Obviously, his career isn't over. (Although, he does seem on the decline.) So, things may change, but if his career ended today, what would Rodger's legacy be?
It seems like he's been riding the top spot at QB for a decade now and still only has one ring to show for it. Has he underachieved or was he overrated?
He's the lifetime passer rating champ. He won 2 league MVPs, a Bert Bell Award, made 8 pro bowls and two all pro teams. In 12 years as a starter his team has only missed the playoffs 3 times. He's only thrown more than 10 interceptions in a season twice in his career. 47,000 passing yards, 364 TD, 84 INT, 3,000 rushing yards, 28 RushTD
At the same time, he only has one ring. Same as Joe Flacco. Obviously, very different players, but in terms of success...
Where do you place him all time? It seemed like he was destined to be one of if not the best ever. But winning matters. It seems like Brady is the GOAT by far now. Where does that leave Rodgers? Is he even a top 5 QB of all time?
I think he is overrated and has underachieved. Many pen him as the most talented QB in the game. It surely has not amounted to the results on the field in the playoffs. I don’t like his attitude and leadership skills at the QB position, but I’ve also had Eli to root for the past decade and a half
Most efficient QB in the history of the NFL with peak MVP seasons up there worth the best of him and a Ring and all that gets you is “very good”.
Haha.
I believe, if not for the latter, he has probably 3 rings.
He doesn't help his cause by coming across as a dick of a teammate.
But his attitude and his coaches (Especially McCarthy) have held him back from winning more.
A Career TD:INT ration of 1.33 vs 4.33.
For me he's in the top 5 - Brady, Manning, Montana, Marino, Rodgers
I have no opinion on the outside noise surrounding his career. Why hasn't he won more? Winning a Super Bowl is not easy...
Well, Brees only has 1 and has had the far far far better coach and support system throughout his career.
Elway got both of his on the coat tails of Terrell Davis.
Peyton Manning got his final ring because that defense played out of their minds that season + playoffs.
We can "what if" this to death but the top QB's of all time other than Brady and Montana don't have a ton of hardware. It isn't easy.
I think Rodgers is a dick, as are many professional athletes. On the field, he had one major flaw and it seemed to creep up more in recent years-- that he would hold on to the ball a bit too long looking for a home run.
But overall, he was the prototype-- as complete a quarterback as I've ever seen. He could make all the throws from the pocket or on the run, had a quick release, is mobile, and seemed to pull throws out of his ass.
I have always maintained that Peyton is the best QB I've ever seen play. But there were flashes where I've questioned whether Rodgers, at his best, even exceeded that.
I can't prove this-- but there are certain QBs that give me the feeling that no matter what team they were drafted to, which coach they were molded by, or which system was in place, that they could go to any situation and his teammates would just start playing better by virtue of him at the helm. They had a high level version of the "it" factor and their teams would always be competitive. -- him, Peyton, Russell, Luck, Brees, Brady (though Brady took a longer time for me to feel that way, despite being the greatest winner of them all).
Mahomes has started to show over the last two years some legendary performance from the QB position. But I still need time to see how much of that might be coming into a great Andy Reid system with really strong talent around him on the line and at skill positions.
2 SBs cannot be pooh-poohed as lightning striking. It’s hard as fuck to get there and then perform at such a high level..
Oh, and he still has plenty left in the tank.
Apologies...what’s the question?
I understand that this is a thread about Legacy and Rodgers' demeanor is certainly a part of his story, but I don't think that should undermine what he's accomplished which is what I often see in Rodgers threads.
I understand that this is a thread about Legacy and Rodgers' demeanor is certainly a part of his story, but I don't think that should undermine what he's accomplished which is what I often see in Rodgers threads.
Nobody is undermining what he’s accomplished. But they are looking at it realistically. He is a sure fire HOFer and almost certainly a top 10 QB
Take out his Super Bowl season and he has a 6-8 record in the playoffs. He had a lot of top teams too that bowed out way too early, often losing at home to inferior teams in Lambeau with it’s supposed home field advantage. They were 15-1 when they got crushed by the Giants.
If I’m putting him in my top 5, I need to see him do more with what he had in the playoffs.
And then his bu
The underlying point goes to some of themes in this thread
So no, i'm not doing that. He's 11-8 in the playoffs with with 5,000 yards and almost maintains his 4:1 TD to INT ratio that he's always had. In his Superbowl win he posted a 300/3/0 stat line and in the 2010 playoffs as a whole - 1100/9/2 with 2 additional rushing TDs.
Come on man.
So no, i'm not doing that. He's 11-8 in the playoffs with with 5,000 yards and almost maintains his 4:1 TD to INT ratio that he's always had. In his Superbowl win he posted a 300/3/0 stat line and in the 2010 playoffs as a whole - 1100/9/2 with 2 additional rushing TDs.
Come on man.
Good post
While I wouldn’t put Rodgers at the level of a Mayfield in that sense, he is closer to a Mayfield than an Eli IMO, and it is legitimate to question whether that his makeup is part of the reason for why they have underachieved in the playoffs.
He may be one of the (if not the) most talented QBs to ever play. But it takes more than talent to win in the playoffs.
As far as Rings .... not at the elite level (meaning more than 1)
Big Games ... some great wins in the playoffs, likely remembered more for the bad ones (Seattle, 49ers, etc)
Wins ... Guy is a winner and competitor at an elite level
When its all said and done, I think Rodgers (and Brees) will be remembered as Hall of Fame level players who ultimately should have won more titles
Tom Brady threw for 5235 yards, 39 TDs, 65.6 comp%, and led the Pats to a 13-3 record and the 3rd best offense in the league
Rodgers won the league MVP with 48/50 votes and was 1st team All-Pro QB with 47.5/50 votes, Brees picking up the remaining votes
2011 was the best regular season of Drew Brees' career and one of the top 5 of Brady's, and yet everybody kind of came to the conclusion that Aaron Rodgers was CLEARLY better than them in that season. That's how good Aaron Rodgers at his best felt. His combination of throwing power and accuracy, both in the pocket and on the run, was unfair.
His 2010 playoff run is the best sustained stretch of QB playoff play I've personally ever seen. The stats don't do it justice. His game against the Falcons in the Divisional Round that year is maybe the best game I've ever seen a QB play. And then he was excellent against a dominant Steelers defense in the Super Bowl. He wasn't along for the ride during that Super Bowl, he was the ride.
Having one of the best playoff runs ('10) and regular seasons ('11) I've seen from a QB, I'll always have Aaron Rodgers very high on my list. Peak Aaron Rodgers during those years might be the best QB ever in my book.
Injuries and lack of playoff success since '10 have hurt him. But the Packers were never built as well as the Saints or Pats or even the Colts when Peyton was there, Rodgers just made it work. Even the last two years where people say he's declined, he's thrown 51 TDs and 6 INTs over his last 32 games.
I do think one fair knock on him is that he's too conservative. Like I said, 51 TDs and 6 INTs these last two years but if he was a little more aggressive his offenses could've been better even if his TD:INT ratio wasn't quite as pristine.
Overall, I rank him only below Brady and Peyton among QBs of the last 20 years. Ahead of Brees. I think historically Steve Young is probably the most similar type of QB, GOAT stats but not quite in the GOAT convo due to longevity/durability/good but not great playoff success.
Is he douche? Yes. But at the same time if you've followed the stories, his family and especially his brother are annoying as fuck too. Some people have issues with family, since I don't know any of the details it's not my place to call Rodgers an asshole for not wanting to talk to his family. And Rodgers being a douche makes him far from the only great QB to be one. Peyton sexually assaulted a trainer in college and was a whiny loser for most of his career throwing teammates under the bus. Dan Marino was a notorious piece of shit party animal in Miami. The list goes on. Rodgers being a douche doesn't mean anything to me when it comes to his place all-time.
So no, i'm not doing that. He's 11-8 in the playoffs with with 5,000 yards and almost maintains his 4:1 TD to INT ratio that he's always had. In his Superbowl win he posted a 300/3/0 stat line and in the 2010 playoffs as a whole - 1100/9/2 with 2 additional rushing TDs.
Come on man.
He gets all the credit in the world for the SB. Taking that out was merely to illustrate his underachievement in the rest of his playoff career.
That said, taking out his SB season to evaluate his playoff performance doesn't seem right. And when you look at his playoff record, three seasons he was eliminated in overtime without even touching the ball in OT!
Source
In that third loss described in the article, he had 4th and 20 in his endzone, and in 2 plays, scored a TD to tie it up. In overtime, Packers won the toss but the coin didn't flip. Re-toss, Arizona wins, and then on the first play of overtime, they get a 75 yard completion to Fitzgerald (breakdown of that game here)
His playoff record is spotty. If he was truly great he would have more than one ring. Great QB and very accurate passer that was also kind of a douche will be his legacy.
The underlying point goes to some of themes in this thread
Is this for real? Who cares if no one was a 1st rounder. The 2011 team that went 15-1 had Jordy Nelson, Greg Jennings, James Jones, Donald Driver, and Randall Cobb at WR, as well as a prime Jermichael Finley at TE. Nelson, Cobb, and Jennings were 2nd rounders. Finley and Jones were 3rd
As Osi points out above the Colts, Pats and Saints have all been more talented and better run and the Pats + Saints for sure had better coaching.
Best part is his career isn't over. He was just int he NFCC game losing to an elite defense and pretty damn good offense. It happens.
That said, taking out his SB season to evaluate his playoff performance doesn't seem right. And when you look at his playoff record, three seasons he was eliminated in overtime without even touching the ball in OT!
Quote:
Well, like everything in football, there is no one singular reason for Aaron Rodgers’ OT woes, though the playoff ones can easily be explained. In those three playoff losses, Rodgers never touched the ball in overtime. Ever. In that wild 51-45 wild-card loss to Arizona in 2009, Rodgers led Green Bay to a game-tying TD on his final drive, then never went out on offense again (except for one kneel down play at the end of regulation.) In last year’s NFC championship loss to the Seahawks, Rodgers drove the Packers 58 yards in one minute, got a game-tying field goal with 19 seconds left and the Packers lost on a Seattle touchdown on the opening drive of overtime. And then on Sunday, of course, Rodgers threw a Hail Mary on the final play of regulation, lost not one, but two coin tosses and saw his playoff hopes dashed after three plays.
Source
In that third loss described in the article, he had 4th and 20 in his endzone, and in 2 plays, scored a TD to tie it up. In overtime, Packers won the toss but the coin didn't flip. Re-toss, Arizona wins, and then on the first play of overtime, they get a 75 yard completion to Fitzgerald (breakdown of that game here)
Again, nobody is taking out his SB to evaluate his career. It’s not that hard to comprehend. The point was that in all his other seasons, he had a losing record in the playoffs with some very good teams.
Elway had 0 such Super Bowls
Peyton has 0 such Super Bowls
Although Peyton deserves credit for the New England comeback, that was a Bob Sanders + Colts D led Super Bowl. And Elway rode Terrell Davis to his rings.
So while 2 > 1, I think Rodgers' 1 means a lot more than most.
Quote:
Aaron Rodgers has thrown over 360 touchdowns, and only ONE has ever gone to a first round pick.
The underlying point goes to some of themes in this thread
Is this for real? Who cares if no one was a 1st rounder. The 2011 team that went 15-1 had Jordy Nelson, Greg Jennings, James Jones, Donald Driver, and Randall Cobb at WR, as well as a prime Jermichael Finley at TE. Nelson, Cobb, and Jennings were 2nd rounders. Finley and Jones were 3rd
yeah its for real. The Packers never invested in 1st round weapons for him outside of Jordy that was a high 2nd I believe. How can that not be factored in? And the running game? Haha.
Quote:
Aaron Rodgers has thrown over 360 touchdowns, and only ONE has ever gone to a first round pick.
The underlying point goes to some of themes in this thread
Is this for real? Who cares if no one was a 1st rounder. The 2011 team that went 15-1 had Jordy Nelson, Greg Jennings, James Jones, Donald Driver, and Randall Cobb at WR, as well as a prime Jermichael Finley at TE. Nelson, Cobb, and Jennings were 2nd rounders. Finley and Jones were 3rd
I found it interesting. Not suggesting he hasn’t had very good targets to work with but much of this thread is talking about the fine line difference of one Super Bowl versus multiple...maybe Green Bay’s investments around Rodgers could have been amplified and that would have made up some. Maybe...maybe not.
