Siefer wrote:I'm not defending the silly grade and write-up, but Rodgers was (by his standard) fairly average against KC. Granted, an average Rodgers is still very, very good.
Why do you think he was average by his standards? I thought he was masterful.
The only thing that might take away from his individual performance, if you want to nitpick, would be that a certain amount of credit is due the coaching staff, for calling the perfect kind of offense against a dangerous pass-rush. That said, Rodgers has a lot of control over what play is actually run, so he can share in the credit for that too.
Other than the uncharacteristic shoulda-been INT, he was about as perfect as a QB can get. I suppose he was average in the sense that he didnt have a bunch of long bombs or smthing? But again, the short passing game was the perfect strategy for that D, so is that evidence of average QB play, or is it the subtlety of true and mature greatness?
Thats what really sticks in my craw about the PFF grade- they felt compelled to stick in that line "he let his receivers do the heavy lifting" or whatever. If they admit they dont take presnap stuff or intangibles into account, then they ought to leave this sort of thing out by the same token, since it ignores the fact that rodgers presnap work is exactly what puts receivers in the position to do heavy lifting. You cant have it both ways.
They may come by their grades honestly, but it was a very concious choice on their part to couch their grading in completely disingenuous terms.
And including a buried disclaimer (one that contradicts the entire thrust of the rest of the article) doesnt absolve anything- on the contrary, its the oldest trick in the book and it just compounds further the general intellectual dishonesty.
Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums