What can Tom Brady do as a QB that Aaron Rodgers cannot?
Win 5 Super Bowls and go to 8 instead of 1.
The gap between the two as far as super bowls and trips go is so wide that its hard for me to argue Rodgers being a better QB than Brady.
More talented, sure. But not better to me.
I think LeBron is by far the most talented player in basketball history, but I dont think he's actually better than Jordan.
Most talented does not make you the GOAT. Especially when you only have 1 super bowl trip.
Right or wrong, its the one position in football that is going to be judged on Super Bowl championships. Especially in todays era where the QB has a bigger impacting on winning and losing than it ever has.
Having the most physical skills does not make you the GOAT. Rodgers is the most talented QB i've ever seen, no doubt. Just not the best.
What can Tom Brady do as a QB that Aaron Rodgers cannot?
Win 5 Super Bowls and go to 8 instead of 1.
The gap between the two as far as super bowls and trips go is so wide that its hard for me to argue Rodgers being a better QB than Brady.
More talented, sure. But not better to me.
I think LeBron is by far the most talented player in basketball history, but I dont think he's actually better than Jordan.
Most talented does not make you the GOAT. Especially when you only have 1 super bowl trip.
Right or wrong, its the one position in football that is going to be judged on Super Bowl championships. Especially in todays era where the QB has a bigger impacting on winning and losing than it ever has.
Having the most physical skills does not make you the GOAT. Rodgers is the most talented QB i've ever seen, no doubt. Just not the best.
Dan Marino should have taught you at a young age that this argument is complete bullshit.
I'm not talking about team accomplishments that involve the greatest coach of all time.
I'm talking about as a QB. Skill sets. What makes Brady better than Rodgers as a player?
Skill sets does not make you the better player. Just means you're more talented. I dont think anyone will ever argue that Rodgers isnt more talented than Brady. I dont think anyone would argue that LeBron isnt more talented than Jordan.
I'm not talking about team accomplishments that involve the greatest coach of all time.
I'm talking about as a QB. Skill sets. What makes Brady better than Rodgers as a player?
Because he won. It’s that simple. You can have all the talent in the world but if you cannot win it, or you throw a badly timed interception to the NY Giants in the NFC championship game, it doesn’t matter.
What can Tom Brady do as a QB that Aaron Rodgers cannot?
Win 5 Super Bowls and go to 8 instead of 1.
The gap between the two as far as super bowls and trips go is so wide that its hard for me to argue Rodgers being a better QB than Brady.
More talented, sure. But not better to me.
I think LeBron is by far the most talented player in basketball history, but I dont think he's actually better than Jordan.
Most talented does not make you the GOAT. Especially when you only have 1 super bowl trip.
Right or wrong, its the one position in football that is going to be judged on Super Bowl championships. Especially in todays era where the QB has a bigger impacting on winning and losing than it ever has.
Having the most physical skills does not make you the GOAT. Rodgers is the most talented QB i've ever seen, no doubt. Just not the best.
Dan Marino should have taught you at a young age that this argument is complete bullshit.
It's not complete horse shit. Definitely not in todays game. Marino not winning a Super Bowl is exactly why he's not in the discussion for greatest of all time. Hall of fame quarterback, but if you want to be in the GOAT discussion sorry you have to win and win at least a few.
Brady is just a remarkable football player even today at his age, it's insane what he's doing.
Bradshaw played on teams with all time defenses. Brady has never had a defense like that at any point. Hell he's been to super bowls with all time bad level defenses.
make you better than a player. But when you add in everything else that Brady has done an accomplished over his career, it's hard to come up with a legitimate argument for someone else being the GOAT. Being the most talented is not the question. That Rodgers wins going away. He makes throws at times that you never see other quarterbacks make ever.
make you better than a player. But when you add in everything else that Brady has done an accomplished over his career, it's hard to come up with a legitimate argument for someone else being the GOAT. Being the most talented is not the question. That Rodgers wins going away. He makes throws at times that you never see other quarterbacks make ever.
Exactly what Brady has done isn’t just generational, it’s become multi-generational.