Lots of receivers in this past draft and they go out and trade up for a QB. Thanks so much.
Is this for real? Who cares if no one was a 1st rounder. The 2011 team that went 15-1 had Jordy Nelson, Greg Jennings, James Jones, Donald Driver, and Randall Cobb at WR, as well as a prime Jermichael Finley at TE. Nelson, Cobb, and Jennings were 2nd rounders. Finley and Jones were 3rd
I think you're overrating some of these guys. Jermichael Finley? Nice player, but hardly an all pro. Driver was at the end of his career, Jones and Cobb are the very definition of JAG's, Nelson and Jennings were very good.
Brett Favre won one SB, with arguably better surrounding casts, and a far better coach early in his career. Rodgers has played most of his career with ordinary WR's, little running games, and shitty D's. Gee, I wonder why he didn't win more?
So amazing QB with the stats and longevity and no hardware = better than the guy with better stats and the hardware?
Just admit you don't like the guy, and that's fine if you don't. But you don't have any solid reasons not to consider him one of the best ever especially when you put a Marino in your top 5 despite him having all the playoff short comings you claim Rodgers does.
Quote:
In comment 14911459 LBH15 said:
Quote:
Aaron Rodgers has thrown over 360 touchdowns, and only ONE has ever gone to a first round pick.
The underlying point goes to some of themes in this thread
Is this for real? Who cares if no one was a 1st rounder. The 2011 team that went 15-1 had Jordy Nelson, Greg Jennings, James Jones, Donald Driver, and Randall Cobb at WR, as well as a prime Jermichael Finley at TE. Nelson, Cobb, and Jennings were 2nd rounders. Finley and Jones were 3rd
yeah its for real. The Packers never invested in 1st round weapons for him outside of Jordy that was a high 2nd I believe. How can that not be factored in? And the running game? Haha.
Such a meaningless stat. The Packers are a well run organization over the years. Since they drafted Sterling Sharpe in 1988, they have gone WR once in the 1st. Javon Walker in 2002.
It is smarter generally IMO to get WRs in the 2nd and 3rd. The Packers have generally built up the defense with their first round picks since Rodgers. Until drafting Love this year, they have gone D 12 times and OL twice.
And as pointed above what the reward for carrying the team to the NFCC game? Ohh yeah, a 1st round investment in a QB. Really going all out to win in 2020, but hey atleast their strategy is consistent.
But more than that, looking at his other playoff seasons only reduces the sample size and leaves a lot more room for variance. That's why I pointed out that in three playoff overtime losses, he never even touched the ball in overtime. Think about that-- nearly half of all of his playoff losses and times his team bowed out early happened in OT where he never even touched the ball
And yet, even in those those "early exit" non-SB winning seasons, his numbers are off the charts.
Even if you removed his SB run, in 14 playoff games where "he" went 6-8, he was 335 for 529, for 3933 yards, 31 TDs, and 10 INTs. As much as I hate passer rating, it's 97.49.
For comparison, in Brady's SB WINNING playoff runs, in 18 games, he was 461 for 706, for 4962 yards, 30 TDs, and 13 INTs. Passer rating: 92.27
If you extrapolate Rodgers 14 non-SB winning playoff runs to 18 games, it's 431 for 680, 5057 yards, 40 TDs, 13 INTs. And his record extrapolated would be 8-10. Again, compare that to where Brady went 18-0.
So amazing QB with the stats and longevity and no hardware = better than the guy with better stats and the hardware?
Just admit you don't like the guy, and that's fine if you don't. But you don't have any solid reasons not to consider him one of the best ever especially when you put a Marino in your top 5 despite him having all the playoff short comings you claim Rodgers does.
Dan Marino didn’t have near the talent around him that Rodgers did. He is at about 6 or 7 of QBs I’ve seen. Just googling an NFL.com ranking of all time QBs, they have Rodgers at 10, behind Elway, Marino, Brees, Peyton, Montana, and Brady. I don’t like Rodgers, but I can still acknowledge he’s one of the top QBs all time. My opinion that he is 6 or 7 is hardly out of line with some experts
Again it’s not everything...but it’s not nothing.
Come on guys, be objective, be smarter. While Eli is good enough for HOF consideration (if you want to say he's in, I have no argument), he is not in Rodger's stratosphere. Not in talent or production.
But more than that, looking at his other playoff seasons only reduces the sample size and leaves a lot more room for variance. That's why I pointed out that in three playoff overtime losses, he never even touched the ball in overtime. Think about that-- nearly half of all of his playoff losses and times his team bowed out early happened in OT where he never even touched the ball
And yet, even in those those "early exit" non-SB winning seasons, his numbers are off the charts.
Even if you removed his SB run, in 14 playoff games where "he" went 6-8, he was 335 for 529, for 3933 yards, 31 TDs, and 10 INTs. As much as I hate passer rating, it's 97.49.
For comparison, in Brady's SB WINNING playoff runs, in 18 games, he was 461 for 706, for 4962 yards, 30 TDs, and 13 INTs. Passer rating: 92.27
If you extrapolate Rodgers 14 non-SB winning playoff runs to 18 games, it's 431 for 680, 5057 yards, 40 TDs, 13 INTs. And his record extrapolated would be 8-10. Again, compare that to where Brady went 18-0.
It wasn’t casual dismissal. You are misinterpreting that. It is my opinion that he should have more playoff success based on his talent and the talent level of the teams he has played with
You just don’t seem to be rating them on the same playing field, that’s my issue. And I think that’s because you don’t like him.
I remember looking into this a while ago, but when he had Nelson, Jennings, and Driver, Rodgers had a 3 or 4 year stretch where his starting WRs collectively only missed like 5 or 6 total games. That's remarkable.
I remember writing about this back when the Eli and the Giants had an injury carousel of Smith, Nicks, Cruz, and Manningham
Bingo.
Such a meaningless stat. The Packers are a well run organization over the years. Since they drafted Sterling Sharpe in 1988, they have gone WR once in the 1st. Javon Walker in 2002.
It is smarter generally IMO to get WRs in the 2nd and 3rd. The Packers have generally built up the defense with their first round picks since Rodgers. Until drafting Love this year, they have gone D 12 times and OL twice.
"The Packers have built up the defense"
Defensive Rank in Points Allowed
2008: 22nd
2009: 7th (lost 45-51 in playoffs to Cardinals)
2010: 2nd (Super Bowl Champion)
2011: 19th
2012: 11th
2013: 24th
2014: 13th
2015: 12th
2016: 21st
2017: 26th
2018: 22nd
2019: 9th (lost in NFC Champ Game)
So the Packers didn't just do a bad job of surrounding him with offensive talent, they did a bad job of surrounding him with a good defense. Only 3 times were they top 10, and he wins a Super Bowl the one year he has an elite defense.
This has him 16th: https://www.google.com/amp/s/clutchpoints.com/ranking-the-20-greatest-nfl-quarterbacks-of-all-time/amp/
This has him 14th:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/ftw.usatoday.com/2019/09/nfl-100-best-quarterbacks/amp
The first three articles I find have him ranked significantly lower than I do.
Rodgers is a better QB than Eli. I have never said otherwise.
Quote:
Such a meaningless stat. The Packers are a well run organization over the years. Since they drafted Sterling Sharpe in 1988, they have gone WR once in the 1st. Javon Walker in 2002.
It is smarter generally IMO to get WRs in the 2nd and 3rd. The Packers have generally built up the defense with their first round picks since Rodgers. Until drafting Love this year, they have gone D 12 times and OL twice.
"The Packers have built up the defense"
Defensive Rank in Points Allowed
2008: 22nd
2009: 7th (lost 45-51 in playoffs to Cardinals)
2010: 2nd (Super Bowl Champion)
2011: 19th
2012: 11th
2013: 24th
2014: 13th
2015: 12th
2016: 21st
2017: 26th
2018: 22nd
2019: 9th (lost in NFC Champ Game)
So the Packers didn't just do a bad job of surrounding him with offensive talent, they did a bad job of surrounding him with a good defense. Only 3 times were they top 10, and he wins a Super Bowl the one year he has an elite defense.
The Packers were a high scoring team. Those rankings are pretty decent considering the Packers were not a run-oriented, ball control team on offense
Come on guys, be objective, be smarter. While Eli is good enough for HOF consideration (if you want to say he's in, I have no argument), he is not in Rodger's stratosphere. Not in talent or production.
I can’t speak for others, but as I opined above, I would take Eli in his PRIME over Rodgers in his PRIME, with a title on the line. I also said that career-wise Rodgers has clearly been the better overall QB. A first ballot lock.
This has him 16th: https://www.google.com/amp/s/clutchpoints.com/ranking-the-20-greatest-nfl-quarterbacks-of-all-time/amp/
This has him 14th:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/ftw.usatoday.com/2019/09/nfl-100-best-quarterbacks/amp
The first three articles I find have him ranked significantly lower than I do.
You are doing everything you can to justify your reasoning which isn't all that sound and isn't consistent. And some of those sentiments are echoed in the links you posted. Biased writers who aren't scoring things equally.
With that said, I would like to have seen more hardware. He's probably one of the most talented QBs in his generation. I wished the front office and the coaching staff got on the same page more, even now.
got it.
Im forever grateful for the 2 magical runs, but good lord, they aren't close to the same kind of player.
Quote:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nfl.com/_amp/top-25-quarterbacks-of-all-time-patriots-tom-brady-leads-list-0ap3000001035041
This has him 16th: https://www.google.com/amp/s/clutchpoints.com/ranking-the-20-greatest-nfl-quarterbacks-of-all-time/amp/
This has him 14th:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/ftw.usatoday.com/2019/09/nfl-100-best-quarterbacks/amp
The first three articles I find have him ranked significantly lower than I do.
You are doing everything you can to justify your reasoning which isn't all that sound and isn't consistent. And some of those sentiments are echoed in the links you posted. Biased writers who aren't scoring things equally.
Lol. Everyone who disagrees with you is biased. I have him at what 6? Hardly a slight against him. If he had achieved another title, he would be higher. It is not because titles are the be-all, end-all. I don’t put Eli above Rodgers or Marino or Brees, because he has two titles. However, I do think Rodgers has largely underachieved in the playoffs based on his talent and the talent of some of the teams he had. I had Brady, Peyton, Montana, Elway, and Marino ahead of him.
Im forever grateful for the 2 magical runs, but good lord, they aren't close to the same kind of player.
Rodgers was magnificent, but I still take pre-toast Eli over Rodgers if I had one game to runs. Oh and btw? Speaking of two magical runs, there is no “one magical run” by Rodgers if we hold on to a 31-10 lead over the Eagles with 7 1/2 minutes to play inthe game.
got it.
He is a surefire HOFer and most certainly a top 10 QB. I think he is overrated because I hear him lauded as higher than I see him. Honestly, after seeing some of the rankings of others that I posted, he seems underrated by many as well. I was surprised to see him that low. Maybe my perception of where he was viewed all time was skewed, and so if experts are viewing him in the 10-15 range, then obviously those experts are under rating him IMO.
Yes, I do think he had underachieved in the playoffs based on his talent, and where I would expect his teams to finish.
Quote:
and an all-time top 10 QB, but is overrated and underachieved.
got it.
He is a surefire HOFer and most certainly a top 10 QB. I think he is overrated because I hear him lauded as higher than I see him. Honestly, after seeing some of the rankings of others that I posted, he seems underrated by many as well. I was surprised to see him that low. Maybe my perception of where he was viewed all time was skewed, and so if experts are viewing him in the 10-15 range, then obviously those experts are under rating him IMO.
Yes, I do think he had underachieved in the playoffs based on his talent, and where I would expect his teams to finish.
He hasn’t underachieved whatsoever in the playoffs. Posters above gave you his stats, QB rating and the fact his team was eliminated 3 times in OT without him touching the ball.
