Rodgers' "poor" performance in loss to Bengals merely shines more light on his record of efficiency

Throughout the team’s history, the Green Bay Packers have treated their fans to lengthy periods of either feast or famine, and thanks to the happy incidence of two Hall of Fall quarterbacks (presuming that Aaron Rodgers puts a few more high-caliber seasons behind him), the Packers have had their longest period of “feast” in its history. It has been a long time since those 24 years of famine that preceded the arrival of Mike Holmgren and Brett Favre, which made some of us cringe in embarrassment, or become the object of mirth, if we admitted to being Packer diehards. That in its current phase the Packers have won only two NFL championships owes more to the fact of a glut of teams now than in previous eras;  in the past twenty years only the New England Patriots have played in more Super Bowls. 

There may be some debate about who is the better quarterback, Favre or Rodgers; as a matter of statistical efficiency it would seem to be Rodgers hands down, but that hasn’t necessarily translated into more wins on the field; Favre’s “gunslinger” mentality may have elicited as many groans as cheers from fans, but he certainly made the proceedings exciting to watch, one way or the other. But Rodgers is almost machine-like in his efficiency; if he continues the pace he is on, he should become the first quarterback in NFL history to have a career quarterback rating of at least 100. 

Thus it is more disconcerting to watch Rodgers come down to earth, as he did this past Sunday against a Cincinnati Bengals team that was beatable at home; despite the preseason hype, consistency—particularly in the person of quarterback Andy Dalton—is still a not completely resolved issue. For the second straight week the Packers mustered something like a respectable rushing attack, but as has often been the case in the past, Rodgers was unable to completely overcome spotty pass protection. In the first half, he avoided turnovers but his stats were poverty-stricken; in the second half, he took more chances, but when he does he more resembles Favre without the devil-may-care front. 

The result was a 34-30 loss that said less about offensive efficiency by either team, but the ability to take advantage if each other’s mistakes; both teams turned the ball over 4 times. The Packers went down 14-0 in the first quarter behind ineffective offensive play, but even more inept play by the Bengals allowed the Packers to put-up 30 unanswered points that seemed hard to explain based on the how the offense was moving. But then inexplicably a rash of turnovers helped the Bengals get back in the game, the last one a fumble on a fourth-and-one play returned for a touchdown which proved to be the difference in the game. While the Bengals turned Packer miscues into touchdowns, the Packers squandered their opportunities in the second quarter that could have blown the game wide-open, settling for three field goals. 

This game was also “notable” because it marked the first time in 36 regular season games that Rodgers had a quarterback rating of under 80. His rating on this day was a paltry 64.5, prior to which he had a 116.9 QB rating over the previous 35 games, surpassing 100 24 times. His throwing 96 touchdown passes to only 16 interceptions was a measure of this remarkable run. While Jets fans are salivating over Geno Smith “only” throwing six interceptions in his first 3 games, Rodgers two interceptions against the Bengals ended a streak of 41 straight games in which he did not throw more than one interception. Perhaps it is a testament to Rodgers’ capacities that even on what was one of his least efficient days, it was still only bum luck that allowed the Bengals to steal victory from the jaws of defeat.