You have to be able to separate the player from the team. This way of arguing gives Trent Dilfer credit as a QB because he won a Super Bowl. It gives Brad Johnson more credit than Marino. It makes Nick Foles relevant.
Does anyone honestly think the Patriots would be any less successful with Rodgers instead of Brady?
It should be about the players. Not team accomplishments.
Jim Brown won what... 1 Super Bowl? I guess Franco Harris was better.
You have to be able to separate the player from the team. This way of arguing gives Trent Dilfer credit as a QB because he won a Super Bowl. It gives Brad Johnson more credit than Marino. It makes Nick Foles relevant.
Does anyone honestly think the Patriots would be any less successful with Rodgers instead of Brady?
It should be about the players. Not team accomplishments.
Jim Brown won what... 1 Super Bowl? I guess Franco Harris was better.
There's no logic there. It's a dumb argument.
Yes if it was 1 maybe 2 SBs I would understand your argument. It’s not Dumbe that Brady has been to 8 and won 5! He won the NFL MVP at 40!! Who has been his best receiver Deion Branch? He makes others great.
You have to be able to separate the player from the team. This way of arguing gives Trent Dilfer credit as a QB because he won a Super Bowl. It gives Brad Johnson more credit than Marino. It makes Nick Foles relevant.
Does anyone honestly think the Patriots would be any less successful with Rodgers instead of Brady?
It should be about the players. Not team accomplishments.
Jim Brown won what... 1 Super Bowl? I guess Franco Harris was better.
There's no logic there. It's a dumb argument.
Yes, I do think the Patriots would be less successful with Rodgers than Brady. If you put Rodgers on the Patriots starting when Brady was drafted, I dont think they would have played in 8 super bowls over what, 17 years?
Brady's also been much more durable than Rodgers. Part of being the GOAT is durability too. Can't help your team if you're hurt.
No matter how talented a player is, it's hard envisioning any other QB taking the Patriots to 8 Super Bowls. And let's not pretend Brady has been playing with insane talent around him on offense. Nate Solder may have been the Patriots best lineman for a few years. Think about that for a second. Gronk is terrific but he's made a lot of shit shine at WR over the years.
I dont believe any QB in the history of the sport would have taken these patriots teams to 8 super bowls. That number is truly insane and thinking anyone, even Rodgers, could replicate that is insane to me, especially when Rodgers has only played in 1 in his career. So he's going to go from the Packers to the Patriots and that automatically means he'd go to 7 more super bowls?
All top 10 defenses. Two of them the best in the NFL.
The 2011 Patriots defense was remarkably bad defending the pass and he had that team in the Super Bowl. They were so bad in the secondary that they had Julian Edelman playing defensive back in the playoffs.
Look at Brady's defenses in the years he won. Twice he had the best scoring defense in football.
Rodgers has NEVER had that.
The best he had was the 2nd ranked scoring defense. And guess what happened that year? He won the SB.
Brady has played for teams that were better coached and more talented. I don't know how anyone could debate that. Ted Thompson really was not a great GM - he just hit the jackpot on the QB and Rodgers has been covering up holes for years.
Look what happened to the Packers without him last year.
Contrast that with the Pats winning 14 times in 20 tries without Brady.
All top 10 defenses. Two of them the best in the NFL.
The 2011 Patriots defense was remarkably bad defending the pass and he had that team in the Super Bowl. They were so bad in the secondary that they had Julian Edelman playing defensive back in the playoffs.
And they lost... to us. So, since it's all about winning and losing, Tom Brady can't be credited for that season.
trent dilfer argument would make sense if Brady had only been to 2 or 3 super bowls. But he's been to 8. I dont think its crazy to say none of us will ever see a run like this again, and our kids kids probably won't either.
8 Super Bowl appearances on top of the personal accomplishments (stats, MVP's, etc) are what makes him the GOAT imo.
I think those arguing for Rodgers are really just saying he's the most talented quarterback ever, which I would agree with.
