On pace for 50 TDs, Aaron Rodgers not thinking about records

[BucD+ 648]

Per PFT:

Posted by Michael David Smith on November 15, 2011, 7:57 AM EST

 

With four touchdown passes on Monday night, Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers has 28 this season, putting him on pace to tie Tom Brady’s NFL record of 50 in a year.

 

That’s not something Rodgers is concerned about.

 

“Yeah, not really thinking about that, to be honest,” Rodgers said after the game, when asked about the single-season touchdown record. “We’re thinking about winning our division and getting a home playoff game and all of that will take care of itself. I just want to be efficient and consistent and get us in good situations. If we’re doing that and I’m not turning the ball over, we’re going to be in every game.”

 

Rodgers also didn’t sound too impressed with the way the Packers played on Monday night.

 

“We had way too many negative-yardage plays and I think we left some yards out there on the field,” Rodgers said. “But they have a good defense. They did some good things tonight, kind of slowed us down there a little bit in the first half. We’ve got to be a little bit better converting those third downs early on.”

 

The idea of Rodgers and the Packers getting better has to be scary for the rest of the NFL.

[seanbrock 1,684]

So Rodgers is on pace to break the single season TD record, the ypa record and completion % record. Holy shit man.

 

Btw, Tom Brady was sacked 21 times all year when he broke the record. Rodgers has already been sacked 23 times.

Edited November 15, 2011 by seanbrock

[Shotgun 442]

If the Bucs play like they did this past Sunday, Rodgers might break the record this weekend.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

He has to throw 3 a game for the rest of the season. Possible? Absolutely. Likely? I don't think so. He probably ends up around 42-45 TD on the year. Record or not, that's that absolutely amazing.

[seanbrock 1,684]

He has to throw 3 a game for the rest of the season. Possible? Absolutely. Likely? I don't think so. He probably ends up around 42-45 TD on the year. Record or not, that's that absolutely amazing.

Yeah 2 games against Detroit and 1 against the Giants, but he can toss 3 TD's against anyone.

[RazorStar 4,025]

He's just worried that the Bucs are coming next week. THe Packers never play well against them.

[badgers 380]

I'm not saying it's any more likely than it already is (which isn't much) but look here:

 

28 TD's through 9 games is only averaging 3 per game.

 

Some games he could throw 1 or two, like against NY or CHI. But others, probably against OAK or KC, he could throw more than 3. DET games are a toss up, and I'm not sure if I expect a great game with average scoring or a shootout.

 

If both DET games end up being high scoring, I think it becomes likely for him to tie that record. Here, this is what I'm predicting for him (TD/game) and I think it's achievable based on our offense playcalling and his ability:

 

TB: 4 - A bit above average because the Bucs have to play Rodgers at home this time (at least I'm hoping)

DET: 3 - Average game for him, DET will bring it as well but their pass D isn't good enough to stop Rodgers

NYG: 1 - I expect this to be a low scoring game or a lot of rushing TD.

CHI: 2 - It's at Lambeau this time so he has the advantage, but still only 2 scores

OAK: 4 - Oakland in Green Bay? Rodgers should light up this defense

KC: 3 - It's in KC against an average team so Rodgers will play his average game.

DET: 2 - Depending on his this game ends up, Rodgers might exit second half. If it's still close McCarthy will keep him in to win the game.

 

So 19 more TD on the season? That'll leave him with 47.

 

Again, take into account that we never run the ball in the red zone aside from the occasional KUHN.

 

As of right now he'd have to average more than 3 TD per game in order to reach 50.

[KiLaSix9+ 398]

I don't see the Packers being as cocky and aggressive as the Pats were in their record season. Which means once they clinch the #1 seed, which might be sooner than expected, we will see Rodgers in limited action. As cool as it is to break records and go undefeated, an organization as dedicated as the Packers know that it's all about winning a championship. You gotta go into the playoffs as healthy as possible.

[badgers 380]

I don't see the Packers being as cocky and aggressive as the Pats were in their record season. Which means once they clinch the #1 seed, which might be sooner than expected, we will see Rodgers in limited action. As cool as it is to break records and go undefeated, an organization as dedicated as the Packers know that it's all about winning a championship. You gotta go into the playoffs as healthy as possible.