I don't get the dislike for him here. He's a lot of fun to watch when he's not playing the Giants.
Nobody said that, did they?
I don't think anyone that disagrees with me is biased. I see how/why the disagree and much like you are doing, are creating an argument that you aren't applying equally across those that you are ranking.
I've explained this countless times on this thread and you've done nothing to prove otherwise.
Quote:
In comment 14911556 LBH15 said:
Quote:
and an all-time top 10 QB, but is overrated and underachieved.
got it.
He is a surefire HOFer and most certainly a top 10 QB. I think he is overrated because I hear him lauded as higher than I see him. Honestly, after seeing some of the rankings of others that I posted, he seems underrated by many as well. I was surprised to see him that low. Maybe my perception of where he was viewed all time was skewed, and so if experts are viewing him in the 10-15 range, then obviously those experts are under rating him IMO.
Yes, I do think he had underachieved in the playoffs based on his talent, and where I would expect his teams to finish.
He hasn’t underachieved whatsoever in the playoffs. Posters above gave you his stats, QB rating and the fact his team was eliminated 3 times in OT without him touching the ball.
So, a 15-1 team getting crushed at home while not even making the Super Bowl is not underachieving? We will have to agree to disagree on that. He didn’t touch the ball in overtime in some games, but did he touch the ball in regulation to make sure they didn’t go to OT? Again, based on his talent and his teams, I would expect better results overall in the playoffs
Please go to the same lengths to pick apart Marino and Elway's post season careers. Add Drew Brees to that list. Ohh, and add in Peyton, he's had some duds with elite teams.
I don't think anyone that disagrees with me is biased. I see how/why the disagree and much like you are doing, are creating an argument that you aren't applying equally across those that you are ranking.
I've explained this countless times on this thread and you've done nothing to prove otherwise.
My criteria is simply which QB would I take if I am starting a franchise. It’s hard to do and that’s why there are varying opinions. I don’t have titles as the be-all, end-all. But I do take the playoffs into consideration as to how they do in big games.
For example, I don’t have Eli close to Rodgers. If I get to the big game, I might. But Eli wasn’t close to a Rodgers to even get me there in the first place.
In my opinion, when you talk about the all-time greats in my lifetime in Rodgers, Brady, Brees, Montana, Brady, Peyton, Elway, his underachievement in the playoffs separates him.
The original question was whether Rodgers was in the top 5. IMO he wasn’t, because I can think of 5 QBs I would rather take. If the question was if he was top 10, then I would say most certainly, as he is about at 6 of the QBs as I would rank them, and I can’t imagine there being 4 better QBs from before my time, as it was a completely different game back then anyway.
We will just conclude that, in your view, Rodgers is an all-time great who should have done more. And Eli should have done less.
As far as the off the field stuff, he's a diva but a lot of great players can be divas. Scottie Pippen still refuses to admit sitting out on a final play that wasn't called for him was a mistake. Rodgers has been a hard player to coach but there are still 32 coaches + 32 GMs who would go back and draft him at any pick they could if they had the chance.
As far as the off the field stuff, he's a diva but a lot of great players can be divas. Scottie Pippen still refuses to admit sitting out on a final play that wasn't called for him was a mistake. Rodgers has been a hard player to coach but there are still 32 coaches + 32 GMs who would go back and draft him at any pick they could if they had the chance.
What? from 2008 through 2019 he played had 2 seasons where he missed significant time. In 2 others he played 15 games, the rest all 16.
The guy is a sure fire HOFer, dooshbag or not.
Aaron Rodgers stats - ( New Window )
Rodgers is not allowed to ever be blamed for his team's failure to get the hardware. Every season excuse after excuse is marshaled for him, like fucking clockwork. This is how it is for some players. Others get the opposite treatment. When this amazing player and his team falls short in big games, it is always something besides his play which will be focused on.
In the 2010 title run, the Pack defense beat the third string Bears QB in the title game, I believe the winning score was a D lineman pick six? Fumble? Rodgers was carried to this victory in the NFC title game. This is not a knock, just the truth. Team sport.
Personally, I don't hold winning only one title against him. It is some rarefied air to be a QB that leads his team twice to the promised land by cutting through the NFL's best each time.
Pack invested in rookie QB, interesting.
He's a clinical technician, throws an extremely accurate ball, and is able to move the pocket with his legs. Yet, he's just a boring player to watch for me, though. I can't think of any really big, historical type games that I remember him starring in, like I do for some other QB's.
But it's true, his teams are always in the playoffs. He's probably the main reason for it.
But still, don't know why, that's just how I feel. It's almost like he's a WAY better version of Tony Romo, yet Romo was more fun to watch. I know that's a strange take.
Please go to the same lengths to pick apart Marino and Elway's post season careers. Add Drew Brees to that list. Ohh, and add in Peyton, he's had some duds with elite teams.
On the other hand, I could ask you to go to the same lengths to discredit some of those players teammates (FYI I have Rodgers above Brees), as you guys have gone to discredit Rodgers’ teammates. I saw no defensive breakdown rankings of the Broncos, Colts, Dolphins, or Saints. I saw no one trying to downplay a WR core of Jennings, Nelson, Driver, Jones, and Cobb because none of them was picked in the first round.
The question again was in he top 5. I have him 6 of what I’ve seen. It’s hardly a huge difference. If you have him at 4 or 5, so be it. It’s a matter of opinion, Obviously a lot of experts have him ranked a lot lower than I do.
Rodgers being a dick also overshadows the good he's done outside of football, something i never see talked about. His time/money investment in cancer research and in the Wisconsin communities should be discussed more.
The Eli-sentiments really cloud things up for some on here.
Many of the posts above compare Rodgers vs. his peers. Osi's post is a great breakdown of his playoff success vs the rest.
But what's your point, that all the other QB's had poor roster construction too?
The Eli-sentiments really cloud things up for some on here.
It's a personal opinion, and not based on Eli in the slightest. I actually compared him to Romo, so don't make up arguments that don't exist.
That's not a type of football I find exciting. I find it fairly boring.
I gave him credit where it was due, but I do not find him, or the Packers, all that exciting to watch.
The only difference is that people also love to praise toughness and Favre was the ultimate iron man so that sort of become his dominant storyline. More people talk about his toughness than how he used to break his receivers fingers with his arm strength.
What legendary Packers games to you see replayed that Rodgers QB'd? Even his Superbowl game never really gets replayed, and frankly, I don't even remember that much about it.
That's my point. If you put down the pitchfork, you might see it.
Boring to watch? Unreal. I don't like LeBron James but he's certainly not boring.
Exactly.
Was scrolling for it...here it is
What's his... "moment" so to say? I can think of a lot of QB's, even non-HOF ones, that have one.... But Rodgers does not come to mind very often, if at all.
Let’s not carry this further as it may be more ridiculous than saying the #6 all-time QB underachieved.
We need ESPN replays to verify greatness? Haha.
Quote:
Gay scene?
Was scrolling for it...here it is
LOL...Yeah I couldn't believe no one else used it
He's a statistical champion and HOF'er.
That's what he will be remembered for, IMO, his gaudy stats.
He's a statistical champion and HOF'er.
That's what he will be remembered for, IMO, his gaudy stats.
I said he underachieved in the playoffs. And I stand by that. IMO, he should have more than 1 SB with the talent he has, and the team he was surrounded with. Some are so all over his nuts like he is the greatest QB to ever play, but get all pissed off when you question him winning only a single SB.
Oh, that's right. The Packers GM waited to draft Pro Bowl WRs in the 2nd round.
Before he won a championship, and for some time after if I remember correctly, he was considered to be a stat padder. He would hold onto the ball too long, or take a sack, to avoid throwing the ball away.
Bored - ( New Window )
An the all-time great clutch throw.
Your bizarre take is either flailing bias or ignorance. It's certainly not rooted in reality.
Before he won a championship, and for some time after if I remember correctly, he was considered to be a stat padder. He would hold onto the ball too long, or take a sack, to avoid throwing the ball away.
That might be your viewpoint but then it must surely be applied to his peers, no? What's Tom Brady been doing all these years dinking and dunking - low risk throws to mitigate turnovers? Has Brees padded stats?
Rodgers has a higher YPA than Brady both in their careers and peak seasons. So what would you classify Brady as?
Quote:
when throwing an insanely high number of TD's vs. an extremely low number of INT's was novel, and jumped out. Guys are doing that more and more, but he was the first. That's his contribution.
Before he won a championship, and for some time after if I remember correctly, he was considered to be a stat padder. He would hold onto the ball too long, or take a sack, to avoid throwing the ball away.
That might be your viewpoint but then it must surely be applied to his peers, no? What's Tom Brady been doing all these years dinking and dunking - low risk throws to mitigate turnovers? Has Brees padded stats?
Rodgers has a higher YPA than Brady both in their careers and peak seasons. So what would you classify Brady as?
Hard to classify Brady as anything other than a 6 time Superbowl champion. I think a few of those were pretty memorable, too, and he played a big part in them.
You said boring and I gave a link of pretty unboring hailmary plays. I can send you other videos but i'm sure you know how to use YouTube.
You aren't doing well in this debate.
We all know he's a 6time champion, I'm debating his style of play. How is Brady not considered a QB that wasnt to mitigate risk or padding stats? Brees was a turnover machine that padded stats, is that ok to bring up or no?
Quote:
is his signature moment?
You said boring and I gave a link of pretty unboring hailmary plays. I can send you other videos but i'm sure you know how to use YouTube.
You aren't doing well in this debate.
That's your opinion. You are not alone in it.
I am not alone in my opinion, either.
So here we are, just a bunch of guys with different opinions.
He's a statistical champion and HOF'er.
That's what he will be remembered for, IMO, his gaudy stats.
That throw in Dallas was a great play. I don't get all giddy watching Rodgers myself. But, to each their own.
I do love to root against the guy. I figure he is lauded and immune to accountability from the rest of the sports world. My negativity can help balance it out
I don't root against him when against NFC rivals though.
Priorities.
When your own team is a bottom feeder, you have to create some interest. Rooting against the annoited one works for me.
Guy is an all time talent though.
We all know he's a 6time champion, I'm debating his style of play. How is Brady not considered a QB that wasnt to mitigate risk or padding stats? Brees was a turnover machine that padded stats, is that ok to bring up or no?
It is absolutely fair to say that Brees is in the same boat. Big time stat guy. Big time. I put him much closer to Rodgers than I do Brady.
As far as memorable games, memorable moments, signature plays, big games, legendary games... I can think of a TON for Tom Brady. A TON.
Before he won a championship, and for some time after if I remember correctly, he was considered to be a stat padder. He would hold onto the ball too long, or take a sack, to avoid throwing the ball away.
Those insane numbers of touchdowns were boring as shit I guess.
I've stated my case and backed it up with data. Time for me to go now.
Yeah, boring.
But he more than made up for it in the playoffs.
Quote:
I said he was boring.
He's a statistical champion and HOF'er.
That's what he will be remembered for, IMO, his gaudy stats.
I said he underachieved in the playoffs. And I stand by that. IMO, he should have more than 1 SB with the talent he has, and the team he was surrounded with. Some are so all over his nuts like he is the greatest QB to ever play, but get all pissed off when you question him winning only a single SB.
Oh, that's right. The Packers GM waited to draft Pro Bowl WRs in the 2nd round.
You again? We have already moved onto the boring segment of the Rodgers criticism.
Quote:
In comment 14911639 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
I said he was boring.
He's a statistical champion and HOF'er.
That's what he will be remembered for, IMO, his gaudy stats.
I said he underachieved in the playoffs. And I stand by that. IMO, he should have more than 1 SB with the talent he has, and the team he was surrounded with. Some are so all over his nuts like he is the greatest QB to ever play, but get all pissed off when you question him winning only a single SB.
Oh, that's right. The Packers GM waited to draft Pro Bowl WRs in the 2nd round.
You again? We have already moved onto the boring segment of the Rodgers criticism.
Surprised you had time to come up for air after being on Rodgers' nuts like that. What's that mess on your chin?
Gotcha. So it can't be a "regular season" game, even though that was a fucking stupendous throw by one of the great arms in NFL history.
