|
|
|
| Quote: |
| Ross Tucker & #8207; Verified account @RossTuckerNFL Following Following @RossTuckerNFL More Last night perfectly encapsulated Aaron Rodgers career: Makes the spectacular look routine but too often doesn't make the routine play. |
| Quote: |
| Ross Tucker & #8207; Verified account @RossTuckerNFL Following Following @RossTuckerNFL More Holding onto the ball and taking sacks rather than throwing the check down or throwing it away will get you beat. It's also why Brady's better & a big reason he's won more. Makes routine play more consistently than anybody EVER. |
Especially since he's always referenced as the type of QB who can carry a team and make up for just about any deficiency.
My own opinion is that part of it has been durability. They've lost a few seasons to his injuries. But there is something else I'm not sure I can explain. He's had good offensive lines, very good skill players, one head coach/system, and a very stable organization.
Especially since he's always referenced as the type of QB who can carry a team and make up for just about any deficiency.
My own opinion is that part of it has been durability. They've lost a few seasons to his injuries. But there is something else I'm not sure I can explain. He's had good offensive lines, very good skill players, one head coach/system, and a very stable organization.
I thin durability is a huge issue with him and his size plays into that. But I also think he props up that team and masks a lot of their flaws. Have they really been run that well the last 5 years?
John Elway he is not.
If the media rips Eli Manning, Brett Favre, Matt Ryan for their inefficiencies why dont they ever get on this guy when he falls apart or stinks?
I just dont see him as being an alltime top 10.. He had the fortune of playing in the offensive passing easy era and really hasnt won anymore than the others.
I think hes up there but that coach/GM has been terrible for years. I think Rodgers often tries to do too much which is a blessing and a curse - but I get it since McCarthy sucks.
Keep in mind, they're still a Top 10 offense with Rodgers playing on one leg.
Probably because Rodgers, by any objective measure, has been a better playoff QB than Peyton Manning.
+1
Sure he is
You have this backwards.
It's the ultimate team game. It's similar to pitcher wins. Look at what Jacob deGrom did this season. Third lowest ERA since lowering the mound in 1969 (non-strike year), 29 consecutive games of 3 or fewer runs allowed. And he needed his last start just to get to 10-9.
There is so much out of the control of a QB (or pitcher).
Some people will engage in any mental contortions, no matter how ridiculous, in order to fluff up Eli Manning's career.
Sure having Rodgers helps... but I love his schemes and play design. He does stupid things as a HC. But thats not what I am referring too.
Quote:
and Rodgers doesn't?
Probably because Rodgers, by any objective measure, has been a better playoff QB than Peyton Manning.
Career postseason #s:
Peyton: 52% win% 2 rings 63.2% comp% 271.8 y/g 40:25 TD:INT 3.7% sack%
Rodgers: 56% win% 1 ring 63.5% comp% 262.2 y/g 36:10 TD:INT 6.2% sack%
Assuming fumbles are comparable, Rodgers did a better job taking care of the ball which is significant, but the rest of the #s are a push or advantage Peyton.
And yes, Peyton was a shell of himself when he got ring #2, but those last 2 seasons in Denver also negatively impacted all of his rate stats (comp%, y/g, sack%, etc).
I don't know for sure that we do, but I think we might.
How is it that only one coach on the planet, Belichick, can consistently put his QB in a position to succeed, but every other coach, sets the QB up to fail, or at least isn't helping the QB enough.
Do you think it's even a possibility that Brady is as much a reason for the Patriots success as Belichick?
And that McCarthy isn't as much to blame for the lack of ring success in GB for Rodgers and maybe there are multiple factors and if Belichick was coaching GB the results would be the same or close?
Not saying anything definitively this is all opinion, but I honestly don't know how much credit the coaches deserve/blame they should get.
THats my take. Aaron Rodger would be successful in any offense under any HC, IMO. I dont think the same can be said for Brady especially if he started out under someone other than B.B.
Quote:
In comment 14179462 Chris684 said:
Quote:
and Rodgers doesn't?
Probably because Rodgers, by any objective measure, has been a better playoff QB than Peyton Manning.
Career postseason #s:
Peyton: 52% win% 2 rings 63.2% comp% 271.8 y/g 40:25 TD:INT 3.7% sack%
Rodgers: 56% win% 1 ring 63.5% comp% 262.2 y/g 36:10 TD:INT 6.2% sack%
Assuming fumbles are comparable, Rodgers did a better job taking care of the ball which is significant, but the rest of the #s are a push or advantage Peyton.
And yes, Peyton was a shell of himself when he got ring #2, but those last 2 seasons in Denver also negatively impacted all of his rate stats (comp%, y/g, sack%, etc).
Only 4 fewer TD passes in 10 fewer games. 15 fewer INT's. 99.4 QBR to Peyton's 87.4. Winning% and completion% are about a push, but I think the other stuff is quite a bit more significant. Rodgers has generally been a better playoff performer. Peyton really didn't even play well in the playoffs when he won with IND. 3 TD passes in 4 games - 7 picks. If the defense hadn't come alive, they probably don't survive that year.
Perhaps they could have, if not for Eli getting in their way a few times!
Too often, my ass.
Conversely, how have the Patriots fared when Brady has been out? They won 11 games with Matt Cassell. They won 3 of 4 with Jacoby Brissett.
Belichick is a far better coach than Mike McCarthy. Not even close.
Its a significant different IMO.
But he's too often conservative and doesn't make the simple plays or avoid taking sacks as Ross mentions.
Brady's the best I've seen. Peyton vs. Rodgers is a tough one, I lean Peyton for durability/longevity purposes as of now. Brees vs. Rodgers is a pretty clear victory for Rodgers in my eyes.
No one said McCarthy is a better HC than Bill. All I am saying is McCarthy is a very good offensive mind.
But he's too often conservative and doesn't make the simple plays or avoid taking sacks as Ross mentions.
Brady's the best I've seen. Peyton vs. Rodgers is a tough one, I lean Peyton for durability/longevity purposes as of now. Brees vs. Rodgers is a pretty clear victory for Rodgers in my eyes.
x2
Peyton lost what, twice in Foxboro, in horrible weather against Belichick's defenses.
Rodgers won his Sb in a dome.
Peyton won one of his in the only rain Super Bowl.
The Packers have had limited success at the playoff level because their head coach isn't good at his job. The same could be said for their FO, which underwent some changes recently so it remains to be seen if that's still the case.
Ask around the NFL and see how many coaches would take Rodgers if they had the chance. Answer: all of them.
And the "not winning" is a canard. Rodgers took over as the starter in 2008. They had a losing season. They have had one losing season since then and that was last season when he was hurt and only played 7 games. During that time, they have won their division 5 times, gone to three conference championship games and won a Super Bowl. Total loser.
Rodgers doesn't play defense, he's not a running back and the Packers have not been able to consistently field credible defenses or running backs. He's getting killed for missing a pass on 3rd and 2 without anyone questioning why the Packers didn't think they had a prayer of making it running the ball on 3rd and 2.
