21 degrees or below.

(Though it’s a small sample, Rodgers was 2-2 with a 105.6 passer rating [130/86, 1,090 yards, 9 TDs, 3 INTs] in the four cold weather [sub-34 degrees] games he started in ’08.)

Favre’s dubious ice-water-in-his-veins reputation brings to mind a similarly legendary Bobby Layne, the Lions’ last and only Hall of Fame-caliber quarterback. Layne apparently had the reputation as a clutch player too, even though he threw 12 interceptions and only 1 touchdown pass in the 4 playoff games that he played in during his career. That one touchdown pass he threw won the 1953 NFL championship, however. And apparently that one pass was enough to cement his status as a money player. Favre must have thrown enough of those kind of passes in his career---and played long enough to do so---to land himself a slot in that category too.

Perhaps that is just what Aaron Rodgers needs---one momentous, game-turning pass that wins the game as the seconds tick off the clock. Once he achieves that, maybe all this talk about him as someone who collapses when the game is on the line will simply go away.

But let’s not kid ourselves about the size of the shoes that Rodgers has to fill when it comes to late-game heroics and clutch performances. Because those shoes are significantly smaller than the legend of Brett Favre would have us believe.

This is a really great article Rick: extensively and impressively researched (I know I don't have nearly enough time to unearth all of those stats and play-by-play analyses of late games), not to mention quite illuminating.

I think you're quite right in that the lore of Favre as a come-from-behind or "clutch" performer has become an exercise in hyperbole. It would be unfair, however, to say that Favre didn't earn the reputation during his early years; after all, in his first opportunity at the helm, he led the Packers to an almost unfathomable comeback win against the Bengals, regaling fans and players with laser-like throws, all the while expressing the excitement of a kid playing in his back yard.

In other words, in his very first game, Favre was special. A unique player. A reason for optimism, even in the bleakest of situations.

When I think about Favre in terms of come-from-behind wins, I always go back to the beginning of the 1999 season, where he lead the Packers to fourth quarter comebacks in three of their first four games. I mention this moment, however, for two reasons: (1) it helped cement Favre as a come-from-behind legend, but what is often overlooked is that (2) it also marked the last time Favre was truly deserving of praise for his 4th quarter performances.

As your numbers indicate, heading forward, Favre was just not the same player in crunch-time scenarios. Whether it was questionable coaching, an inadequate supporting cast, age, mental fatigue, or a combination of all these factors and a few others, Favre just wasn't "clutch" anymore. In fact, outside of a few rare performances, he turned into the antithesis of "clutch."

It was a disconcerting and painful turn of events that was difficult to stomach. In the past, I would have liked nothing better than for Favre to have the ball in his hands heading into the 4th quarter. The past decade, however, I cringed at the thought of Favre having to lead a come-from-behind drive.

At least when my fear came to fruition in the form of a turnover, I couldn't be too upset: I got what I expected.

And everything I have said up to this point isn't so much me criticizing Favre as much as it is me illustrating that players change but perceptions of those players don't necessarily change accordingly.

Right now, Rodgers has the stigma of a QB who can't lead a come-from-behind drive. But as Rick demonstrated and as many knowledgeable and (semi) objective Packer fans know, Rodgers did an admirable job in the 4th quarter, especially for a first year starter. The following quote stands out the most for me. It's a great synopsis of this entire discussion:


Unfortunately, not everyone has the time (nor the ability) to see the game in this way--not even the so called "pundits" who make my ears bleed with their myopic analysis. It's just much easier to look at the final scores of games and say, "Well that Rodgers, while he plays quite well, sure can't lead a comeback drive."

As Favre has rightfully said a couple times, "players at my position receive too much credit for victories and too much blame in defeat." Even in my commentary above, I probably give Favre too much blame for his lack of late game heroics over the last decade. After all, football is a team game. That said, it's rather fatuous to think that quarterbacks don't have a greater influence than most players over the final outcome of a game, especially in the west coast offense that is so quarterback reliant.

Really nice article, Rick. It was painful to re-live all the ways we were able to snatch defeat from jaws of victory. The Carolina game especially drives me nuts. I was watching that several weeks ago on NFL Replay on the NFL Network. How did we lose that game?

