If you're starting a team, he's one of the first players you take in the history of the game. Who else would you take? Brady? I'd take Rodgers.
Wait a second. You think Rodgers is a better all time great than Brady?
Rodgers is a first ballot hall of famer but he has a LONG way to go to be in Brady's class in terms of greatness.
To put it in terms of basketball, think of it like comparing Michael Jordan to Dwayne Wade. Not taking anything away from a hall of fame career of Wade but some guys (to steal a line from Mike F.) are immortal.
He legitimately might be the best QB to ever play the game but people excessively overrate team achievements in football when evaluating QB performance.
This isn't basketball where a talent like Lebron can just overwhelm the opposition.
It's a team game where the performance of the surrounding talent + coaching/scheme is imperative.
Wow. You know what while I don't agree I respect what you are saying. Brady does have 5 years on Rodgers so who knows when all is said and done I could be right there with you.
Right now though I think the hierarchy of all time great QBs needs to start with Brady at the top, pass through Montana and then you start to get into the next tier of Elway, Peyton and Unitas and I would put Rodgers riiiiight on the doorstep of that group, with the understanding that barring catastrophe when all is said and done he passes at least 2 of those 3.
You have to consider all the factors. Brady has played his whole career under Bill Belichick, the consensus best coach of all time. Rodgers has basically been so good he’s kept mediocre Mike McCarthy and for a while mediocre Ted Thompson employed.
I think it’s very close, Rodgers looks like a better growers of the ball to me, I guess Brady has “intangibles” and Super Bowls but you cannot just ignore Belichick’s influence on that.
RE: the game has changed too much over the years Â
to compare generations. He is a top 5 over the past twenty but beyond that I couldn't say.
+1
I live in New England and watch a lot of Patriots football. I think Rodgers is better. He has all of Brady's arm, accuracy, and intelligence--even when he's on the run. (Actually, I wonder how good Brady would be if he had a line like the Giants. He's a such a pure pocket passer.)
and not individual heroics, he has a long ways to go to even be mentioned in the same sentence as Peyton, Brett, Drew, and others.
Is he great? Of course. But when you look at his job as a QB, he was drafted in 2005 and played in 2005 (he didn't sit on a bench for 3 years). So over 13 years of playing, he only has about 39,000 yards passing (38,788). A little perspective is that Peyton has almost 72,000 yards passing.
You can go through the lists of stats for comparison (completion percentage, touchdowns, games played (start streak - after all if a player is injured, they have no value to the team that week)). He has some incredible comebacks. He has his MVPs. He makes chicken salad out of chicken shit. But to be considered the best (even top 5 ever), he has a long ways to go. With his injury history, there is no guarantee that he'll play long enough to even get in the conversation with other's accomplishments.
AR is likely the most talented QB to ever play the game. He makes throws and plays even the greats can only dream about. But "greatest" takes into account coach and team and opponents and luck. For that, you have to count Super Bowl wins, and he has one.
You have to consider all the factors. Brady has played his whole career under Bill Belichick, the consensus best coach of all time. Rodgers has basically been so good he’s kept mediocre Mike McCarthy and for a while mediocre Ted Thompson employed.
I think it’s very close, Rodgers looks like a better growers of the ball to me, I guess Brady has “intangibles” and Super Bowls but you cannot just ignore Belichick’s influence on that.
Agreed you can't minimize the "Belichek" affect and the pats always have a good defense, not so much with the Pack.
top five PLAYER, regardless of position. I think it will be an incredible achievement to get into the top 5 QBs of all-time. But player? A long ways away...
Physically, he is the most gifted QB I’ve ever seen. Elway was, but Rodgers is just more accurate. (Elway always gets lost in the sauce because his numbers aren’t gaudy like Brady or Manning. But they can’t touch the physical attributes that Elway had.)
What Rodgers needs more are team accomplishments to really round out his resume. Statistically, his numbers are mind boggling. But a ring or two more would be the perfect compliment. It’s just the nature of this type of argument - you need team achievements if you are a QB.
Look, football is a collision sport so really need to reward the plays who are in most of those colllisions. They are the football players.