So you being consistent, and totally not merely an Eli Manning bootlicker...we can't count Eli's first win vs Dallas, or the Denver comeback, or the TB 500 yard game, or 08 Pittsburgh away win, or the 06 Plax comeback game in Philly, or the week 17 loss to the Pats, or the 2011 JPP FG block game. Just regular season games, some vs mediocre or worse teams.
Regular season games. "Eh."
We all know this absurd take is rooted in Eli Manning adulation. Despite the objective fact that Rodgers is miles better as a QB than Manning and with any number of huge moments, you are clinging to the "Rodgers is boring/Rodgers doesn't have big moments & signature plays" tripe.
Translation: Eli Manning does! Remember Tyree guys? Remember Manning to Manningham? THE UNDEFEATED 18-0 PATS! Remember guys??
Boring and transparent.
But not brought Eli into the conversation.
I can actually feel this way about Rodgers independently of what I think of Eli Manning.
That is possible.
Yeah, boring.
You want to continue this line of thinking? Look up above at Rodgers’ stats in the playoffs. Assume most of those were non divisional games but don’t recall exactly as they were too boring to watch.
But he more than made up for it in the playoffs.
At least Brady won his shitty division.
That’s not what it was. The debate was regarding why the downplaying of one of the greatest of all time at QB.
bahahahahahahaha
I'd rank Rodgers 4th in terms of career behind Brady/Peyton/Brees and #3 in terms of Peak play behind Brady/Peyton, although I could see an argument for him as #1 in terms of peak.
Quote:
Do you want to have a debate or do you want everybody to just fall in line with your line of thinking that Rodgers is the best ever?
That’s not what it was. The debate was regarding why the downplaying of one of the greatest of all time at QB.
No the debate was whether Rodgers was top 5. Some get butthurt if you don't feel Rodgers is definitive top 5 and view that as downplaying. When you get to debating the greats, you resort to nitpicking things. I don't view it as downplaying.
I'd rank Rodgers 4th in terms of career behind Brady/Peyton/Brees and #3 in terms of Peak play behind Brady/Peyton, although I could see an argument for him as #1 in terms of peak.
Not Britt, but you rank Rodgers even lower than I would. Since 2000, I would put him behind only Peyton and Brady. I take Rodgers over Brees. Better not let those Rodgers lovers see this one. 4th in the past two decades?
Ryan came into the league 3 years after Rodgers but Rodgers was under Favre first couple of seasons. While IMO Rodgers is clearly the better QB there were some interesting aspects to this. I'm going to list the stat and who wins the category:
Games Played - Ryan by 8
Wins as a Starter - Rodgers by 4
Losses as a starter - Rodgers has 20 less
Winning % -
Roders = .652%
Ryan = .577%
Pass complications - Ryan by 547
Pass attempts - Ryan by 756
Completion % -
Rodgers = 64.6%
Ryan = 65.4%
Passing yards - Ryan by 4240
TD Passes - Rodgers by 43
TD % -
Rodgers = 6.0%
Ryan = 4.7%
Interceptions - Rodgers has 63 less
Int. % -
Rodgers = 1.4%
Ryan = 2.2%
Game-Winning Drives - Ryan has 15 more than Rodgers
Yards per Pass attempt -
Rodgers = 7.7
Ryan = 7.5
Adjusted Yards per Pass Attempt -
Rodgers = 8.3
Ryan = 7.5
Yards gained per completion -
Rodgers - 12
Ryan - 11.5
Yards per game -
Rodgers = 259.4
Ryan = 270.8
QBR -
Rodgers = 102.4
Ryan = 94.6
There are some surprising stats here. Game-winning drives really sticks out but so does the difference in TDs, losses, and Interceptions. I feel Rodgers is clearly the better QB based just on these stats but they don't take into account the outliers such as Defense, Weapons on Offense, Weather (has to be a huge factor given GB's climate), and of course coaching decisions
link - ( New Window )
Quote:
among QBs since 2000? In terms of career but also in terms of them at their best?
I'd rank Rodgers 4th in terms of career behind Brady/Peyton/Brees and #3 in terms of Peak play behind Brady/Peyton, although I could see an argument for him as #1 in terms of peak.
Not Britt, but you rank Rodgers even lower than I would. Since 2000, I would put him behind only Peyton and Brady. I take Rodgers over Brees. Better not let those Rodgers lovers see this one. 4th in the past two decades?
Yeah, I think this is a fair assessment.
I can actually feel this way about Rodgers independently of what I think of Eli Manning.
That is possible.
No, it's not. It dominates your football mind, which you've proven over & over with any number of hysterical & hyper-emotional posts related to Manning.
Would you count Eli to Nicks playoff hail mary as a "moment"? (We all know the answer to that).
But Rodgers' playoff hail mary to Cobb vs the Giants doesn't count as a "moment". Got it.
Or did you just forget about that one? What a "boring" play, too.
Quote:
I can actually feel this way about Rodgers independently of what I think of Eli Manning.
That is possible.
No, it's not. It dominates your football mind, which you've proven over & over with any number of hysterical & hyper-emotional posts related to Manning.
Would you count Eli to Nicks playoff hail mary as a "moment"? (We all know the answer to that).
But Rodgers' playoff hail mary to Cobb vs the Giants doesn't count as a "moment". Got it.
Or did you just forget about that one? What a "boring" play, too.
Yes, I would. Just as I would count Aaron Rodger's hail mary against the Giants in 2016 as a moment.
A playoff moment. Memorable. There's one for Rodgers. A hail mary against the 4-8 lions, sorry, I don't count that.
"if at all".
He in fact does now come to mind. What else will change as the bizarre take continues to be boxed in by reality...
The other guys I don't need to be reminded of... They had legendary memorable games that everybody remembers.
Rodgers always had a pretty solid offense, now a lot of that had to do with Rodgers being pretty damn good, but he had teams that were set up to win championships. Same arguments can be said with regards to Brees. When you look back at the gaudy numbers, MVP's and yet only winning one championship, that should certainly be taken into consideration.
Rodgers always had a pretty solid offense, now a lot of that had to do with Rodgers being pretty damn good, but he had teams that were set up to win championships. Same arguments can be said with regards to Brees. When you look back at the gaudy numbers, MVP's and yet only winning one championship, that should certainly be taken into consideration.
But what about Peyton? He only won 1 Super Bowl a truly valuble starting QB and got carried to his 2nd one by Von Miller/Ware and the Broncos defense. Even with the Colts, that SB run had more to do with Bob Sanders/Colts D than it did Peyton.
So if Rodgers performed well below-average for a season but rode the coattails of a dominant D to a Super Bowl win, would it somehow change the outlook of his career?
Down 20-3 in the 4th against the eventual 12-4 Bears. Gets injured, then returns to light up Chicago and win 24-23.
Wait...regular season game so doesn't count as a "moment".
24/39, 304yds, 3 TD, 0 Int, Super Bowl MVP. Not really "memorable". Boring. Needs more Manning to Tyree.
Yawn.
Ironically, Manning's against Green Bay was a mirror image.
However, when I think of 2011, I don't think of the Manning to Nicks Hail Mary as the premier signature play of that season. Yes, it was memorable, but it's probably not in the top 5 and maybe not even in the top 10, arguably, of memorable plays from that season.
My point remains.
And I can do that for other QB's too, that are not Manning, but since YOU are fixating on Manning now I'll just leave it at that.
Down 20-3 in the 4th against the eventual 12-4 Bears. Gets injured, then returns to light up Chicago and win 24-23.
Wait...regular season game so doesn't count as a "moment".
24/39, 304yds, 3 TD, 0 Int, Super Bowl MVP. Not really "memorable". Boring. Needs more Manning to Tyree.
Yawn.
Bears games don’t count...shitty division remember?
Quote:
But what has come out in recent years about Rodgers and undermining his coach, being a dick to his teammates, has to put a bit of a stain on his legacy.
Rodgers always had a pretty solid offense, now a lot of that had to do with Rodgers being pretty damn good, but he had teams that were set up to win championships. Same arguments can be said with regards to Brees. When you look back at the gaudy numbers, MVP's and yet only winning one championship, that should certainly be taken into consideration.
But what about Peyton? He only won 1 Super Bowl a truly valuble starting QB and got carried to his 2nd one by Von Miller/Ware and the Broncos defense. Even with the Colts, that SB run had more to do with Bob Sanders/Colts D than it did Peyton.
So if Rodgers performed well below-average for a season but rode the coattails of a dominant D to a Super Bowl win, would it somehow change the outlook of his career?
Not saying Peyton doesn't deserve his own criticism, but he got to the big game quite a few times in his career and for the most part, had to go through Brady to get there. Rodgers made it to one, just one super bowl.
Again, just my opinion.
Who's had more "moments"...Robert Horry or Tim Duncan?
24/39, 304yds, 3 TD, 0 Int, Super Bowl MVP vs the #1 ranked defense in the NFL. But no Tyree so not memorable.
Again, just my opinion.
No, that's about right.
He's statistically an all time great. He's getting in. Will be first ballot.
He just never excited me as a player. A lot of other QB, had more memorable games and careers than he did. That's my opinion.
To me, he represents the major shift that occured in the league to make passing the ball more advantageous. To his credit, he took it and ran with it. He was the first, really, of a new breed of QB's that emerged post 2006 rule changes. Mahomes is another. They will have MONSTER stats when it's all said and done.
But I've said since Day 1, it's the playoffs and hardware that separate the good from the great. And it's why I think Tom Brady is superior to Peyton Manning. Brady is the Goat, and then everybody else, except maybe Montana who is probably 1b in my book, is a distant second.
The underlying point goes to some of themes in this thread
This is beyond a stupid point no offnense to your friend. I’ve heard this before. Look at how many second round WRs they have drafted. He also inherited driver, Nelson and Gregg Jennings. The guy has been blessed with a very talented offense for years. He took over a team that went to the NFC championship game and won a ring with that same squad 2 years later.
BB56 said it best, he’s Marino with the ring. No need to find random “stats” to justify his greatness. He’s a dickhead but one of the best QBs I’ve ever seen.
I know what Eli did and meant TO ME, and we all do as Giants fans.
But if we're discussing Top 5 all time, or top 5 of the past 20 years or whatever....
The thing I remember most about Aaron Rodgers are his stats. Point blank.
His legacy will be that he was a terrific football player, a huge star, and an asshole.
Quote:
Aaron Rodgers has thrown over 360 touchdowns, and only ONE has ever gone to a first round pick.
The underlying point goes to some of themes in this thread
This is beyond a stupid point no offnense to your friend. I’ve heard this before. Look at how many second round WRs they have drafted. He also inherited driver, Nelson and Gregg Jennings. The guy has been blessed with a very talented offense for years. He took over a team that went to the NFC championship game and won a ring with that same squad 2 years later.
BB56 said it best, he’s Marino with the ring. No need to find random “stats” to justify his greatness. He’s a dickhead but one of the best QBs I’ve ever seen.
Could also be that Rodgers has played his entire career with the Packers and they haven't drafted a WR in the first in almost 20 years.
Just looked at all of the first rounders that the Packers have drafted since Rodgers. They only drafted three on offense. Two OT's and Jordan Love this past year. This is definitely making the argument that Rodgers has made those around him better, but it's not like he never had talent around him.
Except Rodgers has a ring. And he played phenomenally in that Super Bowl. So the Karl Malone/Dan Marino argument doesn't apply to him at all.
24/39, 304yds, 3 TD, 0 Int vs the #1 defense are just "stats", we get it. Mildly relevant, however, when analyzing whether a player is great or merely "good".
Tom Brady threw for 5235 yards, 39 TDs, 65.6 comp%, and led the Pats to a 13-3 record and the 3rd best offense in the league
Rodgers won the league MVP with 48/50 votes and was 1st team All-Pro QB with 47.5/50 votes, Brees picking up the remaining votes
2011 was the best regular season of Drew Brees' career and one of the top 5 of Brady's, and yet everybody kind of came to the conclusion that Aaron Rodgers was CLEARLY better than them in that season. That's how good Aaron Rodgers at his best felt. His combination of throwing power and accuracy, both in the pocket and on the run, was unfair.