It seems like if Aaron Rodgers has a weakness, it's not that he isn't clutch. As your article points out, he was clutch on many occasions. I think maybe he just isn't good at the 2 minute drill yet. Even in the offseason practices he's struggled in that area. But I think he can improve in that area. I'd be more concerned if I though he was a choker, but I don't think that's the case. He seems like a guy willing to work hard, so he'll get past that. How differently would we perceive his clutch abilities if we'd had the Steelers defense last year, if only for the 4th quarter? Or even an average defense.

And I'm glad someone finally put something out there regarding Favre's "clutchness", too. Yeah, he had 40 4th quarter comebacks, but that spanned 17 seasons in which he playing in every game (except for a few games in 1992). Thats less than 2 1/2 per season. Even with all that befell the Packers last year, Rodgers had 2. As your numbers illustrate, his clutchness was a bit overrated.

I will give him credit for one thing, though. He never protected his stats. A lot of guys going into the 4th quarter down 2-3 TDs are going to play dink and dunk to make their numbers look better. Favre would always try to win. I always appreciated that about him.

WOW!!

That was an impressive post. Thank you!!!!

Well written piece. Nice job. Aside from the Rodgers vs. Favre angle, it really proves to me that Aaron Rodgers was and is not the Packers problem. He played well even though he and the offense did not have the support from the defense and special teams that they needed. That more than anything makes the acquisition of Dom Capers, Mike Trgovak, Darren Perry and Kevin Greene so important. Those guys and a new aggressive scheme should really be the make or break difference this team needs to get back into the playoffs and be a legitimate contender. Nice job Rick.

Post?

Actually it was an article published this morning on the PC Home Page and hopefully the return to writing for Rick.

Very impressive article. altough I do not like that Favre vs. Rodgers angle neither. We will see what Aaron will have after 17 years with the Pack. But it is very nice to see to have a real worthy man after the HOF-QB not like other teams which have not found one after their great QB's like Miami or Denver. Possibly two HOF-QB's in a row ? What a beautiful perspective...

And why do you only do the post Holmgren years for your comparison? Where his 92-98 just so good that they skewed the data too much or something? After all his early years would be more pertinent in a comparison as their ages would be more similar.

I hate articles that have to cherry pick stats to make them work out.


I had a feeling I might be accused of cherry-picking the numbers because I only used Brett’s ’99 to ’07 stats instead of referencing his entire career. Contrary to such accusations, I did not simply choose his more recent numbers---and exclude his numbers from the Holmgren era---because it might make Brett look worse.

The main reason why I didn’t include Brett’s ’92 to ’98 4th-quarter-within-7 passing statistics is that they weren’t made available until the 1997 season. I have his 4th quarter stats available from ’92 to ’96, but not the more specified 4th-quarter-within-7 (close game) stats. I didn’t want to mix and match statistics, as then I would have needed to take the time in the article to clunkily clarify that I am only able to use Favre’s 4th-quarter-within-7 stats from ’97 to ’07, and that I had to use his aggregate 4th quarter numbers from ’92 to ’96. I thought it would be better to not mix and match statistics, and to instead establish a cut-off point. The ’99 season seemed to work out conveniently because it was the first year of the post-Holmgren era, or the second half of his career, and because in 1999 Brett had a particularly good start to the season in terms of comebacks, as he had 3 thrilling come-from-behind victories in the closing seconds that year.

Another reason for not harkening all the way back to the ’92-’98 seasons is that I thought it was important to establish that, as he got older, Favre’s reputation for comebacks and playing well in the cold seemed to be less and less wedded to his more recent performances, but instead primarily based on his MVP and Super Bowl years. To say that Rodgers couldn’t match Favre’s propensity to stage late-game comebacks seemed to give the impression that Favre had been something of a ice-water-in-his-veins Captain Comeback for his entire career. And he hadn’t been that in the last decade or so. I wanted to establish that.

But regardless, I will now post Favre’s 4th quarter passing statistics from ’92 to ’96, and his 4th-quarter-within-7 passing statistics from ’97 and ’98. Notice that in Favre’s first three seasons, he put up rather poor 4th quarter numbers. Then, from ’95 to ’98, he had some excellent 4th quarter numbers.