Here's why. Last night the Packers had 48 yards rushing. Seattle had 155 just from the running backs who averaged 5 yards a carry which is why McCarthy should have gone for it; his defense wasn't getting that ball back. But Rodgers is a loser because on one leg, they only scored 24 points and lost by 3.
Rodgers is carrying the entire offense on his back and one good leg but he's an asshole. Check. Ross Tucker is the asshole.
No one said McCarthy is a better HC than Bill. All I am saying is McCarthy is a very good offensive mind.
There's a lot of those who aren't good HC's, which is the point. I mean, the GIants tried getting 2 of them - 1 didn't work and the other is on his way to not working...
I blame the GB FO as much as I do McCarthy. They've had some really bad teams that have won 9+ games simply due to the QB. Rodgers has saved a lot of their jobs over the years.
GB's struggles aren't about him, though. That defense is brutal, and McCarthy made some boneheaded decisions last night.
Quote:
Isnt good either because if you switched brees and Brady...
No one said McCarthy is a better HC than Bill. All I am saying is McCarthy is a very good offensive mind.
There's a lot of those who aren't good HC's, which is the point. I mean, the GIants tried getting 2 of them - 1 didn't work and the other is on his way to not working...
I blame the GB FO as much as I do McCarthy. They've had some really bad teams that have won 9+ games simply due to the QB. Rodgers has saved a lot of their jobs over the years.
My initial point is I think McCarthy hs played a very big role in Rodgers career and why Rodgers is one of the best all time. I am not arguing the HC stance, even though I dont think he is as bad as many are suggesting. He's not BB or Payton or maybe even Andy Reid.... but he has been very successful as a HC.
Conversely, how have the Patriots fared when Brady has been out? They won 11 games with Matt Cassell. They won 3 of 4 with Jacoby Brissett.
Belichick is a far better coach than Mike McCarthy. Not even close.
Not being a dick or a contrarian here, serious question.
Do you know how much influence Belichick, a defensive-minded coach, has on the offense and play calling?
And some other ground that has been covered, but sometimes ignored, the Matt Cassell 11 wins, was a documented historical easiest schedule in modern NFL history, and they missed the playoffs. Not to mention it was a 5 win dropoff from the prior season.
Second, when Brady was suspended they won the first two games with Garoppolo, not Brissett (though Jimmy G was injured late in the second game once the score was no longer in doubt).
The third game they shut out the Texans. Brisset was 11 for 19 for 103 yards - real QB whisperer stuff there from Belichick. He did have a rushing TD.
And in the 4th and final game sans Brady they were shutout 16 - 0 by the Bills. Brissett was 17 of 27 for 205 yard and no TD's.
Not sure I'd use that as examples Belichick can win anywhere with anyone at QB.
But I'd seriously be interesting in knowing how much input and influence Belichick does in fact have on the offense, instead of people just making assumptions (unless they do know the truth).
No one said McCarthy is a better HC than Bill. All I am saying is McCarthy is a very good offensive mind.
That is debatable. People who know a lot more about offenses than me find his offensive schemes simplistic and predictable. He's better than McAdoo, but he's no Sean Payton or McVay.
Exactly, especially with only one TO left. A terrible decision by a mediocre HC.
Its a package deal, IMO. BB excels on defense but he's so fucking good at strategizing and exposing a weakness that it benefits everyone. Its infectious. You hear momentum wins games in sports, well, I fell like BB always has momentum regardless of the phase of the game (offense, defense or ST). He masterfully delegates responsibilities and allows his coordinators to focus solely on the 1 portion of the gameplan they are trying to exploit.
Coaching matter, its matters a lot. Ask Tom Brady.
No one said McCarthy is a better HC than Bill. All I am saying is McCarthy is a very good offensive mind.
He's not though. His offense has barely changed in 15 years. It's a pretty basic WCO with some deep shots thrown in. The last couple of years, he's been stubbornly running that offense with inexperienced or fading WRs that he's asking to win one on one. Ask yourself how much the game has changed in just the last 5 years. Like it or not, it's sandlot football. Guys are running free, coaches are scheming guys open. He's not changing while the rest of the league has or is at least starting to (including Shurmur). You don't need to watch the All 22 to see it. Turn on the Chiefs/Rams game on Monday Night and you'll see it immediately. It looks like they're playing a different sport.
Speaking of the Chiefs and look at Andy Reid. Same coaching tree and foundation, yet their offenses are lightyears apart. Reid's current offenses barely resemble the offense he was running in Philly with McNabb. Why has he tweaked his offense while McCarthy hasn't? Why has every offensive disciple of McCarthy flamed out once they left Rodgers orbit? They're playing in what is fastly becoming a dinosaur offense.
What does Rodgers do that's so much better than Brees? INT totals are way better for Rodgers, but that fits with the notion that he holds the ball and takes a sack vs. letting it fly.
I haven't thought much about it, but I'm trying to figure out exactly what it would be that Rodgers does that's so much better than Brees. Having a hard time with it, honestly.
My point is that it only works because of Rodgers ability to improvise. What happened to that offense when Rodgers went down last year? How have the McAdoo and Philbin offenses looked without Rodgers?
Quote:
And if we're talking about systems and offensive minds - go back and watch what the Packers looked like without Aaron Rodgers. When they were playing with guys like Scott Tolzein or Brett Hundley, how'd they fare?
Conversely, how have the Patriots fared when Brady has been out? They won 11 games with Matt Cassell. They won 3 of 4 with Jacoby Brissett.
Belichick is a far better coach than Mike McCarthy. Not even close.
Not being a dick or a contrarian here, serious question.
Do you know how much influence Belichick, a defensive-minded coach, has on the offense and play calling?
And some other ground that has been covered, but sometimes ignored, the Matt Cassell 11 wins, was a documented historical easiest schedule in modern NFL history, and they missed the playoffs. Not to mention it was a 5 win dropoff from the prior season.
Second, when Brady was suspended they won the first two games with Garoppolo, not Brissett (though Jimmy G was injured late in the second game once the score was no longer in doubt).
The third game they shut out the Texans. Brisset was 11 for 19 for 103 yards - real QB whisperer stuff there from Belichick. He did have a rushing TD.
And in the 4th and final game sans Brady they were shutout 16 - 0 by the Bills. Brissett was 17 of 27 for 205 yard and no TD's.
Not sure I'd use that as examples Belichick can win anywhere with anyone at QB.
But I'd seriously be interesting in knowing how much input and influence Belichick does in fact have on the offense, instead of people just making assumptions (unless they do know the truth).
Belichick has control over virtually everything that goes on there - I think it's fair to assume that he's got a hand in the offense. He's hiring the guys who are coordinating it and I'm fairly certain he's not hands-off in any aspect of that football team.
The Garoppolo/Brissett stuff I obviously mixed up - that wasn't really the point. That he's been able to win games without Brady is. We can splice it and talk about schedules or nitpick every detail, but the Packers have looked far worse sans Rodgers than NE ever has without Brady.
You're focusing on the QB's and the QB numbers - it's not about being a QB whisperer. You're missing the point. Belichick is simply fielding better teams that are better-coached than the Packers are. When you remove Rodgers and Brady from their respective situations, you uncover what they actually have around them. It seems far more possible to win with "meh" QB play in NE than it is in GB.