His 2010 playoff run is the best sustained stretch of QB playoff play I've personally ever seen. The stats don't do it justice. His game against the Falcons in the Divisional Round that year is maybe the best game I've ever seen a QB play. And then he was excellent against a dominant Steelers defense in the Super Bowl. He wasn't along for the ride during that Super Bowl, he was the ride.
Having one of the best playoff runs ('10) and regular seasons ('11) I've seen from a QB, I'll always have Aaron Rodgers very high on my list. Peak Aaron Rodgers during those years might be the best QB ever in my book.
Injuries and lack of playoff success since '10 have hurt him. But the Packers were never built as well as the Saints or Pats or even the Colts when Peyton was there, Rodgers just made it work. Even the last two years where people say he's declined, he's thrown 51 TDs and 6 INTs over his last 32 games.
I do think one fair knock on him is that he's too conservative. Like I said, 51 TDs and 6 INTs these last two years but if he was a little more aggressive his offenses could've been better even if his TD:INT ratio wasn't quite as pristine.
Overall, I rank him only below Brady and Peyton among QBs of the last 20 years. Ahead of Brees. I think historically Steve Young is probably the most similar type of QB, GOAT stats but not quite in the GOAT convo due to longevity/durability/good but not great playoff success.
Is he douche? Yes. But at the same time if you've followed the stories, his family and especially his brother are annoying as fuck too. Some people have issues with family, since I don't know any of the details it's not my place to call Rodgers an asshole for not wanting to talk to his family. And Rodgers being a douche makes him far from the only great QB to be one. Peyton sexually assaulted a trainer in college and was a whiny loser for most of his career throwing teammates under the bus. Dan Marino was a notorious piece of shit party animal in Miami. The list goes on. Rodgers being a douche doesn't mean anything to me when it comes to his place all-time.
And if they held the NFL MVP voting at the end of the season (meaning AFTER the super bowl) Eli Manning would have won it in 2011.
But the question is what is the guy's legacy, how he'll be remembered. That's a more complicated question. The way he's being talked about here, it's like he's the greatest all time.
I don't even think he's the greatest Packer QB of all time, let alone in the top 5 of the NFL all time. He may not even be top 10 all time in the NFL, based on intangibles.
Quote:
Aaron Rodgers has thrown over 360 touchdowns, and only ONE has ever gone to a first round pick.
The underlying point goes to some of themes in this thread
This is beyond a stupid point no offnense to your friend. I’ve heard this before. Look at how many second round WRs they have drafted. He also inherited driver, Nelson and Gregg Jennings. The guy has been blessed with a very talented offense for years. He took over a team that went to the NFC championship game and won a ring with that same squad 2 years later.
BB56 said it best, he’s Marino with the ring. No need to find random “stats” to justify his greatness. He’s a dickhead but one of the best QBs I’ve ever seen.
You’re taking it too far. See points above.
But the question is what is the guy's legacy, how he'll be remembered. That's a more complicated question. The way he's being talked about here, it's like he's the greatest all time.
I don't even think he's the greatest Packer QB of all time, let alone in the top 5 of the NFL all time. He may not even be top 10 all time in the NFL, based on intangibles.
Missed it again. This wasn’t about debating him as the single greatest, but he certainly is an all time great, not an underachiever nor overrated. Nor boring.
You think Aaron Rodgers is a Top 5 QB in the NFL, all time?
But the question is what is the guy's legacy, how he'll be remembered. That's a more complicated question. The way he's being talked about here, it's like he's the greatest all time.
I don't even think he's the greatest Packer QB of all time, let alone in the top 5 of the NFL all time. He may not even be top 10 all time in the NFL, based on intangibles.
I take Favre over Rodgers. Easy
Quote:
He's getting in. First ballot. Said that three times on this thread.
But the question is what is the guy's legacy, how he'll be remembered. That's a more complicated question. The way he's being talked about here, it's like he's the greatest all time.
I don't even think he's the greatest Packer QB of all time, let alone in the top 5 of the NFL all time. He may not even be top 10 all time in the NFL, based on intangibles.
I take Favre over Rodgers. Easy
All day, every day. And Marino, too. Even without the ring.
Missed it again. This wasn’t about debating him as the single greatest, but he certainly is an all time great, not an underachiever nor overrated. Nor boring.
See this is where the disagreement comes into play. To the OP's question and the biggest problem I have with Rodgers is for all the gaudy numbers he has put up, multiple MVP's, he has only has one Super Bowl. He has been to a number of championship games, but only elevated his game during the playoffs in that 2010 run. So if his career ended today, considering how good some of his teams were, in my opinion, he underachieved by only getting to the big game once.
He was an awesome player but all his back-breaking INTs in those clutch moments keep me from choosing him above Rodgers in a question of who I'd rather have at their best.
Favre's longevity gives him the edge, but Rodgers at his best was a little better imo.
He was an awesome player but all his back-breaking INTs in those clutch moments keep me from choosing him above Rodgers in a question of who I'd rather have at their best.
Favre's longevity gives him the edge, but Rodgers at his best was a little better imo.
I loved watching Favre. I also think the NFL was different most of his career. Guy also never missed a game and he almost brought the Vikes to the Super Bowl. Yeah he had that critical pick like you said, but Peterson had fumbles etc. and he took a fucking beating.
I take Favre, but he is one of my favorite QB's. Marino too, who I really do think would be on an absurd level if his prime was today.
You think Aaron Rodgers is a Top 5 QB in the NFL, all time?
I certainly don’t have some kind of set ranking, mostly because it’s very difficult to do so because of how game has changed. But if we are choosing up sides, I would call his name fairly early.
I am not even really a fan of Rodgers as much as some other current QBs but his is undeniably one of the best to play QB now and ever. And the lack of objectivity when discussing him on this site is something I find ridiculous. You may think otherwise, but it’s the case.
Quote:
in late-game situations.
He was an awesome player but all his back-breaking INTs in those clutch moments keep me from choosing him above Rodgers in a question of who I'd rather have at their best.
Favre's longevity gives him the edge, but Rodgers at his best was a little better imo.
I loved watching Favre. I also think the NFL was different most of his career. Guy also never missed a game and he almost brought the Vikes to the Super Bowl. Yeah he had that critical pick like you said, but Peterson had fumbles etc. and he took a fucking beating.
I take Favre, but he is one of my favorite QB's. Marino too, who I really do think would be on an absurd level if his prime was today.
And that's it! Right there! Favre had many memorable games, memorable moments, nail biters of games, legendary games, all of it. Win or lose, they were exciting, edge of your seat entertainment, and he was at the center of it.
I never got that from Rodgers. That rubs some of you the wrong way, sorry. As a contemporary example, I find Ben Roethlisberger to be a more exciting QB to watch than Rodgers. Luck was like that too. They just have something... different about them, something gritty.
But even for his era, he just felt like a turnover machine in bigtime spots so I've never considered him a Top 5 guy.
I agree that Marino would be amazing in this era. I actually think Marino reminds me of a lot of Tom Brady in terms of being so good at throwing intermediate rockets that are perfectly accurate. I think he would have been amazing in a modern offense with his release and accuracy, even if he'd be lacking some mobility.
The great ones still need teams built around them to win Super Bowls. Giants cost him one ring in 2011, his team didn't show up around him.
But when I think of memorable moments, legendary games of the past 20 years, I can think of a long list before I probably get to one that Aaron Rodgers was featured in. And the top one that I can think of for Rodgers, to me, was the 2009 return to Lambeau of Brett Favre as a Viking on MNF.
Speaking of "memorable" moments: here's one from Favre (I love, by the way, how biased the commentator in this video is). One of the worst throws in modern NFL history.
And talk about forgettable Super Bowls...sandwiched between Elway's 2 then Kevin Dyson and the NFC East dominance. I bet most Pats fans don't even remember XXXI.
Favre was also Anthony Weiner before Anthony Weiner, since we're accounting for Rodgers' supposed character flaws.
Quote:
Missed it again. This wasn’t about debating him as the single greatest, but he certainly is an all time great, not an underachiever nor overrated. Nor boring.
See this is where the disagreement comes into play. To the OP's question and the biggest problem I have with Rodgers is for all the gaudy numbers he has put up, multiple MVP's, he has only has one Super Bowl. He has been to a number of championship games, but only elevated his game during the playoffs in that 2010 run. So if his career ended today, considering how good some of his teams were, in my opinion, he underachieved by only getting to the big game once.
His playoff numbers are excellent. Tell me what games that he let GB down?
But when I think of memorable moments, legendary games of the past 20 years, I can think of a long list before I probably get to one that Aaron Rodgers was featured in. And the top one that I can think of for Rodgers, to me, was the 2009 return to Lambeau of Brett Favre as a Viking on MNF.
I think it’s you.
Speaking of "memorable" moments: here's one from Favre (I love, by the way, how biased the commentator in this video is). One of the worst throws in modern NFL history.
And talk about forgettable Super Bowls...sandwiched between Elway's 2 then Kevin Dyson and the NFC East dominance. I bet most Pats fans don't even remember XXXI.
Favre was also Anthony Weiner before Anthony Weiner, since we're accounting for Rodgers' supposed character flaws.
WTF? Anthony Weiner??? Sterger was 25 years old. Weiner went to prison for transferring obscene material to a minor, a 15 year old. Big freaking difference.
Quote:
decade. That could be it. Maybe Rodgers style of play just doesn't appeal to me, as I see it more as finesse. His video game like arm strength and accuracy are great, no doubt. That could be on me.
But when I think of memorable moments, legendary games of the past 20 years, I can think of a long list before I probably get to one that Aaron Rodgers was featured in. And the top one that I can think of for Rodgers, to me, was the 2009 return to Lambeau of Brett Favre as a Viking on MNF.
I think it’s you.
Well, you can think that, but I'm clearly not alone on this thread, let alone out here in the wild.
Scummy weirdos sending uninvited dick pics. Obviously Weiner's, yes, has an added layer of depravity.
Favre's a scumbag.
Because Favre is boring I guess.
Yeah why? it is an opinion. Both are great, personally, I like Favre better. Also, when I watch Rodgers I do not see much that puts him over Elway, Marino, even Favre in terms of exciting or amazing play. Rodgers is great, but to my eye, just me on my couch, I dont see what puts Rodgers game, in terms of entertainment, above those guys.
But, that is an opinion, everybody's got em.
In the 14 playoff games Rodgers had in seasons where the Packers did NOT win the Super Bowl, his numbers are better than Brady's stats in the 18 games that make up Brady's 6 Super Bowl runs. Yet, while "Brady" obviously went 18-0, "Rodgers" went 6-8. it's only a superficial look at performance, but I think it helps illustrate how many other variables go into winning championships and winning big games.
In terms of memorable moments, one I can think of is the 4th and 20 with a minute left from his own end zone against the Cardinals in the playoffs that went for a game-tying touchdown. Unfortunately, the Cardinals scored on the opening drive of OT and so Rodgers' game-tying drive has an Endy Chavez like note to it.
Someone put together this 10-minute montage of clutch moments by Rodgers (late game drives), and some of these throws and plays are just jaw-dropping.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHPMeIEDaJM - ( New Window )
At Rodgers pace he would have to play like 500 more games to match Favre's interception numbers, and like 70 more to match his TDs (someone can correct my math there).
At Rodgers pace he would have to play like 500 more games to match Favre's interception numbers, and like 70 more to match his TDs (someone can correct my math there).
I' ll say one thing about Rodgers, and this is no brillant analysis, guy just doesn't throw picks.
Brett Favre won the MVP in 3 consecutive seasons, 1995, 96, and 97.
In those three seasons, the Packers went to the NFC Championship all three times, only losing the first one. So in addition to the regular season combined record of 37-11, they also had a playoff record during that three game stretch of 7-2 during that time. They went to two consecutive Superbowls, winning one.
In all three seasons, consecutively, Brett Favre led the NFL in TD's.
Has Rodgers ever had a three year stretch like that in his career?
Brett Favre won the MVP in 3 consecutive seasons, 1995, 96, and 97.