 

We aren't as cocky but we're aggressive. Mike McCarthy wants to win every game, and I don't recall a situation where he sits starters for a game because we can take a loss. He usually plays starters the whole game unless it's completely out of reach (like last night).

[AL_Royalty 489]

Yeah I don't know about cocky, but definitely aggressive. They don't ever run the ball. They pass, and if for some reason that doesn't work, they pass again. Rodgers hit 12 guys in one game this season. He hasn't had a game with a passer rating under 100 all season. If anyone can do this, it's him.

 

That being said, I don't think he gets it. The colder it gets, the harder is to throw 4 TD games, and he's gonna need a few of those. He's not going to throw at least 3 in every game, so he'll have to catch up at some point. I don't know if that's possible in Lambue.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Ya, I'd be really shocked to sit starters at the end of the year. Doesn't seem like Mike's style. And why would we want to voluntarily handicap ourselves heading into the playoffs? Resting starters doesn't sound like sound strategy to me.

[Patriots2994 43]

I'm hoping Rodgers doesn't beat Brady's TD record for obvious reasons but I'll be the first to admit that he definitely has the capability of doing it. Rodgers has an extremely talented group of guys to throw to, and having a run game that isn't very consistent allows Rodgers to have more attempts per game. Regardless of whether the records are broken or not this season is still a hell of an effort up to now by Rodgers. The Packers seem to continue to get better and better and the prospect of having an even better Packers team in the playoffs is a scary thought.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

I'm hoping Rodgers doesn't beat Brady's TD record for obvious reasons but I'll be the first to admit that he definitely has the capability of doing it. Rodgers has an extremely talented group of guys to throw to, and having a run game that isn't very consistent allows Rodgers to have more attempts per game. Regardless of whether the records are broken or not this season is still a hell of an effort up to now by Rodgers. The Packers seem to continue to get better and better and the prospect of having an even better Packers team in the playoffs is a scary thought.

 

I still don't get why you don't think our running game is that good. Are they amazing? No... But our OLine is above average in run blocking, and James Starks is averaging 5 yards a carry.

[Patriots2994 43]

I still don't get why you don't think our running game is that good. Are they amazing? No... But our OLine is above average in run blocking, and James Starks is averaging 5 yards a carry.

 

I don't think the run game is AWFUL, but I don't it's good enough to run a balanced offense with. Starks is only averaging 4.6 yards per carry, not 5, which is good but a lot of that comes from the constant threat of having Rodgers throw. Rodgers throwing less would allow defenses to focus in on the run a bit more, which would make it weaker in a game. Starks isn't a bad RB but I don't see him as a reliable 20+ carry RB you can lean on if/when Rodgers has a bad game. All in all the Packers' run game isn't bad, but I wouldn't say they're great either. You guys don't really need to worry anyway because you know Rodgers will be lighting up defenses regardless of who he has in the backfield.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

I don't think the run game is AWFUL, but I don't it's good enough to run a balanced offense with. Starks is only averaging 4.6 yards per carry, not 5, which is good but a lot of that comes from the constant threat of having Rodgers throw. Rodgers throwing less would allow defenses to focus in on the run a bit more, which would make it weaker in a game. Starks isn't a bad RB but I don't see him as a reliable 20+ carry RB you can lean on if/when Rodgers has a bad game. All in all the Packers' run game isn't bad, but I wouldn't say they're great either. You guys don't really need to worry anyway because you know Rodgers will be lighting up defenses regardless of who he has in the backfield.

 

Why would you want a balanced running / passing attack with arguably the best QB in the league right now? I understand the need to run, and run effectively. But we are a passing team. We pass to score, then we run to KO the opponent. It's a pretty damn successful recipe thus far.

 

Also, if Starks got 20+ carries a game, you'd be looking at an annual 1200 yard rusher. I think he needs to be given the ball AT LEAST 250 times every year. He's currently on track for under 200. He has amazing burst and power. Even after he gets hit, he never stops churning his legs and always is falling forward.

[Patriots2994 43]

Why would you want a balanced running / passing attack with arguably the best QB in the league right now? I understand the need to run, and run effectively. But we are a passing team. We pass to score, then we run to KO the opponent. It's a pretty damn successful recipe thus far.

 

Also, if Starks got 20+ carries a game, you'd be looking at an annual 1200 yard rusher. I think he needs to be given the ball AT LEAST 250 times every year. He's currently on track for under 200. He has amazing burst and power. Even after he gets hit, he never stops churning his legs and always is falling forward.