There are a lot of external factors, but in todays NFL I just dont think you can argue for another QB as the GOAT who has only been to 1 superbowl
All top 10 defenses. Two of them the best in the NFL.
The 2011 Patriots defense was remarkably bad defending the pass and he had that team in the Super Bowl. They were so bad in the secondary that they had Julian Edelman playing defensive back in the playoffs.
And they lost... to us. So, since it's all about winning and losing, Tom Brady can't be credited for that season.
It's not all about winning and losing. I penalize Rodgers a lot more for only being to 1 Super Bowl than only winning 1.
Brady has the entire package to back up being the GOAT. It's not just super bowl appearances, the numbers are there too. MVP's, stats, etc. It's all there. He doesn't have the skill set that Rodgers does, but the actual results have been a good deal better and im not sure how thats even debatable at this point
Also, if we're going on durability - Rodgers has missed like 18 games in his career.
Brady has missed... 15?
They're pretty close.
Brady has basically had only one season impacted at all by injuries in his career.
Rodgers seems to every couple years have something that slows him down. Collar bones, knee this year. If Rodgers doesn't bang up his knee week 1 I doubt they are sitting at 3-3-1
I mean, I guess people just have different definitions of the greats.
Favre only won 1 SB. Marino won 0.
And those were two of the best QB's I've ever watched in my entire life.
Brady has been remarkable. I just think it's crazy to discount players based on Super Bowls.
Arc I don’t discount them at all. I just think you have Brady at number 1 and then you have a whole bunch of debatable guys at number 2, and I don’t think it’s close between them. Rodgers is a great QB, but Brady is the best ever and I can’t find any reason to say otherwise.
I mean, I guess people just have different definitions of the greats.
Favre only won 1 SB. Marino won 0.
And those were two of the best QB's I've ever watched in my entire life.
Brady has been remarkable. I just think it's crazy to discount players based on Super Bowls.
We're talking about the greatest QB of all time. It's not like Rodgers blows Brady away in the stats department. Considering that the numbers and stats are pretty similar, why would you use anything except for Super Bowls to separate the two.
Instead of using Super Bowls, you're using "skill set" to separate the two players. Which one seems more silly to you? Super Bowls or skill set when determining the greatest of all time whose numbers are comparable except in the most important one?
I mean, I guess people just have different definitions of the greats.
Favre only won 1 SB. Marino won 0.
And those were two of the best QB's I've ever watched in my entire life.
Brady has been remarkable. I just think it's crazy to discount players based on Super Bowls.
We're talking about the greatest QB of all time. It's not like Rodgers blows Brady away in the stats department. Considering that the numbers and stats are pretty similar, why would you use anything except for Super Bowls to separate the two.
Instead of using Super Bowls, you're using "skill set" to separate the two players. Which one seems more silly to you? Super Bowls or skill set when determining the greatest of all time whose numbers are comparable except in the most important one?
Brady also has a .780 winning percentage. That’s insane.
I mean, I guess people just have different definitions of the greats.
Favre only won 1 SB. Marino won 0.
And those were two of the best QB's I've ever watched in my entire life.
Brady has been remarkable. I just think it's crazy to discount players based on Super Bowls.
We're talking about the greatest QB of all time. It's not like Rodgers blows Brady away in the stats department. Considering that the numbers and stats are pretty similar, why would you use anything except for Super Bowls to separate the two.
Instead of using Super Bowls, you're using "skill set" to separate the two players. Which one seems more silly to you? Super Bowls or skill set when determining the greatest of all time whose numbers are comparable except in the most important one?
Rodgers isn't some workout warrior QB - now you're talking about him like he's Jeff George.
Drew Brees has won once. ONCE! He's one of the best players to ever play football. He's a lock for the HoF.
One SB. That's the only one he's ever played in.
Teams don't do what the Pats have done with an elite QB alone. They just don't.
To find examples of the Patriots advancing to or won the SB when all probability would say they shouldn't have, not because of Brady heroics but because of events outside his control. The Chargers choke against them is one example. Same with the Falcons. He made plays in each, sure, but a slight twist of fate here and there and his SB win total takes a huge hit.
