PDA

View Full Version : If Aaron Rodgers Successfully defends the title...


soybean
05-18-2011, 02:50 PM
Does that make him the best qb in the league?

I know it sounds like a noob question or a sports nation poll but I'm interested in seeing what you guys think.

There's all this talk about Peyton, Brady and Brees but why are those three the consensus top 3?

Aaron Rodgers essentially has it all (mobility, arm, accuracy) and had an AMAZING superbowl and playoff performances against one of the league's top defenses.

So what do you think? If he gets number 2 does he leap frog all three?

FlyingElvis
05-18-2011, 02:55 PM
His only knock vs. Brady/Manning is longevity. He's clearly a stud and deserves to be in the "Best QB in the NFL" discussion but I'm not annointing him #1 over guys with more years at the top.

Shahin
05-18-2011, 02:57 PM
Yep, if he wins another superbowl in the way he won this last one, then he's absolutely the best in the league.

BigBanger
05-18-2011, 03:13 PM
Well, it's a what have you done for me lately league. No one played better in the post season than Rodgers. He had an excellent regular season. He's got the belt. He played like the best QB in the NFL on the biggest stage... yeah, he's already done enough to be called the best QB in the game right now. If he repeats, it will just further cement his status for anyone who doubts / questions him. I understand that people wouldn't want to put him up against Brady, but Rodgers could easily beat Brady in a matchup, and if NE was in the SB and he outplayed Brady, then more people would probably praise Rodgers. He shredded Atlanta and shredded Pittsburgh like they were **** teams. The guy was unreal.

bearsfan_51
05-18-2011, 03:15 PM
Tom Brady has three, so...no.

phlysac
05-18-2011, 03:24 PM
He would have the same number of rings as Roethlisberger and you'd be hard-pressed to hear anyone say he's the League's best.

soybean
05-18-2011, 03:29 PM
Tom Brady has three, so...no.

But his playoff and superbowl performance was unarguably better than 3/4 of Brady's superbowls against better competition as well.

In fact the first superbowl I believe should be more credited to the defense than Brady IMO.

By the way Im not arguing rigns as a determinant of who the best qb is (well kind of) but play + superbowl rings.

Also, he already has 2 out of 3 seasons where he has a 100+ qb rating.

If you want to argue A's intangibles vs. B's intangibles then that's a completely different argument.

Iamcanadian
05-18-2011, 03:30 PM
If he wins 2 in a row he definitely moves into the top end of league QB's. Peyton has a very poor playoff record and Brady keeps getting injured year after year, so I would put him at the top if he comes back and wins another.

bearsfan_51
05-18-2011, 03:42 PM
I guess it depends on what you mean by "best." Better now, certainly. Better all-time, I don't see how anyone could make an argument against Brady.

yo123
05-18-2011, 03:56 PM
I think he's already the best QB in the league personally.

FlyingElvis
05-18-2011, 03:56 PM
Brady & Manning both have 10+ years with winning records, division titles, and a nice set of league records to show for it. Rodgers has 3 seasons, 2 winning records and a SB win. It just doesn't compare. Yet.

mqtirishfan
05-18-2011, 04:07 PM
It depends on how you judge it. If I could take one QB to play a game for my team today, there's a good chance it'd be Rodgers or Manning. Going forward, it'd definitely be Rodgers. Then again, there's the legacy that Manning and Brady have. Just watching Rodgers play week in and week out, though, has me convinced he could be the best in the league right now.

jrdrylie
05-18-2011, 04:07 PM
If he wins 2 in a row he definitely moves into the top end of league QB's. Peyton has a very poor playoff record and Brady keeps getting injured year after year, so I would put him at the top if he comes back and wins another.

What do you mean Brady keeps getting injured year after year. Since 2002, he has started 16 games every year except 2008 when somebody rolled up on his leg.

And no, even if Rodgers wins the Super Bowl next year, he will not be the best QB. Brady and Manning are ahead of him now. Brady has three rings. And Brady was better than Rodgers last year. Manning only has one ring, but statistically, he's better than Rodgers. Now if both significantly regress, then yeah, Rodgers will probably be first in line to replace them. But I don't see that happening.

yo123
05-18-2011, 04:14 PM
Brady & Manning both have 10+ years with winning records, division titles, and a nice set of league records to show for it. Rodgers has 3 seasons, 2 winning records and a SB win. It just doesn't compare. Yet.


We're not talking lifetime achievements. We're talking about right now.

descendency
05-18-2011, 04:20 PM
Right now, yes.

Career, no lol.

umphrey
05-18-2011, 08:53 PM
I have a really hard time coming up with an order for the top 3 of Rodgers Manning Brady. You could write them any way and I wouldn't gripe about it. I'm certain Brees isn't in there, but I can't see him any lower than 4.

jsagan77
05-18-2011, 10:03 PM
It was the same thing when Brees won the SB, now it's Rodgers. They're both fine QB's but I think you could make a case for Phillip Rivers being better than both of them let alone the 1a/1b combo of Brady and Manning who are the top two guys now and possibly ever.

Rodgers is defintely top 4 and will be #1 or #2 someday but I doubt anyone would put him over Brady or Manning unless they drop off immensely.

I do feel like we'll be having the same Brady/Manning type debates with regard to Rivers and Rodgers over the next decade though and I can't wait to see how both of their careers end up compared to Brady and Manning.

Right now IMO the top QB's are

Brady
Manning
Rivers
Rodgers
Brees

and you could realistically flip the 1st two and second two and make a valid argument for either. At this point in time it's all personal preference.

J-Mike88
05-18-2011, 10:04 PM
Tom Brady has three, so...no.
Haha..... so you're saying Rodgers is still not as good as Roethlisberger now then....

Go Bearz

soybean
05-18-2011, 10:12 PM
It was the same thing when Brees won the SB, now it's Rodgers. They're both fine QB's but I think you could make a case for Phillip Rivers being better than both of them let alone the 1a/1b combo of Brady and Manning who are the top two guys now and possibly ever.

Rodgers is defintely top 4 and will be #1 or #2 someday but I doubt anyone would put him over Brady or Manning unless they drop off immensely.

I do feel like we'll be having the same Brady/Manning type debates with regard to Rivers and Rodgers over the next decade though and I can't wait to see how both of their careers end up compared to Brady and Manning.

Right now IMO the top QB's are

Brady
Manning
Rivers
Rodgers
Brees

and you could realistically flip the 1st two and second two and make a valid argument for either. At this point in time it's all personal preference.

Let me ask you... what EXACTLY does either brady or manning have over rodgers if we're talking about right now?

Splat
05-18-2011, 10:19 PM
Brady keeps getting injured year after year.

I don't know where you are getting your information but it's wrong.

nepg
05-18-2011, 10:28 PM
Let me ask you... what EXACTLY does either brady or manning have over rodgers if we're talking about right now?

They're better and playing much tougher schedules (both regular and post-season).

wogitalia
05-18-2011, 10:38 PM
Brady & Manning both have 10+ years with winning records, division titles, and a nice set of league records to show for it. Rodgers has 3 seasons, 2 winning records and a SB win. It just doesn't compare. Yet.

And Michael Jordan has 6 rings and countless records, is he better than LeBron is right now?

No one has said that Rodgers' career is better than Brady/Manning if he wins a ring next year, the question is would he move to the top of the QB charts, I think you could legitimately argue that he is already there right now. He thoroughly outperformed Manning and Brees last year in both the playoffs and regular season and he went stride for stride with Brady in the regular season and thrashed him in the playoffs.

There really isn't any arguement right now that any QB outplayed Rodgers last year by any significant amount, I'd say he already has a very strong case for being the best QB in the league right now.

So glad we took Erasmus James and Troy Williamson instead, absolutely masterful drafting!

nepg
05-18-2011, 10:50 PM
Pretty sure Brady outplayed every QB in the NFL last year...there's no doubting that. The AFC playoffs are much tougher than the NFC.

FUNBUNCHER
05-18-2011, 11:02 PM
He'll be the best QB in the NFC easily, which ain't bad.

Brothgar
05-19-2011, 12:25 AM
Tom Brady has three, so...no.

Tom Brady

Peyton Manning



Aaron Rogers

Tom Brady was the MVP this season Rogers wasn't really in the discussion so the what have you done for me lately thing just doesn't fly here. Right now he is in the Rivers Brees Rogers conversation not in the Brady Manning Conversation. Another super bowl will make me start talking about it but lets face facts It will take alot more for Rogers to over take these two top 10 players of all time.

RaiderNation
05-19-2011, 12:52 AM
It would be very close between him Peyton and Manning. It would for sure put him ahead of Brees. If Rodgers put up like 35+tds and won MVP then I could really see it.

AntoinCD
05-19-2011, 02:55 AM
Let me ask you... what EXACTLY does either brady or manning have over rodgers if we're talking about right now?

How about the fact that in the last 4 years there have been two people who have won the MVP award. Guess who?

Those two QBs also have what Aaron Rodgers have with a Superbowl ring, obviously Brady has more. Yeah you can argue its been 5 years since the Colts won and 7 since the Pats but it cant be discounted.

Last year Rodgers was outplayed throughout the season by Brady. The year before by Manning. The year before that by Manning. He wasnt a started the year before.

So if you're judging this off who was the best QB in the NFL based off the Superbowl last year then yes Aaron Rodgers is the best QB in the league and Ben Roethlisberger is second. The other thirty can be made up of any random order.

Ness
05-19-2011, 04:36 AM
I'd put him in the exact same boat as Drew Brees. Both him and Rogers have the potential to have the crown, but Manning and Brady and what they've done for the last ten years is holding them higher on the later. If Rodgers wins another title I could see why people would anoint him that status, and it would be hard to argue against it. So as for the purely "now", then yeah I could see it if he wins another Super Bowl. I could say the same thing about Drew Brees too.


At this level though it doesn't really matter. All of those guys are great quarterbacks and ranking them in this fashion is kind of pointless.

jsagan77
05-19-2011, 05:25 AM
Let me ask you... what EXACTLY does either brady or manning have over rodgers if we're talking about right now?

League MVPs?
More Wins last season? (Brady)
More TD's last season?
Less INT's last season? (Brady)
More Yards last season? (Peyton)

The ONLY thing Rodgers has over Brady and/or Manning is the hype machine after winning a Super Bowl. Any way you spin it there is no argument for Aaron Rodgers as the top QB even if he wins next year UNLESS Peyton and Brady drop off immensely or Rodgers takes a huge step and blows up the league. Even then he has to contend with Rivers who I think is a better QB right now than Rodgers (though it is close).

Don't get me wrong, i'm not trying to undermine Rodgers ability because it's obvious that he's a great QB, but to put him on Brady and Peytons level would be premature IMO.

Bengalsrocket
05-19-2011, 07:30 AM
You're either asking us to make a lot of assumptions or you're leaving out to much information.