Guys like Reggie White, LT, Ronnie Lott, Walter Payton, Jim Brown, Rice, Butkus, Munoz, Scumbag Lewis, Larry Allen, etc - and I know I’m leaving off other tremendous players - played the game at a rate of physicality much greater than QBs. And they should always be recognized for that as a distinct advantage.
and he and Favre have been slobbing each others knob of late. They've been complimenting each other publicly so I'm sure theres a little bias in the statement.
Suggesting that Rodgers is better than Brady is about as ridiculous of a statement that you can make. Rodgers has the potential to be in the conversation, but wake me up in 7 years when he's still doing it. Brady has 66k yards to Rodgers 38k. Brady has 491 TD's to Rodgers 316. Shit, Brady has played in 37 playoff games compared to 16 for Rodgers. 5 SB rings to 1. Brady is the ultimate winner and you can't just point to his supporting cast. Year in and year out you look at their offense and you ask how he does it. He makes average players look good every season. Brady is the GOAT and suggesting that Rodgers has already passed him in lunacy. Rodgers goes out and carries his team to a few SB's in the next 5-7 years and maybe there is a conversation. At this point....stfu with that.
Peyton and Rodgers are the two best quarterbacks I've ever seen in my lifetime. I'm convinced that they would excel in any era and that their successes are least due to the coaching/organizational structure around them.
So if they are the Top 2 QBs, then it makes sense they would be in the overall Top 5 given that the QB position is significantly more important than any other position.
no doubt, and he demands excellence from his teammates and he runs the system to perfection. But I think Belichick (with Adams) is the biggest reason for the Patriots successes over the years. Whenever people say Brady has no talent around him, I always think of their good-to-great offensive line every season (hat-tip to Scarnecchia) because a smart, accurate QB with time to throw is the deadliest combination in the NFL. The offensive "skill" players may seem like unheralded JAGs (though Gronk is as much a mismatch as any offensive weapon in history when healthy), but Belichick masterfully knows how to put them in situations that exploit their positive attributes and gets them for cents on the dollar. Brady is perhaps the ultimate example of that at play.
He is 41-57 as a HC before Tom Brady. In his 5 seasons as HC there were 4 losing seasons and one playoff. Belichick was 5-13 in NE before Brady including 0-2 in 2001 before Brady came in and went 11-3 and the SB.
RE: There is no denying Belichicks greatness BUT Â
He is 41-57 as a HC before Tom Brady. In his 5 seasons as HC there were 4 losing seasons and one playoff. Belichick was 5-13 in NE before Brady including 0-2 in 2001 before Brady came in and went 11-3 and the SB.
I disagree. After going 6-6 in his first 12 starts, Rodgers is 51-8 as a starter. That is with the immortal Mike McCarthy as his coach. Even Tom Brady (allegedly) said that Rodgers would throw for 7k yards with Belichick as his coach. McCarthy runs the worst scheme for Rodgers' talents.
Is what matters most. That's why rings are a big boost to legacy: its proof you played at the highest level under the most pressure against the best competition. Not saying Rodgers can't get more rings-he absolutely can-but he simply has not been in and won as many postseason games as Brady.
RE: What they do in the playoffs and championships Â
Is what matters most. That's why rings are a big boost to legacy: its proof you played at the highest level under the most pressure against the best competition. Not saying Rodgers can't get more rings-he absolutely can-but he simply has not been in and won as many postseason games as Brady.
That is certainly fair, but does that make Bart Starr a better QB than Johnny U? Terry Bradshaw better than Dan Fouts? Troy Aikman better than Dan Marino? Coaches matter too, and Brady has one of the GOAT's; Rodgers has one who would be generous to be called a JAG.
RE: RE: There is no denying Belichicks greatness BUT Â
He is 41-57 as a HC before Tom Brady. In his 5 seasons as HC there were 4 losing seasons and one playoff. Belichick was 5-13 in NE before Brady including 0-2 in 2001 before Brady came in and went 11-3 and the SB.
You conveniently forget 2009.
I said before Brady. 2009 was not before Brady.
However I think you mean 2008; when Brady was hurt
Hard to tell what that means, the Jordan-less Bulls still were a playoff team and above .500 without him in 1994. Teams have been able to persevere for a short in situations like that.