He's clearly legendary. But it's not egregious to think of Rodgers being more dangerous or skilled.
like people are saying you can't be an all time great if you only went to 1 super bowl or won only 1.
No one has said that or even come close to saying that here.
This is a debate about being the GOAT. The only "edge" of any sort that Rodgers has is his skill set.
No one is saying Rodgers isnt a lock hall of famer or an amazing QB. We're just saying he's not the GOAT and the guy who has everything numbers wise and record wise is.
What besides being more talented makes Rodgers the goat?
Rodgers has won 2 league MVP's. Brady 3. I know that brady has played a lot longer, they'll probably wind up with the same amount of league MVP's when all is said and done, I can see Rodgers winning another at some point, probably not two though.
Honestly, is there anything you can point to outside of being more talented which no one will even argue on here. Rodgers is zero question more talented. But everything else is pretty even. Except Super Bowls where it isnt even remotely close.
What can Tom Brady do as a QB that Aaron Rodgers cannot?
What can Tom Brady do as a QB that Aaron Rodgers cannot?
Win 5 Superbowls
What can Tom Brady do as a QB that Aaron Rodgers cannot?
Get to 8 Superbowls
I'm not talking about team accomplishments that involve the greatest coach of all time.
I'm talking about as a QB. Skill sets. What makes Brady better than Rodgers as a player?
What can Tom Brady do as a QB that Aaron Rodgers cannot?
Win 5 Super Bowls and go to 8 instead of 1.
The gap between the two as far as super bowls and trips go is so wide that its hard for me to argue Rodgers being a better QB than Brady.
More talented, sure. But not better to me.
I think LeBron is by far the most talented player in basketball history, but I dont think he's actually better than Jordan.
Most talented does not make you the GOAT. Especially when you only have 1 super bowl trip.
Right or wrong, its the one position in football that is going to be judged on Super Bowl championships. Especially in todays era where the QB has a bigger impacting on winning and losing than it ever has.
Having the most physical skills does not make you the GOAT. Rodgers is the most talented QB i've ever seen, no doubt. Just not the best.
Quote:
Let's frame it this way...
What can Tom Brady do as a QB that Aaron Rodgers cannot?
Win 5 Super Bowls and go to 8 instead of 1.
The gap between the two as far as super bowls and trips go is so wide that its hard for me to argue Rodgers being a better QB than Brady.
More talented, sure. But not better to me.
I think LeBron is by far the most talented player in basketball history, but I dont think he's actually better than Jordan.
Most talented does not make you the GOAT. Especially when you only have 1 super bowl trip.
Right or wrong, its the one position in football that is going to be judged on Super Bowl championships. Especially in todays era where the QB has a bigger impacting on winning and losing than it ever has.
Having the most physical skills does not make you the GOAT. Rodgers is the most talented QB i've ever seen, no doubt. Just not the best.
Dan Marino should have taught you at a young age that this argument is complete bullshit.
I'm not talking about team accomplishments that involve the greatest coach of all time.
I'm talking about as a QB. Skill sets. What makes Brady better than Rodgers as a player?
Skill sets does not make you the better player. Just means you're more talented. I dont think anyone will ever argue that Rodgers isnt more talented than Brady. I dont think anyone would argue that LeBron isnt more talented than Jordan.
I'm not talking about team accomplishments that involve the greatest coach of all time.
I'm talking about as a QB. Skill sets. What makes Brady better than Rodgers as a player?
Because he won. It’s that simple. You can have all the talent in the world but if you cannot win it, or you throw a badly timed interception to the NY Giants in the NFC championship game, it doesn’t matter.
Quote:
Let's frame it this way...
What can Tom Brady do as a QB that Aaron Rodgers cannot?
Win 5 Superbowls
Well, I guess Terry Bradshaw is on your shortlist then huh? He won a few Super Bowls too. Is he a better QB than Rodgers?
Quote:
In comment 14164918 arcarsenal said:
Quote:
Let's frame it this way...
