What is Aaron Rodger's Legacy?

.

right?

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.

I said his teams are always in the playoffs and he is the main reason for it in my very first post. So I never insinuated that he was a stat compiler that never makes the playoffs.

felt like we had a pretty good understanding to walk away from this agreeing to disagree...

.

He's certainly not Brady. Brady is arguably the most important and best football player of all time.

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.

Again, no one on here is saying Rodgers isn't a great QB. He has put up great stats over his entire career.

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?

They were very good & consistent playoff teams mostly because of Rodgers imv. And certainly not dominant every year...how many times were they the #1 seed...once or twice?

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?

.

whether a dupe or not.

Who would you guys rather have as your team's QB for their prime?

Rodgers plays in Green Bay in the elements in late December and in the playoffs.

That alone separates the men from the boys.

the TD to INT ratio. Brees has led the league in INT's almost as many times as Eli has.

Isn't Brees significantly better in domes?

"all day/every day" label on that one.

He's going to end up with ludicrous stats. He's won a Super Bowl already. But nobody really entertains the idea that he's on the Brady/Peyton level all-time, and most of us seem to agree that he wasn't quite as good as Rodgers.

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".

a third Superbowl appearance and second Championship would certainly put him above Rodgers in a lot of eyes, IMO.

In comment 14913112 Britt in VA said:

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?

In comment 14913116 figgy2989 said:

Quote:

In comment 14913112 Britt in VA said: 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.

That is why I brought up Mahomes earlier. He wins another MVP and Super Bowl, he will start to getting compared to all time greats as well.

changed the landscape on Brees. The miraculous TD by Minnesota and the shit no-call PI versus Rams both were stinging blows. Loss in OT last year when they didn't play well hurts too.

I think he has really cut down the ints over the past several years too.

There is a case.

even though I didn't know I was making it at the time, or at least it was subconscious to me...

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 just see Peyton, Brady, Favre, as being more old school, and Rodgers being new school, which I have failed to embrace as a fan.

In comment 14913084 figgy2989 said:

Quote:

Again, no one on here is saying Rodgers isn't a great QB. He has put up great stats over his entire career. 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.

fantasy football has absolutely changed the discussion of certain players and the way fans view the sport in general, I just don't think it applies to Rodgers.

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.

In comment 14913097 Osi Osi Osi OyOyOy said:

Quote:

Who would you guys rather have as your team's QB for their prime?

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.

its like trying to say Jordan wouldn't be as good in the current NBA because he couldn't hand-check. He'd adapt and be just fine.

What current QB's are "old school" and if none does that mean everyone moving forward is discounted because of their era?

In comment 14913127 Britt in VA said:

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.

In comment 14913133 UConn4523 said:

Quote:

its like trying to say Jordan wouldn't be as good in the current NBA because he couldn't hand-check. He'd adapt and be just fine. 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.

In comment 14913134 LBH15 said:

Quote:

In comment 14913127 Britt in VA said: 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.

So are we to think that he's just another once in a generation player, or a product of the era and systems designed to take advantage of the era.

It's already been mentioned that part of Mahomes apparent greatness is the system in which he plays.

by the way if we're getting to the nitty gritty of it.

While its better now for the Offense, the QBs you mentioned all played a good portion of their career in a similar or the same era.

And I don't think it's insignificant.

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.

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

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

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

one in each era.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In comment 14913142 Britt in VA said:

Quote:

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

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

with current offenses. He's benefitted greatly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In comment 14913178 Britt in VA said:

Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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