 

I don't think the Packers need to be 50/50 balanced but running the ball a bit more could help take the pressure off of Rodgers. I'm seeing a lot of the 2007 Patriots' offense in the Packers 2011 offense: Pass the ball a ton, rely on Rodgers, run sparingly, and score a ton of points to win. This formula wins but can't work forever.

 

Starks wouldn't be as effective if he were a 20+ carrier a game. He's a strong runner but he does as well as he does because defenses don't pay as much attention to the run and try to stop Rodgers.

[KiLaSix9+ 398]

Ya, I'd be really shocked to sit starters at the end of the year. Doesn't seem like Mike's style. And why would we want to voluntarily handicap ourselves heading into the playoffs? Resting starters doesn't sound like sound strategy to me.

It doesn't sound like a sound strategy? How good do you think the Texans will be now that Schaub is done for the year? Would you really want Matt Flynn to be at the helm in the playoffs after a near perfect season? HOw is resting starters NOT a good strategy? Don't tell me because it's going to mess up their rhythm or what not. They're most likely going to have a first round bye.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

I don't think the Packers need to be 50/50 balanced but running the ball a bit more could help take the pressure off of Rodgers. I'm seeing a lot of the 2007 Patriots' offense in the Packers 2011 offense: Pass the ball a ton, rely on Rodgers, run sparingly, and score a ton of points to win. This formula wins but can't work forever.

 

Starks wouldn't be as effective if he were a 20+ carrier a game. He's a strong runner but he does as well as he does because defenses don't pay as much attention to the run and try to stop Rodgers.

 

I think that is what we are working towards.. We started out the season really slinging the ball around but lately we have become more balanced...

 

 

We ran 31 times and threw 32 times last night

26 runs, 26 passes against San Diego

26 runs, 30 passes against Minnesota

31 runs, 29 passes against St Louis

 

 

It doesn't sound like a sound strategy? How good do you think the Texans will be now that Schaub is done for the year? Would you really want Matt Flynn to be at the helm in the playoffs after a near perfect season? HOw is resting starters NOT a good strategy? Don't tell me because it's going to mess up their rhythm or what not. They're most likely going to have a first round bye.

 

How in the world does Matt Schaub getting hurt in Week 10 relate to playing a worthless game at the end of the year?!?

 

Secondly, I trust Matt Flynn. Would I rather have Aaron Rodgers? Obviously. Matt Flynn knows this offense in and out. He's been with this same group of WR since he came into the league. He knows what he's doing and he has learned from the best. I am confident in his abilities and to take over this team if it comes to that.

 

I have NEVER been an advocate of throwing games. Teams that are readily sacrificing the integrity of the sport just to get an extra BYE week in just really irks me. Nobody is above the league.

 

Plus, if we are going to have a BYE in the playoffs anyway... Why do we need even more time off?

[AL_Royalty 489]

It doesn't sound like a sound strategy? How good do you think the Texans will be now that Schaub is done for the year? Would you really want Matt Flynn to be at the helm in the playoffs after a near perfect season? HOw is resting starters NOT a good strategy? Don't tell me because it's going to mess up their rhythm or what not. They're most likely going to have a first round bye.

I'm with Favre on this one. Teams that rest starters make me laugh. It's like they're welcoming a one-and-done. More often than that, it seems to be the case. Look at the Colts. They had the best offense in the 2000's, and yet the sit their players almost every year. Result: No titles. One of the few years they play all 22 for all 16: CHAMPIONSHIP!

[KiLaSix9+ 398]

 

How in the world does Matt Schaub getting hurt in Week 10 relate to playing a worthless game at the end of the year?!?

Secondly, I trust Matt Flynn. Would I rather have Aaron Rodgers? Obviously. Matt Flynn knows this offense in and out. He's been with this same group of WR since he came into the league. He knows what he's doing and he has learned from the best. I am confident in his abilities and to take over this team if it comes to that.

 

I have NEVER been an advocate of throwing games. Teams that are readily sacrificing the integrity of the sport just to get an extra BYE week in just really irks me. Nobody is above the league.

 

Plus, if we are going to have a BYE in the playoffs anyway... Why do we need even more time off?