Peyton lost what, twice in Foxboro, in horrible weather against Belichick's defenses.
Rodgers won his Sb in a dome.
Peyton won one of his in the only rain Super Bowl.
Along the way to that game, they knocked us off in GB when Rodgers threw for 362 yards and 4 td's and then knocked the Cowboys off the following week when he threw for 355 yards and 2 td's. But don't mention any of that.
Brees has also had the best OL of every QB mentioned in this thread. His OL has been fantastic in New Orleans and much better than what Brady/Peyton/Rodgers have had.
What does Rodgers do that's so much better than Brees? INT totals are way better for Rodgers, but that fits with the notion that he holds the ball and takes a sack vs. letting it fly.
I haven't thought much about it, but I'm trying to figure out exactly what it would be that Rodgers does that's so much better than Brees. Having a hard time with it, honestly.
Better arm, inferior talent, and a far worse head coach. I'd love to see Rodgers play in a dome with guys like Kamara, Ingram, Thomas and that line.
Come on man.
I distinctly remember in 2012 at our place, right before half time, he rolled away from pressure and rather than throw in the endzone as a last play....he simply stepped out of bounds. End of half.
I was like wow......
He's been a great performer, but let's remember he's 36 now......as he gets older he's going to regress most likely. Maybe that's starting.
And in the NFL, when you play a poor game you're open to criticism. Esp at QB.
What I don't know is if the offensive success in New England is maybe related to Charlie Weis, Bill O'Brien, and Josh McDaniels with Brady at QB or does Belichick influence it enough to consider it his offense.
I mean look at the Patriots defense the past couple seasons. It seems like they get absolutely torched every time they play a decent offense. Look what Nick Foles did to them in the SB, look what Mahomes did to them, heck look what Mariota did last weekend.
The offense bailed them out in one of those three games, and it seems like people give Belichick the credit for the W when that happens and no blame for the L's.
but his defense did all they could to lose those games and Brady and the offense bailed them out.
Why isn't it that Brady or the OC gets the credit, but it's all Belichick.
I simply don't know how the responsibilities are divided up in New England, if you do then great, you are plugged in to the Patriots more than me.
Swap them up.......imagine Rodgers in dome 9x a year?
Playing in Lambeau is not easy....in fact, it's right up there with the toughest venues to play.
Stats are fun aren't they? Do they talk about Sean Payton running up the score or Drew Brees constantly throwing 1 yard TD's on 1st and Goal from the 1?
2011 Rodgers is better than anything Brees has ever done, IMO and never got the benefit of a dome.
What does Rodgers do that's so much better than Brees? INT totals are way better for Rodgers, but that fits with the notion that he holds the ball and takes a sack vs. letting it fly.
I haven't thought much about it, but I'm trying to figure out exactly what it would be that Rodgers does that's so much better than Brees. Having a hard time with it, honestly.
My mistake
He's been a great performer, but let's remember he's 36 now......as he gets older he's going to regress most likely. Maybe that's starting.
And in the NFL, when you play a poor game you're open to criticism. Esp at QB.
Keep in mind, he's been playing with a tear in his knee since Week 1. You can see it has hurt his mobility, he's getting caught from behind more than I've remembered and you can see a little more reluctance on his part to take off. He's still been great this year, just not super human.
[quote] than Brees at gunning it to the sideline. His Fastball is not only faster but more accurate than Brees'.
PFF has GB as the 3rd best OL this season (NO 5th and NE 9th).
Brees/Brady also release the ball much faster than Rodgers, which helps give the impression of better OL play. That's also what makes Rodgers special, his ability to improvise and extend plays.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
.......his arm is incredible how he can throw from different positions and get it out quick.
He's been a great performer, but let's remember he's 36 now......as he gets older he's going to regress most likely. Maybe that's starting.
And in the NFL, when you play a poor game you're open to criticism. Esp at QB.
Keep in mind, he's been playing with a tear in his knee since Week 1. You can see it has hurt his mobility, he's getting caught from behind more than I've remembered and you can see a little more reluctance on his part to take off. He's still been great this year, just not super human.
Oh yeah I know...hey, I think the guy is great. But he's having some injuries now...and being in your late 30s doesn't help.
[quote] than Brees at gunning it to the sideline. His Fastball is not only faster but more accurate than Brees'.
PFF has GB as the 3rd best OL this season (NO 5th and NE 9th).
Brees/Brady also release the ball much faster than Rodgers, which helps give the impression of better OL play. That's also what makes Rodgers special, his ability to improvise and extend plays. Link - ( New Window )
Good point about time of release, but overall New Orleans has been the best OL int he NFL over the last decade imo.
Brees: 120-79 Record, 68.5 completion percentage, 60,698 yards, 429 TD's, 176 INT's, 7.8 yards per attempt, 7.9 air yards per attempt, 305 yards per game, 100.5 rating
Rodgers: 98-53-1 Record, 64.9 completion percentage, 41,575 yards, 332 TD's, 79 INT's, 7.9 yards per attempt, 8.5 air yards per attempt, 261 yards per game, 103.7 rating.
I know Brees has two more years as a starter in this comparison, but geez.... nearly 100 more TD's passes and 20,000 more passing yards is a lot for only 2 years difference.
Looks at the stats I posted between Peyton and Rodger's home/road stats in the playoffs. The difference is staggering and it isn't that small of a sample size.
While this wouldn't be the end all be all, its significant when talking about production, IMO.
Brees: 120-79 Record, 68.5 completion percentage, 60,698 yards, 429 TD's, 176 INT's, 7.8 yards per attempt, 7.9 air yards per attempt, 305 yards per game, 100.5 rating
Rodgers: 98-53-1 Record, 64.9 completion percentage, 41,575 yards, 332 TD's, 79 INT's, 7.9 yards per attempt, 8.5 air yards per attempt, 261 yards per game, 103.7 rating.
I know Brees has two more years as a starter in this comparison, but geez.... nearly 100 more TD's passes and 20,000 more passing yards is a lot for only 2 years difference.
How many more INTs does he have? Ohh yeah almost 100. Brees was a turnover machine for a good chunk of his career.
Quote:
vs. Aaron Rodgers 11 years in Green Bay both as starters:
Brees: 120-79 Record, 68.5 completion percentage, 60,698 yards, 429 TD's, 176 INT's, 7.8 yards per attempt, 7.9 air yards per attempt, 305 yards per game, 100.5 rating
Rodgers: 98-53-1 Record, 64.9 completion percentage, 41,575 yards, 332 TD's, 79 INT's, 7.9 yards per attempt, 8.5 air yards per attempt, 261 yards per game, 103.7 rating.
I know Brees has two more years as a starter in this comparison, but geez.... nearly 100 more TD's passes and 20,000 more passing yards is a lot for only 2 years difference.
How many more INTs does he have? Ohh yeah almost 100. Brees was a turnover machine for a good chunk of his career.
Isn't the knock on Rodgers that he eats the ball rather than try to throw it?