In those three seasons, the Packers went to the NFC Championship all three times, only losing the first one. So in addition to the regular season combined record of 37-11, they also had a playoff record during that three game stretch of 7-2 during that time. They went to two consecutive Superbowls, winning one.
In all three seasons, consecutively, Brett Favre led the NFL in TD's.
Has Rodgers ever had a three year stretch like that in his career?
Was it 3 in a row or 3 out of 4? I thought it was 3 out of 4, but you’re younger and sharper... :)
But Favre had an excellent defense during those seasons. Much better than any defenses Rodgers has had. You had Reggie White still absolutely dominating and Leroy Butler was a top Safety at the time.
Brett Favre won the MVP in 3 consecutive seasons, 1995, 96, and 97.
In those three seasons, the Packers went to the NFC Championship all three times, only losing the first one. So in addition to the regular season combined record of 37-11, they also had a playoff record during that three game stretch of 7-2 during that time. They went to two consecutive Superbowls, winning one.
In all three seasons, consecutively, Brett Favre led the NFL in TD's.
Has Rodgers ever had a three year stretch like that in his career?
Cherry picking a 3 year stretch to compare the careers of these two QBs? Why not just compare the careers?
But Favre had an excellent defense during those seasons. Much better than any defenses Rodgers has had. You had Reggie White still absolutely dominating and Leroy Butler was a top Safety at the time.
I think you could argue that he was facing much better defenses, as well.
The NFL was much different then. One could argue much harder for offense and not nearly as skewed towards offense as Rodgers has had it.
Quote:
and if we're talking "peak" performance of the two players...
Brett Favre won the MVP in 3 consecutive seasons, 1995, 96, and 97.
In those three seasons, the Packers went to the NFC Championship all three times, only losing the first one. So in addition to the regular season combined record of 37-11, they also had a playoff record during that three game stretch of 7-2 during that time. They went to two consecutive Superbowls, winning one.
In all three seasons, consecutively, Brett Favre led the NFL in TD's.
Has Rodgers ever had a three year stretch like that in his career?
Cherry picking a 3 year stretch to compare the careers of these two QBs? Why not just compare the careers?
The "peak' concept has been brought up several times in this thread. That "peak" Rodgers is arguably the greatest all time.
So I'm not cherry picking, I just showed you that "peak" Rodgers isn't even the greatest Green Bay QB of all time, backing up a point I made earlier.
Career high 13 Int's for Rodgers and only hit double digits 1 other time (11). Favre met or exceeded 13 INT's in 18 seasons and had 20+ in 6 seasons.
Aaron Rodgers averages 7 INT's per season - I repeat, 7 per season (Favre sometimes achieved this in 2 games).
Rodgers has a higher TD %, Higher YPA, and a turnover ratio that's not even worth comparing. And he was up against 2 (or 3) QB's in this timespan that round out most people's top 10 all time lists.
Yes different eras, but the difference is too vast to ignore. Its not like every good QB was throwing 20+ picks a season in the 90's.
See how juvenile that is?
See how juvenile that is?
Favre is? Yeah, I agree.
('95-'97) -- 37-11 record -- 7-2 playoffs -- 12,179 yards -- 112 TD -- 42 INT -- 96.1 Rating
Pretty damn similar. Sure, Favre's yardage and TD numbers are better relative to era but even with that taken into context it doesn't make up for Rodgers being so much better at taking care of the ball.
Both won 1 Super Bowl during this time period. Favre had 3 MVPs are football's poster boy, deservingly so. But Rodgers had steeper competition for the award and pretty much matched Favre in terms of individual performance and team success.
And in a big game and big moment, I take Rodgers over Favre every day of the week because he's less likely to chuck up an INT when it matters.
Quote:
he's the best QB to play in Green Bay "and it isn't close".
See how juvenile that is?
Favre is? Yeah, I agree.
Bart Starr won a few big games too. Doesn’t he count or was that era too boring?
Quote:
he's the best QB to play in Green Bay "and it isn't close".
See how juvenile that is?
Favre is? Yeah, I agree.
Yeah well that's think kind of response I've grown to expect from a guy posting like a child. You aren't making any remotely interesting points. Might I say, boring?
I stepped away for the afternoon and came back to just countless posts like this one without a shred of thought/assessment. Congrats on hijacking the thread.
('95-'97) -- 37-11 record -- 7-2 playoffs -- 12,179 yards -- 112 TD -- 42 INT -- 96.1 Rating
Pretty damn similar. Sure, Favre's yardage and TD numbers are better relative to era but even with that taken into context it doesn't make up for Rodgers being so much better at taking care of the ball.
Both won 1 Super Bowl during this time period. Favre had 3 MVPs are football's poster boy, deservingly so. But Rodgers had steeper competition for the award and pretty much matched Favre in terms of individual performance and team success.
And in a big game and big moment, I take Rodgers over Favre every day of the week because he's less likely to chuck up an INT when it matters.
Good post
The only one trying to create a who’s best list in a Green Bay is you. I just said it was silly to suggest Favre was a slam dunk better choice (any day and every day) at QB over Rodgers.
It’s okay to have an opinion that Favre is the choice but to proclaim it as a slam dunk is foolish, if not just incorrect.
Well you went down the Brett Favre rabbit hole of which he has the same #of rings and inferior stats so I'm just helping you see how wrong you are.
I'm not reposting everything in the thread, scroll up and read. But for a shortcut he's the most efficient passing in NFL history and regardless of what era you are in, taking care of the football is the #1 rule for a QB on any level of play. And not only did Rodgers achieve that better than anyone else in the history of the game, but he also posted some absolutely monster seasons suggesting he didn't just dink and dunk like a normal ball protector would do.
Hope that makes sense for ya.
It's really not stats that's the main thing he has going for him. It's the eye test. No one else has made as many high degree of difficulty throws in his era. Mahomes is the first guy who is reminding people of Rodgers in terms of that ability. To his credit, Favre was also capable of the amazing throw.
But Favre threw a lot of INTs while attempting those high degree of difficulty throws. Even Mahomes threw more INTs than Rodgers did despite having more offensive talent in an even more offensive friendly league.
Rodgers' argument isn't just based on stats. It's based on the fact that he's thrown and completed so many damn amazing passes in his career without risking turnovers.
Yep
I think I'd take Eli myself.
Let’s explore this comment a bit...
Let’s say Rodgers doesn’t make the top 5 which is a fair and reasonable take since we are talking all-time. But are you suggesting above he is nowhere “near it”? Like he is something around 20th?
I think I'd take Eli myself.
Eli
I think I'd take Eli myself.
The subject for you was always about Eli. I noted it hours ago above.
I think I'd take Eli myself.
I take the guy who got my team more titles, so whatever the name or careers were wouldn't matter. I'd take Jim Plunkett over Rodgers. But I'd do the same for (insert any QB with 1 or 0 titles).
Inside the top 20?
Quote:
as Giants fans, whose career do you take? Eli or Rodgers, assuming Rodgers doesn't win another? Rodgers being clearly the better QB, having the team in the playoffs on a more consistent basis? Or Eli, with the career not as good, still a probable HOFer, but with the two magical SB runs?
I think I'd take Eli myself.
The subject for you was always about Eli. I noted it hours ago above.
No, it's not doofus. I don't put Eli in remotely the same category as Rodgers. I acknowledge that Rodgers is clearly a better QB than Eli, and really don't care about that fact.
But alright, say you think Tim Duncan is boring and need more highlights, then watch Kobe.
So applying that to the NFL its no different and Rodgers offers you the best of both worlds. Unbelievable efficient like those Spurs teams with all the WOW you get from watching Kobe.
I honestly don't know how anyone can find a player like that boring unless they simply hate them for some strange reason.
Quote:
In comment 14912027 KDavies said:
Quote:
as Giants fans, whose career do you take? Eli or Rodgers, assuming Rodgers doesn't win another? Rodgers being clearly the better QB, having the team in the playoffs on a more consistent basis? Or Eli, with the career not as good, still a probable HOFer, but with the two magical SB runs?
I think I'd take Eli myself.
The subject for you was always about Eli. I noted it hours ago above.
No, it's not doofus. I don't put Eli in remotely the same category as Rodgers. I acknowledge that Rodgers is clearly a better QB than Eli, and really don't care about that fact.
So then if it’s not about Eli, you’re asking a bunch of Giant fans would they rather have one Super Bowl win versus two??
And I’m the doofus?
He's on pace to be top 10 or top 5 in all the major passing categories, he's got a chance to end his career outside of the top 150 in interceptions, and he's got a chance to achieve the allusive .700 career winning percentage.
This all after not starting a game until he was 25.
If he's outside the top 15, yikes.
He's on pace to be top 10 or top 5 in all the major passing categories, he's got a chance to end his career outside of the top 150 in interceptions, and he's got a chance to achieve the allusive .700 career winning percentage.
This all after not starting a game until he was 25.
If he's outside the top 15, yikes.
If he’s outside of the top 15, then everybody above him is listed twice.
I've heard on this board a million times over the past decade that those top 10 numbers are worthless and inflated compared to other eras. That doesn't count for Rodgers, though?
IMO, he's a tier below many players I consider to be all time. That's it.
I've heard on this board a million times over the past decade that those top 10 numbers are worthless and inflated compared to other eras. That doesn't count for Rodgers, though?
He's going to be top 5 or 10 in the major categories and have a ridiculous career winning percentage, and have a ridiculous low turnover rate.
And who ever claimed and in what context has anyone ever claimed being ranked in the top passer categories was worthless?
And stats are incredibly important when trying to have a conversation like this. Stats are actually part of the reason why Eli will be a HoFer - he’s going to be up there in many categories and it won’t be based solely one his 2 title runs.
You are building straw man after straw man and you do that a lot when you cant find anything tangible to backup your opinion.
Unitas
Montana
Peyton
Marino
Those are the guys I "definitely" have ahead of Rodgers if he reitred today.
Elway
Favre
Brees
These are the modern guys I'd take over Rodgers if he retired today, just because he's lacking longevity compared to them. Although I'd take him at his best over all of them at theirs.
Bradshaw
Tarkenton
Staubach
Starr
Those are the old school guys who all won multiple titles who you could argue over Rodgers. But the game was just so different compared to today it's so tough to compare. All of them played on loaded teams in a less QB-centric league.
Steve Young is the guy who's most similar to Rodgers. This is one where Rodgers actually has the longevity advantage. But Young's passing stats are actually superior, he was an even more dangerous running threat, and he had similar success in the playoffs. I think Young definitely has a case vs. Rodgers, although I'd lean Rodgers gun to my head because I like his arm better and I have less questions about his supporting cast and system's effect on his performance.
So if he retired today, he'd be somewhere between 6th to 14th on my list. But with an argument as the most dominant/talented at his best.
People have mixed reactions on Rodgers. It's okay.
He'll be a HOF'er. So will Eli. To quote your boyfriend... R-E-L-A-X.
People have mixed reactions on Rodgers. It's okay.
He'll be a HOF'er. So will Eli. To quote your boyfriend... R-E-L-A-X.
You posted a unorthodox opinion, and it's being debated. If not to do so, why else post it?
- Brady
- Montana
- Unitas
- Manning
- Bradshaw
- Elway
- Marino
- Starr
- Brees
- Rodgers
This was an actual good debate before you joined the conversation, I suggest thinking about that a bit before you try to pawn off a few posters as bullies.
And by the way Osi is one of the best posters on this board, and couldn’t be further from a bully in threads. He gave you countless examples to back up his stance most of which you didn’t even respond to.
Just complete nonsense to accuse people of bullying and 100% your get out of the thread card.
Quote:
as Giants fans, whose career do you take? Eli or Rodgers, assuming Rodgers doesn't win another? Rodgers being clearly the better QB, having the team in the playoffs on a more consistent basis? Or Eli, with the career not as good, still a probable HOFer, but with the two magical SB runs?
I think I'd take Eli myself.
Eli
No doubt, Eli
- Brady
- Montana
- Unitas
- Manning
- Bradshaw
- Elway
- Marino
- Starr
- Brees
- Rodgers
Glad you mentioned Starr. You would have LOVED him as a QB. Film rarely does players justice, but it will have to do..