Again, I stated no one can deny Bill Belichick’s greatness. I in no way believe Tom Brady makes him. I just believe it is impossible to separate the two.
top five PLAYER, regardless of position. I think it will be an incredible achievement to get into the top 5 QBs of all-time. But player? A long ways away...
Game, set, and match. Top 5 QB? Absolutely. Top 5 player? Nah.
where he never even touched the ball. One player only has so much influence on wins and losses.
A QB is only on the field for about 40-45% of all plays in a game. So, the majority of the game, he is watching from the sidelines. Even when the QB is on the field, he is still dependent on the performance of 10 other teammates on the field.
in Cleveland without considering the improvement to the squad belies the coaching performance he did.
He was already heralded as a defensive whiz with his job in NY in game-planning against Buffalo.
He took over a 3-13 Browns team that has a point differential of -234. The Browns were a consistent playoff team in the mid-to-late 80s, but in 1990, they had the second worst point differential in the entire NFL. They were atrocious.
1990 Browns: 3-13, -234
-------------------------
1991 Browns: 6-10, -5
1992 Browns: 7-9, -3
1993 Browns: 7-9, -3
1994 Browns: 11-5, +136
1995 Browns: 5-11, -67 (started 3-1, Modell announced in November that team was moving to Baltimore. Belichick fired after the season )
----------------------
1996 Browns: 2-14, -220
1997 Browns: 3-13 ,-258
He also went 10-6 without Brady in 2008.
All success is intertwined. Coaches need players and a good front office and staff. Players need coaches and other players.
Yeah, citing the Browns as a knock on Belichick is misguided Â
Remember: there was no unrestricted free agency in the early '90s. Rebuilding took time and had to be done primarily through the draft. Belichick had them going in the right direction before Modell wrecked the 1995 season by turning it into a circus sideshow.
in Cleveland without considering the improvement to the squad belies the coaching performance he did.
He was already heralded as a defensive whiz with his job in NY in game-planning against Buffalo.
He took over a 3-13 Browns team that has a point differential of -234. The Browns were a consistent playoff team in the mid-to-late 80s, but in 1990, they had the second worst point differential in the entire NFL. They were atrocious.
1990 Browns: 3-13, -234
-------------------------
1991 Browns: 6-10, -5
1992 Browns: 7-9, -3
1993 Browns: 7-9, -3
1994 Browns: 11-5, +136
1995 Browns: 5-11, -67 (started 3-1, Modell announced in November that team was moving to Baltimore. Belichick fired after the season )
----------------------
1996 Browns: 2-14, -220
1997 Browns: 3-13 ,-258
He also went 10-6 without Brady in 2008.
All success is intertwined. Coaches need players and a good front office and staff. Players need coaches and other players.
He went 11 - 5 without Brady in 2008 (Brady was injured on the 2nd Pats drive of the game week 1), but they missed the playoffs (if that matters). Only thing to add about that season, is it's widely believed (if you trust Jeff Sagarin) that the 2008 Patriots had one of the easiest schedules in NFL history (and to be realistic it was 5 games worse than the prior yea, LOL)
RE: If you objectively look at his accomplishments Â
Is he great? Of course. But when you look at his job as a QB, he was drafted in 2005 and played in 2005 (he didn't sit on a bench for 3 years). So over 13 years of playing, he only has about 39,000 yards passing (38,788). A little perspective is that Peyton has almost 72,000 yards passing.
What are you even talking about? Sure, he was drafted in 2005 and he "played" in 2005...he threw a total of 16 passes. 15 in 2006. 28 in 2007. If you don't think that's sitting the bench for three years, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
The one negative to Rodgers career has been his durability, having had his season cut short in 2013, last year and possibly this year. His 16 game season averages are: 4,137 yards, 34 TDs and 8 INTs while maintaining a 65% completion percentage. Those are alltime great numbers. To put it into perspective, that's around 50 yards less per season than Brady, with 4 more TDs and 2 fewer INTs per season with a slightly higher completion percentage. In comparison to Peyton Manning, he averages 200 yards less per season, but still throws for 2 more TDs and has literally half as many INTs in an average season.
In addition, Rodgers' mobility is light years ahead of either of those two. I'm not arguing that he is currently as good as those two, but he is certainly already in the conversation and could very well be better than them if he plays long enough.
