SITE MENU
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.When we talk about quarterback turnovers, we focus on interceptions, but that’s a bit myopic, especially considering how much of the offense the quarterback controls. Rodgers is among the league leaders in sacks taken, and while you might be tempted to blame the offensive line for that fact (and sometimes they deserve it), Rodgers is the primary culprit. He loves to hold the ball, waiting for the big play, and he is also willing to take a sack instead of throwing a risky pass, but while many sacks are preferable to interceptions, third down sacks are a different story. Fifty-six percent of Rodgers’ sacks have occurred on third or fourth down, and, while sacks on third down are common (because passing on third down is common), Russell Wilson, who also takes a lot of sacks (32 so far this season to Rodgers’ 30) has been sacked on third or fourth down just 43% of the time.
Based on this opinion:
An opinion that includes this flawed premise:
"Those third down sacks, fourth down failures and fumbles add up. In the aggregate, they are just as devastating as the occasional interception..."
I am only acquainted with the author's stuff from the occasional SB Nation pieces of his that I have read so I'm not in a position to call out his overall football knowledge but I do take exception to that conclusion. Last I checked teams are still allowed to punt after a 3rd down sack. Which means 'in the aggregate' they are nowhere near "as devastating as the occasional interception."