Rodgers has played pretty darn well in the playoffs. Hard to say he is anything like Manning. Manning is literally something like 1-10 in fourth quarter comeback situations and probably closer to 1-20 if you count the actual number of drives he's had. He is the master of just outright failing on many levels in the postseason, and he is well known for his pick 6s in the big games.
I have no idea where all this Rodgers rationalizing is coming from. I don't think he played great against Seattle last year, and it was a game Brady would have won. That being said, his overall body of work in the postseason is nowhere near the type of failing effort that some are saying. He has only been to the postseason six times, and although you could call his play sub-par on some occasstions, the playoffs are a different beast and are difficult for pure passing offenses. We know that well. It's not like he puts up 10 points, throws pick-6s in the fourth quarter, or just suddenly becomes completely inept like Manning. No way those two are similar in the postseason. It's hard to win a Super Bowl. Brady just went TEN years without winning one. I think Rodgers, when all is said and done, improves on that playoff winning percentage, which is a fairly small sample size to begin with.
I would also add that Mike McCarthy is not Bill Belichick. This is a somewhat legitimate argument that works for Rodgers, whereas Manning's postseason failures have been his own fault, nothing to do with the coaching or defense. I'm not saying Rodgers gets a pass on everything, just that with better coaching, no doubt his postseason record improves, and with such a small sample size, one win changes it from 6-5 to 7-4, and two wins changes it to 8-3. Just saying, 6-5 is being used way too much here as some kind of iron number. Let's see his record at the end of his career.
