What is Aaron Rodger's Legacy?

in the era pre-scorgasm NFL. And you know what? It's not fair of me to make that assumption that he couldn't and to hold it against him. He can only play in the era in which he played, and he's played great.

But Peyton and Brady DID play significant time in that era. So you can definitively make a comparison.

he won 3 Superbowls in BOTH eras. That's crazy.

one in each era.

Brady has been great over the course of two very different decades of landscape in the NFL.

Pardon my train of thought posting, I promise I'm not trying to have a conversation with myself.

line of thinking and for what purpose. We all know Rodgers had stats that are off the charts and a good bit of it has to do with the era he played in versus say a Bart Starr.

But its not like he not doing it anyway...indoor/outdoor, 2010 rules versus 2019 rules, regular season or playoffs.

both benefited from the rules changes a ton as well, arguably more than Rodgers.

Remember how the NFL completely changed defensive holding rules because Ty Law was all over Marvin Harrison and the Colts passing game fell apart? The Colts owner complained to the league and now you see the modern NFL. Because Peyton and Harrison couldn't handle "old school" conditions.

And as great as Tom Brady is. His #1 skill has been his ability to use the middle of the field on short passes. Guys like Edelman/Welker who make quick cuts who Brady hits with quick passes. Utilizing Gronk and Hernandez over the middle often. But those dink/dunk throws to the little WRs and donwfield throws in the middle of the field to TEs would not fly in the "old school" NFL where defenders could take the head off of defenseless receivers and get praised for it instead of penalized. Edelman/Welker/Gronk, these guys would get killed in the old days. Brees is another guy who heavily utilizes the middle of the field.

If anything, you could argue that Rodgers and his "backyard scramble to the sideline and make a ridiculous throw toward the sideline" style is the one whose game is least dependent on the era out of these 4 guys.

by the time of that rule change, so I'd argue that Peyton benefited more than Brady did.

But again, it's just an observation and just reflecting on what it even means to be all time anything in this sport.

In comment 14913142 Britt in VA said:

Quote:

So are we to think that he's just another once in a generation player, or a product of the era and systems designed to take advantage of the era. It's already been mentioned that part of Mahomes apparent greatness is the system in which he plays.

That system that he plays in is basically 1 of 2 in the NFL and still a big outlier (other being Jackson led Baltimore). Mahomes plays in an era where he's starting to separate himself from the rest. That's the point of what would make him great assuming he continues this way.

with current offenses. He's benefitted greatly.

but my point is... If the rules don't change, does Peyton ever even get one?

Brady already had three, and yeah he benefited, the year after the rules changed he threw 52 TD's and his team was 18-1.

But he was already winning championships before the rule change, so I don't think the benefit was equal.

Peyton appeared to NEED the rule change to get over the hump.

played a "part" in winning his 6 rings, I wouldn't say he won them all and certainly didn't win at-least a couple of them (and that's being nice). He has atleast 2 rings that came from dud performances.

Now that means he still has 3 or 4 that are 100% legit, but since we are digging in here i'm going to dig in on that as well.

This is now 100% what if territory but it is what it is. What if the rules didn't change? I don't know, maybe Brady doesn't win anymore, completely reasonable to think.

In comment 14913178 Britt in VA said:

Quote:

Peyton appeared to NEED the rule change to get over the hump.

That is not true, i'd say thats I giant leap. Just because he won after doesn't mean he needed it.

We are talking about a surgeon on the football field, he would have found a way.

but that was the perception held by a lot of people when it happened.

And I always thought it was disingenuous of Bill Polian, being both on the competition committee and the Colts GM to do that in the name of "giving the fans what they want" (for fantasy and excitement).

Because that very style of defensive play won the New York Giants a championship in 1990, fair and square.

was exactly how they played Peyton, and he couldn't beat it.

this argument doesn't hold much water for me. Seems more like a giant leap in logic than a simple "what if". Its basically changing how we have to look at every QB pre-post rule change which is a bit ridiculous.

doesn't mean he never could.