Sometimes you gotta let it fly. What did Parcells say? "Phil, if you don't throw at least two interceptions today, you're not trying hard enough"
It's 47 games - Brees has started 199 games for the Saints, Rodgers has started 152 for the Packers. Brees has only missed 2 starts in 13 years, Rodgers missed 7 games in 2013 and 9 games last year.
Quote:
vs. Aaron Rodgers 11 years in Green Bay both as starters:
It's 47 games - Brees has started 199 games for the Saints, Rodgers has started 152 for the Packers. Brees has only missed 2 starts in 13 years, Rodgers missed 7 games in 2013 and 9 games last year.
Well, durability should be taken into account too, shouldn't it? Isn't one of the QB's best abilities "availability"?
Advantage Brees.
I just don't really think you are being objective. You are posting stats but that isn't the whole story. It doesn't account for the better OL and rushing attack Brees has had, or his better skill players. Or playing in a dome. Or running up the score all those years when they could have ran the ball out or taken a knee (which I vividly remember because BBI would go nuts about it).
Brees has been more durable. That's about the only thing in his favor, IMO.
Rodgers' highest passing yard total was 4600 yards.
And quite honestly, looking at all of his passing yard totals, I'm not seeing really any that jump out at me since "4000 yards became the new normal in this pass heavy league" (which I hear quite often here).
2008: 4038
2009: 4434
2010: 3922 (Superbowl year)
2011: 4643 (career high)
2012: 4295
2013: 2536
2014: 4381
2015: 3821
2016: 4428
2017: 1675
I'm not crapping on Rodgers, I've just never really looked at it. I honestly thought some of those totals would be higher.
Quote:
Sure. Although not a deciding factor imo.
Looks at the stats I posted between Peyton and Rodger's home/road stats in the playoffs. The difference is staggering and it isn't that small of a sample size.
While this wouldn't be the end all be all, its significant when talking about production, IMO.
Did you include Brees? I was speaking of Brees not Peyton with regards to playing in a dome. Perhaps I have misunderstood
I'm not seeing it, really.
Brees has been every bit as deadly a passer as Rodgers. We've seen it first hand.
Would anybody choose differently?
I'm not seeing it, really.
Brees has been every bit as deadly a passer as Rodgers. We've seen it first hand.
I can see as a fact and quite easily too.
I'm not seeing it, really.
Brees has been every bit as deadly a passer as Rodgers. We've seen it first hand.
That is all I'm attempting to point out
I'm not seeing it, really.
Brees has been every bit as deadly a passer as Rodgers. We've seen it first hand.
Yes, and I don't know why you keep asking the question. I've given you examples, are you just ignoring them? Its like you are having a conversation with only yourself.
Rodgers is up there with Brady and Manning. Brees isn't, IMO. He's in the next tier by himself, but he isn't in Tier 1.
Hasn't Eli had more playoff success than Brees? And i'm not just talking about 2 titles but more wins? I can argue that Brees as severely underachieved even moresoe than Rodgers in the post season.
Would anybody choose differently?
I put Brees over both Peyton and Rodgers.
Well, points for New Orleans, by year, 2006-2017
2006: 413 (25.8/g) 5th of 32
2007: 379 (23.7/g) 12th of 32
2008: 463 (28.9/g) 1st of 32
2009: 510 (31.9/g) 1st of 32 (Superbowl)
2010: 384 (24.0/g) 11th of 32
2011: 547 (34.2/g) 2nd of 32
2012: 461 (28.8/g) 3rd of 32
2013: 414 (25.9/g) 10th of 32
2014: 401 (25.1/g) 9th of 32
2015: 408 (25.5/g) 8th of 32
2016: 469 (29.3/g) 2nd of 32
2017: 448 (28.0/g) 4th of 32
Points for Green Bay, 2008-2017:
2008: 419 (26.2/g) 5th of 32
2009: 461 (28.8/g) 3rd of 32
2010: 388 (24.3/g) 10th of 32 (Superbowl)
2011: 560 (35.0/g) 1st of 32
2012: 433 (27.1/g) 5th of 32
2013: 417 (26.1/g) 8th of 32
2014: 486 (30.4/g) 1st of 32
2015: 368 (23.0/g) 15th of 32
2016: 432 (27.0/g) 4th of 32
2017: 320 (20.0/g) 21st of 32
Quote:
behind Brady and Peyton.
I put Brees over both Peyton and Rodgers.
Just crazy talk.
People who give Peyton shortcomings need to understand that he put up today's numbers in a time where running was still the main objective.
I just don't really think you are being objective. You are posting stats but that isn't the whole story. It doesn't account for the better OL and rushing attack Brees has had, or his better skill players. Or playing in a dome. Or running up the score all those years when they could have ran the ball out or taken a knee (which I vividly remember because BBI would go nuts about it).
that running up the score stuff is a falsehood by the way. The data doesn't support it. Just because he has whooped up on the Giants so often this is the perception
for his entire career, when leading with 4 min to go he only has 683 yards and 3 TDs
Link - ( New Window )
Link - ( New Window )
If you could only put one of the two of them in the HOF, for sake of argument, how would you justify putting Rodgers in over Brees?
Both guys have had a few playoff losses where they've put up some big numbers and scored a lot of points. Margins in the postseason are thin.
Personally I'd take Rodgers, but I do think Brees is just a little underrated in some discussions and it might be closer than some of the common views.
Both guys can make you feel completely helpless as an opposing fan of defense though. Along with Peyton and Brady, the just look 100 percent unstoppable a lot of the time.
Brees I root for and like, but we have to be fair and realize he has some inflated Stas due to playing in a dome and a division with one other done team and good weather.
Both guys have had a few playoff losses where they've put up some big numbers and scored a lot of points. Margins in the postseason are thin.
Personally I'd take Rodgers, but I do think Brees is just a little underrated in some discussions and it might be closer than some of the common views.
Both guys can make you feel completely helpless as an opposing fan of defense though. Along with Peyton and Brady, the just look 100 percent unstoppable a lot of the time.
👍
Well Brees & Rodgers are both better players than Eli. But if the 3 of them are sitting around having drinks in retirement, who feels best about their career accomplishments?
Or look at it another way. Would you rather the next Giants QB wins 2 SBs with inconsistent play at times or 1 SB with a couple regular season MVPs?
I don't believe there is one, either. I agree they are all great and this is splitting hairs.
However, I just can't put Rodgers in the greatest of all time talk like I see many do, because frankly he's right there with Brees, who I put under Peyton, who I put (considerably) under Brady.
Brees I root for and like, but we have to be fair and realize he has some inflated Stas due to playing in a dome and a division with one other done team and good weather.
Saints fans are the pits and I loathe Sean Payton, so no, I would not root for Brees. Packers fans, I've had no problems with, so I don't mind Rodgers doing well.
I think most of us were pretty pumped about that final Alex Smith drive to win it. I wanted zero part of going to the Superdome that year.
I think most of us were pretty pumped about that final Alex Smith drive to win it. I wanted zero part of going to the Superdome that year.
Exactly, I remember that Alex Smith play perfectly.