What if Rodgers plays like 9 regular season games, throws for 2,000 yards with 12 touchdowns over 9 interceptions and looks sloppy in the play offs while the defense carries him to a 2nd ring?

However, if he has a nearly identical season to last year (or better), then I don't see why he wouldn't be considered the best (currently).

jsagan77
05-19-2011, 08:58 AM
I'm just curious as to what would make Rogers better than Rivers even if he wins another SB? A couple SB wins? If so, is Big Ben in the conversation? Big Ben has had some pretty good seasons himself specifically in 2007 and 2009 and two super bowl wins and another appearance. His numbers aren't gaudy like the others but neither were Brady's and a lot of people still say he's better than Peyton.

I guess it would be an easier discussion if we could find a set criteria for exactly what makes a QB the best...

FlyingElvis
05-19-2011, 09:04 AM
We're not talking lifetime achievements. We're talking about right now.
No, we're not. We're also not talking the "One or Two Post Season Awards" either. Brady and Manning continue to perform at GOAT levels and, assuming they do so again in 2011, a SB win still won't vault Rodgers ahead of them, imo.

Reread my first post in the thread, as I think you missed that one. ;)

And Michael Jordan has 6 rings and countless records, is he better than LeBron is right now?

No one has said that Rodgers' career is better than Brady/Manning if he wins a ring next year, the question is would he move to the top of the QB charts, I think you could legitimately argue that he is already there right now. He thoroughly outperformed Manning and Brees last year in both the playoffs and regular season and he went stride for stride with Brady in the regular season and thrashed him in the playoffs.

There really isn't any arguement right now that any QB outplayed Rodgers last year by any significant amount, I'd say he already has a very strong case for being the best QB in the league right now.

So glad we took Erasmus James and Troy Williamson instead, absolutely masterful drafting!

See above.

Also . . . Jordan v. LeBron? Really? You chose an analogy where a guy who has been retired for a decade is compared to the current top dog? How is that even remotely comparable to the question at hand involving 3 active players?

I have a really hard time coming up with an order for the top 3 of Rodgers Manning Brady. You could write them any way and I wouldn't gripe about it. I'm certain Brees isn't in there, but I can't see him any lower than 4.
Exactly. I think Rodgers is playing incredibly well and deserves to be in the discussion of "Best in the NFL right now" but we can't just boot Brady and Manning out of that discussion b/c Rodgers won a ring - or even wins a hypothetical 2nd straight ring.

fear the elf
05-19-2011, 09:59 AM
I'm just curious as to what would make Rogers better than Rivers even if he wins another SB? A couple SB wins? If so, is Big Ben in the conversation? Big Ben has had some pretty good seasons himself specifically in 2007 and 2009 and two super bowl wins and another appearance. His numbers aren't gaudy like the others but neither were Brady's and a lot of people still say he's better than Peyton.

I guess it would be an easier discussion if we could find a set criteria for exactly what makes a QB the best...

I'm curious why you wouldn't think Rodgers is better than Rivers if he had 2 rings. Their regular season statistics are pretty similar, but Rivers hasn't won a Super Bowl, or even been to one.

So all other things being equal, I would think the playoff success would put Rodgers over the top. Right?

killxswitch
05-19-2011, 10:26 AM
He will be well on his way but no, I can't say at that point he'll be the best. To me "best" includes your entire career and Rodgers looks like he'll have a great one. But guys like Manning, Brady, and even Brees and Rivers have been doing it longer. That counts for something.

the_legend_killer
05-19-2011, 10:32 AM
And Michael Jordan has 6 rings and countless records, is he better than LeBron is right now?

No one has said that Rodgers' career is better than Brady/Manning if he wins a ring next year, the question is would he move to the top of the QB charts, I think you could legitimately argue that he is already there right now. He thoroughly outperformed Manning and Brees last year in both the playoffs and regular season and he went stride for stride with Brady in the regular season and thrashed him in the playoffs.

There really isn't any arguement right now that any QB outplayed Rodgers last year by any significant amount, I'd say he already has a very strong case for being the best QB in the league right now.

So glad we took Erasmus James and Troy Williamson instead, absolutely masterful drafting

QB wasn't a need for Minnesota when Rodgers went in the '05 draft. Daunte Culpepper was coming off one of the greatest statistical seasons of all time.

But, of course hindsight is 20/20.......

Splat
05-19-2011, 10:42 AM
He'll be the best QB in the NFC easily, which ain't bad.

I think he all ready is.

Iamcanadian
05-19-2011, 10:49 AM
What do you mean Brady keeps getting injured year after year. Since 2002, he has started 16 games every year except 2008 when somebody rolled up on his leg.

And no, even if Rodgers wins the Super Bowl next year, he will not be the best QB. Brady and Manning are ahead of him now. Brady has three rings. And Brady was better than Rodgers last year. Manning only has one ring, but statistically, he's better than Rodgers. Now if both significantly regress, then yeah, Rodgers will probably be first in line to replace them. But I don't see that happening.

Brady has played hurt the last 2 seasons, Peyton doesn't have a pretty playoff record. IMO, while I am a Brady lover, I think Rodgers could easily move into the #1 overall spot next season and should he win another SB, then it is a done deal.
Career wise, of course Brady and Peyton are miles ahead of him but that has nothing to do with tomorrow.

AntoinCD
05-19-2011, 10:52 AM
Brady has played hurt the last 2 seasons, Peyton doesn't have a pretty playoff record. IMO, while I am a Brady lover, I think Rodgers could easily move into the #1 overall spot next season and should he win another SB, then it is a done deal.
Career wise, of course Brady and Peyton are miles ahead of him but that has nothing to do with tomorrow.

But for tomorrow I dont see how you could put Rodgers ahead of either, especially not Brady at the minute. He had a unaminous MVP season. Rodgers had a good postseason and a nice regular season but it wasnt amazing. If youre looking for a QB for the next ten years you would probably take Rodgers as of right now, but just for the next two or three years you would be crazy to take a guy not named Tom or Peyton.

As for Brady playing hurt, Rodgers has also had concussion issues so that's a moot point IMO

Iamcanadian
05-19-2011, 11:00 AM
But for tomorrow I dont see how you could put Rodgers ahead of either, especially not Brady at the minute. He had a unaminous MVP season. Rodgers had a good postseason and a nice regular season but it wasnt amazing. If youre looking for a QB for the next ten years you would probably take Rodgers as of right now, but just for the next two or three years you would be crazy to take a guy not named Tom or Peyton.

As for Brady playing hurt, Rodgers has also had concussion issues so that's a moot point IMO

Remember, the post says if Rodgers won another SB next year, you aren't factoring in that part of it.

AntoinCD
05-19-2011, 11:08 AM
Remember, the post says if Rodgers won another SB next year, you aren't factoring in that part of it.

But if Rodgers has an identical year next year and Brady or Manning have an MVP type year then I still dont see how he would become the best. He would surely be in the conversation but I couldnt categorically state he would be

Iamcanadian
05-19-2011, 11:28 AM
But if Rodgers has an identical year next year and Brady or Manning have an MVP type year then I still dont see how he would become the best. He would surely be in the conversation but I couldnt categorically state he would be

I suppose you could have argued the same when Brady won his second SB, if Rodgers can win 2 in a row he will move into at least equal footing with Brady and Peyton, maybe saying the best would be a bit much, but he will certainly be at the same level.

Cudders
05-19-2011, 11:49 AM
Obviously it would depend on the manner in which he defended his title. If he did it in a similar fashion, which I think is a reasonable assumption given his ridiculous performance in the postseason last year and the caliber of quarterback he has developed into, then he has certainly placed his name in the discussion.

Personally, all other things being equal, I tend to favor longevity. But there will be no denying Rodgers as an elite quarterback if he replicates that unbelievable Super Bowl run. He's already nipping at the heels of that top tier.

Bob Sanders Dreadlock
05-19-2011, 12:01 PM
But if Rodgers has an identical year next year and Brady or Manning have an MVP type year then I still dont see how he would become the best. He would surely be in the conversation but I couldnt categorically state he would be

So now rings are not what is most important and what you do in the regular season is? Weird coming from a patriots fan.

killxswitch
05-19-2011, 12:03 PM
Something else to consider is that Rodgers wasn't even that good until halfway through the season. Weeks 1-8 he had a 12:9 TD to INT ratio, 5 sub-90 QB ratings, and scored 20 points or less in half the games. Obviously you have to look at the entire season so you can't say he had a bad regular season, but you also can't look at the last half of the season and the playoffs of one year and say he is destined to surpass the best QBs in the game today.

bigbluedefense
05-19-2011, 12:12 PM
He'll easily be considered #3 on the list, and quite honestly the only thing that would make Peyton and Brady ranked ahead of him is longevity.

Peyton
Brady
Rodgers
Brees
Roethlisberger

I think that's the consensus top 5 in my eyes, in no particular order.

AntoinCD
05-19-2011, 12:24 PM
So now rings are not what is most important and what you do in the regular season is? Weird coming from a patriots fan.

No rings are not the be all and end all. Ben Roethlisberger has two rings and had a chance this year to add his third yet no one was making the arguement he should be considered the best. However it is all taken into account. To be considered great I believe you have to have at least one SB ring, that's why it was such a monkey off Mannings back when he won his.

Tom Brady won 3 SB rings in 4 years. That has to be a major plus in his column, however that is not the only thing that keeps him in the small elite group of QBs every year.

Rodgers at no point, yet, has been the best player at his position. Bringing his team to another SB would help his cause but his overall play is not on the level of Manning or Bradys of the last 4 years. Until it is he can't be considered the best IMo

tjsunstein
05-19-2011, 12:29 PM
I guess it depends on what you mean by "best." Better now, certainly. Better all-time, I don't see how anyone could make an argument against Brady.
I feel this way as well.

Rodgers
Brady
Rivers
Manning
Roethlisberger

My top five.

Brothgar
05-19-2011, 12:30 PM
So now rings are not what is most important and what you do in the regular season is? Weird coming from a patriots fan.

There is no one thing that is considerably more important than the other. My rule of thumb is which team would be most screwed if an average QB like Eli Manning was placed in that same situation. The Packers can contend with Matt Flynn. The Pats can contend with Matt Cassell. There hasn't been an even above average backup in Indy since Peyton got there so there is no telling.

Maybe This Year Mayhew
05-19-2011, 12:32 PM
At best Rodgers would tie Manning and Brady if he wins another in the same manner. I would never declare him the outright best. He will never clearly overtake them unless he has a similar 10 plus year career which is to be determined. Rodgers needs to continue to play on a high level which he probably will but is uncertain. Brees is in the conversation too. People forget he won a Super Bowl the year before starting 11-0 or something crazy like that then had a great run to win the Super Bowl. Brees this year had 5 more tds and 700 more yards than Rodgers(although Rodgers missed 1.5 games) although twice as many ints by Brees. In Brees playoff game against Seattle he had 65% completion on 60 throws, 2 tds and 400 yards so it wasn't his fault the Saints got upset. I would love to see a Saints/Packers NFC Championship game if of course the Lions somehow magically get eliminated early lol. Can't wait for Week 1 in Lambeau.