The top 4 QBs I have ever seen, CLUTCH-WISE and in no particular order, were Starr, Montana, Brady and Staubach
I responded to Osi earlier in the thread, and I agree with his post above about who's above Rodgers.
As I've said the whole time, arguably the top 10.
Arguably top 10.
If the question is posed to a fan -- I think you take the guy with more rings.
If you pose the question to a player -- you might get a different answer.
If Aaron Rodgers sits down at the end of his career and has a ring, 2 MVPs, sits near the top of all the records, set the standard for efficiency, has a ridiculous winning percentage, and knows for several years he was the very best quarterback on the planet -- he might take that.
People have mixed reactions on Rodgers. It's okay.
He'll be a HOF'er. So will Eli. To quote your boyfriend... R-E-L-A-X.
“Aaron Rodgers is not a top-5 all-time QB.”
Anyone disagree??
Your debate began and ended with a Rodgers is just a “boring” QB comment. Another poster adamantly argued Rodgers is an “underachiever and overrated” but lists him as the 6th greatest QB ever in the history of the league when pressed.
With these types of statements, I don’t think it takes much to guess there is another agenda going on.
I can't compare those guys to Rodgers, it's just impossible. But they belong on that "Old School Tier" list I mentioned above. Otto Graham in particular might belong on that Top tier next to Unitas considering what a revolutionary figure he was. Graham/Baugh were named to the NFL 100 team recently.
I can't compare those guys to Rodgers, it's just impossible. But they belong on that "Old School Tier" list I mentioned above. Otto Graham in particular might belong on that Top tier next to Unitas considering what a revolutionary figure he was. Graham/Baugh were named to the NFL 100 team recently.
Right, so now we're at about 15 guys or so who could have an argument, no?
- Brady
- Montana
- Unitas
- Manning
- Bradshaw
- Elway
- Marino
- Starr
- Brees
- Rodgers
Fair as long as guys like Otto Graham and Sammy Baugh get “honorable mentions” even though they played in the early years.
Oh and Roger Staubach has to be top 10, probably bouncing Marino or Brees.
I can't compare those guys to Rodgers, it's just impossible. But they belong on that "Old School Tier" list I mentioned above. Otto Graham in particular might belong on that Top tier next to Unitas considering what a revolutionary figure he was. Graham/Baugh were named to the NFL 100 team recently.
Just posted something similar. I think pre-Unitas guys go in a different tier because who the hell knows what they could do in true passing offense. Hell, they may actually dominate the list!
It's impossible to compare, especially the QB position which is always dependent on scheme. I can watch an old school Gale Sayers clip and know "ok, that dude could absolutely play today" because he was a RB and I only need to see some highlight runs to get a picture of his freak athleticism. But it's so much harder to get context on how good a historic QB is.
Embrace Debate.
ARE WE SURE THAT AARON RODGERS IS THE BEST QUARTERBACK IN THE RODGERS FAMILY?
My column:
Staubach is an interesting one to me. He's got 2 rings and had a really terrific stretch of years. But a shorter, truncated career.
It's easy to imagine if he goes right into the NFL he's right up there. But he's really got a 5 year impressive body of work. Because of that he's just outside of the top 10 for me.
No one is coming close to that spread for a long long time. He’s literally doing something unseen in the history of the league and not just for a few years but for his entire career. And that spread barely changes in the post season when most QBs aren’t able to duplicate their regular season production.
We talk all day about Jones and needing to correct fumbling to decrease turnovers, well, Exhibit A...
Quote:
by bringing in the Eli Bootlicking argument (on a Giants board, no less), then it becomes something that's not debate anymore.
Your debate began and ended with a Rodgers is just a “boring” QB comment. Another poster adamantly argued Rodgers is an “underachiever and overrated” but lists him as the 6th greatest QB ever in the history of the league when pressed.
With these types of statements, I don’t think it takes much to guess there is another agenda going on.
Good God. I have explained what I meant by that. The original question was whether Rodgers was a top 5 QB of all-time. I have heard Rodgers lauded as the most talented QB in the game and hear him spoken of in the top 5, I say he’s overrated based on that.
Me calling him overrated doesn’t mean he’s not a first ballot HOFer, or that he’s not an all-time great. I think Lebron is easily a top 5 player in NBA history, but if I am with a group of people who are saying Lebron is the greatest player ever, I am going to say Lebron is overrated. That is simply the difference on my perception of his ranking versus what others opinion of his ranking is.
After looking at 3 all-time rankings of QBs, and seeing them have Rodgers ranked lower than I would, I acknowledge my premise may be wrong. My perception of where Rodgers was ranked by the pundits looks like it may be higher than he was actually ranked. After seeing some of those rankings, I actually think some of them may be slightly underrating him.
I am also 39 years old. My frame of reference starts in the 80s. I saw more than enough of Montana, Elway, and Marino to form an opinion of them. Bart Starr? Terry Bradshaw? All those old guys? I don’t even try and compare them. I didn’t see them live, the game was totally different, training was different, etc. How does one compare Mike Trout and Babe Ruth? Yeah, you can use WAR, but there are so many other variables.
As for underachieving, I stand by that statement. His regular season achievements are obvious. However, as a player, he is immensely talented, and I thought the Packers GM surrounded him with talent as well. The Packers would tear through the regular season and often disappoint in the postseason. Yes, the postseason is tough. But I would expect at least one more title from Rodgers, especially since he won it early in his career and had really good teams since then. If Mahomes only gets the 1 title, I will say the same. Based on his talent I expect more.
As for the ranking, I have him behind Brady, Marino, Peyton, Elway, and Montana. Young and Brees are close, but I go Rodgers over both. Young didn’t have the longevity. Brees I go with Rodgers due to shoulder issues, dome factor. Minute details but I just rate them as if I am starting my team from scratch. Those are the things I use as tie breakers. I’m not going to argue if someone had Young or Brees ahead.
So I have him at 6, maybe 8 at absolute worst in my lifetime. How many QBs were better than him pre-1980? Are there any? 1-2? 3-4? Hard for me to determine. So he’s likely top 10 all-time for me. I hardly think it’s an insult to him.
How do you comp
No one is coming close to that spread for a long long time. He’s literally doing something unseen in the history of the league and not just for a few years but for his entire career. And that spread barely changes in the post season when most QBs aren’t able to duplicate their regular season production.
We talk all day about Jones and needing to correct fumbling to decrease turnovers, well, Exhibit A...
Mahomes could. The kid is special.
Wilson won’t have the TDs, those offenses just aren’t built for that. But if they ever turn into a high powered offense he’s going to have some monster years.
They are really the only guys I can see from this generation being able to do it and it’s still a long shot.
When really it’s he is one of the best ever.
I think we’re good.
Is Rodgers top five all time? To me, no way.
Rodgers has won a million playoff games and won a super bowl title. He’s going to remembered as one of the best QBs of all time. Maybe he’s got one more in him but he’s running out of time.
Again, QBs are on the field for what? 40, 45% of the team's snaps? And when they're on the field, they rely on the work of 10 other teammates. It's the largest roster in team sports and requires more from its coaching staff than any other sport.
QBs are incredibly important-- the most important position by far. But they only have so much influence.
In some ways, a QB's record is like a starting pitcher's record in that it isn't necessarily the best indicator of performance given all of the things outside of the pitcher's control that affect it.
It's not.
But that final drive against the Cardinals in the playoffs a month later was insane. The 4th and long conversion and then the hail mary under a blitz.
Rodgers is probably the best highlight worthy QB of all time. He certainly scared you to death, and there are times he makes throws that no defense can stop. The Niners defense with Fangio and Harbaugh were enough to beat Rodgers but he always made a throw or two that got past them. That's a great QB.
At the same time there's something about his clutchness in big games -- you can beat the fight out of him a bit more easily than expected of a top top QB. It's in this area that Russell Wilson is actually more consistent, maybe best with Brady/Montana (god damn I hate typing this stuff) at never being completely out of a game mentally....hence why he's seen as a much better QB than he really is.
It's an important point that needs to be brought up because with identical mental fortitude, Rodgers was way better than Wilson and still is in most ways. While it's happened, Wilson has been blown out less and I can't always say his defense helped him (fuck, now I'm losing it....).
Now maybe in Rodgers' defense a long time in Green Bay is to blame somewhat, or maybe not.
The ultimate question I think is whether Rodgers could have made the 49ers SB champions if they drafted him. Many incorrectly assume it would have been a slam dunk to 5 titles (with hindsight and not understanding how those Harbaugh teams were built). He would have been starting by 2005 not 2008, with no Favre to sit behind for 3 seasons, probably no McCarthy after one season, a shitty coach in Nolan, shittier organization in general. And he probably would have been better than Smith by enough to not get the best draft picks either. Maybe instead of 6-10 to 8-8 squads, they might have been a 9-11 win team instead. The question is whether he would have had the mental fortitude to be with that team a long time if he has the attitude he's had with better teams. Smith was drafted for being a people pleaser versus stubborn Aaron (you have to believe the rumor), but turned out to be 10 times as mentally tough, proven every single year on 3 different teams, and even after his brutal injury.
Lots of what ifs. Rodgers' was undeniably robbed of a SB appearance against New England by some super unfortunate luck in Seattle in 2014 NFC Championship. Hard to say if they would have beaten New England.
Young and Brees are both 1 Lombardi a piece with similar excuses for not having more, Marino one less. Maybe it's not so bad. Brady and Montana were blessed with better clutch genes than the rest and better organizations which explains the difference. Eli Manning is in a similar boat that way as well.
Rodgers maybe not as great as he once was but still very good.
Steve Young is the guy who's most similar to Rodgers. This is one where Rodgers actually has the longevity advantage. But Young's passing stats are actually superior, he was an even more dangerous running threat, and he had similar success in the playoffs. I think Young definitely has a case vs. Rodgers, although I'd lean Rodgers gun to my head because I like his arm better and I have less questions about his supporting cast and system's effect on his performance.
I think Young has been a bit underrated when discussion over top QBs of the '90s/all time is brought up.
Having Rice & Taylor clouds things when Young had to overcome those Cowboy teams.
Even to this day I'd say the Cowboys were slightly better than the Niners talent wise, but Young was the difference in both the two years he lost and the year they finally won.
Cowboys just were unfair in the trenches, and they had Haley.
There's a lot more parody in this version of NFL so dominant defenses generally don't stay that way for very long. I feel like the last truly dominant defense that wrecked the league for multiple years in a row were the circa-2000 Ravens. Since then you've had the Seahwaks, 49ers, Steelers, Ravens again, Bucs, Broncos and a few others with outlier seasons maybe but nothing that i'd consider a consistent force.
And with wildcard teams now winning Superbowls its truly an "Any Given Sunday" league.
I think there is an important distinction when discussing the greatest of all time, and it's the same question I've heard a couple of times when discussing whether somebody is a HOF'er or not.
"Can you tell the story of the NFL without them".
And this sort of clarifies the point I made a couple of days ago about "memorable/signature moments".
What is Aaron Rodgers part of the story of the NFL, why was he important, and what makes it more important than say a Terry Bradshaw, Roger Staubach, or Ken Stabler?
For some reason you don't find it impressive, or if you do you aren't really stating it or how important it is. And while this conversation is subjective in nature I don't think its fair not to recognize the areas of his game that he has a massive leg up on.
So in 20 years when I reflect on the greatest QB's of my lifetime I'm going to think of how this player who gave me video game highlights on a weekly basis, almost always had his team in the game and rarely threw the game away (something thats normally applauded at every level of play for any other player).
And to add to that when I think of the likely GOAT, Tom Brady, I'm honestly thinking of more than just him. I'm thinking of his coach and that defense for many of those years. I can't do that with Rodgers, no one can.
In 20 years, if the biggest thing I'm thinking about is his efficiency, then that's not as memorable as let's say Troy Aikman and his teams.
Now Troy Aikman does not belong in the discussion for best of all time, but to me, Troy Aikman will be more memorable to me than Aaron Rodgers, simply because I will remember much more about his career and successes, and big games that I remember from that time period.