Brett’s 4th quarter passing statistics, ’92-’96:
1992: 83/135 (61.5%) 885 YDs (6.6) 7 TDs, 8 INTs, 73.2 RATING
1993: 90/148 (60.8%) 991 YDs (6.7) 6 TDs, 10 INTs, 66.0 RATING
1994: 89/148 (60.1%) 969 YDs (6.5) 5 TDs, 4 INTs, 79.5 RATING
1995: 85/134 (63.4%) 987 YDs (7.4) 9 TDs, 4 INTs, 95.6 RATING
1996: 65/115 (56.5%) 726 YDs (6.3) 8 TDs, 2 INTs, 91.4 RATING

Brett’s 4th quarter passing statistics in close games (with the score within 7), ’97-’98:
1997: 26/41 (63.4%) 311 YDs (7.6) 3 TDs, 1 INT, 100.8 RATING
1998: 70/106 (66.0%) 820 YDs (7.7) 8 TDs, 5 INTs, 94.9 RATING

And, for the record, here’s Brett’s quarter passing statistics in close games (with the score within 7) from ’99 to ’07, or the stats I used for the article:

1999: 153/87 1,039 5-6 72.3
2000: 141/74 901 6-10 57.1
2001: 103/64 811 4-5 79.4
2002: 96/54 629 5-4 76.3
2003: 89/59 611 4-5 77.5
2004: 119/75 860 6-6 80.5
2005: 172/95 975 5-12 52.3
2006: 142/82 767 5-7 63.9
2007: 92/53 624 4-4 74.7

Great article Rick. And thanks for the obvious work you put in to it. Still digesting the numbers. Very intersting read.

Good article. Kind of the reverse of what I was expecting to see after reading the title.

Wow truly a well reasoned and thoroughly documented article. I think most GB fans knew the D was the primary problem last year and not as the media would have you believe AR. the question I think this article raises even more than will the D be better this year is will the D be a 4th quarter clutch D. Yes I am hoping for an overall top fie D, but with the switch to a 3-4, really I hope that the D can just make the stops at the end of the game. It was very apparent last year they could not.

Heading into last season, the Packers' defense was commonly considered to be of the "bend-but-don't-break" variety. In other words, this wasn't a defense that would win games itself, ala the Ravens and Steelers. Rather, this defense would give up points and yardage, but not more than the offense could overcome. As such, the bend-but-don't-break defenses, at least the more successful ones, are usually accompanied by high powered offenses, meaning the defense can give up 10-to-20 points a game since the offense usually scores about 24 or more.

Well, last year, the defense didn't live up to their title: instead, they broke.

A lot of that breaking was due to injuries, and even more was due to incompetent coaching and an inability to adjust to those injuries. Regardless, this defense broke in the most critical of moments: the fourth quarter.

And can we really blame them? That defense--at the time void of players like Williams, KGB, Jenkins, Barnett, and Bigby--simply didn't have the fourth quarter stamina. The pass rush was pretty anemic as was, but when players like Jolly and Pickett are heading into the fourth quarter already playing more snaps than they can physically handle and when Kampman has already received three quarters worth of double teams, it is easy to see why this defense was such a pushover in crunch time.

And this comes back to the point I have been harping on all off-season: depth on the defensive front. I think they have some of that now. I also think this defense will benefit from an aggressive scheme rather than a passive read-and-react one.

Most importantly, all of this should help erase the misconception that Rodgers can't "cut it" in the 4th quarter.

Great post, Rick. Your findings are backed up in this interesting article, which notes how different teams have different definitions for what constitutes a comeback. The Packers are among the league's more generous definers:



I think this is right. The young Favre was a terrific red-zone QB, but no more exceptional in the fourth quarter than he was in the first three.