And that's why I asked earlier, you have to win ONE game... Would you rather go face Rodgers in Green Bay, or would you rather face Brees in NO?
I know my answer without a doubt, and your post sums it up.
You can say this for any QB. Hell I and many others on BBI have been saying it for years about the Giants defense.
I think most of us were pretty pumped about that final Alex Smith drive to win it. I wanted zero part of going to the Superdome that year.
Yep, the giants needed that break just as much any break they got all year in '11
Quote:
has to sting for Brees. 466 yards and 3 TDs against Detroit - they scored on basically every drive. Then 462 with 4 TDs and 2 picks, putting up 32 points at San Fran. And we know how filthy that 49ers D was.
I think most of us were pretty pumped about that final Alex Smith drive to win it. I wanted zero part of going to the Superdome that year.
Exactly, I remember that Alex Smith play perfectly.
And that's why I asked earlier, you have to win ONE game... Would you rather go face Rodgers in Green Bay, or would you rather face Brees in NO?
I know my answer without a doubt, and your post sums it up.
Especially with the whooping the Saints had put on us earlier in the year at the Dome. Never rooted harder for another NFL team as much as I did for the 9ers that day.
Am I the only one in the discussion? I'm sorry, I didn't realize this was an AMA....
It's no big deal, you have a different opinion. It's fine. I see your point of view.
Maybe, but you have to acknowledge the difference of playing outdoors in Tampa and Carolina v GB and Chicago.
I dont know if that can be proven, but that's my feeling just from watching a lot of games.
Quote:
Britt asking the same questions 17 different ways and not acknowledging any of the responses is pointless. Have fun guys.
Am I the only one in the discussion? I'm sorry, I didn't realize this was an AMA....
I dont know you just keep asking question after question and you get valid responses and completely dismiss those that dont fit your argument. This discussion is a waste of time now because it isnt really a discussion anymore.
Quote:
In comment 14179708 Jerry in DC said:
Quote:
has to sting for Brees. 466 yards and 3 TDs against Detroit - they scored on basically every drive. Then 462 with 4 TDs and 2 picks, putting up 32 points at San Fran. And we know how filthy that 49ers D was.
I think most of us were pretty pumped about that final Alex Smith drive to win it. I wanted zero part of going to the Superdome that year.
Exactly, I remember that Alex Smith play perfectly.
And that's why I asked earlier, you have to win ONE game... Would you rather go face Rodgers in Green Bay, or would you rather face Brees in NO?
I know my answer without a doubt, and your post sums it up.
Especially with the whooping the Saints had put on us earlier in the year at the Dome. Never rooted harder for another NFL team as much as I did for the 9ers that day.
Comparatively, we also played Green Bay earlier that season, and frankly, should have won. We lost by three.
We got screwed by the refs on a couple calls that game, namely the Jake Ballard (non) TD, and the Green Bay WR not having control of a catch in the endzone (which as the time was the Calvin Johnson rule).
Quote:
In comment 14179714 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
Britt asking the same questions 17 different ways and not acknowledging any of the responses is pointless. Have fun guys.
Am I the only one in the discussion? I'm sorry, I didn't realize this was an AMA....
I dont know you just keep asking question after question and you get valid responses and completely dismiss those that dont fit your argument. This discussion is a waste of time now because it isnt really a discussion anymore.
Seems like plenty are still having a discussion without a problem.
Drew Brees is 7-6, however, 2-5 on the road.
Just took a look at this site, it has Rodgers at 9-7 career in the playoffs.
Link - ( New Window )
Also not true at all..
Meh. There are QB's who have more that aren't as good as Rodgers is. Championships are about alot more than one player.
Both guys have had a few playoff losses where they've put up some big numbers and scored a lot of points. Margins in the postseason are thin.
Personally I'd take Rodgers, but I do think Brees is just a little underrated in some discussions and it might be closer than some of the common views.
Both guys can make you feel completely helpless as an opposing fan of defense though. Along with Peyton and Brady, the just look 100 percent unstoppable a lot of the time.
I agree - I can't really disagree with anyone who picks one of these guys over the other.
I think Rodgers' peak is the best I've ever seen. I'd probably rank them: Peyton, Rodgers, Brady, Brees. But I think the order is totally subjective and makes for a fun discussion.
I don't think there is much argument the top 4 would be Unitas, Montana, Manning, Brady in some order. The next two for me would be Elway and Marino, and then you can start looking at the Packers guys, Namath, Graham.
I personally would have Rodgers behind all of those guys, and in the mix with Young and Brees.
I'm a huge Brees guy. I'd take him up against anybody and feel fine about it.
I think most of us were pretty pumped about that final Alex Smith drive to win it. I wanted zero part of going to the Superdome that year.
That approach has put an enormous onus on Rodgers to make chicken salad out of chicken sh-t. And he's the best I've ever seen at dragging a team to wins since the great John Elway.
Marino didn't win a single SB and anyone with an IQ above 50 could quickly identify that he was a phenomenal QB. Rodgers is a better version of Marino - better athlete, better mind, and better arm. And he has 1 SB.
I don't care if Rodgers never wins another SB, he's the most gifted QB that has ever lived. This nit-picking to find fault is embarrassing...
Quote:
not very impressive for a supposed Top 5 QB ever
Just took a look at this site, it has Rodgers at 9-7 career in the playoffs.
Link - ( New Window )
Sorry, 5-6 since his last Super Bowl-NINE years ago.
Like somebody else said, I don't even know if he's the greatest Green Bay QB ever. Is Rodgers better than Brett Favre? I think that's a tough sell.
That approach has put an enormous onus on Rodgers to make chicken salad out of chicken sh-t. And he's the best I've ever seen at dragging a team to wins since the great John Elway.
Marino didn't win a single SB and anyone with an IQ above 50 could quickly identify that he was a phenomenal QB. Rodgers is a better version of Marino - better athlete, better mind, and better arm. And he has 1 SB.
I don't care if Rodgers never wins another SB, he's the most gifted QB that has ever lived. This nit-picking to find fault is embarrassing...
Its just odd is all and its hard to have a conversation about it when the other side is very unwilling to look at things a different way. You are also saying Rodgers efficiency is in large part due to simply taking sacks but there really is no way to prove that, or prove he does it at a high enough rate to be a worse offender than everyone else.
Rodgers is better than Favre. He's smarter, every bit as good of an arm but much more accurate, and definitely played with far less talent than some of those really good GB teams. In the playoffs Rodgers in 7 less games had 8 less TDs but 20 less INTs. Longevity is certainly in Favres favor but that's about it.
As I've said before "not in the same realm" is a ridiculous statement of the shockjock trying to get attention variety.
Like somebody else said, I don't even know if he's the greatest Green Bay QB ever. Is Rodgers better than Brett Favre? I think that's a tough sell.
A tough sell is saying Young was better than Montana after that baton was passed. It's not a tough sell to say Rodgers is better than Favre. Using all the key passing metrics Favre would certainly be the back-up to Rodgers.
Yeah, a few things, but they were fairly benign. Why people are getting up in arms over it is beyond me.