He’s an all time great like Elway or Super Joe or Marino.
If I’m picking between Brady and AR I’m going with Rodgers all day long. If you put Rodgers in any game Brady played he’d be every bit as good and probably a lot better than Ugg boy. Brady’s a great QB, not taking anything away from his amazing career, but he doesn’t scramble like Rodgers and he plays with the best coach in the NFL. You flip it and put Brady with McCarthy and Tom’s still gonna be an all time great but he isn’t all of the sudden bringing 4 more Super Bowls to Lambeau. It goes without saying that the Midwest gay club scene entree is another clear bonus.
that sounds familiar, that they had an insanely easy schedule in 2008. But 11-5 is indicative of a good season.
The Giants have only won 11 games or more 3 times since Eli has been here, 5 times in the last 25 years, and 8 times in the Super Bowl Era.
I know some will quickly point to teams in the AFC East, but since 2001, the Patriots are 13-3 against the NFC East,(and only because I remember this from when I did this back in the day), the Patriots went 35-5 against the entire NFC from 2002-2011. It wasn't just dominating the "weak" AFC East.
that sounds familiar, that they had an insanely easy schedule in 2008. But 11-5 is indicative of a good season.
The Giants have only won 11 games or more 3 times since Eli has been here, 5 times in the last 25 years, and 8 times in the Super Bowl Era.
I know some will quickly point to teams in the AFC East, but since 2001, the Patriots are 13-3 against the NFC East,(and only because I remember this from when I did this back in the day), the Patriots went 35-5 against the entire NFC from 2002-2011. It wasn't just dominating the "weak" AFC East.
agree with all of that. Sagarin ratings (I don't think he does them anymore) helped to dispel the weak AFC East myth as a significant reason for their success, as well as the Patriots out of division and out of conference record.
they went 10 years in between losing homes games to an NFC team. 10 years (I believe it was Rams in 2001 and then Giants in 2011).
Huge accomplishment to win 11 games especially with a backup QB. And it's not like Cassel went from backup QB to Kurt Warner, he's failed everywhere he's been.
Throwing talent Id say Marino and Rodgers are equals. What tips it to Rodgers is the movement, extending plays, and throwing on the move. Marino isn't close here.
If I'm starting a team and have the choice of any NFL player in history? I'll take Rodgers.
Throwing talent Id say Marino and Rodgers are equals. What tips it to Rodgers is the movement, extending plays, and throwing on the move. Marino isn't close here.
If I'm starting a team and have the choice of any NFL player in history? I'll take Rodgers.
I probably would too. I think he has the best QB skillset of all time. I can't think of a single player who had a better combination of arm strength, accuracy, mobility, and ability to throw on the run and accurately across his body.
Rodgers can make every single throw and he can make most of them without even being set.
I would take Rodgers over Brady 10 out of 10 times. He's a superior talent.
why I think so highly of Peyton. He performance isn't intertwined with any specific coach, system, or players. He dominated in Indianpolis under two different head coaches, and he dominated in Denver under a third head coach with an entirely different roster until he had the quad injuries that made him a shell of himself (to which he rode his defense to a Super Bowl with a fourth(!!!) head coach.
I would love for someone to try and build out 53-man rosters for 32 teams using all players in history, and perhaps, using some metric (like weighted-average-value), figure out a value-based-drafting approach to all the players.
This is how I and many people draft for fantasy football and is the reason in fantasy with only 10-12 teams, people don't draft QBs high, because you can still get production from the 10th best fantasy QB. It takes into account positional scarcity and the way production projects to drop off as you go down the list of players at a position (relative to the number of starters at that position). It's why a guy like Gronk is more valuable than a WR who puts up similar fantasy point totals. Similarly, it's why a good-hitting first baseman is less valuable than a similar hitter at shortstop, because it's easier to replace the former.
In this case, I wonder how much of the first round would be QBs or whether a few legendary players at other positions would be so far above the other great players that it's more valuable to take them before even taking QBs.
My guess, though, is that the Top 5 picks would all be QBs.
Have achieved incredible results with not the greatest offensive talent either. Brady had one good year from Corey dillon(vet underrated back IMO). Couple years with Moss and of course grind.
Rodgers had some nice WRs (driver, Jennings, Nelson, now Adams...) but nothing extraordinary. Never really had a great RB either.