I've also seen it stated that Rodgers wasn't a good 4th quarter QB at all spouted by media types, when in reality Rodgers has a better 4th quarter QB Rating than Peyton Manning. I've also seen it stated that the Packers offense struggled in the red zone when they were actually in the Top 10 in red zone percentage. Rodgers was arguably the best red zone QB in the entire NFL last year. 19 TDs and ZERO INTs. It seems that this day and age a journalist can simply write anything they want to and label it as fact. The fact of the matter is Rodgers statistically was no worse in clutch situations than Favre has in recent years. The main reason why it appears that Rodgers isn't clutch is because the Packers defense was ranked 31st in 4th quarter defense. How can you possibly win games in the 4th quarter when your defense is among the worst in the NFL in points allowed in the 4th quarter. My observation last year was that Rodgers needed to have a perfect game for the Packers to win with their defensive shortcomings.

I think a lot of people simply aren't aware that the 2008 Packers defense gave up the most points of any Packers defense in 21 years. People can say all they want about Favre but he never played with a Packers defense that gave up that many points. The Packers hardly turned over the ball last year so the amount of points the defense gave up last year is simply atrocious. That is why Sanders had to go. Week after week, the defense could not be counted on to hold a lead with less than 4-5 minutes in the game. I think Rodgers was unfairly labeled as a choker in clutch situations. Week after week he was asked to lead a TD drive with less than 2 min. and usually poor field position. That is the kind of stuff legends are made out of. No QB can pull that off every week. Occasionally yes but not every week. If QBs really came back from behind on a weekly basis, guys like John Elway and Favre would have over 100 4th quarter comebacks. The fact of the matter is that even the great ones only lead about 2-3 comebacks per season.

But at the same time, Sanders can't look at all those injuries and think he can run the same defense. The Packers have statistically been the most conservative defense in the NFL since Sanders has been coordinator. That is they blitz fewer than any other team in the NFL. That is fine when you have a very talented DL but when guys start dropping you have to adjust and bring in more blitzes to take some pressure off of the DL. Sanders failed to do that. He thought Montgomery and Jeremy Thompson could immediately fill in and cover for KGB and Cullen Jenkins. When you no longer have credible pass rushing threats on the DL you have to trick the offense and bring heat from where its not expected. There were signs that the scheme was questionable even in 2007. The sack production really started going down towards the end of the year. Even with great depth on the DL, you can only go so far by lining up in the same defense and rushing the same guys over and over. There has to be at least some element of surprise.

Very well researched and very well written. Although AR has nothing to compare, if you're going to mention clutch situations, what is more clutch than playoffs? And what could be more telling than losing playoff games via multiple interceptions or interceptions returned for TD's. The last playoff game of significance that #4 won, was with the #1 defense in the league, and only specials teams SB MVP in league history.

I'll make no secret that I lost all respect for Favre after watching him whine to his buddy Greta, but I'm glad that we have a QB now that I trust to make good, disciplined decisions and let his teammates make plays, rather than one who tries to do it all by himself.

Hands down the best article I have ever read on PC.

Comparing AR to BF needs to factor in not only performance but cost. Really, any GM could find and start the best players...but there's cap constraints to consider as well.

Summarizing from the 8/7 Wall Street Journal article by David Biderman who sliced the stats yet another way:

QB statistical analysis factored in cost-efficiency by accounting for yards gained, turnovers and team victories. The idea was...given what a team pays it's QB, what's the ROI in terms of wins. It measures a QBs worth compared to the average NFL passer's worth.

The most productive QB was Brees, who produced 2.7 wins more than being replaced by an average NFL QB.

For example, the stat shows Eli Manning was worth .7 wins above a 2008 replacement-level QB while making 9.9M - thus being paid an extra 14.2M per additional win!

Aaron Rodgers produced 1.1 more wins than P. Manning, and at 1/5 the cost.

Brett Favre produced -1 win; so the NYJ paid him $12 million to lose one more game than a run-of-the-mill QB would've produced salary-wise.

I appreciate this is a bit esoteric, but it points out that if you look at how many wins a QB produces (as many posters do for example) and FACTOR IN that QB's salary vis-a-vis the 'average NFL QB's salary, it produces an interesting look at a GM and team's return on investment. Hail, hail number crunchers!

Will AR be compared to Favre all throughout his career? Comparing these two players is unfair to BOTH gentlemen. You can't compare a first year starter with a 17 year vet and you can't compare a 25 year old player nearing his prime with a 40 year old player at the end of his.

