Yep, which is the difference and what makes Brady great; he comes through in critical moments. I don't know about you, but when I think of Tom Brady's greatness, I think of him pulling through in critical moments to lead his team to victory. When I think of Aaron Rodgers' greatness, I think of miracle Hail Marys and rediculous throws, which bring his team to a tie or a small lead. We usually lose games like this. Rodgers plays really well with leads, but when he is behind I think he is top cautious and unwilling to "sling it." Check this stat put from http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/skeptical-football-the-aaron-rodgers-enigma/, "its when the quarterbacks’ teams are down 9 or more points in the second half that you really see the difference. Peyton Manning throws interceptions on 15.6 percent of his drives, compared to Rodgers’ 8.1 percent. And for that, Manning is punished … by winning 28.6 percent of these games. Rodgers, meanwhile, wins 0 percent. That’s right, Rodgers has zero comebacks of 9 or more points in the second half. Ever." I think that speaks volumes to his umwillingness to put it all on the line in critcal moments, which in my opinion is a major flaw in his game.

Dont get me wrong, I'm one of Rodgers biggest fans, but he just simply doesn't take care of business in close games when its needed, which often means he's in dire situations (although which also yield him opportunities to complete more miracle plays). When he does complete these desparate plays, you're sometimes left thinking, why couldn't he do that earlier in the game? We are awestruck by his talent and ability to pull a rabbit out of a hat, but wouldn't you rather not have to rely on hudini acts in close games, especially if you could play better earlier in the game? Im not trying to shit on Rodgers, but the argument that he's not part of the problem in the playoffs is simply not the case.