Peyton, otoh, has probably played with the most talent than any qb on offense outside of maybe Big Ben for his career.
Have achieved incredible results with not the greatest offensive talent either. Brady had one good year from Corey dillon(vet underrated back IMO). Couple years with Moss and of course grind.
Rodgers had some nice WRs (driver, Jennings, Nelson, now Adams...) but nothing extraordinary. Never really had a great RB either.
Peyton, otoh, has probably played with the most talent than any qb on offense outside of maybe Big Ben for his career.
All true, and I agree with it, but Peyton rarely has had good D's (except in Denver, and saw how that turned out). His Colts D played well in spurts/plays, but never from my recollection over the course of a season.
If you're looking at offensive stats and regular season wins, Peyton did his job, if you're looking at championships and playoff wins he probably fell short, but he didn't have a D perform like the Patriots or Steelers in your examples.
not the whole reason he didn't win more titles, but it's definitely a consideration.
I'm not seeing Joe Montana's name anywhere here... Â
that when discussing QB success, that Giants fans-- of all people-- still focus on how many "skill players" the QB played with and rarely discuss the quality of the offensive line in pass protection and run-blocking.
that when discussing QB success, that Giants fans-- of all people-- still focus on how many "skill players" the QB played with and rarely discuss the quality of the offensive line in pass protection and run-blocking.
Most fans (me at least) are not qualified to truly evaluate OL play. And normally if the run and pass games are successful, make assumptions that the OL is good enough.
I don't think Brady ever had a truly great OL. All those SB's is there a HOF OL? what is it 7 or 8 SB appearances Brady has? Who is his best OL? Mankins? Light? Solder?
Anyway, just my thoughts, OL has to be good enough, but I think most fans will blame the OL when the offense fails (if there are skill players) and consider it good enough if the offense succeeds.
I don't think Brady ever had a truly great OL. All those SB's is there a HOF OL? what is it 7 or 8 SB appearances Brady has? Who is his best OL? Mankins? Light? Solder?
Regarding this - the greatest unsung hero of this Pats run is Dante Scarnecchia. I truly believe the work he's done in New England is Hall of Fame worthy.
I think the only other dynasty similar are the 9ers of the '80s and '90s. I'm pretty sure none of those olinemen are in the HoF, or ever will be...
In the regular season when things were clicking, those first two were typically better.
In the post season they were still good but a bit of a drop off, while the latter two's play picked up.
Of course, there's more to it, but since the '70s Bradshaw Steelers, only two QBs to win 4+. The next one to do it, will also be talked about as greatest ever probably.
Wait a second. You think Rodgers is a better all time great than Brady?
Rodgers is a first ballot hall of famer but he has a LONG way to go to be in Brady's class in terms of greatness.
To put it in terms of basketball, think of it like comparing Michael Jordan to Dwayne Wade. Not taking anything away from a hall of fame career of Wade but some guys (to steal a line from Mike F.) are immortal.
This isn't basketball where a talent like Lebron can just overwhelm the opposition.
It's a team game where the performance of the surrounding talent + coaching/scheme is imperative.
Yes.
Rodgers is the Jordan talent. Not Brady.
Rodgers is the Jordan talent. Not Brady.
Wow. You know what while I don't agree I respect what you are saying. Brady does have 5 years on Rodgers so who knows when all is said and done I could be right there with you.
Right now though I think the hierarchy of all time great QBs needs to start with Brady at the top, pass through Montana and then you start to get into the next tier of Elway, Peyton and Unitas and I would put Rodgers riiiiight on the doorstep of that group, with the understanding that barring catastrophe when all is said and done he passes at least 2 of those 3.
I think it’s very close, Rodgers looks like a better growers of the ball to me, I guess Brady has “intangibles” and Super Bowls but you cannot just ignore Belichick’s influence on that.
+1
I live in New England and watch a lot of Patriots football. I think Rodgers is better. He has all of Brady's arm, accuracy, and intelligence--even when he's on the run. (Actually, I wonder how good Brady would be if he had a line like the Giants. He's a such a pure pocket passer.)
Comparing Brady and Rodgers is probably more like comparing Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain.