What can Tom Brady do as a QB that Aaron Rodgers cannot?
Win 5 Super Bowls and go to 8 instead of 1.
The gap between the two as far as super bowls and trips go is so wide that its hard for me to argue Rodgers being a better QB than Brady.
More talented, sure. But not better to me.
I think LeBron is by far the most talented player in basketball history, but I dont think he's actually better than Jordan.
Most talented does not make you the GOAT. Especially when you only have 1 super bowl trip.
Right or wrong, its the one position in football that is going to be judged on Super Bowl championships. Especially in todays era where the QB has a bigger impacting on winning and losing than it ever has.
Having the most physical skills does not make you the GOAT. Rodgers is the most talented QB i've ever seen, no doubt. Just not the best.
Dan Marino should have taught you at a young age that this argument is complete bullshit.
It's not complete horse shit. Definitely not in todays game. Marino not winning a Super Bowl is exactly why he's not in the discussion for greatest of all time. Hall of fame quarterback, but if you want to be in the GOAT discussion sorry you have to win and win at least a few.
Quote:
In comment 14164918 arcarsenal said:
Quote:
Let's frame it this way...
What can Tom Brady do as a QB that Aaron Rodgers cannot?
Win 5 Superbowls
Well, I guess Terry Bradshaw is on your shortlist then huh? He won a few Super Bowls too. Is he a better QB than Rodgers?
It’s well before my time, and I wouldn’t comment on it.
Completely different game today, too.
Brady is just a remarkable football player even today at his age, it's insane what he's doing.
Bradshaw played on teams with all time defenses. Brady has never had a defense like that at any point. Hell he's been to super bowls with all time bad level defenses.
Exactly what Brady has done isn’t just generational, it’s become multi-generational.
Does anyone honestly think the Patriots would be any less successful with Rodgers instead of Brady?
It should be about the players. Not team accomplishments.
Jim Brown won what... 1 Super Bowl? I guess Franco Harris was better.
There's no logic there. It's a dumb argument.
All good, man - we're just BSing about football and the Giants suck. I don't take any of it personally.
2016 - 1st
2014 - 8th
2004 - 2nd
2003 - 1st
2001 - 6th
All top 10 defenses. Two of them the best in the NFL.
Does anyone honestly think the Patriots would be any less successful with Rodgers instead of Brady?
It should be about the players. Not team accomplishments.
Jim Brown won what... 1 Super Bowl? I guess Franco Harris was better.
There's no logic there. It's a dumb argument.
Yes if it was 1 maybe 2 SBs I would understand your argument. It’s not Dumbe that Brady has been to 8 and won 5! He won the NFL MVP at 40!! Who has been his best receiver Deion Branch? He makes others great.
Quote:
For the record, I am not trying to be snarky or snide to you. If it comes across that way I apologize. It’s just a debate.
All good, man - we're just BSing about football and the Giants suck. I don't take any of it personally.
Cool
Does anyone honestly think the Patriots would be any less successful with Rodgers instead of Brady?
It should be about the players. Not team accomplishments.
Jim Brown won what... 1 Super Bowl? I guess Franco Harris was better.
There's no logic there. It's a dumb argument.
Yes, I do think the Patriots would be less successful with Rodgers than Brady. If you put Rodgers on the Patriots starting when Brady was drafted, I dont think they would have played in 8 super bowls over what, 17 years?
Brady's also been much more durable than Rodgers. Part of being the GOAT is durability too. Can't help your team if you're hurt.
No matter how talented a player is, it's hard envisioning any other QB taking the Patriots to 8 Super Bowls. And let's not pretend Brady has been playing with insane talent around him on offense. Nate Solder may have been the Patriots best lineman for a few years. Think about that for a second. Gronk is terrific but he's made a lot of shit shine at WR over the years.
I dont believe any QB in the history of the sport would have taken these patriots teams to 8 super bowls. That number is truly insane and thinking anyone, even Rodgers, could replicate that is insane to me, especially when Rodgers has only played in 1 in his career. So he's going to go from the Packers to the Patriots and that automatically means he'd go to 7 more super bowls?