Saints,Falcons,Eagles,Bears, possibly Giants could knock Rodgers/Pack out of the playoffs next year if they bring their "A" game and play the best on that particular playoff gameday. But it will be a battle and Pack are obviously the favorites.

bigbluedefense
05-19-2011, 12:50 PM
No rings are not the be all and end all. Ben Roethlisberger has two rings and had a chance this year to add his third yet no one was making the arguement he should be considered the best. However it is all taken into account. To be considered great I believe you have to have at least one SB ring, that's why it was such a monkey off Mannings back when he won his.

Tom Brady won 3 SB rings in 4 years. That has to be a major plus in his column, however that is not the only thing that keeps him in the small elite group of QBs every year.

Rodgers at no point, yet, has been the best player at his position. Bringing his team to another SB would help his cause but his overall play is not on the level of Manning or Bradys of the last 4 years. Until it is he can't be considered the best IMo

What separates Rodgers from the other stat machine qbs in the league that most casual fans hype up is, Rodgers has had monster games in the playoffs.

His game vs Arizona and his game vs Atlanta were just ridiculous. The guy is legit, he's been studly in the playoffs and the regular season.

killxswitch
05-19-2011, 01:27 PM
What separates Rodgers from the other stat machine qbs in the league that most casual fans hype up is, Rodgers has had monster games in the playoffs.

His game vs Arizona and his game vs Atlanta were just ridiculous. The guy is legit, he's been studly in the playoffs and the regular season.

Pretty insulting to insinuate that if you say another QB is better than Rodgers it must be because they are a "casual fan" that must not know what they're talking about.

Maybe This Year Mayhew
05-19-2011, 01:31 PM
What separates Rodgers from the other stat machine qbs in the league that most casual fans hype up is, Rodgers has had monster games in the playoffs.

His game vs Arizona and his game vs Atlanta were just ridiculous. The guy is legit, he's been studly in the playoffs and the regular season.

Mr. Brees has been ridiculous in his last few playoff games as well.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/gamelog?playerId=2580&sYear=2009

82% completion in the Super Bowl, 8tds 0 ints in the 2009 playoff run. His worst game was 17/31 197 yards and 3 tds against Minnesota. Plus he got them in an easier HFA situation during the season and played incredible in 2009.

Rodgers playoff run was pretty great too but not as good as Brees in 2009. Only 180 yards against Philly and only 56% against Chicago with no pass tds(1 rush) and 2 ints.

Rodgers was really good but Brees was mistake free in 2009 and Brees has been doing it longer than Rodgers.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/gamelog?playerId=8439

And Brees torched Seattle this year for 400 yards in a Rodgers/Zona like fashion although it was coming from behind just like Rodgers had to pull the Pack from behind. Rodgers did make a costly early int in that Zona game too. Brees almost did make the come back in that game.

If you're talking Rodgers, you have to talk about Brees even though the Saints got upset.

Brothgar
05-19-2011, 01:35 PM
What separates Rodgers from the other stat machine qbs in the league that most casual fans hype up is, Rodgers has had monster games in the playoffs.

His game vs Arizona and his game vs Atlanta were just ridiculous. The guy is legit, he's been studly in the playoffs and the regular season.

Wasn't it this time last year that the "casual fan" wanted to put Drew Brees in with Brady and Manning? All I'm saying is slow down doggy.

Maybe This Year Mayhew
05-19-2011, 01:42 PM
Wasn't it this time last year that the "casual fan" wanted to put Drew Brees in with Brady and Manning? All I'm saying is slow down doggy.

Agreed. Brees and Rodgers are just starting to get into the conversation.

Brady had an incredible year and won MVP. 3,900 yards, 65% completion 36tds and 4 ints losing Randy Moss midseason. He had Welker and a bunch of solid young players.

His playoff game against the Jets(who have a much better secondary than the Falcons) Brady had a good day in the divisional game loss.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?playerId=2330

It's Bradys crown right now with Manning next and Rodgers/Brees in the conversation to get there one day.

jrdrylie
05-19-2011, 01:49 PM
I feel this way as well.

Rodgers
Brady
Rivers
Manning
Roethlisberger

My top five.

I'm sorry for being rude or blunt... but anybody who thinks Rodgers is the best QB in the league right now is either a complete homer or a complete idiot (or both). No one in their right mind would have said Rodgers was the best before the 2010 season. In 2010, Brady had a 9:1 TD:INT ratio. He had 14 wins in the regular season. He had a better completion percentage, more TDs, fewer INTs, a higher rating, just 22 fewer yards, and was the unanimous MVP.

So before last season, Brady was unarguably a better QB than Rodgers. Then he outperforms Rodgers during the season. Therefore, Rodgers is now the best QB in the league? That is pure idiocy.

Maybe This Year Mayhew
05-19-2011, 01:59 PM
I'm sorry for being rude or blunt... but anybody who thinks Rodgers is the best QB in the league right now is either a complete homer or a complete idiot (or both). No one in their right mind would have said Rodgers was the best before the 2010 season. In 2010, Brady had a 9:1 TD:INT ratio. He had 14 wins in the regular season. He had a better completion percentage, more TDs, fewer INTs, a higher rating, just 22 fewer yards, and was the unanimous MVP.

So before last season, Brady was unarguably a better QB than Rodgers. Then he outperforms Rodgers during the season. Therefore, Rodgers is now the best QB in the league? That is pure idiocy.

Agreed 100%. I don't fault Brady for losing to the Jets, he had a good game although he had the pick but Rodgers had 2 in the NFC Champ game. I would love to see a Pats/Pack Super Bowl or Pats/Saints Super Bowl.

Rosebud
05-19-2011, 02:27 PM
There is no one thing that is considerably more important than the other. My rule of thumb is which team would be most screwed if an average QB like Eli Manning was placed in that same situation. The Packers can contend with Matt Flynn. The Pats can contend with Matt Cassell. There hasn't been an even above average backup in Indy since Peyton got there so there is no telling.

Eli Manning is not an average QB. He's easily a top ten QB, and given that there's 32 starters in the NFL that makes Eli clearly better than average...now get back to the silly who's the best QB debates that go no where...

Maybe This Year Mayhew
05-19-2011, 02:50 PM
Eli Manning is not an average QB. He's easily a top ten QB, and given that there's 32 starters in the NFL that makes Eli clearly better than average...now get back to the silly who's the best QB debates that go no where...

Brady,Peyton,Brees/Rodgers,Rivers/Big Ben. Eli is definitley top 10. Ryan and Flacco are right there with him late top 10 although they just got in that spot where Eli has been there for awhile and Big Ben(clutchness) and Vick(just on playmaking ability that I saw this year) just edge Eli out IMO. Back to back 4,000 yard seasons are hard to ignore for Eli but the ints got away from him this year.

Flacco and Ryan could pass him for good with more growth and keeping the ints down which they have done well and Schaub,Freeman,Cassel,Bradford(down the line) could pass him or at least equal him too but if Eli stays the course he's still not even close to average QB even if he drops behind all those guys(which he probably won't). He's a good QB.

Cutler and Carson will stay behind Eli most likely IMO and Stafford is in his own boat with so much to prove and needs to stay healthy to do it. The flashes are nice but QB stardom is not a gimme obviously . Sanchez has alot more to prove too more than a game manager although he showed some clutchness.

Everyone else is just solid to average to poor or a rookie.

SickwithIt1010
05-19-2011, 03:15 PM
I'm sorry for being rude or blunt... but anybody who thinks Rodgers is the best QB in the league right now is either a complete homer or a complete idiot (or both). No one in their right mind would have said Rodgers was the best before the 2010 season. In 2010, Brady had a 9:1 TD:INT ratio. He had 14 wins in the regular season. He had a better completion percentage, more TDs, fewer INTs, a higher rating, just 22 fewer yards, and was the unanimous MVP.

So before last season, Brady was unarguably a better QB than Rodgers. Then he outperforms Rodgers during the season. Therefore, Rodgers is now the best QB in the league? That is pure idiocy.


Personally, if I were building a team as a GM right now....I would take Rodgers and wouldnt think twice about it. This kid is the real deal, and I think this could be the season in which he rises to the top.

jrdrylie
05-19-2011, 03:19 PM
Eli Manning is not an average QB. He's easily a top ten QB, and given that there's 32 starters in the NFL that makes Eli clearly better than average...now get back to the silly who's the best QB debates that go no where...

I wouldn't say Eli is easily top ten. Here is how I rank them off the top of my head. I have Manning at eight and one could easily make a case for Romo, Ryan, and Vick being better. A case could also be made, albeit not as strong a case, for guys like Freeman, Flacco, Sanchez, and Cutler

Manning
Brady
Rodgers
Roethlisberger
Rivers
Brees
Schuab
Eli Manning
Romo
Ryan
Vick
Cutler
Freeman
Flacco
Sanchez
Stafford
Cassel
Fitzpatrick
Palmer
Bradford
Garrard
Campbell
McNabb
Tebow
McCoy
Alex Smith
Henne
Touchdown Jesus
Locker
Ponder
Newton
Whoever Arizona throws out there

jrdrylie
05-19-2011, 03:23 PM
Personally, if I were building a team as a GM right now....I would take Rodgers and wouldnt think twice about it. This kid is the real deal, and I think this could be the season in which he rises to the top.

Are you building the team for just next year or for the next 10 years. If it is the latter, then I would more than likely choose Rodgers. But the question isn't who we think will be the best QB in the 2010 decade. The question is who is the best right now. And if I'm the GM of a team and I only care about winning next year, I take Brady or Manning, because they are better right now.

Brothgar
05-19-2011, 03:41 PM
Eli Manning is not an average QB. He's easily a top ten QB, and given that there's 32 starters in the NFL that makes Eli clearly better than average...now get back to the silly who's the best QB debates that go no where...

Hmmm easily top 10 eh

http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q92/ianjoygasm/challenge-accepted.png

1 & 2. Peyton Manning and Tom Brady
3. Drew Brees
4. Aaron Rogers
5. Mike Vick
6. Philip Rivers
7. Big Ben
8. Matt Ryan
9. Joe Flacco
10. Matt Schawb
11. Josh Freeman
12. Jay Cutler
13. Sam Bradford
14. Tony Romo (ok now I'm just being mean)
15. Mark Sanchez
16. Eli Manning

SickwithIt1010
05-19-2011, 03:43 PM
Are you building the team for just next year or for the next 10 years. If it is the latter, then I would more than likely choose Rodgers. But the question isn't who we think will be the best QB in the 2010 decade. The question is who is the best right now. And if I'm the GM of a team and I only care about winning next year, I take Brady or Manning, because they are better right now.