Is he great? Of course. But when you look at his job as a QB, he was drafted in 2005 and played in 2005 (he didn't sit on a bench for 3 years). So over 13 years of playing, he only has about 39,000 yards passing (38,788). A little perspective is that Peyton has almost 72,000 yards passing.
You can go through the lists of stats for comparison (completion percentage, touchdowns, games played (start streak - after all if a player is injured, they have no value to the team that week)). He has some incredible comebacks. He has his MVPs. He makes chicken salad out of chicken shit. But to be considered the best (even top 5 ever), he has a long ways to go. With his injury history, there is no guarantee that he'll play long enough to even get in the conversation with other's accomplishments.
I think it’s very close, Rodgers looks like a better growers of the ball to me, I guess Brady has “intangibles” and Super Bowls but you cannot just ignore Belichick’s influence on that.
Agreed you can't minimize the "Belichek" affect and the pats always have a good defense, not so much with the Pack.
Physically, he is the most gifted QB I’ve ever seen. Elway was, but Rodgers is just more accurate. (Elway always gets lost in the sauce because his numbers aren’t gaudy like Brady or Manning. But they can’t touch the physical attributes that Elway had.)
What Rodgers needs more are team accomplishments to really round out his resume. Statistically, his numbers are mind boggling. But a ring or two more would be the perfect compliment. It’s just the nature of this type of argument - you need team achievements if you are a QB.
Look, football is a collision sport so really need to reward the plays who are in most of those colllisions. They are the football players.
Guys like Reggie White, LT, Ronnie Lott, Walter Payton, Jim Brown, Rice, Butkus, Munoz, Scumbag Lewis, Larry Allen, etc - and I know I’m leaving off other tremendous players - played the game at a rate of physicality much greater than QBs. And they should always be recognized for that as a distinct advantage.
Look, if you want to cite him being injury prone, fine - but how in the world is this guy an underachiever?
Suggesting that Rodgers is better than Brady is about as ridiculous of a statement that you can make. Rodgers has the potential to be in the conversation, but wake me up in 7 years when he's still doing it. Brady has 66k yards to Rodgers 38k. Brady has 491 TD's to Rodgers 316. Shit, Brady has played in 37 playoff games compared to 16 for Rodgers. 5 SB rings to 1. Brady is the ultimate winner and you can't just point to his supporting cast. Year in and year out you look at their offense and you ask how he does it. He makes average players look good every season. Brady is the GOAT and suggesting that Rodgers has already passed him in lunacy. Rodgers goes out and carries his team to a few SB's in the next 5-7 years and maybe there is a conversation. At this point....stfu with that.
Hahahhahahaahahaha
So if they are the Top 2 QBs, then it makes sense they would be in the overall Top 5 given that the QB position is significantly more important than any other position.
You conveniently forget 2009.
I disagree. After going 6-6 in his first 12 starts, Rodgers is 51-8 as a starter. That is with the immortal Mike McCarthy as his coach. Even Tom Brady (allegedly) said that Rodgers would throw for 7k yards with Belichick as his coach. McCarthy runs the worst scheme for Rodgers' talents.
That is certainly fair, but does that make Bart Starr a better QB than Johnny U? Terry Bradshaw better than Dan Fouts? Troy Aikman better than Dan Marino? Coaches matter too, and Brady has one of the GOAT's; Rodgers has one who would be generous to be called a JAG.
Quote:
He is 41-57 as a HC before Tom Brady. In his 5 seasons as HC there were 4 losing seasons and one playoff. Belichick was 5-13 in NE before Brady including 0-2 in 2001 before Brady came in and went 11-3 and the SB.
You conveniently forget 2009.
I said before Brady. 2009 was not before Brady.
However I think you mean 2008; when Brady was hurt
Hard to tell what that means, the Jordan-less Bulls still were a playoff team and above .500 without him in 1994. Teams have been able to persevere for a short in situations like that.
Again, I stated no one can deny Bill Belichick’s greatness. I in no way believe Tom Brady makes him. I just believe it is impossible to separate the two.
Game, set, and match. Top 5 QB? Absolutely. Top 5 player? Nah.
A QB is only on the field for about 40-45% of all plays in a game. So, the majority of the game, he is watching from the sidelines. Even when the QB is on the field, he is still dependent on the performance of 10 other teammates on the field.