Well stated, as always Pugger. Comparisons outside of contemporaries aren't, well comparable.

It actually is a good sign and a compliment to Aaron Rodgers that he is being compared to Brett Favre. If he wasn't playing so well, people wouldn't be comparing them.

No one ever compared Scott Hunter or Jerry Tagge to Bart Starr.

While this was an impressive post, it's impossible to compare this right now. 1 season vs 18.

Fantastic article Rick.

People have been told for so long "there will never be another Favre", "you can't replace Favre", etc. So, it became almost a cult-like forgone conclusion that Green Bay must suffer for several years or decades before they'd find another capable QB.

Rodgers is already one of the top 10 QB's.

Nice article but its difficult to compare 1 starting season to 18 starting seasons.

Why not compare Aaron's first year to Brett's?

Where is that in the article?

It's not....but wouldn't it be more interesting (and a more real) comparison rather than comparing 1 year to a career.

While that might be an interesting read - the game has changed a lot since Favre's first full season (i.e. DB's can't sneeze at a WR without a penalty)...

Otherwise, 1st year comparisons would be: AR as bench warmer vs. Favre's 5 passes as a Falcon?
Or, comparing AR's 1st year as a starter (2008) to ... Favre's 1st year as a starter? AR got to sit and learn for a number of years; Favre didn't. So, AR's 1st season as a starter is based on a different learning curve than Favre's would be.

I think it's about impossible to do so and not very meaningful. Maybe compare the first 4 years of work where they were both FT starters.

I liked the article, but I do have a few reservations about this type of analysis:

1. I'm unclear on whether or not "clutch" performance even exist, or if they're just random occurrences, which happen to come at crucial points in a game. We've all seen QBs, in the first quarter lead their teams to the end-zone in two minutes or less. But in a critical game, when the team is down by one score or less, with two minutes left, then they become legendary. I'm not convinced that "clutch performance" is a real, quantifiable attribute.

2. Quarterbacks throw more interceptions when they're behind with time running out. If they were ahead with time running out, then they wouldn't be throwing. And, due to the nature of being behind with time running out, the defense knows that they're going to be a bit pass-happy, and they'll plan accordingly.

3. The "fourth-quarter comeback" rankings seem to be highly correlated with career starts (and, I suspect, overall team quality). The obvious exception to this would seem to be Ben Rothlisberger, who I bet regresses to the mean, throughout the course of his career. So, if AR starts has many games as Favre (or Elway, Marino, etc.) then I would fully expect him to be near the top of the list. That doesn't make him a good clutch performer (see: point "1." above); it only means that, compared to most QBs, he had more opportunities to put together an effective drive in the closing minutes of a close game.

I only had two things to say and GregJennings and big ror beat me to both of them.

Firstly, my first thought was also, "Wow!" What a stunning piece of research. Ok, WCH has a point, but it doesn't take away from an impressively documented article - one can't write a book to explore all the ins and outs in such a context, not practically speaking. For what it covered it was a knockout.

Secondly, my impression of where Favre got the reputation were from two specific periods, which big ror brought up (which obviously is not to say there weren't other games that added to the rep): When he first came to the Packers and those first 3 of 4 games later under Rhodes. Reputations of heroic figures are often built upon such specific instances of heroics, generally ignoring the reality of the picture of an entire career.

As someone mentioned, Rodgers will have his moments too, no doubt.

I couldn't agree more that Rodgers has gotten a bad rap for last year. It's especially dismaying when it comes from Packer fans.

Well written and researched article.I agree with everything that you have said in the article and have defended rodgers based off of this information you provided. People forgot how many times rodgers walked off the field in the 4th quarter with the lead, only to have the defense/special teams give it up. The one suggestion I have comes from the part that I have quoted above. If you want people to take this piece, or anything else you write, seriously I would suggest leaving things like this out. It shows that you have an extreme bias, and makes people who might have taken this article seriously, think that you are just trying to trash brett favre.

Phenomenal article. Might be the best post I've ever read on any message board.

I remember that Texans game well. When we saw that McCarthy had called for the punt, tons of us were wishing he had just gone for the monster-long field goal. Because we just knew that if you put the game in the hands of our defense, they absolutely were going to choke. And they did.