What is Aaron Rodger's Legacy?

In comment 14911993 Osi Osi Osi OyOyOy said:

Quote:

('08-'10) -- 35-11 record -- 5-2 playoffs -- 12,860 yards -- 112 TD -- 25 INT -- 110.7 Rating ('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

thing he has going for him, what interesting points are you making that Rodgers should be anywhere near the Top 5 all time?

In comment 14912005 Britt in VA said:

Quote:

that probably pushes Rodgers down to #3 overall best QB in Green Bay.

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.

In comment 14912008 Britt in VA said:

Quote:

thing he has going for him, what interesting points are you making that Rodgers should be anywhere near the Top 5 all time?

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.

In comment 14912008 Britt in VA said:

Quote:

thing he has going for him, what interesting points are you making that Rodgers should be anywhere near the Top 5 all time?

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.

yet he's still the most efficient passer in this one too. Next in line is Russell Wilson who barring injury, will have a thread just like this one in another 5 years. And those points will still be valid, his efficiency is off the charts.

In comment 14912019 UConn4523 said:

Quote:

yet he's still the most efficient passer in this one too. Next in line is Russell Wilson who barring injury, will have a thread just like this one in another 5 years. And those points will still be valid, his efficiency is off the charts.

Yep

............

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.

In comment 14912008 Britt in VA said:

Quote:

thing he has going for him, what interesting points are you making that Rodgers should be anywhere near the Top 5 all time?

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?

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.

Eli

.

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.

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.

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).

In comment 14912034 Britt in VA said:

Quote:

.

Inside the top 20?

Or at least in the Top 15, since I said it was arguable he wasn't in the Top 10, meaning with a great argument I could be swayed.

have to overcome his boorish play.

In comment 14912037 LBH15 said:

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.

and I can't name 1 guy that's "boring". Most notable example is Tim Duncan - him and the Spurs teams were considered boring but good lord was watching them put on a clinic fun to watch.

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.

In comment 14912054 KDavies said:

Quote:

In comment 14912037 LBH15 said: 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?

Rodgers just came off a ridiculously efficient and productive year, and settling really nicely into the role of older QB.

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.

In comment 14912072 christian said:

Quote:

Rodgers just came off a ridiculously efficient and productive year, and settling really nicely into the role of older QB. 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'd really like to see a serious list where Rodgers is debatably not in the top 15.

and furthermore.... Top 10 statistically in all major categories?

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?

simply because there are probably at least 10 players, ALL TIME, that I think are better than him. I think that starts to loosen at 15.

.

At the end of the day, I just don't put Rodgers in the class of what I consider the all time greats. The numbers say he is. Fine.

IMO, he's a tier below many players I consider to be all time. That's it.

In comment 14912086 Britt in VA said:

Quote:

and furthermore.... Top 10 statistically in all major categories? 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?

has just about the same hardware (1 more MVP which Rodgers would have anyway had it not been for the era he’s in) but infinitely more flaws. Flaws that can’t be ignored, yet somehow you ignore them. And for what, memorable plays? How is that even quantifiable? Can’t I just do that for any player I enjoy watching more than another?

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.

Brady
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.

really means “I wish people would give Eli more respect.”

Tarkenton never won a ring. He still belongs on that tier though.

and try to bully people into accepting your opinion as THE reality of things, it's not going to work.

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.

In comment 14912112 Britt in VA said:

Quote:

and try to bully people into accepting your opinion as THE reality of things, it's not going to work. 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?

If I'm ranking all time top 10, all things considered -- productivity, achievements, era, team success, etc. I go:

- Brady
- Montana
- Unitas
- Manning
- Bradshaw
- Elway
- Marino
- Starr
- Brees
- Rodgers

Happens all the time on BBI. I’ve even agreed with you on many other threads on various topics. But your reasoning here just isn’t sound and it’s contradictory. Citing why you have Favre above is a prime example. In reality you simply like the guy more and that’s fine, so just say that in move on. Instead you spent a whole lot of time telling people why you are right without really giving a good, tangible reason, and then shoot down every stat, figure, piece of analysis that goes against your belief.

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.

In comment 14912033 rocco8112 said:

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. Eli

No doubt, Eli

In comment 14912117 christian said:

Quote:

If I'm ranking all time top 10, all things considered -- productivity, achievements, era, team success, etc. I go: - 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

nor was I referring to him when I was referring to three people that are just going round and round and doing the piling on trying to force some sort of concession and dismissing anything but.

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.

with some arguable omissions. So I agree with that assessment as well.

Arguably top 10.

by bringing in the Eli Bootlicking argument (on a Giants board, no less), then it becomes something that's not debate anymore.

The "whose career would you take" is an interesting question.

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.

I know Dan Marino said he would have traded a lot of the accolades in order to share a championship with his teammates.

.

that the "monkey got off his back".

In comment 14912112 Britt in VA said:

Quote:

and try to bully people into accepting your opinion as THE reality of things, it's not going to work. 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??

In comment 14912138 Britt in VA said:

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.

Otto Graham, Sammy Baugh, Sid Luckman, and Norm Van Brocklin, Y.A. Tittle. Those are 1940s and 50s era superstar QBs.

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.

In comment 14912152 Osi Osi Osi OyOyOy said:

Quote:

Otto Graham, Sammy Baugh, Sid Luckman, and Norm Van Brocklin, Y.A. Tittle. Those are 1940s and 50s era superstar QBs. 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?