He was already heralded as a defensive whiz with his job in NY in game-planning against Buffalo.
He took over a 3-13 Browns team that has a point differential of -234. The Browns were a consistent playoff team in the mid-to-late 80s, but in 1990, they had the second worst point differential in the entire NFL. They were atrocious.
1990 Browns: 3-13, -234
-------------------------
1991 Browns: 6-10, -5
1992 Browns: 7-9, -3
1993 Browns: 7-9, -3
1994 Browns: 11-5, +136
1995 Browns: 5-11, -67 (started 3-1, Modell announced in November that team was moving to Baltimore. Belichick fired after the season )
----------------------
1996 Browns: 2-14, -220
1997 Browns: 3-13 ,-258
He also went 10-6 without Brady in 2008.
All success is intertwined. Coaches need players and a good front office and staff. Players need coaches and other players.
He was already heralded as a defensive whiz with his job in NY in game-planning against Buffalo.
He took over a 3-13 Browns team that has a point differential of -234. The Browns were a consistent playoff team in the mid-to-late 80s, but in 1990, they had the second worst point differential in the entire NFL. They were atrocious.
1990 Browns: 3-13, -234
-------------------------
1991 Browns: 6-10, -5
1992 Browns: 7-9, -3
1993 Browns: 7-9, -3
1994 Browns: 11-5, +136
1995 Browns: 5-11, -67 (started 3-1, Modell announced in November that team was moving to Baltimore. Belichick fired after the season )
----------------------
1996 Browns: 2-14, -220
1997 Browns: 3-13 ,-258
He also went 10-6 without Brady in 2008.
All success is intertwined. Coaches need players and a good front office and staff. Players need coaches and other players.
He went 11 - 5 without Brady in 2008 (Brady was injured on the 2nd Pats drive of the game week 1), but they missed the playoffs (if that matters). Only thing to add about that season, is it's widely believed (if you trust Jeff Sagarin) that the 2008 Patriots had one of the easiest schedules in NFL history (and to be realistic it was 5 games worse than the prior yea, LOL)
What are you even talking about? Sure, he was drafted in 2005 and he "played" in 2005...he threw a total of 16 passes. 15 in 2006. 28 in 2007. If you don't think that's sitting the bench for three years, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
The one negative to Rodgers career has been his durability, having had his season cut short in 2013, last year and possibly this year. His 16 game season averages are: 4,137 yards, 34 TDs and 8 INTs while maintaining a 65% completion percentage. Those are alltime great numbers. To put it into perspective, that's around 50 yards less per season than Brady, with 4 more TDs and 2 fewer INTs per season with a slightly higher completion percentage. In comparison to Peyton Manning, he averages 200 yards less per season, but still throws for 2 more TDs and has literally half as many INTs in an average season.
In addition, Rodgers' mobility is light years ahead of either of those two. I'm not arguing that he is currently as good as those two, but he is certainly already in the conversation and could very well be better than them if he plays long enough.
If I’m picking between Brady and AR I’m going with Rodgers all day long. If you put Rodgers in any game Brady played he’d be every bit as good and probably a lot better than Ugg boy. Brady’s a great QB, not taking anything away from his amazing career, but he doesn’t scramble like Rodgers and he plays with the best coach in the NFL. You flip it and put Brady with McCarthy and Tom’s still gonna be an all time great but he isn’t all of the sudden bringing 4 more Super Bowls to Lambeau. It goes without saying that the Midwest gay club scene entree is another clear bonus.
The Giants have only won 11 games or more 3 times since Eli has been here, 5 times in the last 25 years, and 8 times in the Super Bowl Era.
I know some will quickly point to teams in the AFC East, but since 2001, the Patriots are 13-3 against the NFC East,(and only because I remember this from when I did this back in the day), the Patriots went 35-5 against the entire NFC from 2002-2011. It wasn't just dominating the "weak" AFC East.
The Giants have only won 11 games or more 3 times since Eli has been here, 5 times in the last 25 years, and 8 times in the Super Bowl Era.