Im not too sure that I wouldnt pick Rodgers for one season right now either.

Splat
05-19-2011, 03:53 PM
1.Brady
2.Manning
3.Rodgers
4.Brees
5.Rivers

My top five and for the record I'm not the biggest Cassel fan but I would take him over Sanchez I got Cassel around 15th.

TitanHope
05-19-2011, 04:07 PM
Rodgers is the best one under 30 years old, with Rivers right behind him. Brady and Manning will go down as possibly two of the best of all time. It's not a negative in the least bit to be ranked behind the two of them, and I'm not sure that'll change for the next five years.

Complex
05-19-2011, 05:10 PM
Hmmm easily top 10 eh

http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q92/ianjoygasm/challenge-accepted.png

1 & 2. Peyton Manning and Tom Brady
3. Drew Brees
4. Aaron Rogers
5. Mike Vick
6. Philip Rivers
7. Big Ben
8. Matt Ryan
9. Joe Flacco
10. Matt Schawb
11. Josh Freeman
12. Jay Cutler
13. Sam Bradford
14. Tony Romo (ok now I'm just being mean)
15. Mark Sanchez
16. Eli Manning

Eli is better than Joe flacco,Matt Schaub,Romo,Ryan,Jay Cutler, Sam Bradford and Mark Sanchez :(.

Saints-Tigers
05-19-2011, 05:13 PM
Crap argument, Rodgers can be the best QB even if his TEAM doesn't win, and likewise, if they do win, that doesn't mean he was better than everyone else.

BigBanger
05-19-2011, 06:16 PM
Hmmm easily top 10 eh

http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q92/ianjoygasm/challenge-accepted.png

1 & 2. Peyton Manning and Tom Brady
3. Drew Brees
4. Aaron Rogers
5. Mike Vick
6. Philip Rivers
7. Big Ben
8. Matt Ryan
9. Joe Flacco
10. Matt Schawb
11. Josh Freeman
12. Jay Cutler
13. Sam Bradford
14. Tony Romo (ok now I'm just being mean)
15. Mark Sanchez
16. Eli Manning
This is probably the worst list of QB rankings I have ever seen. It got stupid at about #5 and completely ******** at #9. I wont even respond to the players at #12, #13 and #15.

Eli is in the top 10 and he's certainly better than Flacco and Schaub (who hasn't done anything but put up nice Fantasy Football stats by throwing the ball 40+ times a game on a perennial loser / mediocre team). Schaub can't even beat the Jaguars or Broncos in the regular season. Do you think he would stand a chance against an undefeated Patriots team in the Super Bowl? Seriously. Flacco would struggle to complete 4 passes.



This turned into exactly what one would expect. I figured people would put more emphasis on the careers of Manning and Brady, which are obviously much, much, much more impressive than Rodgers. If one were to look at just the last couple of years exclusively, then it would be hard to argue against Rodgers, and I think it's completely ludicrous to think that he doesn't belong in the same tier / category as Manning / Brady RIGHT NOW. He's not a one year wonder. This wasn't a fluke. This isn't a flavor of the month situation. He's been playing great football for three years straight and he's done more over the past two years then Brady and Manning.



Aaron Rodgers

2009: 4,434 Yards passing (8.2 Avg.), 35 TDs (5 Rushing), 7 INTs, 64.7% and 103.2 QB Rating

Playoffs (1 Gm): 28/42 (66.7%), 423 Yards (10.1 Avg.), 5 TDs (1 Rushing), 1 INT and 121.4 QB Rating


2010 (15 Starts): 3,922 Yards (8.3 Avg.), 32 TDs (4 Rushing), 11 INTs, 65.7% and 101 QB Rating

2010 Playoffs (4 Games): 90/132 (68.2%), 1,094 yards (273.5 Y/Gm), 8.3 Avg., 11 TDs (2 Rushing), 2 INTs and 109 QB Rating (111 QB Rating in Super Bowl win).



Drew Brees

In 2009 (15 Games): 4,388 Yards passing (8.5 Avg.), 36 TDs (2 Rushing), 11 INTs, 70.6%, and 109.6 QB Rating

Playoffs (3 Games): 72/102 (70.6%), 732 Yards (244 Y/Gm), 8 TDs, 0 INTs and 117.0 QB Rating (114.5 QB Rating in SB)


2010: 4,620 Yards passing (7.0 Avg.), 33 TDs, 22 INTs, 68.1%, and 90.9 QB Rating

Playoffs (1 Gm): 39/60 (65%), 404 Yards (6.7 Avg.), 2 TDs, 0 INTs, and 94.5 QB Rating



Peyton Manning

2009: 4,500 Yards passing (7.9 Avg.), 33 TDs, 16 INTs, 68.8%, and 99.9 QB Rating

Playoffs (3 Games - Lost Super Bowl): 87/128 (68%), 956 Yards (318 Y/Gm), 7.5 Avg., 6 TDs, 2 INTs, and 99.0 QB Rating (88.5 in Super Bowl Loss)


2010: 4,700 Yards passing (6.9 Avg.), 33 TDs, 17 INTs, 66.3%, and 91.9 QB Rating

Playoffs (1 Game): 18/26 (69.2%), 225 Yards (6.7 Avg.), 1 TD, 0 INTs, and 108.7 QB Rating



Tom Brady


2009: 4,398 Yards passing (7.8 Avg.), 29 TDs (1 Rushing), 13 INTs, 65.7%, and 96.2 QB Rating

Playoffs (1 Game): 23/42 (54.8%), 154 Yards, 3.7 Avg., 2 TDs, 3 INTs, and 49.1 QB Rating


2010: 3,900 Yards passing (7.9 Avg.), 37 TDs (1 Rushing), 4 INTs, 65.9%, and 111.0 QB Rating

Playoffs (1 Game): 29/45 (64.4%), 299 Yards (6.6 Avg.), 2 TDs, 1 INT, and 89.0 QB Rating




Ben Roethlisberger


2009 (15 Games): 4,328 Yards passing (8.6 Avg.), 28 TDs (2 Rushing), 12 INTs, 66.6%, and 100.5 QB Rating

Missed Playoffs


2010 (12 Games): 3,200 Yards passing (8.2 Avg.), 19 TDs (2 Rushing), 5 INTs, 61.7%, and 97.0 QB Rating *** 266.7 Y/Gm (6th in NFL) ***

Playoffs (3 Games - Lost Super Bowl): 54/91 (59.3%), 622 Yards (207 Y/Gm), 6.8 Avg., 5 TDs (1 Rushing), 4 INTs, and 76.4 QB Rating (77.4 QB Rating in Super Bowl Loss)




Philip Rivers


2009: 4,254 Yards passing (8.8 Avg.), 29 TDs (1 Rushing), 9 INTs, 65.2%, and 104.4 QB Rating

Playoffs (1 Game): 27/40 (67.5%), 298 Yards (7.4 Avg.), 2 TDs (1 Rushing), 2 INTs, and 76.9 QB Rating


2010: 4,710 Yards passing (8.7 Avg.), 30 TDs (1 Rushing), 13 INTs, 66%, and 101.8 QB Rating

Missed Playoffs






Rodgers has accounted for 16 Total TDs in the last two post seasons. The seconded closest is Brees with 10, then Manning with 7. His regular season numbers are right there with the rest of these guys. Rodgers is as elite a QB as there is in the NFL right now. Last years post season cemented that. Whatever happens next will cement his legacy, but over the last two years, there's a pretty good argument that he's been the best QB in the game. He doesn't need to repeat. He's already there.


Tom Brady's numbers in his second and third seasons as a starter (Rodger's last two years being his second and third years as a starter) look like this:


Note: Brady already won a ring in his first season as a starter, then went on to win another ring in his fourth season as a starter.



Tom Brady

2002: 3,764 Pass Yards (6.3 Avg.), 29 TDs (1 Rushing), 14 INTs, 62.1% and 85.7 QB Rating

Missed Playoffs (9-7)


2003: 3,620 Pass Yards (6.9 Avg.), 24 TDs (1 Rushing), 12 INTs, 60.2% and 85.9 QB Rating

Playoffs (3 Games): 75/126 (59.5%), 792 Yards (244 Y/Gm), 6.3 Avg., 5 TDs, 2 INTs and 84.5 QB Rating (100.5 QB Rating in Super Bowl Win)

Brothgar
05-19-2011, 08:37 PM
This is probably the worst list of QB rankings I have ever seen. It got stupid at about #5 and completely ******** at #9. I wont even respond to the players at #12, #13 and #15.

Eli is in the top 10 and he's certainly better than Flacco and Schaub (who hasn't done anything but put up nice Fantasy Football stats by throwing the ball 40+ times a game on a perennial loser / mediocre team). Schaub can't even beat the Jaguars or Broncos in the regular season. Do you think he would stand a chance against an undefeated Patriots team in the Super Bowl? Seriously. Flacco would struggle to complete 4 passes.



This turned into exactly what one would expect. I figured people would put more emphasis on the careers of Manning and Brady, which are obviously much, much, much more impressive than Rodgers. If one were to look at just the last couple of years exclusively, then it would be hard to argue against Rodgers, and I think it's completely ludicrous to think that he doesn't belong in the same tier / category as Manning / Brady RIGHT NOW. He's not a one year wonder. This wasn't a fluke. This isn't a flavor of the month situation. He's been playing great football for three years straight and he's done more over the past two years then Brady and Manning.





I thought people would figure out that that I wasn't being serious after putting sanchez on this list anyone who has ever talked to me about football knows that I think mark sanchez is the most over rated player as far as the media is concerned. I personally would take Schaub over Eli. You say that he's done nothing other than put up great fantasy football stats and then try to use stats to explain why Rogers should be in the consideration. You have a logical contradiction sir.

jsagan77
05-19-2011, 10:05 PM
I've had to think about it but here are my top 15 rankings. Looking at the list it's simply amazing how good the QB's in the league are these days.

1. Brady
2. Manning
3. Rivers
4. Rodgers
5. Brees
6. Ryan
7. Big Ben
8. Vick
9. Schaub
10. Flaaco
11. Freeman
12. Eli
13. Cassel
14. Romo
15 Cutler

phlysac
05-19-2011, 11:13 PM
It's odd to me how perception plays such a significant role.

There have been a few rakings in this thread that included players like Matt Cassel in the top half of the League while Alex Smith is pretty much universally considered horrible. Smith has better numbers than Cassel in nearly every statistical category than Cassel the last 2 seasons.

But I digress.

jsagan77
05-20-2011, 01:49 AM
It's odd to me how perception plays such a significant role.

There have been a few rakings in this thread that included players like Matt Cassel in the top half of the League while Alex Smith is pretty much universally considered horrible. Smith has better numbers than Cassel in nearly every statistical category than Cassel the last 2 seasons.