They've been really benign comments actually. Maybe you can't handle anybody that doesn't fall in line with your opinion that you're frustrated? Not sure, but that's on you, not me, and I challenge you to find anything even remotely inflammatory I've written in this thread.
When Rodgers retires he will be in the conversation with Montana and Peyton for the 2nd best QB to ever put on a uniform, so he will be one of the immortals.
I believe in circumstance when it comes to sports. I believe in bad luck (Romo) and I believe in great luck (Brady). I can openly admit there's no way to prove it but I absolutely think its true. When more talented players (Rodgers) are still fairly intelligent and post highly efficient numbers it leads me to believe that the problem isn't them when talking about something as hard to come by as a Lombardi trophy.
There's varying degrees of said circumstance but I absolutely believe Brady landed himself into the circumstance of a lifetime, and to his credit made the best of it. Brees is also a beneficiary of this and even with that, doesn't have much separation statistically from Rodgers who I believe is in a far more inferior circumstance.
I believe in circumstance when it comes to sports. I believe in bad luck (Romo) and I believe in great luck (Brady). I can openly admit there's no way to prove it but I absolutely think its true. When more talented players (Rodgers) are still fairly intelligent and post highly efficient numbers it leads me to believe that the problem isn't them when talking about something as hard to come by as a Lombardi trophy.
There's varying degrees of said circumstance but I absolutely believe Brady landed himself into the circumstance of a lifetime, and to his credit made the best of it. Brees is also a beneficiary of this and even with that, doesn't have much separation statistically from Rodgers who I believe is in a far more inferior circumstance.
I always have posted Eli's stats. I've always defended him with the same arguments that you defend Rodgers with here. No O-line, sh-tty coaching, poor roster around him, but I'm always told here that Eli is the one constant, and there's no excuse. A franchise QB elevates those around him regardless.
But I have tried to stay away from Eli in this discussion so I will go back to these wild stats that you say I post out of context.
What exactly about them is out of context?
I posted their career statistics. kmed said not to just look at career numbers and instead look at points scored so I posted those for him.
I was genuinely looking up both for the first time. There was no agenda other than general curiosity.
Your reaction to them is curious. Perhaps they showed that maybe Rodgers isn't as far and away advanced as you might have originally thought?
There should be no knock against being compared to Brees, who is himself an all time great. Why does that rub you the wrong way?
Quote:
that's a pretty important piece of the puzzle. Rodgers rarely turns the ball over, Brees has turned it over a lot. Those are game changers. I also wouldn't focus on TD's as much as I would pts scored. I'd be curious to compare pts scored during that timeframe.
Well, points for New Orleans, by year, 2006-2017
2006: 413 (25.8/g) 5th of 32
2007: 379 (23.7/g) 12th of 32
2008: 463 (28.9/g) 1st of 32
2009: 510 (31.9/g) 1st of 32 (Superbowl)
2010: 384 (24.0/g) 11th of 32
2011: 547 (34.2/g) 2nd of 32
2012: 461 (28.8/g) 3rd of 32
2013: 414 (25.9/g) 10th of 32
2014: 401 (25.1/g) 9th of 32
2015: 408 (25.5/g) 8th of 32
2016: 469 (29.3/g) 2nd of 32
2017: 448 (28.0/g) 4th of 32
Points for Green Bay, 2008-2017:
2008: 419 (26.2/g) 5th of 32
2009: 461 (28.8/g) 3rd of 32
2010: 388 (24.3/g) 10th of 32 (Superbowl)
2011: 560 (35.0/g) 1st of 32
2012: 433 (27.1/g) 5th of 32
2013: 417 (26.1/g) 8th of 32
2014: 486 (30.4/g) 1st of 32
2015: 368 (23.0/g) 15th of 32
2016: 432 (27.0/g) 4th of 32
2017: 320 (20.0/g) 21st of 32
Thx for doing the leg work and posting!
Very interesting to me. So Brees has over 100 more TD's, yet they both average the same exact PPG over their careers(I removed 2017 from Rodgers). They both average 27.5 PPG. Yet Brees has over 100 more INT's which I would bet hurt his teams chances of winning more than Rodgers.
The other factor is definitely coaching. How many times do we talk about a boneheaded McCarthy decision and how many times is Payton or Belichick making the same mistakes?
In sum, there are glaring reasons why I think Rodgers is better but interestingly, you don't think they matter (or atleast that's how your posts read).
The Pats-Packers played each other a few weeks ago. The narrative has always been that Brady doesn't have elite players around him, elevates average receivers, and that guys don't do anything when they leave New England. Watching that game, it looks like Brady has more talent around him than Aaron Rodgers does now. Rodgers has 1 good receiver who's never put up "star" numbers, a past his prime TE, and a solid RB. He sure as hell never played with a Moss or Gronk. Brady is quite possibly the GoAT, but I think we're giving him credit for something (routine plays/easy passes) that's a function of their offense.
The other factor is definitely coaching. How many times do we talk about a boneheaded McCarthy decision and how many times is Payton or Belichick making the same mistakes?
In sum, there are glaring reasons why I think Rodgers is better but interestingly, you don't think they matter (or atleast that's how your posts read).
When did these opinions get attributed to me?
Ross Tucker stated the long had opinion that Aaron Rodgers would rather hold onto the ball and take a sack than throw it away or take a chance. That's a widely held opinion by a lot of people, and has been for a long time. Is it not?
I just stated that statistically Brees's best season was better than Rodgers' best statistical season, and commented that he'd thrown for 5000 yards 5 times, something Rodgers had never done. I also stated that he had thrown 100 more TD's and 20,000 more yards in only two more seasons as starter than Rodgers.
What is so outrageous about that?
Like Jerry said, we're splitting hairs. I'm just stating that Rodgers, while great, isn't really in the best of all time discussion, which is no knock on Rodgers (at least to me).
After looking at his numbers as a whole, he deserves a similar amount of credit to Rodgers that maybe he doesn't always get.
Drew Brees has completed more passes than Aaron Rodgers has attempted.
Brees 2006-2017: 5332 completions, 7789 attmepts
Rodgers 2008-2017: 3426 completions, 5280 attempts
But has Rodgers won a significant amount more games than Brees?
In some circles these days, and believe me I vehemently disagree with this, sacks are being viewed like turnovers. Maybe that's what's being implied here...?
But I agree with you. Brees's INT ratio is 2X Rodgers's. Rodgers is from another planet...
Well, sure. But that also meant that he was asked to do more, doesn't it?
Is there such a disparity in their win loss records to notice any significant difference between the two?
They've both won a Superbowl. But beyond that, are their career records very different?
I mean, if turnovers determine wins and losses, that should show up in the wins and losses, shouldn't it?
In 11 seasons as a starter, Rodgers has only had double digit INT's for a season in 2 years(11 and 13) and that was in 2 of his first 3 seasons as a starter.
Drew Brees has had double digit INT's in 14 of 16 seasons
Quote:
when discussing TD's thrown, no?
Well, sure. But that also meant that he was asked to do more, doesn't it?
Is there such a disparity in their win loss records to notice any significant difference between the two?
They've both won a Superbowl. But beyond that, are their career records very different?