You can't understand the example? They were killing us, the game was over but rather than taking Schaub out, he stays in during garbage time and is now out for the year. It only takes one play.

 

And I never suggested they throw games. I said that I didn't think they wouldn't be as aggressive if the outcome no longer mattered, which would limit his (Rodgers) potential to reach the 50 TD mark. They may not necessarily take him out of the game but one would assume the game plan becomes conservative once the team is up by 2-3 scores in the 4th quarter.

 

I compared them to the Patriots because in their undefeated season, they could be up by 21 in the 4th and would still be airing it out and dropping Brady back in that pocket almost until the end of the game.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

You can't understand the example? They were killing us, the game was over but rather than taking Schaub out, he stays in during garbage time and is now out for the year. It only takes one play.

 

And I never suggested they throw games. I said that I didn't think they wouldn't be as aggressive if the outcome no longer mattered, which would limit his (Rodgers) potential to reach the 50 TD mark. They may not necessarily take him out of the game but one would assume the game plan becomes conservative once the team is up by 2-3 scores in the 4th quarter.

 

I compared them to the Patriots because in their undefeated season, they could be up by 21 in the 4th and would still be airing it out and dropping Brady back in that pocket almost until the end of the game.

 

It's Week 10!!!! Not Week 16 or 17. The Packers pulled Aaron on MNF with 10 minutes left in the game....

 

How you are comparing that scenario to resting starters at the end of the year is BEYOND ME.

 

Completely different scenarios.

 

And the Packers are NOTHING like the Patriots in that regard. We aren't even blowing teams out... lmao. The two times we blew a team out, you saw Matt Flynn. Other times... If we are way ahead but don't want to take Aaron out, we just run the ball over and over and over to run out clock... We don't score TD just because. We don't throw just because.

 

The Pats ran up the score to establish their dominance. The Packers are scoring 34 a game because our opponents are scoring 30... Our defense is BAD. Minus Week 10, we have been giving up 400 yards a game. Prior to the Vikings game... 5 of our 8 wins came after giving up 400 yards of offense to our opponent. We score a lot because we are in shootouts, not because we want to blow people out and embarrass them.

 

You don't seem very knowledgeable about the situation.

Edited November 16, 2011 by Favre4Ever

[KiLaSix9+ 398]

It's Week 10!!!! Not Week 16 or 17. The Packers pulled Aaron on MNF with 10 minutes left in the game....

 

How you are comparing that scenario to resting starters at the end of the year is BEYOND ME.

 

Completely different scenarios.

 

And the Packers are NOTHING like the Patriots in that regard. We aren't even blowing teams out... lmao. The two times we blew a team out, you saw Matt Flynn. Other times... If we are way ahead but don't want to take Aaron out, we just run the ball over and over and over to run out clock... We don't score TD just because. We don't throw just because.

 

The Pats ran up the score to establish their dominance. The Packers are scoring 34 a game because our opponents are scoring 30... Our defense is BAD. Minus Week 10, we have been giving up 400 yards a game. Prior to the Vikings game... 5 of our 8 wins came after giving up 400 yards of offense to our opponent. We score a lot because we are in shootouts, not because we want to blow people out and embarrass them.

 

You don't seem very knowledgeable about the situation.

Your just backing up all my points, lol. Sometimes it seems like you don't even read a persons entire post before responding.

 

Do you even remember what the argument was about? Were arguing whether or not Rodgers can hit 50 TDs and possibly break Brady's record. Therefore, it's only logical to compare this years Packers to the Patriots of that season.

[DelTrigger 1]

I doubt he'll hit it, to be honest. Especially if we ever wise up and take Grant out of the game. He had way too many touches and falls to the ground as soon as he comes into any contact. Not that fast either.

[badgers 380]

Lmao, having Ryan Grant in the game has nothing to do with whether or not Aaron Rodgers reaches the record.

 

In fact, when we have Ryan Grant in the game, we run the ball more than pass. So taking Grant out of most snaps would just mean we pass the ball more than usual, which is the exact opposite of what you just said.

[DelTrigger 1]

You have stats for that? I'm interested.

 

A better run game means we run more, that's especially true for running the clock down. Grant has seen significantly fewer touches this year, so more passing. We give Starks the ball, he runs for much more yardage, so we run more.

 

Again, interested in stats. Your logic would only make sense if we didn't have another back to run the ball.