But I digress.

You do realize that Alex Smith is terrible and that Cassel had a helluva year last year, right?

niel89
05-20-2011, 02:02 AM
I agree that Alex Smith isn't as bad as people say, but Cassel had a great year last year and is going to be the Chiefs QB going forward. People are hoping that Smith will be a solid stop gap until Kaepernick is ready. Two years ago Cassel threw 16-16 and a lot of people had serious questions about him, and he clearly responded and had a fantastic season.

Over the past years the numbers are similar, but last year Cassel was considerably better.

Brothgar
05-20-2011, 02:03 AM
It's odd to me how perception plays such a significant role.

There have been a few rakings in this thread that included players like Matt Cassel in the top half of the League while Alex Smith is pretty much universally considered horrible. Smith has better numbers than Cassel in nearly every statistical category than Cassel the last 2 seasons.

But I digress.

Two things with that.

1. Cassel has significantly worse talent on his team.

2. Winning makes people "better"

Splat
05-20-2011, 08:54 AM
There have been a few rakings in this thread that included players like Matt Cassel in the top half of the League while Alex Smith is pretty much universally considered horrible. Smith has better numbers than Cassel in nearly every statistical category than Cassel the last 2 seasons.

Cassel blew Smith away in every way last year it wasn't even close.

Maybe This Year Mayhew
05-20-2011, 09:23 AM
Yeah plus Cassel did really well in 2008 as well with New England. 2009 was his only poor year. Alex Smith is full of poor to mediocre years.

Cassells yardage will increase with more weapons but Jamaal Charles is sick. Ride the Jamaal Charles pony for awhile.

Cassell is top 15 right now with a good chance to become a top 10 in the future.

jrdrylie
05-20-2011, 09:28 AM
Yeah plus Cassel did really well in 2008 as well with New England. 2009 was his only poor year. Alex Smith is full of poor to mediocre years.

Cassells yardage will increase with more weapons but Jamaal Charles is sick. Ride the Jamaal Charles pony for awhile.

Cassell is top 15 right now with a good chance to become a top 10 in the future.

You could also look at it this way. Cassel did well with New England because it is New England. Great talent. Great coach. Then he sucked in 2009. In comes Charlie Weis and all of the sudden he is a great QB again. With Weis gone, I think Cassel falls back to being a middle of the road QB.

jack1077
05-20-2011, 09:45 AM
Packers fan who thinks he is the no.2 qb. Manning then Rodgers. Unless Rodgers wins the superbowl AND Manning has a terrible season, he won't be no.1.

Cudders
05-20-2011, 09:46 AM
You could also look at it this way. Cassel did well with New England because it is New England. Great talent. Great coach. Then he sucked in 2009. In comes Charlie Weis and all of the sudden he is a great QB again. With Weis gone, I think Cassel falls back to being a middle of the road QB.

He's currently a middle-of-the-road quarterback in the NFL. So what exactly is he falling back from? And Todd Haley is a bright offensive mind, so I don't think the loss of Weis will affect Cassel all that much. If anything, it's offset by bringing more talent into the fold.

Also, some people continue to criminally underrate Eli Manning. I'm not sure where I would have him ranked, but the fact that most seem to have Joe Flacco above him says enough.

jrdrylie
05-20-2011, 10:00 AM
It's odd to me how perception plays such a significant role.

There have been a few rakings in this thread that included players like Matt Cassel in the top half of the League while Alex Smith is pretty much universally considered horrible. Smith has better numbers than Cassel in nearly every statistical category than Cassel the last 2 seasons.

But I digress.

http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/chicago-bears-fire-lovie-smith/lovie%20challenge.jpg

Smith: 429-714, 4720 yards, 32 TDs, 22 INT 60% completion percentage. 8-12 record
Cassel: 533-943 6040 yards, 43 TD, 23 INT 56% completion percentage 14-16 record

At first, I thought you were crazy for saying this. And if you just look at the numbers, Cassel blows Smith out of the water. But if you delve a little deeper, Smith's numbers are in fact better on a per-game basis. The only stat Cassel is better in is INT per game which is 0.8 vs. 1.1. With Harbaugh coming to San Francisco and Weis leaving Kansas City, I think (assuming Smith stays with the Niners) Smith outperforms Cassel this season.

jrdrylie
05-20-2011, 10:02 AM
Packers fan who thinks he is the no.2 qb. Manning then Rodgers. Unless Rodgers wins the superbowl AND Manning has a terrible season, he won't be no.1.

How can you say Rodgers is ahead of Brady right now? Brady was obviously rated ahead of Rodgers before last season. Then Brady goes and has a spectacular year. There is no way anybody can say Rodgers should be rated above Brady without looking like a complete homer.

jack1077
05-20-2011, 10:05 AM
By the way, didn't manning prove that he is the most valuable player in the league when curtis painter had to take over the team. The Colts without Manning are 2-14. The Pats without Brady, well they were a 10 win team. The Pack without Rodgers might go 8-8 if the Defense played like they did in the playoffs.

New England struggled to beat GB at home, with Rodgers out and with Brady.

To the guy who said the AFC playoffs are harder than the NFC, well, didn't the NFC win the superbowl? Didn't Rodgers make the nfl 'best' defense look like swiss cheese. The NFC are a beast when it matters.

jack1077
05-20-2011, 10:10 AM
How can you say Rodgers is ahead of Brady right now? Brady was obviously rated ahead of Rodgers before last season. Then Brady goes and has a spectacular year. There is no way anybody can say Rodgers should be rated above Brady without looking like a complete homer.

Because Rodgers won? On an injured team? Basically carrying the team? And i rated Rodgers ahead before last season anyway. Manning then Rodgers then Brady. That's what the value is in terms of what the players mean for their teams. I'd love to see how well Brady would do on the Colts and Manning on the Pats.

FlyingElvis
05-20-2011, 10:19 AM
Ok . . . at least you make it clear that your definition of "Best QB" is based on who is the most valuable to their team.

wordofi
05-20-2011, 10:26 AM
I think if he does, the answer has to be yes. Manning is going to be 35 next year, Brady 34, and Brees 32. They're not going to get any better. Rodger will only be 28.

Career-wise, the answer is obviously Manning and Brady, but we're talking right now.

phlysac
05-20-2011, 10:32 AM
http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/chicago-bears-fire-lovie-smith/lovie%20challenge.jpg

Smith: 429-714, 4720 yards, 32 TDs, 22 INT 60% completion percentage. 8-12 record
Cassel: 533-943 6040 yards, 43 TD, 23 INT 56% completion percentage 14-16 record

At first, I thought you were crazy for saying this. And if you just look at the numbers, Cassel blows Smith out of the water. But if you delve a little deeper, Smith's numbers are in fact better on a per-game basis. The only stat Cassel is better in is INT per game which is 0.8 vs. 1.1. With Harbaugh coming to San Francisco and Weis leaving Kansas City, I think (assuming Smith stays with the Niners) Smith outperforms Cassel this season.

Thank you for looking at my point with an open mind. Smith played 4 fewer games than Cassel last season.

It's also interesting that the names Weis, Haley, etc have been mentioned as brilliant offensive minds. I'll counter that with Jimmy Raye and Mike Singletary.

jrdrylie
05-20-2011, 10:39 AM
Because Rodgers won? On an injured team? Basically carrying the team? And i rated Rodgers ahead before last season anyway. Manning then Rodgers then Brady. That's what the value is in terms of what the players mean for their teams. I'd love to see how well Brady would do on the Colts and Manning on the Pats.

Then there is only one logical conclusion. You are a gigantic homer. Sure Rodgers won last year, but Brady has won three Super Bowls. The Packers had injuries? I had no idea. The Patriots had Green-Ellis and Danny Woodhead running the ball. They have an average line. They have an aging defense that has zero pass rush. And Brady didn't carry his team? He had one of the best seasons of any QB in the last decade and led the Patriots to a 14-2 season.

And you are absolutely crazy to have rated Rodgers over Brady before last season. Their 2009 seasons were basically identical. So to say Rodgers was a better QB before the 2010 season, you would have to say Rodgers was better before the 2009 season. Do you honestly believe Rodgers after his one season as a starter was better than Brady, with a 50 TD season, three Super Bowl wins, and an undefeated season under his belt. Just admit that you are a huge Packer homer who can't objectively rate players.

FlyingElvis
05-20-2011, 10:53 AM
I knew it wouldn't be long before that little bar went red. lol

Rosebud
05-20-2011, 11:00 AM
Brady,Peyton,Brees/Rodgers,Rivers/Big Ben. Eli is definitley top 10. Ryan and Flacco are right there with him late top 10 although they just got in that spot where Eli has been there for awhile and Big Ben(clutchness) and Vick(just on playmaking ability that I saw this year) just edge Eli out IMO. Back to back 4,000 yard seasons are hard to ignore for Eli but the ints got away from him this year.

Flacco and Ryan could pass him for good with more growth and keeping the ints down which they have done well and Schaub,Freeman,Cassel,Bradford(down the line) could pass him or at least equal him too but if Eli stays the course he's still not even close to average QB even if he drops behind all those guys(which he probably won't). He's a good QB.

Cutler and Carson will stay behind Eli most likely IMO and Stafford is in his own boat with so much to prove and needs to stay healthy to do it. The flashes are nice but QB stardom is not a gimme obviously . Sanchez has alot more to prove too more than a game manager although he showed some clutchness.

Everyone else is just solid to average to poor or a rookie.

Personally I'd even take Eli over Big Ben but that's because I prefer smart QBs to dumb ones. I understand why people are excited about guys like Ryan and Flacco, but none of those young guns have shown the consistent clutchness that Eli has, last year was the first the giants missed the playoffs since Eli's rookie year, have the strong playoff performances that Eli has under his belt, plus in a lot of cases those guys aren't crippled by a ******** OC who's directly responsible for at least half of Eli's picks last year since he apparently didn't realize that by the end of last year Mario Manningham was the only receiver who was on the team week 1.

I mean I really like Cutler and Freeman to, but those guys just haven't shown the clutch play in the playoffs to carry his team, Eli won't ever put up mindfuck stats, but that's because we try not rely on him unless we need to, but when called upon there's not many QBs in the NFL I trust more to lead a late game scoring drive than Eli and that to me is what differentiates top QBs and when games are close and the clock is waning Eli is elite. I wouldn't rank him over Brady, Manning, Brees, Rodgers or Rivers, although I would put eli right in that Rivers/Vick/BigBen tier.

bigbluedefense
05-20-2011, 11:38 AM
Pretty insulting to insinuate that if you say another QB is better than Rodgers it must be because they are a "casual fan" that must not know what they're talking about.

I never insinuated that anyone who disagrees with me is a casual fan.

The question was if Rodgers wins another SB, does he rank with Brady and Manning, and I said yes. Is he there right now? No. But that's not what the question was.