I know some will quickly point to teams in the AFC East, but since 2001, the Patriots are 13-3 against the NFC East,(and only because I remember this from when I did this back in the day), the Patriots went 35-5 against the entire NFC from 2002-2011. It wasn't just dominating the "weak" AFC East.
agree with all of that. Sagarin ratings (I don't think he does them anymore) helped to dispel the weak AFC East myth as a significant reason for their success, as well as the Patriots out of division and out of conference record.
they went 10 years in between losing homes games to an NFC team. 10 years (I believe it was Rams in 2001 and then Giants in 2011).
Huge accomplishment to win 11 games especially with a backup QB. And it's not like Cassel went from backup QB to Kurt Warner, he's failed everywhere he's been.
If I'm starting a team and have the choice of any NFL player in history? I'll take Rodgers.
If I'm starting a team and have the choice of any NFL player in history? I'll take Rodgers.
I probably would too. I think he has the best QB skillset of all time. I can't think of a single player who had a better combination of arm strength, accuracy, mobility, and ability to throw on the run and accurately across his body.
Rodgers can make every single throw and he can make most of them without even being set.
I would take Rodgers over Brady 10 out of 10 times. He's a superior talent.
That's not shitting on Brady, just that I think Rodgers has been held back by McCarthy (or rather, he's been carrying him).
This is how I and many people draft for fantasy football and is the reason in fantasy with only 10-12 teams, people don't draft QBs high, because you can still get production from the 10th best fantasy QB. It takes into account positional scarcity and the way production projects to drop off as you go down the list of players at a position (relative to the number of starters at that position). It's why a guy like Gronk is more valuable than a WR who puts up similar fantasy point totals. Similarly, it's why a good-hitting first baseman is less valuable than a similar hitter at shortstop, because it's easier to replace the former.
In this case, I wonder how much of the first round would be QBs or whether a few legendary players at other positions would be so far above the other great players that it's more valuable to take them before even taking QBs.
My guess, though, is that the Top 5 picks would all be QBs.
Rodgers had some nice WRs (driver, Jennings, Nelson, now Adams...) but nothing extraordinary. Never really had a great RB either.
Peyton, otoh, has probably played with the most talent than any qb on offense outside of maybe Big Ben for his career.
Rodgers had some nice WRs (driver, Jennings, Nelson, now Adams...) but nothing extraordinary. Never really had a great RB either.
Peyton, otoh, has probably played with the most talent than any qb on offense outside of maybe Big Ben for his career.
All true, and I agree with it, but Peyton rarely has had good D's (except in Denver, and saw how that turned out). His Colts D played well in spurts/plays, but never from my recollection over the course of a season.
If you're looking at offensive stats and regular season wins, Peyton did his job, if you're looking at championships and playoff wins he probably fell short, but he didn't have a D perform like the Patriots or Steelers in your examples.
not the whole reason he didn't win more titles, but it's definitely a consideration.
or Sam Darnold, ducks
Most fans (me at least) are not qualified to truly evaluate OL play. And normally if the run and pass games are successful, make assumptions that the OL is good enough.
I don't think Brady ever had a truly great OL. All those SB's is there a HOF OL? what is it 7 or 8 SB appearances Brady has? Who is his best OL? Mankins? Light? Solder?
Anyway, just my thoughts, OL has to be good enough, but I think most fans will blame the OL when the offense fails (if there are skill players) and consider it good enough if the offense succeeds.
Brady/Belichick, Montana/Walsh, Bradshaw/Noll, Staubauch/Landry, Lombardi/Starr.
Failing the QB, the alternative is to field an all-time great D and get lucky one year with health and opponent.
I don't think Brady ever had a truly great OL. All those SB's is there a HOF OL? what is it 7 or 8 SB appearances Brady has? Who is his best OL? Mankins? Light? Solder?
Regarding this - the greatest unsung hero of this Pats run is Dante Scarnecchia. I truly believe the work he's done in New England is Hall of Fame worthy.
I think the only other dynasty similar are the 9ers of the '80s and '90s. I'm pretty sure none of those olinemen are in the HoF, or ever will be...
In the regular season when things were clicking, those first two were typically better.
In the post season they were still good but a bit of a drop off, while the latter two's play picked up.
Of course, there's more to it, but since the '70s Bradshaw Steelers, only two QBs to win 4+. The next one to do it, will also be talked about as greatest ever probably.