It is what it is, and that's just an opinion.
If efficiency and statistics were the main determining factor of greatest of all time, Rodgers would be arguably number one.
Rodgers hits those marks too. Post Peyton Manning he's arguably the face of the NFL, he's the QB of one of the cornerstone franchises in the league, he's the back of arguably the most successful quarterback transition ever, he started his career in a controversial draft freefall, he got caught up in the will he won't he Favre retirement, plus he's a phenomenal football player.
I think one of the big disconnects for me, is the proliferation of fantasy football and how it changed the way people watch and analyze the sport.
I played for a while too, in the early 2000's, but found fantasy started to take away the entertainment of watching the competition, and in many instances caused conflicts of interest in my rooting interests.
Perhaps that is my disconnect, the way people watch the game evolved and I didn't.
Disclaimer: That is not meant as an insult to Rodgers, stats, or fantasy... Just an observation.
But what signature moment does he have, other than just being the best player on the field every time he laces up his cleats?
I think when we talk about signature moments and memorable moments,we can fall into a perception trick. It's like a diving catch in baseball. It's incredible to see, excites us, and we remember it. But is it really any better or greater than if the outfielder got a better jump, tracked the ball on a better route, and caught it casually in stride?
If a QB makes bad throws on 2nd and 3rd downs, and then comes up with a big 4th and long, it's more memorable-- but is that 1-for-3 series really better than if he just made that same throw on 2nd down?
Sports is entertainment for fans. Yes, we want to watch our teams win. But the memories are of course important. If the Giants just beat the crap out of the Patriots the first time around, it would have been awesome to see and perhaps told an even better story of that Giants team.
But as a fan, in hindsight, I love that it came down to the 4th quarter and came down to the play with Eli and Tyree. That memory/memorable moment is worth more to me than the box score.
And so I think there are many ways to get into the HOF, and signature moments can be a part of that calculation.
But when I think of greatness, I think more about overall performance and less about individual moments.
I think Rodgers is a dick, my memories of him are playing the game like he was a cheat code. Ridiculous throws, efficiency, didn't throw interceptions, and seemed to put points on the board quickly.
He and Peyton are the two best I've ever seen. I'm excited to see how Mahomes continues his career.
He has simply been better at QB during this time than anybody else. That’s his legacy if it ended today.
He has simply been better at QB during this time than anybody else. That’s his legacy if it ended today.
I don't agree he's been better than everybody else. Tom Brady has been better than everybody else for the past 20 years, and everything backs that up.
And (yet another) signature win in the Superbowl with the comeback against Atlanta and being the only QB to win an overtime game in Superbowl history.
What has Rodgers done better than that?
Not to mention a multiple time all-pro, 2nd team all pro, passing TD leader several times, and passing yards leader.
Should I go on?
That's what I think of when I think Aaron Rodgers. All-time great arm who consistently made jaw-dropping throws look easy.
Mahomes is the first guy we've seen since that has a similar ability.
On the other hand, Peyton went to the SB with four different head coaches (granted his last one he was carried there) and tt's why I just feel more confident in my belief that more of Peyton's success was due to Peyton than Brady's to Brady.
But I've always been a Peyton guy. Rodgers was the first one to come along to make me question whether I was seeing the position played at a higher individual level.
If Brady was a passenger on all those teams that would be one thing, but he has been the greatest performer on all of those teams by a large margin.
For 20 years, he's been the constant.
Not to mention a multiple time all-pro, 2nd team all pro, passing TD leader several times, and passing yards leader.
Should I go on?
Rodgers has a few league MVPs, multiple all pro and numerous pro bowls over same time.
Should I go on and list them for you too?
Tom Brady hasn't exactly been playing with superstars for the past decade.
Quote:
I actually left out 2010, which would have added a 2nd League MVP in the last decade.
Not to mention a multiple time all-pro, 2nd team all pro, passing TD leader several times, and passing yards leader.
Should I go on?
Rodgers has a few league MVPs, multiple all pro and numerous pro bowls over same time.
Should I go on and list them for you too?
Please, go ahead and do a side by side of 2010-2019, Tom Brady vs. Aaron Rodgers accomplishments. Be honest though, don't cherry pick, include everything.
So while I hear you, I guess I find it kind of shocking still that his level of play is boring, which is the focal point of your argument. Which to me, and this is simply my opinion, is a really bad argument.
Quote:
In comment 14912975 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
I actually left out 2010, which would have added a 2nd League MVP in the last decade.
Not to mention a multiple time all-pro, 2nd team all pro, passing TD leader several times, and passing yards leader.
Should I go on?
Rodgers has a few league MVPs, multiple all pro and numerous pro bowls over same time.
Should I go on and list them for you too?
Please, go ahead and do a side by side of 2010-2019, Tom Brady vs. Aaron Rodgers accomplishments. Be honest though, don't cherry pick, include everything.
Really...I was hoping I didnt have to? Look at Wikipedia. There all listed on right hand side, nice and neatly.
So while I hear you, I guess I find it kind of shocking still that his level of play is boring, which is the focal point of your argument. Which to me, and this is simply my opinion, is a really bad argument.
Saying his play is "boring" set this off in the wrong direction.
I poorly molded my point over a series of posts that were connected but probably appeared independent of each other.
What I meant was, and boring was too strong a word, I just don't remember any one thing in particular about the guy in any one game or big moment that I still think about or pops into my mind when I think of Aaron Rodgers.
I just think: he's great. His numbers are insane. It's like I know he's great but my mind can't pinpoint any one reason other than just, wow, those numbers.
As somebody that is not a numbers guy, it just doesn't stand out to me. That's it.
If Brady was a passenger on all those teams that would be one thing, but he has been the greatest performer on all of those teams by a large margin.
For 20 years, he's been the constant.
Sure you can. If you are going to use "signature moments" as a benchmark than i'm sure as hell going to look at team composition and coaching. You are actually the one cherry picking here...
Ok. I understand the SB wins make it tough but I was trying to focus on just the QB play which is not cut and dry.
You've explained yourself above much better than you did initially. I can't make you a numbers guy and I change what's entertaining to you. I just feel that both of those things you've beaten us with as reasons why Rodgers isn't near the top of the all time list and to me its a weak argument.
In the end there are players in sports who make the best of great situations and the best of less than ideal situations. This speaks directly to Brady and Rodgers but we are seeing it now too - Mahomes vs almost everyone else.
That isn't to say Mahomes isn't amazing or wouldn't be on say, the Browns, but he's benefitted tremendously for being drafted by Reid and playing with those weapons - if that doesn't matter than what does?
I'm fairly certain Mahomes has 0 rings today if he was the #1 overall draft pick that year. Situation matters greatly.
However, the question posed in the op is much more nuanced and complicated, and that's what my entire take on this thread is based on. His place all time. Much more subjective and I've stated my reasons for it.
It's clear to me now that the disconnect is metrics and stats. I'm just not a subscriber to them in football.
We aren't just talking about "some stats and metrics". This isn't a guy who's never been to the playoffs and just compiled stats his whole career. That's kind of how it sounds even if you are saying its not.
Rodgers is in the tier below -- he's just a great quarterback.
He's part of the legacy of a fantastic franchise, part of a really compelling story, widly famous, will likely retire among the top of the record books, is insanely productive and efficient, has a fantastic winning percentage, has won a championship, and has all the individual accolades.
He's the prototypical great quarterback.
I agree with Britt that I look at the overall picture when it comes to all time greats and that includes championships. I think some of your are being naive in thinking when it is all said and done, if Rodgers ends his career with just the one ring, some would consider that underwhelming considering some of the dominant regular season Packers teams he was a part of.
Think about it this way, if Mahomes stays on this trajectory that he has over the past two years and wins another Super Bowl you don't think he is going to get compared to these all time greats as well?
Not arguing for the sake of it either as a whole lot of detailed info has been put forth here.
Arguing for the sake of it would be, say...boring?
That alone separates the men from the boys.
But if Brees leads the Saints to another Super Bowl title, especially if he goes through Brady and the divisional rival Bucs to do it... I could see his legacy getting a huge boost and people start saying "maybe he has a case over Peyton/Brady".
Are you talking about Brees? When did he go to a second super bowl?
Quote:
a third Superbowl appearance and second Championship would certainly put him above Rodgers in a lot of eyes, IMO.
Are you talking about Brees? When did he go to a second super bowl?
Yeah, typo, sorry. A second appearance, second championship. I actually was thinking of Peyton Manning and got turned around.
I think he has really cut down the ints over the past several years too.
There is a case.
The proliferation of fantasy football has changed the way we view the NFL.
Think about it. Fantasy paved the way for:
Advanced metrics and stats
Redzone Channel
Just to take my overall point on football as entertainment vs. something else, or better yet, how YOU are entertained by football....
I can't watch the Redzone. But I know some diehard fans that would rather watch Redzone than their own team's game. They just love the scoring.
To me, every game is a story, from beginning to end. I, personally, cannot understand that story by watching the Redzone.
There is no entertainment for me, to just watch the game when a team is about to score.
There is zero doubt that people watch the NFL way differently now than they did, let's say, even 15 years ago.
So there is modern history, and there is everything that came before. Kind of like the internet. Everything has changed.
I agree with Britt that I look at the overall picture when it comes to all time greats and that includes championships. I think some of your are being naive in thinking when it is all said and done, if Rodgers ends his career with just the one ring, some would consider that underwhelming considering some of the dominant regular season Packers teams he was a part of.
Think about it this way, if Mahomes stays on this trajectory that he has over the past two years and wins another Super Bowl you don't think he is going to get compared to these all time greats as well?
Well I expressed my opinion on this thread from the very beginning, and my stance on it has remained consistent. Nothing I'm saying today is any different from what I said in previous days. I'm not arguing with him just to argue, we are having a debate about something we don't agree on. No need to turn it into something it isn't.
To me, Rodgers' greatness is based on the eye test. I've seen the man make so many amazing throws over the years. He has also carried his team to consistent success despite mediocre supporting casts, and won a Super Bowl along the way. The stats merely reflect what the eye test has sown me that Rodgers is a legendary QB.
When I think fantasty football QB, I think empty stat guys like a Kirk Cousins or someone like that who puts up the stats but doesn't pass the eye test.
For me I don't even have to think about it. If I switched the two players teams I think we would see one of them with no rings and the other with multiple.
What current QB's are "old school" and if none does that mean everyone moving forward is discounted because of their era?
Rodgers plays on the frozen tundra of Green Bay and still lights it up. He's Old School & New School.
What current QB's are "old school" and if none does that mean everyone moving forward is discounted because of their era?
I didn't say that. I just said it's different. It was meant to be more of an observation than a debate. It was meant to better illustrate my own point of view and where I'm coming from.
Quote:
I just see Peyton, Brady, Favre, as being more old school, and Rodgers being new school, which I have failed to embrace as a fan.
Rodgers plays on the frozen tundra of Green Bay and still lights it up. He's Old School & New School.
But he's played his whole career in the era that benefits the offense significantly.
And THAT'S another change that fantasy brought about, to add to that list. The NFL wanted more scoring, so they changed the rules.
It's already been mentioned that part of Mahomes apparent greatness is the system in which he plays.
Bill Polian got the rules changed because Belichick's defense kept neutralizing Peyton's receivers, thus shutting him down.
The first 8 years of Peyton's career, he was considered a regular season champ, that choked in the big game.
Whether that was perception or reality, that's how he was largely viewed.
But Peyton and Brady DID play significant time in that era. So you can definitively make a comparison.
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.
But its not like he not doing it anyway...indoor/outdoor, 2010 rules versus 2019 rules, regular season or playoffs.
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.
But again, it's just an observation and just reflecting on what it even means to be all time anything in this sport.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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!
Necessary, but it indeed changed things.
Again, beyond the control of the players being discussed but still significant when comparing all time.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I think, at the very least, my point is understood now even if you don't agree with it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Anybody drafted post 2004 QB draft class of Eli/Ben/Rivers?
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.
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.
He's ultra accurate and of the great quarterbacks this generation, has the best wheels.
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.
Passer Rating + - ( New Window )
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.
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.