My point with the post was what separates Rodgers from other qbs who rack up the stats is his play in the playoffs. Rodgers has had some amazing playoff games as well as statistical regular seasons. I think that has to be taken into account as to why he ranks amongst the top 5 in the league today. If he wins another one, he's #3 on my list. He's not there now, but he's in the top 5.

Wasn't it this time last year that the "casual fan" wanted to put Drew Brees in with Brady and Manning? All I'm saying is slow down doggy.

I don't think it's wrong to put Brees in the same category as Peyton and Brady. Quite honestly, Brees has been better than both of them collectively for the past 3 years, or at least on par with them.

Brees is in my top 5 along with Rodgers. I want to make it clear that I'm not saying Rodgers is better than everyone right now, but that if he wins another ring, like the original post asked, then yes I think you can put him in the same sentence as Brady and Manning.

For now, he's top 5. One notch below Brady and Manning. If he wins another one, then you can put him in the same category.

jack1077
05-20-2011, 11:40 AM
Then there is only one logical conclusion. You are a gigantic homer. Sure Rodgers won last year, but Brady has won three Super Bowls. The Packers had injuries? I had no idea. The Patriots had Green-Ellis and Danny Woodhead running the ball. They have an average line. They have an aging defense that has zero pass rush. And Brady didn't carry his team? He had one of the best seasons of any QB in the last decade and led the Patriots to a 14-2 season.

And you are absolutely crazy to have rated Rodgers over Brady before last season. Their 2009 seasons were basically identical. So to say Rodgers was a better QB before the 2010 season, you would have to say Rodgers was better before the 2009 season. Do you honestly believe Rodgers after his one season as a starter was better than Brady, with a 50 TD season, three Super Bowl wins, and an undefeated season under his belt. Just admit that you are a huge Packer homer who can't objectively rate players.

How is it crazy? I have never felt that Brady was all that. He is good, in that system. The same system that produced Matt Cassell. The Patriots have the youngest defence in the league actually. The Patriots also have one of the best O-Lines in football. Brady does not have an undefeated season under his belt, he lost remember? In that year he also had Randy Moss, Donte Stallworth (when he didn't kill people) and Wes Welker. He had 3 All-Pro's on the O-Line and a future HOF at WR. Show me a season where Rodgers has had that.

How can i be a homer if i think Manning is better? Have you seen the Colts without Manning? They are worse than Carolina. Freeney and Mathis are the only 2 players on the defence that would start for anybody.

I think you are the homer, sir. You mention Brady's superbowls as evidence for his greatness, last time i checked in 07 he had one of the best EVER rosters and DID NOT win. The question isn't, 'who has had the better career?' It's who is the best now, if Rodgers win this year.

I think you are stuck in this continual funk of thinking it has to be Brady, what has he done in the postseason (which YOU appear to value more than anything evidenced by your 3 superbowl argument) in the last 3 years? Nothing. Could Manning or Rodgers have steered that NE ship better? Yes. Brady is a product of a great coach and great system and good personal talent, not great.

FlyingElvis
05-20-2011, 11:46 AM
The Patriots have the youngest defence in the league actually.
How does that support the arguement that Brady isn't the best?

The Patriots also have one of the best O-Lines in football.
If I had a nickel for every time I had to read this drivel . . .

bigbluedefense
05-20-2011, 11:49 AM
All qbs are the product to some degree of the talent around them. Let's be real.

Brady has talent, Manning has talent, Rodgers has talent, Rivers has talent, Ben, Brees. Enough with the talent comparisons.

That's why winning does matter. Bc Ben isn't the only qb in the league with a great defense, Peyton isn't the only qb with great weapons, etc.

Winning isn't the end all argument, but it does factor in.

And some guys don't win just bc of the talent on their roster. Show me any successful qb that doesn't have ANY talent. Come on now.

Arguing talent on the Patriots vs Colts is stupid and never gets us anywhere. The bottom line is both teams have talent. And both teams have great qbs who are winners.

I think moreso than any other qb in the league, Ben gets trashed the most for being a product of the talent around him, and that's just not true at all. Ben is a stud, a top 5 qb in the league.

Outside of Brady and to a lesser degree Eli, I don't think theres a single qb in this league that I'd want in the clutch more than Ben. Ben is a stud.

Arguing talent will get you no where. Plenty of qbs in this league have talent.

jrdrylie
05-20-2011, 11:54 AM
How is it crazy? I have never felt that Brady was all that. He is good, in that system. The same system that produced Matt Cassell. The Patriots have the youngest defence in the league actually. The Patriots also have one of the best O-Lines in football. Brady does not have an undefeated season under his belt, he lost remember? In that year he also had Randy Moss, Donte Stallworth (when he didn't kill people) and Wes Welker. He had 3 All-Pro's on the O-Line and a future HOF at WR. Show me a season where Rodgers has had that.

How can i be a homer if i think Manning is better? Have you seen the Colts without Manning? They are worse than Carolina. Freeney and Mathis are the only 2 players on the defence that would start for anybody.

I think you are the homer, sir. You mention Brady's superbowls as evidence for his greatness, last time i checked in 07 he had one of the best EVER rosters and DID NOT win. The question isn't, 'who has had the better career?' It's who is the best now, if Rodgers win this year.

I think you are stuck in this continual funk of thinking it has to be Brady, what has he done in the postseason (which YOU appear to value more than anything evidenced by your 3 superbowl argument) in the last 3 years? Nothing. Could Manning or Rodgers have steered that NE ship better? Yes. Brady is a product of a great coach and great system and good personal talent, not great.

When I talked about defense, I was talking about the front seven. I said they couldn't generate a pass rush. That is the reason everybody mocked defensive ends and rush linebackers to the Patriots.

Their offensive line is not good. Just like the Colts, the Patriots line looks good because of who is playing QB. There is a reason they drafted two offensive tackles in this draft.

I am not one of those people who thinks rings are the end-all be-all of rating QBs. I think Manning and Marino are the best QBs I've ever seen even though they only have one ring between them. But you mentioned the fact that Rodgers won last year so I thought I should counter with the fact that Brady has three. I also brought it up because you said Rodgers was better before last season when he hadn't won anything.

Maybe This Year Mayhew
05-20-2011, 11:58 AM
How is it crazy? I have never felt that Brady was all that. He is good, in that system. The same system that produced Matt Cassell. The Patriots have the youngest defence in the league actually. The Patriots also have one of the best O-Lines in football. Brady does not have an undefeated season under his belt, he lost remember? In that year he also had Randy Moss, Donte Stallworth (when he didn't kill people) and Wes Welker. He had 3 All-Pro's on the O-Line and a future HOF at WR. Show me a season where Rodgers has had that.

How can i be a homer if i think Manning is better? Have you seen the Colts without Manning? They are worse than Carolina. Freeney and Mathis are the only 2 players on the defence that would start for anybody.

I think you are the homer, sir. You mention Brady's superbowls as evidence for his greatness, last time i checked in 07 he had one of the best EVER rosters and DID NOT win. The question isn't, 'who has had the better career?' It's who is the best now, if Rodgers win this year.

I think you are stuck in this continual funk of thinking it has to be Brady, what has he done in the postseason (which YOU appear to value more than anything evidenced by your 3 superbowl argument) in the last 3 years? Nothing. Could Manning or Rodgers have steered that NE ship better? Yes. Brady is a product of a great coach and great system and good personal talent, not great.

Hurt in 2008, played poorly in the playoffs against Baltimore and played well this year against the Jets in the his playoff game. The Pats lost but Brady played well. Plus 2 regular seasons better than Rodgers including an MVP this year. Nothing to have Rodgers overtake him, all Rodgers did was get in the conversation but has to prove he belongs in the conversation this year. Rodgers NFC Champ game left alot to be desire 17/30 244 yards, 56% 0tds(1rush td) and 2 ints. Brady and Rodgers are allowed one bad playoff game against the Ravens and Bears defenses.

FlyingElvis
05-20-2011, 12:07 PM
Hurt in 2008, played poorly in the playoffs against Baltimore and played well this year against the Jets in the his playoff game. The Pats lost but Brady played well. Plus 2 regular seasons better than Rodgers including an MVP this year. Nothing to have Rodgers overtake him, all Rodgers did was get in the conversation but has to prove he belongs in the conversation this year. Rodgers NFC Champ game left alot to be desire 17/30 244 yards, 56% 0tds(1rush td) and 2 ints. Brady and Rodgers are allowed one bad playoff game against the Ravens and Bears defenses.

This is right on par with how I see it.

Rodgers forced his way into the conversation with his play this year. Another year like it solidifies his place there but doesn't necessarily vault him into the top spot unless the other top QBs put up poor performances.

jack1077
05-20-2011, 12:28 PM
This is right on par with how I see it.

Rodgers forced his way into the conversation with his play this year. Another year like it solidifies his place there but doesn't necessarily vault him into the top spot unless the other top QBs put up poor performances.

Umm he has the best career qb rating in the regular season and playoffs. His QB rating in the playoffs is better than the regular season. So if you want to talk about regular season stats i would say that Rodgers is ahead per head of playing time. When Green Bay lost to the cards in the wildcard he had over 400 yards and 4 touchdowns. The guy has been a beast ever since his first full season. I'm not saying Brady is a bad player at all, he is the third best QB in the NFL. I just feel, having watched ever snap Rodgers has had his entire playing career that he feels the game better than Brady. He has a better pocket presence. Watch the tape of the Atlanta game. Rodgers ability to evade is just unbelievable. I think its a wash when it comes to accuracy and leadership etc. Rodgers arm is slightly stronger. I think Rodgers really benefited from the Favre thing. He got to look the good guy and spend 3 years learning.

It's such a difficult thing to argue anyway, there is no way to prove it. I would take Rodgers over Brady. That's my opinion. But i would also take Belicheck over McCarthey. That is just my odd take on it all. I think situation breeds success, not the other way round. There is a reason teams like the lions always suck, the organisation and coaching is weak. It is very rare what Kurt Warner did. Took perrenial losers the Cards and Rams to superbowls. In a way I think it comes down to a nature vs nurture kind of thing.

