Skip to main content

That is what makes Starr's playoff stats even more remarkable compared to the norm of the era ... he only threw 3 picks in 15 games and had career passer rating of 104 in the playoffs. Compare that to Johnny Unitas ; 9 games 10 ints and passer rating of 69.

@FLPACKER posted:

That is what makes Starr's playoff stats even more remarkable compared to the norm of the era ... he only threw 3 picks in 15 games and had career passer rating of 104 in the playoffs. Compare that to Johnny Unitas ; 9 games 10 ints and passer rating of 69.

Not just Unitas, even well into the 80s and 90s the TD/Int ratios were terrible by today's standards. These are the playoff stats for HOF QBs from the 60s to the 90s. Only Montana has a ratio of more than 1.6 (Young) . Montana is probably Starr's best playoff comparison, and while the Packers WRs in the 60s were decent, it's not like Starr was throwing to Jerry Rice.

Montana 45 TDs/21 INTs

Unitas 7/10

Bradshaw, 30 TDs/26 INTs

Bob Griese, 10 TDs/12 INTs

Stabler 19/13 (better than I've have thought)

Len Dawson 7/8

Jim Kelly 21/28

Staubach 24/19

Namath 2/3 (shockingly only 3 total playoff games in his career)

Fouts 12/16

Aikman 23/17

S. Young 20/13

Elway 27/21

Marino 32/24

Moon 17/14

Favre 44/30

Looking at this list, you can come up with a good comparison to each of the Packers HOF QBs of the last 60 years.

Starr is Montana

Favre is Elway. Physically talented, huge arms, a lot of mistakes (Elway's ratio before he started mainly handing the ball off to Terrell Davis was 19/18.

Rodgers is Dan Marino. Probably the two best QBs in terms of just how easy they made things look in the regular season. Both played 17 years (so far) and only got to one Super Bowl. If you just look at the regular season, they are probably both in the Top 5 all-time, but they didn't get it done enough in the playoffs. A lot of it wasn't on them. Marino had 10 losses in the playoffs. In 6 of those games you could argue his defense gave him no chance giving up 62, 44, 38, 38, 37, and 31 points. They gave up 29 in another. But then there were a handful of games where he wasn't the reason they lost, but he couldn't lift his teams over the hump. He had losses in the playoffs where the scores were 27-20, 22-21, and 17-3.

@FLPACKER posted:

That is what makes Starr's playoff stats even more remarkable compared to the norm of the era ... he only threw 3 picks in 15 games and had career passer rating of 104 in the playoffs. Compare that to Johnny Unitas ; 9 games 10 ints and passer rating of 69.

But, but he had good players on his team🙄

@YATittle posted:

I don't think the Packers ever had a legitimate shot at signing him.
I seem to recall reading during the last week or so that OBJ had 4-5 teams he preferred, and the Packers weren't one of them. I tried searching but can't find the article, tweet, or whatever it was that stated this. Maybe one of our experts will be able to (I hope).

Montana 45 TDs/21 INTs -- won 4 Super Bowls

Unitas 7/10 -- won 1 SB (and 3 NFL championships before SB era)

Bradshaw, 30 TDs/26 INTs -- won 4 SBs

Bob Griese, 10 TDs/12 INTs -- won 2 SBs, played in 1 more

Stabler 19/13 (better than I've have thought) -- won 1 SB (Vikings suck!)

Len Dawson 7/8 -- won 1 SB (Vikings suck again!), played in 1 other

Jim Kelly 21/28 -- played in four SBs

Staubach 24/19 -- won 2 SBs, played in another 2

Namath 2/3 (shockingly only 3 total playoff games in his career) -- won 1 SB

Fouts 12/16 -- ah well...

Aikman 23/17 -- won 3 SBs

S. Young 20/13 -- won 1 SB as a starter

Elway 27/21 -- won 2 SBs, played in 3 others

Marino 32/24 -- bummer...

Moon 17/14 -- nope

Favre 44/30 -- won 1 SB, played in 1 more



Just thought I'd have some fun with the stats. I'm not sure exactly what they show, but maybe it doesn't take 0 interceptions to win in big games? 

Found on the internet: With the score tied late in the game, on that play Lazard would have caught a pass from Rodgers approaching midfield with no defenders anywhere near him.
The three defenders between Lazard and the end zone are some twenty yards behind him, and running fast away from Lazard (toward the end zone) to cover Adams and ESB.
All of which seems to mean that Lazard would have likely run the ball into scoring territory, at least to field goal range inside the 30-yard-line, at most all the way in for a touchdown.
If Lazard scores a touchdown on that play, I doubt the 49ers come back to score one to tie -- since they didn't score a touchdown on offense all game.
If Lazard doesn't score a touchdown, the Packers can run more clock down before kicking a field goal. That gives the 49ers less time to kick a field goal to tie -- as it turned out, it took the 49ers until the last seconds of the game to kick the winning field goal.
***
It all adds up to an epic fail by Rodgers, one of the worst blunders in the history of the NFL playoffs, really and truly.
After all, Lazard is crossing the middle of the field right in front of the eyes of Rodgers.
If Rodgers didn't see him, this means that Rodgers made a massive oversight, and may have some larger defect in reading the field for secondary receivers.
If Rodgers did see Lazard, and stubbornly forced it to Adams anyway, the judgement of Rodgers was incredibly horrible.
***
The thing is, has anyone asked Rodgers about this? Does he get a pass after basically blowing this playoff game for us as fans and ruining the Packers run to the Super Bowl?
It's outrageous to let this slide by without tons of attention, especially before giving Rodgers a new contract of staggering proportions.
Was Rodgers incompetent in not seeing Lazard running free, or lacking in character in refusing to throw to him? Is there any other plausible explanation?
Could we at least ask Rodgers, even now, to perhaps encourage in him a fair measure of humility that would help him to be a better person and a better player in the future?
***
If we're going to be hard on Bostick for dropping an onside kick against the Seahawks in the playoffs, shouldn't our superstar quarterback -- making so much more money and garnering so much more glamor -- get even more scrutiny and criticism?
It seems to me that in this epic fail against the 49ers, Rodgers demonstrated that entrusting the leadership position of quarterback to an arrogant loser off the field will almost inevitably mean that he'll let us down, sooner or later, as a loser on the field.
He'll break our hearts just when we think we've got it made.
Did we really just sign up for more of the same at some $50 million per season for three long years of dependency on this guy?
Insanity!
[Don't forget the playoff game the previous year against the Bucs, when Rodgers failed to get the Packers into the endzone with first-and-goal from the 8-yard-line.]

OTA/Mini Camp reports (and yes, I realize there are no padded practice) it sure seems like #23 is back to his old self. He's made some vintage Alexander plays and terrific pass break ups in practice. This entire secondary is going to be exciting to watch.  

@michiganjoe posted:

He never should have been in the game on that play! Barry played his "pass " package, with Z Smith as an inside rusher & Alexander in the slot on third and 7. The 49ers promptly ran right at those 2. Now perhaps if Packers had come out with a "run" package the 49ers would have passed? Would they really have put the game in Jimmy G's hands?

@FLPACKER posted:

He never should have been in the game on that play! Barry played his "pass " package, with Z Smith as an inside rusher & Alexander in the slot on third and 7. The 49ers promptly ran right at those 2. Now perhaps if Packers had come out with a "run" package the 49ers would have passed? Would they really have put the game in Jimmy G's hands?

THIS!

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×