2016 - 1st
2014 - 8th
2004 - 2nd
2003 - 1st
2001 - 6th
All top 10 defenses. Two of them the best in the NFL.
The 2011 Patriots defense was remarkably bad defending the pass and he had that team in the Super Bowl. They were so bad in the secondary that they had Julian Edelman playing defensive back in the playoffs.
Look at Brady's defenses in the years he won. Twice he had the best scoring defense in football.
Rodgers has NEVER had that.
The best he had was the 2nd ranked scoring defense. And guess what happened that year? He won the SB.
Brady has played for teams that were better coached and more talented. I don't know how anyone could debate that. Ted Thompson really was not a great GM - he just hit the jackpot on the QB and Rodgers has been covering up holes for years.
Look what happened to the Packers without him last year.
Contrast that with the Pats winning 14 times in 20 tries without Brady.
That doesn't matter?
Quote:
Here's the Pats defensive ranks as far as points allowed in the years they won the SB with Brady...
2016 - 1st
2014 - 8th
2004 - 2nd
2003 - 1st
2001 - 6th
All top 10 defenses. Two of them the best in the NFL.
The 2011 Patriots defense was remarkably bad defending the pass and he had that team in the Super Bowl. They were so bad in the secondary that they had Julian Edelman playing defensive back in the playoffs.
And they lost... to us. So, since it's all about winning and losing, Tom Brady can't be credited for that season.
However, full package - Rodgers can't touch Brady. And it's not close.
Rodgers may be able to close the distance once Brady retires....
8 Super Bowl appearances on top of the personal accomplishments (stats, MVP's, etc) are what makes him the GOAT imo.
I think those arguing for Rodgers are really just saying he's the most talented quarterback ever, which I would agree with.
There are a lot of external factors, but in todays NFL I just dont think you can argue for another QB as the GOAT who has only been to 1 superbowl
Brady has missed... 15?
They're pretty close.
I don't even think Foles and Dilfer makes an argument versus a guy who won a single SB.
Neither of those guys QB'd their teams the entire season.
Coming in and winning at the end - while admirable - is not the same taking your team from start to finish.
Quote:
In comment 14164951 arcarsenal said:
Quote:
Here's the Pats defensive ranks as far as points allowed in the years they won the SB with Brady...
2016 - 1st
2014 - 8th
2004 - 2nd
2003 - 1st
2001 - 6th
All top 10 defenses. Two of them the best in the NFL.
The 2011 Patriots defense was remarkably bad defending the pass and he had that team in the Super Bowl. They were so bad in the secondary that they had Julian Edelman playing defensive back in the playoffs.
And they lost... to us. So, since it's all about winning and losing, Tom Brady can't be credited for that season.
It's not all about winning and losing. I penalize Rodgers a lot more for only being to 1 Super Bowl than only winning 1.
Brady has the entire package to back up being the GOAT. It's not just super bowl appearances, the numbers are there too. MVP's, stats, etc. It's all there. He doesn't have the skill set that Rodgers does, but the actual results have been a good deal better and im not sure how thats even debatable at this point
Favre only won 1 SB. Marino won 0.
And those were two of the best QB's I've ever watched in my entire life.
Brady has been remarkable. I just think it's crazy to discount players based on Super Bowls.
2014 - 8th
2004 - 2nd
2003 - 1st
2001 - 6th
Hard to consider these type of outcome impacting facts...unless your an overweight orange haired melon...
Brady has missed... 15?
They're pretty close.
Brady has basically had only one season impacted at all by injuries in his career.
Rodgers seems to every couple years have something that slows him down. Collar bones, knee this year. If Rodgers doesn't bang up his knee week 1 I doubt they are sitting at 3-3-1
Favre only won 1 SB. Marino won 0.
And those were two of the best QB's I've ever watched in my entire life.
Brady has been remarkable. I just think it's crazy to discount players based on Super Bowls.
Arc I don’t discount them at all. I just think you have Brady at number 1 and then you have a whole bunch of debatable guys at number 2, and I don’t think it’s close between them. Rodgers is a great QB, but Brady is the best ever and I can’t find any reason to say otherwise.