AntoinCD
05-20-2011, 12:37 PM
Brady is good because of the system??? You do realise that Tom Brady has had success in at least three extremely different offensive systems. He won SBs on Charlie Weis' offensive system. He broke the record for most TD passes in Josh McDaniels spread-type system and he just had probably the most efficient season any QB has ever had in the new offensive system which is based around a 3 TE set and have multiple plays from this formation. So what you're actually saying is Brady is a product of 3 different systems and has had almost unrivalled success in each. But yeah ok you keep up your dillusion

FlyingElvis
05-20-2011, 12:47 PM
Brady is good because of the system??? You do realise that Tom Brady has had success in at least three extremely different offensive systems. He won SBs on Charlie Weis' offensive system. He broke the record for most TD passes in Josh McDaniels spread-type system and he just had probably the most efficient season any QB has ever had in the new offensive system which is based around a 3 TE set and have multiple plays from this formation. So what you're actually saying is Brady is a product of 3 different systems and has had almost unrivalled success in each. But yeah ok you keep up your dillusion

ppfffftttt. take your facts and take a hike.

jack1077
05-20-2011, 12:50 PM
Brady is good because of the system??? You do realise that Tom Brady has had success in at least three extremely different offensive systems. He won SBs on Charlie Weis' offensive system. He broke the record for most TD passes in Josh McDaniels spread-type system and he just had probably the most efficient season any QB has ever had in the new offensive system which is based around a 3 TE set and have multiple plays from this formation. So what you're actually saying is Brady is a product of 3 different systems and has had almost unrivalled success in each. But yeah ok you keep up your dillusion

He still had the same head coach and that was what i meant. He has had a continuance in several keys, Belicheck and talent being the most important. Funny how the Patriots defenders spent ages complaining about Manning getting regular season accolades and no rings, so he isn't no.1, but when it happens to Brady its the teams fault. I'll keep my 'delusion' and watch Brady fail against, i'm sorry, excuse me while i laugh, Mark Sanchez.

Show me what Rodgers has done wrong in 3 years? Other than be the most efficient QB in the league over that span, post and regular season.

jack1077
05-20-2011, 01:07 PM
I knew it wouldn't be long before that little bar went red. lol

Didn't take long for you to reveal yourself to be an asshole.

BigBanger
05-20-2011, 01:33 PM
I thought people would figure out that that I wasn't being serious after putting sanchez on this list anyone who has ever talked to me about football knows that I think mark sanchez is the most over rated player as far as the media is concerned. I personally would take Schaub over Eli. You say that he's done nothing other than put up great fantasy football stats and then try to use stats to explain why Rogers should be in the consideration. You have a logical contradiction sir.
Do you think I would have any idea who you are and how much you like or dislike Mark Sanchez? Do you think I would notice such a thing?

The QBs I listed are winners, they're also the five best QBs in the game. I would never put Schaub in the discussion since he doesn't go to the playoffs and has as much talent on offense as any QB in the NFL. He's a loser. Who ******* cares about Matt Schaub? Eli can actually get to the playoffs, and, get this, has won a Super Bowl against, maybe, the greatest team of all time. So realistically speaking, Eli had a four game stretch in the 2007 playoffs that trumps Schaub's 4 year career with Houston by such a drastic amount that it's not even funny. Eli is a significantly better QB. It's not even close. For one to think that it is? Then it's pretty obvious you don't know what you're talking about. Putting Flacco ahead of Eli is even more ridiculous, because he's on a great team that doesn't get to the Super Bowl because he's the worst QB in the playoffs, maybe that I've ever seen. Watching Joe Flacco in the playoffs is like having an encounter with a very deceiving women that ends up a man. Happy, happy playoffs, then, oh yeah, you're watching Joe Flacco. Kinda defeats the whole purpose.

I'll show you why (with stats) Eli is better than Schaub.

Matt Schaub

2010 Playoffs: Missed

2009 Playoffs: Missed

2008 Playoffs: Missed

2007 Playoffs: Missed


Eli Manning


2007 Playoffs (4 Games): 72/119 (60.5%), 854 yards (213 Y/Gm), 7.2 Avg., 6 TDs, 1 INT and 95.7 QB Rating (87.3 QB Rating in Super Bowl + GW drive late in 4th QT)

I was, more or less, using playoff stats to show how Rodgers has been pretty much incredible (since his regular seasons are right on par with any other QB over the last two years). Of course, one who actually watched the playoffs wouldn't need stats to prove anything since Rodgers was a ******* machine and picked everything apart. One wouldn't need stats to know that Rodgers was playing like the best QB in the NFL from midway through the regular season to the postseason. If one just simply watched Rodgers, then it would be quite obvious that you would have to compare all other QBs to his level of play, because that's how dominant he was. The stats were there to show how close (or how far ahead) Rodgers is to all these other QBs that he apparently doesn't belong. If you watched him, you would know that he belongs in the same breathe as Manning and Brady. How you want to arrange the three of them, be my guest. It doesn't really matter. They're all playing at a level so elite, they're pretty much on their own level. I think you could put Rodgers #1, #3 or #2, it doesn't matter. The point is: He's right there with those guys. He's not a tier under them, he's not in the next group, he's just not. Like I said, if you watched him, you would notice that. If you look at the stats, then you'd notice that.

You wanna go into career accomplishments, then he's obviously several tiers below Brady / Manning. But right now, one could make a very easy argument that Rodgers is the best QB in the NFL.

Maybe This Year Mayhew
05-20-2011, 01:34 PM
He still had the same head coach and that was what i meant. He has had a continuance in several keys, Belicheck and talent being the most important. Funny how the Patriots defenders spent ages complaining about Manning getting regular season accolades and no rings, so he isn't no.1, but when it happens to Brady its the teams fault. I'll keep my 'delusion' and watch Brady fail against, i'm sorry, excuse me while i laugh, Mark Sanchez.

Show me what Rodgers has done wrong in 3 years? Other than be the most efficient QB in the league over that span, post and regular season.

Belicheck is more of a defensive guy. OCs and QB coaches impact Brady more. 36 tds and 4 ints.

Rodgers hasn't done much wrong. The NFC Champ game he didn't play that well though and I do recall a pick early against Zona which helped Zona get a huge lead. Not all his fault other than possibly reading the blitz but he did also fumble to end the game against Zona too.

Brady can't be perfect all the time but pretty much has been for more years than Rodgers. The Jets offense beat the Pats defense. Brady played well against the Jets and did have a pick though but he played a good game in the divisional game. Pats got 21 and crushed the Jets once too, Rodgers only helped put up 9 on three FGs against the same Jets D. 15/34 for 170 yards and 0 tds, 0 ints against the Jets for Rodgers.

jrdrylie
05-20-2011, 01:42 PM
He still had the same head coach and that was what i meant. He has had a continuance in several keys, Belicheck and talent being the most important. Funny how the Patriots defenders spent ages complaining about Manning getting regular season accolades and no rings, so he isn't no.1, but when it happens to Brady its the teams fault. I'll keep my 'delusion' and watch Brady fail against, i'm sorry, excuse me while i laugh, Mark Sanchez.

Show me what Rodgers has done wrong in 3 years? Other than be the most efficient QB in the league over that span, post and regular season.

What has Rodgers done wrong in three years?
6-10 record in 2008
More INTs in his first four games of 2010 than Tom Brady had in the entire season.

And about Brady and the Patriots failing against Mark Sanchez; Tom Brady played much better than Aaron Rodgers did against the Jets. Tom Brady helped his team put up an average of 27 points in three games against the Jets. Aaron Rodgers put up 9. The difference is the Green Bay defense shut the Jets out while the Patriots defense allowed 28 points in both the losses.

FlyingElvis
05-20-2011, 01:53 PM
Didn't take long for you to reveal yourself to be an asshole.

Cute.

Fortunately for me, I'm comfortable being an asshole. Can you say the same about your ignorance?

TimmG6376
05-20-2011, 01:58 PM
I don't have a problem with Rodgers being ranked behind Manning and Brady, but I do wonder why Brees seems to be the consensus #3. I think there has to be some debate between him and Rodgers as the #3 at this point.

bigbluedefense
05-20-2011, 02:00 PM
I don't have a problem with Rodgers being ranked behind Manning and Brady, but I do wonder why Brees seems to be the consensus #3. I think there has to be some debate between him and Rodgers as the #3 at this point.

Longevity. Brees has done it longer.

The person I think that is criminally underrated is Ben Roethlisberger.

Maybe This Year Mayhew
05-20-2011, 02:19 PM
Longevity. Brees has done it longer.

The person I think that is criminally underrated is Ben Roethlisberger.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/stats?playerId=5536

Big Ben is pretty clutch but he doesn't put up big yardage in regular seasons or wowed in the playoffs with many multiple td games. Most of them are 1 maybe 2tds with 0 or 1 int. 2009 he put up very good numbers, maybe his best season put the Steelers missed the playoffs. 2010 he put up good numbers after missing the first 4 games. He has gotten better the last 2 years. He takes care of the ball and defintely can lead game winning drives when needed but he's top 7 only second tier still. His SuperBowl performance against the Cards was pretty good and clutch and this years Super Bowl and divisional game were good but the Jets held him down in the AFC Champ game. With Pittsburghs D and former running game it doesn't take a super human effort to be a winner.

niel89
05-20-2011, 04:23 PM
Longevity. Brees has done it longer.

The person I think that is criminally underrated is Ben Roethlisberger.

I have to agree man. I put Roethlisberger at #5 behind Brady, Manning, Rodgers and Brees. If I'm down by 4 with 1:30 left I'm choosing either Brady or B.Roth. I want the ball in his hands at the end of the game.

J-Mike88
05-20-2011, 10:12 PM
What separates Rodgers from the other stat machine qbs in the league that most casual fans hype up is, Rodgers has had monster games in the playoffs.

His game vs Arizona and his game vs Atlanta were just ridiculous. The guy is legit, he's been studly in the playoffs and the regular season.
Very true. He's 4-1 career playoffs, and his 1 loss was the 4 TD, I think almost 400 yard game that he started with an Int, and ended being stripped for the OT TD the other way.

It's a very ****ing fine line between goat, and G.O.A.T. type of reputation.
Favre always found a way to f*** up in the end of playoff games.
Rodgers did follow suit in the first one, after a great game. But then he figured out how to not be Farve in this playoff run. He had to unlearn what he had from Farve.
Or "unremember" as Rocket Clemens would say, haha.

Rosebud
05-21-2011, 01:14 AM
Longevity. Brees has done it longer.

The person I think that is criminally underrated is Ben Roethlisberger.

*shrug* for me it's a matter of preference. i prefer QBs who are like seond OCs out there, guys who will correct everyone else because they know exactly what should be happening. Guys who can take over the play calling and pull an incredible drive out of their ass. Big Ben is just not that guy, at least not IMO, he's a tremendously talented QB and a clutch performer who has shown good leadership, but he's also benefited greatly from all of the Vets and strong coaching in Pittsburgh that keeps him from having to hold the locker-room together. Ben's easily top 10 and he's in that second tier of Brees, Rodgers, Rivers, Eli and the Vick we saw last year guys who just haven't been insanely good for as long as Brady and Manning.

Those two's longevity gives them a lot of benefit, it makes them better leaders, it gives them more expertise on which to draw to help their younger team-mates adjust and learn, it gives them the pull in the locker-room to command any player to get his head out of his ass because they have proven their resilience, they have proven they can adjust to different talent/schemes/opposition-strategies/rules. Until we see a drop off from Brady or Manning or Rodgers/Brees win another SB in dominant fashion Brady and Manning will remain in a tier of their own.