I mean, if turnovers determine wins and losses, that should show up in the wins and losses, shouldn't it?
It could, but it also could be an indicator of their supporting casts. Are you denying that turnovers aren't a leading indicator towards W/L's?
The other factor is definitely coaching. How many times do we talk about a boneheaded McCarthy decision and how many times is Payton or Belichick making the same mistakes?
In sum, there are glaring reasons why I think Rodgers is better but interestingly, you don't think they matter (or atleast that's how your posts read).
This is a good post. Unlike baseball, where you can boil everything down to a number, that just isn't viable option in football. Circumstances play such an enormous role in the outcome. It's a variable that can tilt a career one way or another, sometimes significantly. So I think you always have to look at comparisons through that lens - albeit it is a subjective lens...
Brees is 30/14.
Brees turns the ball over twice as much. Don't get me wrong, Brees should be amongst the all time greats, but that's what differentiates him from Rodgers.
Yes and No, depending on the situation. For example, it always frustrates me when I see a QB on any team throw a check down at the end of a half or game instead of giving their WR's a chance to make a play.
I just think the throwaway of his efficiency is bullshit. Hes got 3 seasons with double digit INT's and his career high is 13. Is that really just taking sacks? How many times has Brees thrown under 10 INts in a season? Its 3 times, the same amount of times Rodgers was over.
That's simply a massive disparity.
At least 9 games. Atlanta is a guarantee road dome game. I think he has 11-12 this year alone.
Physically. Hes the most talented qb ever that is why
Has nothing to do with division as it relates to the Pats. They are beating the better teams outside of the division in the regular season and the playoffs.
Rodgers and Brees have both been in good spots to potentially win multiple titles but couldnt close the deal.
No doubt in my mind that AR wins just as many Supes, maybe more if hes lining up in TB12s place. Playing with Hoodie is a huge edge. Hes the smartest person in the game next to Ernie Adams, no doubt about it. Serious question, whens the last time you saw Belichick do something dumb? I guess sitting Butler in the Supe. But you look at the Pats and they just so rarely beat themselves.
No doubt in my mind that AR wins just as many Supes, maybe more if hes lining up in TB12s place. Playing with Hoodie is a huge edge. Hes the smartest person in the game next to Ernie Adams, no doubt about it. Serious question, whens the last time you saw Belichick do something dumb? I guess sitting Butler in the Supe. But you look at the Pats and they just so rarely beat themselves.
Ernie Adams reference...beautiful. Adams is smart but hes Belichicks bagman, his Geek Squad lead. And hes not one of the two smartest men in football. Its an insult to people like Reid, Ballard, Schneider, Dimitroff, etc.
I agree on ARod...its not a stretch to assume hed have a handful of rings playing for BB...
- Favre was backup QB for Falcons (1991)
- Favre did not make playoffs (1992)
- Favre lost to Dallas in divisional round (1993)
- Favre lost to Dallas in divisional round (1994)
- Favre lost to Dallas in championship game (1995)
- Favre won SB against Patriots (1996)
- Favre lost SB against Broncos (1997)
- Favre knocked out by 49ers after they finally got an RB (1998)
- Favre missed playoffs (1999)
- Favre missed playoffs (2000)
- Favre lost to Rams who won SB (2001)
- Favre lost to Falcons in wildcard round (2002)
- Favre lost to Eagles in divisional round (2003)
- Favre lost to Vikings in wildcard round (2004)
- Favre missed playoffs (2005)
- Favre missed playoffs (2006)
- Favre lost to Giants in championship game (2007)
- Jets (2008)
- Favre lost to Saints in championship game (2009)
- Favre missed playoffs and retired (2010)
Summary:
Cowboys had Packers number in early to mid 90s. Once Cowboys faded, Packers were able to get into back to back SBs going 1-1. 49ers had a last hurrah with Steve Young and took down Packers in 1998. Packers miss playoffs a few times. Then better Eagles teams took them down (Andy Reid used to coach in Green Bay).
The key question here is how good were the Packers really from 2002-2004?
Favre's last pass completion as a Packer was to a Giant.
Favre might have been robbed by officials vs. Saints in 2009.
As for Rodgers, he just faced good enough offenses and really good defenses:
2010 - Wins Super Bowl
2011 - Giants defense
2012 - 49ers offense
2013 - 49ers defense
** 2014 - Seahawks defense
2015 - Cardinals defense
2016 - Falcons offense
2017 - Missed playoffs
2011 - was maybe Favre's best statistical year throwing 46 TDs to 6 INTs. Team was maybe rusty coming off the bye. Giants were able to compete earlier so this game wasn't going to be easy either way.
2012 - This is the famous Kaepernick going off game. Niners were carried by the defense through Harbaugh era but this playoff run was all on Kaepernick.
2013 - Frozen tundra game. Niners win a defensive slugfest in Lambeau.
2014 - Packers choked a massive one here. Don't see Rodgers being at fault here despite throwing two picks. Seahawk most resilient defensive effort in entire Pete Carroll era.
2015 - Cardinals defense was violent and they had offense too. Still came down to a hail mary, then a quick walk off possession in OT via Fitzgerald.
2016 - Falcons just had unstoppable offense and enough defense to stymie Rodgers. Just could not compete.
2017 - Missed playoffs due to injury.
Rodgers lost to a lot of defenses from 2011-2016 that were the types that gave Brady problems (can get to you rushing 4). Patriots did not win one game against any of these teams from 2011-2012 (except Seahawks in SB that was very tight) and should have lost to Falcons in SB.
Rodgers IMO did his part elevating.
I see his career a lot like Steve Young's - supporting cast wasn't enough. In Rodgers case it was more defense and a bit RB....in Young's mostly RB and somewhat defense.
Overall:
Packers were rarely ever a top roster from 1992-2018. Just two really good QBs. Two QBs they lucked out on to boot (one a trade from Atlanta, the other lucky the 49ers didn't take at #1 and other teams for most of 1st round).
2008 - miss playoffs (Rodger's first year starting)
2009 - lose shootout to Cardinals in AZ. Rodgers strip sack led to walk off TD return.
Still, in 2009 it was the Saints year. Don't see Packers beating them that postseason.
Excuses aside, Brady is a better QB than Rodgers. Would Rodgers have won more with BB? Of course, and that is true of any QB of this era, but that doesn't change the fact that he is absolutely right about Brady being better at game management.
It's not even close.
They were a 12-4, 10-6, and 10-6, won the division all three years, and had the 11th and 12th ranked defense in two out of three of those years.
I don't remember exactly but the record and division wins indicate they were pretty good.
I know Adams's story. I just think this myth has been created about him because he's this behind the scenes, shadowy figure. He is a smart guy, but to call him one of the two smartest guys in the NFL is a ridiculous stretch...
Quote:
I don;t think he is just a bagman. He actually worked for the Giants and bought Belchick to the NYG. He is brilliant. Left the Giants and made a tone of money on Wall Street. Then he linked up with Belichek in NE. They say the guy he is talking to on the headset is usually Adams. I bet he has quite bit more in the grand scheme of things with him
I know Adams's story. I just think this myth has been created about him because he's this behind the scenes, shadowy figure. He is a smart guy, but to call him one of the two smartest guys in the NFL is a ridiculous stretch...