In comment 14913188 UConn4523 said:

Quote:

this argument doesn't hold much water for me. Seems more like a giant leap in logic than a simple "what if". Its basically changing how we have to look at every QB pre-post rule change which is a bit ridiculous.

Well, it's significant in the way the offense changed, isn't it?

And that's not even mentioning the proliferation of the spread offense into college and the NFL as a direct result of the rules change.

It changed EVERYTHING!

there were several more tweaks to the passing and passing defense rules post 2006 that further pushed the limits of completing passes and scoring, both in protections to QB's and protections of WR's.

Necessary, but it indeed changed things.

With CTE and the like, will we be soon be seeing a glorified flag football game out there? Will we compare those guys the same as guys that could get crushed, or hit in the head, or have their WR laid out in the open field diving for a pass?

Again, beyond the control of the players being discussed but still significant when comparing all time.

it sounds more and more like you are going to disqualify all future QB's from the discussion no matter what. Its like you put a hard stop at Brady's final year prior to the rule change.

If that's how you want to think about it then yeah, agree to disagree because I can't imagine continuing this discussion like that.

for 40-45% of a team's plays and when he's on the field relies on 10 other guys to do their jobs.

Their influence is larger than any other players, but they are still a minority factor of a team's success.

We watch them play, see how they handle the situations they are in, and hypothesize how they would do in other contexts and conditions. We look at their skill sets, see the range of their abilities, and debate futilely as fans.

But in evaluating who is better, rings is not something that sways me very much because everything non-QB related of an NFL team are far bigger contributors to championships than the QB portion.

but that it should be factored in when thinking about something over arching like all time.

I think it is much easier to play QB in the NFL (for those qualified, of course) than it was 15 years ago.

I factor that in when viewing all time. I don't think it's an insignificant thing.

Some players still rise above. Rodgers is one.

shouldn't part of your thinking and assessment be whether you think they can also do it in different eras? We are comparing QB's that played the game over the last 50 years - we are doing it already anyway.

Again, i don't mind playing by your rules on this but the rules have weird start/stop points. You only go so far to make your case but don't consider the rest.

is justify my own opinion (which was quickly dismissed and ridiculed even though I said the guy was a first ballot HOF with a statistically insane career), and try to make you (general) see where I was coming from. From beginning to end.

I think, at the very least, my point is understood now even if you don't agree with it.

At the risk of being a little nit picky -- the rule emphasis (not change) went into effect for the 2004 season, Brady had won two championships at the point.

The Colts got the brunt of the ire, but the Rams were very influential as well. Draping WRs was in part a reaction to the Martz era system. Mattz was a big voice in the debate.

If you take a look back at that Pats/Colts game, it's pretty ridiculous there wasn't a single call. Good on the Pats for playing it as it was called.

As is often the case, the pendulum swung too far. Passing was way down in the league. If teams took the cue from the Pats and mugging downfield, the game would have changed deeply in the other direction.

Personally I think the player safety rules have opened up offenses way more. Not fearing getting speared, blindsided, or targeted has been way more to offense's advantage.

In comment 14913220 christian said:

Quote:

At the risk of being a little nit picky -- the rule emphasis (not change) went into effect for the 2004 season, Brady had won two championships at the point. The Colts got the brunt of the ire, but the Rams were very influential as well. Draping WRs was in part a reaction to the Martz era system. Mattz was a big voice in the debate. If you take a look back at that Pats/Colts game, it's pretty ridiculous there wasn't a single call. Good on the Pats for playing it as it was called. As is often the case, the pendulum swung too far. Passing was way down in the league. If teams took the cue from the Pats and mugging downfield, the game would have changed deeply in the other direction. Personally I think the player safety rules have opened up offenses way more. Not fearing getting speared, blindsided, or targeted has been way more to offense's advantage.

