Whose Side Are You Actually On, Dan Patrick?

Because the NFL season doesn't start for several weeks, sports talk show hosts have to find something to talk about. Hockey is rarely a topic on these talk shows and if the baseball becomes a topic, that can be covered in ten minutes before moving on to the gridiron, professional football.

One example, from the Dan Patrick Show, where Dan, broaches the topic of NFL Hall of Fame quarterbacks. On a number of occasions recently, Dan has said that overall quarterback success should be measured primarily by how well you do in the playoffs and Super Bowl. For the most part among football analysts and experts, they concur with Dan's take. This approach could be sometimes construed as lacking deep analytical thinking, but it still persists. Especially among those who don't want to determine or learn the essence of this discussion.

Dan has also mentioned that it's perhaps unfair to judge a quarterback's career by how many Super Bowl rings they won. But many fans and sports media personnel continue to repeat the idea that you have to participate at least once or twice in the big game to be considered "one of the greatest to play the game." Getting back to Dan, with these two contradictory statements during his podcast makes me unsure what he really believes. A cynic might say that it's ok to say contradictory things as it makes for a good podcast.

Over the last few weeks, Dan has repeated this same theme several more times: "Perhaps it's unfair to judge a quarterback's career by the amount of their Super Bowl wins." Look, Dan, do you think we should judge a QB's all-time success on the number of Super Bowl wins or appearances? If the answer is "Yes," then why even add any verbiage to this discussion. If his answer is "No," then why do you continue to give this theme additional oxygen if he doesn't truly believe it? I want to say to Dan, "Come in or stay out, but you must decide how you truly feel about this debate." Please tell us truly how you feel about this topic.

Let's analyze two quarterbacks who are first ballot HOFs; Aaron Rodgers, one of the most accurate and gifted passers in NFL history. I know Aaron is polarizing and says some controversial things, but let's honestly evaluate what he strictly did on the field. Over the last several years, Dan has critiqued Aaron for not winning more Super Bowls (his only Super Bowl victory occurred in 2011). And Dan has suggested Rodgers could be among the top three greatest QBs of all-time with a few more SB wins or appearances. Let's be real, He's a four-time winner of the MVP, and number one on the NFL's all-time regular-season career passer rating list. And the league's second-lowest career interception percentage at 1.4%. (Not to mention that Aaron has 4 MVPs to Tom's 3.)

Aaron also had success passing and rushing in the playoffs. Comparing his playoff statistics to Tom Brady's, Aaron's stats measure up well. Besides the overall record (again, it's a team game), Aaron has a better passing percentage, QB rating and rushing totals. With such great regular season and playoff stats, one may wonder why Aaron didn't have the same playoff success as someone like Brady. (Not to mention that Aaron has 4 MVPs to Tom's 3.)

I will further delve into some of the reasons.

Playoff Games: Passing and Rushing

Aaron gets dinged because of only one Super Bowl win. Could he have had others? Didn't he have the team at least make it to a Super Bowl during his tenure with the Packers? Generally, during his time in Green Bay, in the playoffs, when the offense was strong, the defense typically struggled. If the running game and defense struggled together, special teams often weren't "special." Coaching was sometimes an issue, so overall, the team was typically not consistently good in all aspects of the game. The epitome of Aaron's tenure in Green Bay came when the Packers faced the Seattle Seahawks in the 2014 NFL Championship Game.

In this game, with just five minutes to go in regulation, the Packers led by 12. The Seahawks stormed back and, tied the game and forced overtime. The Seahawks won the coin toss in overtime and drove down the field to win on a field goal.

Let's peel the onion in this example. In the fourth quarter, the Packers had a 99.9% statistical chance of winning. Put differently, the Seahawks had a one-in-a-thousand chance of winning. As I mentioned before, special teams are an integral part of the game. However, in the 2014 Championship, the special-teams unit by the Packers botched an onsides kick with just over two minutes to go. Coaching played a role, too; the Packers were playing "not to lose" rather than "playing to win." For example, after the Seahawks turned the ball over, Mike McCarthy, the Packers coach, was criticized for calling three straight unsuccessful running plays, losing yards in the process. Some NFL analysts thought the coach should have been more aggressive and put the ball in Aaron's hands. In overtime, the Packers' defense could not hold the Seahawks. In summary, the offense, defense, special teams, and coaching cost the team a chance at the Super Bowl.  

Why do I bring that up? Because that's just an example of the bad luck Aaron has had in the playoffs. He's not perfect, sometimes committing a costly interception, but with his accuracy, less blame should go his way. Tom Brady, the QB with the most Super Bowl victories—seven—is considered the greatest ever, largely because of his playoff and Super Bowl success, as many analysts seem to ignore the fact that Aaron's playoff rating is 98.1, compared to Brady's 90. Overall, Rodgers' regular-season passing rate was 102.2, the highest in NFL history. Brady's overall is 97.2. The passing and running stats favor Rodgers over Brady, but with Brady's seven Super Bowl rings, Rodgers' name is left out of the discussion. Perhaps a lot of Brady's success had to do with being coached by arguably the greatest coach of all-time, a coach that was well prepared and did whatever it took to succeed.

Coaching is an important part of a team's success. You have many trainers and coaches, in addition to the head coach, who contribute to a team's success. If the team is successful, then the QB, defense, and offense often succeed in unison.

You can have some bad luck. Injuries. Inconsistent play. Poor coaching. Bad weather. They all play a role. So, do I think it's fair to judge a quarterback's career to a great extent on their Super Bowl success? No. I think most great QBs have made it there, but my point is there's more than what meets the eye. With so many factors at play, things had to go your way; no doubt, good luck also played a role. During his tenure in Green Bay, if coaching, special teams, and defense were on par with his performance, Aaron would have at least three Super Bowl rings. Again, it's a team game. If you were Rodgers, and you knew your team well, and if your defense and special teams were subpar, wouldn't you likely feel you had to be nearly perfect and score points on every possession?

As mentioned earlier, Dan Patrick says it's perhaps unfair to judge a quarterback's career on how many Super Bowl rings they won. But he still gives oxygen to this issue. To solely put a team's success on their QB is disingenuous. Perhaps if Dan got into the details and reasons of why great quarterbacks like Aaron Rodgers haven't won more Super Bowls, he could provide more clarity and context to his statement.

Whose Side Are You Actually On, Dan Patrick?