Favre only won 1 SB. Marino won 0.
And those were two of the best QB's I've ever watched in my entire life.
Brady has been remarkable. I just think it's crazy to discount players based on Super Bowls.
We're talking about the greatest QB of all time. It's not like Rodgers blows Brady away in the stats department. Considering that the numbers and stats are pretty similar, why would you use anything except for Super Bowls to separate the two.
Instead of using Super Bowls, you're using "skill set" to separate the two players. Which one seems more silly to you? Super Bowls or skill set when determining the greatest of all time whose numbers are comparable except in the most important one?
We need a LOT of things.
I fricking hate the Patriots and think Brady is a douche but I still dont think theres any legit argument for him not being the GOAT
Quote:
I mean, I guess people just have different definitions of the greats.
Favre only won 1 SB. Marino won 0.
And those were two of the best QB's I've ever watched in my entire life.
Brady has been remarkable. I just think it's crazy to discount players based on Super Bowls.
We're talking about the greatest QB of all time. It's not like Rodgers blows Brady away in the stats department. Considering that the numbers and stats are pretty similar, why would you use anything except for Super Bowls to separate the two.
Instead of using Super Bowls, you're using "skill set" to separate the two players. Which one seems more silly to you? Super Bowls or skill set when determining the greatest of all time whose numbers are comparable except in the most important one?
Brady also has a .780 winning percentage. That’s insane.
He was always a strong runner. Interesting move by the coach here.
I fricking hate the Patriots and think Brady is a douche but I still dont think theres any legit argument for him not being the GOAT
I agree with every word and you are a great deal more eloquent than me Mook.
Do you see better talent with another player? Some (me included) see it with Rodgers).
About the winning? they said the same BS about Montana.
Winning in football is about a lot of things. Yes. QB is a huge part. But that is not the end of the "best" argument.
Quote:
I mean, I guess people just have different definitions of the greats.
Favre only won 1 SB. Marino won 0.
And those were two of the best QB's I've ever watched in my entire life.
Brady has been remarkable. I just think it's crazy to discount players based on Super Bowls.
We're talking about the greatest QB of all time. It's not like Rodgers blows Brady away in the stats department. Considering that the numbers and stats are pretty similar, why would you use anything except for Super Bowls to separate the two.
Instead of using Super Bowls, you're using "skill set" to separate the two players. Which one seems more silly to you? Super Bowls or skill set when determining the greatest of all time whose numbers are comparable except in the most important one?
Rodgers isn't some workout warrior QB - now you're talking about him like he's Jeff George.
Drew Brees has won once. ONCE! He's one of the best players to ever play football. He's a lock for the HoF.
One SB. That's the only one he's ever played in.
Teams don't do what the Pats have done with an elite QB alone. They just don't.
Belichick has a massive role in this.
Brady has never done that.
But the numbers even forgetting Super Bowls and overall W-L are pretty similar.
So at that point why would you put more weight on skill set than you would Super Bowls?
If we're talking about actual skill set and talent alone, Brady probably isnt even in the top 10 of all time.
I think using talent as the main reason why he's the GOAT is silly.
He's clearly legendary. But it's not egregious to think of Rodgers being more dangerous or skilled.
No one has said that or even come close to saying that here.
This is a debate about being the GOAT. The only "edge" of any sort that Rodgers has is his skill set.
No one is saying Rodgers isnt a lock hall of famer or an amazing QB. We're just saying he's not the GOAT and the guy who has everything numbers wise and record wise is.
What besides being more talented makes Rodgers the goat?
Rodgers has won 2 league MVP's. Brady 3. I know that brady has played a lot longer, they'll probably wind up with the same amount of league MVP's when all is said and done, I can see Rodgers winning another at some point, probably not two though.
Honestly, is there anything you can point to outside of being more talented which no one will even argue on here. Rodgers is zero question more talented. But everything else is pretty even. Except Super Bowls where it isnt even remotely close.