Thanks for the clarification and I agree very much with the bolded.

that Pats/Colts hands rule was just the beginning of many tweaks that changed the landscape of offense in the NFL.

In comment 14913210 Britt in VA said:

Quote:

but that it should be factored in when thinking about something over arching like all time. I think it is much easier to play QB in the NFL (for those qualified, of course) than it was 15 years ago. I factor that in when viewing all time. I don't think it's an insignificant thing. Some players still rise above. Rodgers is one.

Is it necessarily easier to be a great QB though? Yes, they aren't beaten up the same way, and receivers can run free. So that's easier.
But aren't defensive players faster than ever? Aren't offensive linemen far less prepared and developed coming into the NFL than they used to be?

Even if it is "easier" to play the position, it's easier for everyone and so the expectations become greater and the competition is steeper.

Just because it's easier to do, doesn't necessarily mean it's easier to dominate or standout. It might even be harder to separate from the pack.

With numbers up across the board, the room for separation becomes tighter.

And isn't it possible that there are just more highly-talented guys at the QB position than ever before? With all the training, and the camps, and the academies, and the global increase in popularity of the sport? Plus, now there are a lot more QBs that are changing the game with both their legs and their arms, more so than in the past.

and the last sentence in the post of mine you quoted says I believe that.

the cream always rises to the top.

that’s been a big part of my argument. Since coming into the starting job his efficiency numbers have been so much better than anyone else’s by such a large margin that it almost seems fake.

In comment 14913219 Britt in VA said:

Quote:

is justify my own opinion (which was quickly dismissed and ridiculed even though I said the guy was a first ballot HOF with a statistically insane career), and try to make you (general) see where I was coming from. From beginning to end.

Now you want to play the hurt-card? You have been every which from Sunday on this thread with various opinions on Rodgers vs his peer group.

Your first opinion on Rodgers was ridiculed because you said he was really just too boring.

Then you moved onto that Rodgers didn't have any signature moments or "wow" plays. And asked other posters to show you some because you didn't believe it.

Then it was Rodgers was just only a stat champion even though he has consistently led his team to the playoffs, won a Superbowl and two league MVPs.

Then it was Favre was the better QB "anyday/everyday" of the week.

Now you seemed to have morphed this into his era and rule changes have benefited him. Why?...I am still not sure as most of his peers have played in the same environment too.

Apologies if we haven't kept up where you were coming from from beginning to end.

A simple post saying you think Rodgers is a great QB, a HOF, but you don't like him personally and never will would have covered it.

In comment 14913225 PaulBlakeTSU said:

Quote:

And isn't it possible that there are just more highly-talented guys at the QB position than ever before? With all the training, and the camps, and the academies, and the global increase in popularity of the sport? Plus, now there are a lot more QBs that are changing the game with both their legs and their arms, more so than in the past.

Totally agree with this.

Jimmy, your reputation preceeds you here and I should not have engaged with you from the beginning of this thread with the Eli bootlicker bullshit. So that was my bad.

As for the rest, I think I've strung together all the points you said I jumped around to and put a nice bow on them, one that everybody else seems to be able to understand even if they don't agree with it.

Sorry you struggled to follow along. Either that, or what figgy said earlier really applies mainly just to you. So whatever.

Rodgers to me, career-wise, is arguably in the conversation for all-time top 5-10, at worst 15, imv.

He has also been, again, career-wise inarguably better than Eli. That said, if the title is on the line, I’m going with Eli, or Starr, or Montana, or Brady.

In comment 14913247 Big Blue '56 said:

Quote:

Rodgers to me, career-wise, is arguably in the conversation for all-time top 5-10, at worst 15, imv. He has also been, again, career-wise inarguably better than Eli. That said, if the title is on the line, I’m going with Eli, or Starr, or Montana, or Brady.

Or Staubach.

he listed out what I wasn't willing to do. Just seems like there some different disqualifer every time we go down this road that conveniently only applies to Rodgers.

Which has been my argument the whole time. Don't care that you have him outside of your top 10, I just don't understand how you got there.