Ridiculous? You listed above that such a statement about Adams was insulting to people like Thomas Dimitroff. Can you walk me around me that one? What has Dimitroff got that Adams doesn't have in spades? Not even sure how is Dimitroff one of the best minds in football. Was Reese one of the best minds in football when he was winning here? Were you talking about Chris Ballard? You really think he's brighter than Adams? And Big Red is having another great run through the regular season - and no doubt he's a great mind in football - but - he's also well known around these parts for doing one fairly stupid thing per game.
Don't get me wrong bw - you throw up some good smart football people but I don't know that I'd take any one of them over Adams and I certainly wouldn't take any two of them over Belichick and Adams.
Also Rodgers over Favre. IMO easily.
Ridiculous? You listed above that such a statement about Adams was insulting to people like Thomas Dimitroff. Can you walk me around me that one? What has Dimitroff got that Adams doesn't have in spades? Not even sure how is Dimitroff one of the best minds in football. Was Reese one of the best minds in football when he was winning here? Were you talking about Chris Ballard? You really think he's brighter than Adams? And Big Red is having another great run through the regular season - and no doubt he's a great mind in football - but - he's also well known around these parts for doing one fairly stupid thing per game.
Don't get me wrong bw - you throw up some good smart football people but I don't know that I'd take any one of them over Adams and I certainly wouldn't take any two of them over Belichick and Adams.
When Adams is a GM or VP of Football Operations - where hes building a team, evaluating talent, managing the cap - or a coach - building a game plan, motivating, making adjustments, etc - then lets talk.
Until then, you really are making this enormous leap for a guy who has a niche role for the Pats. And that just doesnt equal this title of one of the two smartest men in the NFL...
Quote:
26 years of Favre then Rodgers & only 2 titles. It just seems like the Packers should have had more with those 2 guys.
- Favre was backup QB for Falcons (1991)
- Favre did not make playoffs (1992)
- Favre lost to Dallas in divisional round (1993)
- Favre lost to Dallas in divisional round (1994)
- Favre lost to Dallas in championship game (1995)
- Favre won SB against Patriots (1996)
- Favre lost SB against Broncos (1997)
- Favre knocked out by 49ers after they finally got an RB (1998)
- Favre missed playoffs (1999)
- Favre missed playoffs (2000)
- Favre lost to Rams who won SB (2001)
- Favre lost to Falcons in wildcard round (2002)
- Favre lost to Eagles in divisional round (2003)
- Favre lost to Vikings in wildcard round (2004)
- Favre missed playoffs (2005)
- Favre missed playoffs (2006)
- Favre lost to Giants in championship game (2007)
- Jets (2008)
- Favre lost to Saints in championship game (2009)
- Favre missed playoffs and retired (2010)
Summary:
Cowboys had Packers number in early to mid 90s. Once Cowboys faded, Packers were able to get into back to back SBs going 1-1. 49ers had a last hurrah with Steve Young and took down Packers in 1998. Packers miss playoffs a few times. Then better Eagles teams took them down (Andy Reid used to coach in Green Bay).
The key question here is how good were the Packers really from 2002-2004?
Favre's last pass completion as a Packer was to a Giant.
Favre might have been robbed by officials vs. Saints in 2009.
As for Rodgers, he just faced good enough offenses and really good defenses:
2010 - Wins Super Bowl
2011 - Giants defense
2012 - 49ers offense
2013 - 49ers defense
** 2014 - Seahawks defense
2015 - Cardinals defense
2016 - Falcons offense
2017 - Missed playoffs
2011 - was maybe Favre's best statistical year throwing 46 TDs to 6 INTs. Team was maybe rusty coming off the bye. Giants were able to compete earlier so this game wasn't going to be easy either way.
2012 - This is the famous Kaepernick going off game. Niners were carried by the defense through Harbaugh era but this playoff run was all on Kaepernick.
2013 - Frozen tundra game. Niners win a defensive slugfest in Lambeau.
2014 - Packers choked a massive one here. Don't see Rodgers being at fault here despite throwing two picks. Seahawk most resilient defensive effort in entire Pete Carroll era.
2015 - Cardinals defense was violent and they had offense too. Still came down to a hail mary, then a quick walk off possession in OT via Fitzgerald.
2016 - Falcons just had unstoppable offense and enough defense to stymie Rodgers. Just could not compete.
2017 - Missed playoffs due to injury.
Rodgers lost to a lot of defenses from 2011-2016 that were the types that gave Brady problems (can get to you rushing 4). Patriots did not win one game against any of these teams from 2011-2012 (except Seahawks in SB that was very tight) and should have lost to Falcons in SB.
Rodgers IMO did his part elevating.
I see his career a lot like Steve Young's - supporting cast wasn't enough. In Rodgers case it was more defense and a bit RB....in Young's mostly RB and somewhat defense.
Overall:
Packers were rarely ever a top roster from 1992-2018. Just two really good QBs. Two QBs they lucked out on to boot (one a trade from Atlanta, the other lucky the 49ers didn't take at #1 and other teams for most of 1st round).
Yeah, I think the only times the Packers had close to a complete team were in the late 90s and early 2010s when they won SBs. The best team of the Rodgers era was 2011 when they went 15-1 and got knocked out by the Giants. In the Favre era they had good teams after 1999 but not the best team
Only other players and coaches really know. They know how often that QB changes plays to something that worked perfectly (as just one example). How a QB does all of the other things on the field as a leader that cannot be measured.
If I can give one other example on the other site of the ball it would be Mike Singletary. Sure, he racked up the tackles but his true greatness came from the things that do not show up on the stat sheet.
Quote:
Ridiculous? You listed above that such a statement about Adams was insulting to people like Thomas Dimitroff. Can you walk me around me that one? What has Dimitroff got that Adams doesn't have in spades? Not even sure how is Dimitroff one of the best minds in football. Was Reese one of the best minds in football when he was winning here? Were you talking about Chris Ballard? You really think he's brighter than Adams? And Big Red is having another great run through the regular season - and no doubt he's a great mind in football - but - he's also well known around these parts for doing one fairly stupid thing per game.
Don't get me wrong bw - you throw up some good smart football people but I don't know that I'd take any one of them over Adams and I certainly wouldn't take any two of them over Belichick and Adams.
When Adams is a GM or VP of Football Operations - where hes building a team, evaluating talent, managing the cap - or a coach - building a game plan, motivating, making adjustments, etc - then lets talk.
Until then, you really are making this enormous leap for a guy who has a niche role for the Pats. And that just doesnt equal this title of one of the two smartest men in the NFL...
A niche roll? A bag man? *When* he coaches or builds a game plan? Serious question, are you sure you know who Adams is? Its so completely not leap to say hes one of the smartest people in football. You really think Belichick keeps him around for the fuck of it?
When is Belichick getting fired? Payton?
When is Belichick getting fired? Payton?
Guy has been coaching for over a decade and has a SB trophy. How many teams sign up for that?