And I still don't even though I have no choice but to just accept it.

.

.

In comment 14913246 Britt in VA said:

Well it feels that way. You have already accused several on here of being bullies and now its ridiculed and dismissive. When none of that happened, as posters were responding to these odd takes as they don't align to Rodgers' career.

And you have also identified the wrong poster.

are any QBs remaing who you would call an old-school QB?

Anybody drafted post 2004 QB draft class of Eli/Ben/Rivers?

In comment 14913262 LBH15 said:

Quote:

In comment 14913246 Britt in VA said: Well it feels that way. You have already accused several on here of being bullies and now its ridiculed and dismissive. When none of that happened, as posters were responding to these odd takes as they don't align to Rodgers' career. And you have also identified the wrong poster.

Uhhh, yes. I was referring to you. Trying to dismiss my opinions several times early in this thread as just being another Eli bootlicker, trying to prop up Eli thread.

Which I think has been more than proven not to be the case.

Have a nice weekend, Googs.

In comment 14913248 Big Blue '56 said:

Quote:

In comment 14913247 Big Blue '56 said: Quote: Rodgers to me, career-wise, is arguably in the conversation for all-time top 5-10, at worst 15, imv. He has also been, again, career-wise inarguably better than Eli. That said, if the title is on the line, I’m going with Eli, or Starr, or Montana, or Brady. Or Staubach.

Or Unitas.

Interestingly, I think Rodgers would have risen more to the top of the generation with tighter defenses.

He's ultra accurate and of the great quarterbacks this generation, has the best wheels.

In comment 14913265 Britt in VA said:

Quote:

In comment 14913262 LBH15 said: Quote: In comment 14913246 Britt in VA said: Well it feels that way. You have already accused several on here of being bullies and now its ridiculed and dismissive. When none of that happened, as posters were responding to these odd takes as they don't align to Rodgers' career. And you have also identified the wrong poster. Uhhh, yes. I was referring to you. Trying to dismiss my opinions several times early in this thread as just being another Eli bootlicker, trying to prop up Eli thread. Which I think has been more than proven not to be the case. Have a nice weekend, Googs.

Oh yes...the Eli-connection I brought up as I didn't know where else to go with a poster who said Rodgers was just too boring. I meant the wrong id with Googs.

that is, if you are willing to accept data at all in this conversation
Passer Rating + - ( New Window )

In comment 14913258 UConn4523 said:

Quote:

he listed out what I wasn't willing to do. Just seems like there some different disqualifer every time we go down this road that conveniently only applies to Rodgers. Which has been my argument the whole time. Don't care that you have him outside of your top 10, I just don't understand how you got there. And I still don't even though I have no choice but to just accept it.

I guess just look for the post with the "nice bow" on it.

Jacket.

In comment 14913264 Osi Osi Osi OyOyOy said:

Quote:

are any QBs remaing who you would call an old-school QB? Anybody drafted post 2004 QB draft class of Eli/Ben/Rivers?

Good question, I will end the week on this. If you mean the prototypical big bodied, big arm, able to read defenses, take snaps under center, etc....

The the answer is... Not really. Aside a couple of outliers like Matt Ryan, lesser extent Matthew Stafford, and last but not least Andrew Luck... That was it.

Reason why being, they just weren't making em' like that anymore. Or at least coaching them like that, probably better stated. The spread was already infiltrating the high school programs at that point, and teams were moving towards speed and putting the best athlete at QB vs. that style QB. The big bodied kids that might have been groomed at QB were being moved to tackles and guards and TE's. I know, because i was coaching high school football at that time. By the late part of the 2000's, the spread was in college. By 2015, it was making it's way into most NFL playbooks as well. It was a natural evolution that started in the beginning of the 2000's.

So post 2004? No, I think those guys were a dying breed. I don't know if that will ever return. Judging by the way the game is going now, I doubt it.

Have a nice weekend everybody.