CrankthatCrabtree
05-21-2011, 01:45 AM
*shrug* for me it's a matter of preference. i prefer QBs who are like seond OCs out there, guys who will correct everyone else because they know exactly what should be happening. Guys who can take over the play calling and pull an incredible drive out of their ass. Big Ben is just not that guy, at least not IMO, he's a tremendously talented QB and a clutch performer who has shown good leadership, but he's also benefited greatly from all of the Vets and strong coaching in Pittsburgh that keeps him from having to hold the locker-room together. Ben's easily top 10 and he's in that second tier of Brees, Rodgers, Rivers, Eli and the Vick we saw last year guys who just haven't been insanely good for as long as Brady and Manning.


I just don't see how you could possibly include Eli in that tier with Brees, Rodgers, Rivers, Vick, and Big Ben. Any fan can make a laundry list of excuses for their favourite QB, Eli's play on the field just doesn't warrent him being anywhere close to being in that tier

AntoinCD
05-21-2011, 02:02 AM
I just don't see how you could possibly include Eli in that tier with Brees, Rodgers, Rivers, Vick, and Big Ben. Any fan can make a laundry list of excuses for their favourite QB, Eli's play on the field just doesn't warrent him being anywhere close to being in that tier

I wouldnt have Vick in that tier either. A lot of Vick's best plays are on broken plays where he ad libs. Not a great recipe for long term success.

I would rank the tiers like this

Brady and Manning-Im not going to argue which order these are in because it's been said by both sides enough. These two players have won the last 4 MVPs between them. They also have the greatest longevity of all the top QBs.

Rodgers, Brees and Rivers-In that order but very close between all three. For all the talk in this thread about Rodgers and if he wins the next SB will he be the best, if Rivers wins it next year and has a similar year statistically as this year then he goes above Rodgers IMO. Last year the debate was between Rodgers and Rivers as to who the best QB under 30 was. Throughout the regular season Rivers was ahead, but postseason means a lot.

Roethlisberger-Im putting Big Ben in a tier to himself. He has a history of success and of being a clutch performer. The 4th quarter drive in the SB 3 years ago was one of the greatest drives ever. However I dont think he would have the success of the above mentioned if he they all had the exact same teams.

Ryan, Vick and Eli Manning-This is the tier where it starts to get difficult. Matt Ryan is the guy I would take of these three but has a long way to go to move up even one tier. Eli Manning has shown he can be clutch when it matters most but also has some really poor moments. Vick as I mentioned is not someone I would rely on long term but can transform an offense when he is playing well.

After that then you start getting into QBs who can lead an offense but can have major struggles in close games and playoff games-Romo, Cutler etc. Then there are also the young up and coming QBs who could become the top in the league-Freeman, Bradford, Stafford, Sanchez, Flacco etc

Rosebud
05-21-2011, 12:20 PM
I just don't see how you could possibly include Eli in that tier with Brees, Rodgers, Rivers, Vick, and Big Ben. Any fan can make a laundry list of excuses for their favourite QB, Eli's play on the field just doesn't warrent him being anywhere close to being in that tier

*shrug* Homerism and Eli being one of the 3 best late game QB behind Brady and about on par with Big Ben. Eli's got the ring, got the long history of consistent success, first season missing the playoffs since his rookie season, has been putting up big numbers the past two years despite having his teams fall apart around him, this year Mario Manningham was our only receiver to be in the lineup week 1 and week 17, plus he's just the type of QB I've always preferred, smart, tough and clutch. I won't really argue this one that hard but I think he's at the bottom of that tier, he's certainly close since he'd be at the top of the next tier if you don't put him in that one, at least for what I like in a QB.

bigbluedefense
05-21-2011, 12:59 PM
*shrug* for me it's a matter of preference. i prefer QBs who are like seond OCs out there, guys who will correct everyone else because they know exactly what should be happening. Guys who can take over the play calling and pull an incredible drive out of their ass. Big Ben is just not that guy, at least not IMO, he's a tremendously talented QB and a clutch performer who has shown good leadership, but he's also benefited greatly from all of the Vets and strong coaching in Pittsburgh that keeps him from having to hold the locker-room together. Ben's easily top 10 and he's in that second tier of Brees, Rodgers, Rivers, Eli and the Vick we saw last year guys who just haven't been insanely good for as long as Brady and Manning.

Those two's longevity gives them a lot of benefit, it makes them better leaders, it gives them more expertise on which to draw to help their younger team-mates adjust and learn, it gives them the pull in the locker-room to command any player to get his head out of his ass because they have proven their resilience, they have proven they can adjust to different talent/schemes/opposition-strategies/rules. Until we see a drop off from Brady or Manning or Rodgers/Brees win another SB in dominant fashion Brady and Manning will remain in a tier of their own.

There's more than one way to skin a cat. I also prefer the cerebral qbs myself, but while Ben's methods are unconventional (he basically plays backyard football), he gets results.

And results matter.

To me, when I evaluate qbs, the first question I ask myself is

1. Can you win a SB with this guy?

and the second question is

2. When theres 2 minutes to go and you need a TD to win, can you trust this guy to win you the game?

If the answer is yes to both of those questions, then you have a franchise qb.

And ultimately, that's all you ask for. If you have one of those guys, then you don't have to worry about the qb position for the next 10 years, you just need to focus on the rest of the team.

As for Eli, I obviously have bias, and I view him in a greater light than most fans, but I leave those opinions to myself. I know he needs to win another SB to solidify himself amongst the rest of the league's fans as a top tier qb. I personally think he's already there, but again, I have bias.

Rosebud
05-21-2011, 03:09 PM
There's more than one way to skin a cat. I also prefer the cerebral qbs myself, but while Ben's methods are unconventional (he basically plays backyard football), he gets results.

And results matter.

To me, when I evaluate qbs, the first question I ask myself is

1. Can you win a SB with this guy?

and the second question is

2. When theres 2 minutes to go and you need a TD to win, can you trust this guy to win you the game?

If the answer is yes to both of those questions, then you have a franchise qb.

And ultimately, that's all you ask for. If you have one of those guys, then you don't have to worry about the qb position for the next 10 years, you just need to focus on the rest of the team.

As for Eli, I obviously have bias, and I view him in a greater light than most fans, but I leave those opinions to myself. I know he needs to win another SB to solidify himself amongst the rest of the league's fans as a top tier qb. I personally think he's already there, but again, I have bias.

Yeah, that's why I try to point out that I'm expressing my personal preference, which this discussion always comes down to anyway. Big Ben gets results but I can't help but question how well he would stack up to Eli if the situations where reversed, if he had to become a leader on this team with Killdrive as OC and 2 positions getting wiped out by injuries every season. I can't argue with his results, I just can't ignore how perfect his situation is for him to get those results either. Especially when I see how hard our coaching staff makes it on Eli to get the results he's got. Plus Eli's one of the few QBs who I'd take over Big Ben with one drive to decide the game.

bigbluedefense
05-21-2011, 04:07 PM
Yeah, that's why I try to point out that I'm expressing my personal preference, which this discussion always comes down to anyway. Big Ben gets results but I can't help but question how well he would stack up to Eli if the situations where reversed, if he had to become a leader on this team with Killdrive as OC and 2 positions getting wiped out by injuries every season. I can't argue with his results, I just can't ignore how perfect his situation is for him to get those results either. Especially when I see how hard our coaching staff makes it on Eli to get the results he's got. Plus Eli's one of the few QBs who I'd take over Big Ben with one drive to decide the game.

I think it's a myth that Ben's situation is "ideal". I don't think that's fair to Ben at all.

Bruce Arians isn't exactly Bill Walsh himself.

His oline is mediocre as hell.

His WR core isn't exactly the Packers unit, while it's good, it lacks a true #1 WR. It's actually similar to Eli's.

And Ben is not a game manager. He was early in his career, but not anymore, the guy carries that offense.

I'd say Ben and Eli are equal in terms of clutchness. So that's a wash too.


Ben is a stud. He's not the only qb in this league with a great defense. I don't buy that argument anymore. There are qbs in this league with great defenses and better supporting casts on offense that don't get it done like Ben does.

Ben makes plays during a game that no other qb in this league can make. That throw away vs the Ravens in the regular season? Only Ben does that. And that doesn't show up on the stat sheet but was an integral play for them winning the game.

Ben is probably the best qb in the league when a play breaks down. And that's why he's so successful in the playoffs. Bc what you do when things go wrong can sometimes define you as a qb. No one is better than Ben in those moments. Not even Brady and Peyton.

Look, we both know how difficult it is for Eli under the run n shoot choice route offense, that offense just is too complicated for WRs for consistent success, but the truth of the matter is, the rest of the league's fans don't know and don't care. So until Eli wins another ring he won't get his due.

And his offensive system isn't changing anytime soon, so don't expect anything different moving forward. WRs running wrong routes will still be the cause of 80% of his INTs, and will also be the cause of our killed drives. Couple in KillDrive's love for WTF plays in key moments, and you know how this story ends by now.

It is what it is.

PackerLegend
05-21-2011, 04:42 PM
As of Now...

Brady
Manning
Rodgers/Brees/Roethlisberger/Rivers - They are all very close but I would go in that order. Rivers last because while he is very very good, he is still looking for sucess in the postseason.



If Rodgers won another superbowl next year then he would have 2 in his 4 seasons starting so next year after superbowl.

Brady/Rodgers - It would be close but Brady still has 3 rings to Rodgers 2 and has done it for much much longer.
Manning - While Rodgers hasnt done close to what Peyton has in the reg season he has already did twice what he has done in the post season in his 4th season starting.
Brees/Roethlisberger/Rivers - Still very close depending on how the season goes they may be changed a bit. I also think some younger qb or qbs may jump up into this group.

Splat
05-21-2011, 04:49 PM
No matter who you have #1 Brady and Manning are clearly #1 and #2 and I can't believe anyone would think other wise.

J-Mike88
05-21-2011, 09:25 PM
I've always argued that Peyton is better than Brady.
But A) with the exception of the one SB win for the Colts, Peyton has pretty much been Favre-like in the post season.

Brady was super clutch early in his playoff career, but to be honest, I've not been really impressed in his post-season work the past 6-7 years, other than the one game leading up to his Super Bowl loss to the Giants, where he was off as his normal great pass-pro broke down.

I don't know who to rank #1 at this point in time, but based on the stats that Mr Giselle had last regular season, he's gotta be ranked #1 heading into the next regular season.

After that, I can see cases made for Rodgers, Peyton, and Brees. Nobody else, not even the 3 NFC guys who the fans voted for the Pro Bowl ahead of Rodgers (Brees being the other one besides Matt Ice and Mike Vick).

Rosebud
05-22-2011, 09:28 AM
I think it's a myth that Ben's situation is "ideal". I don't think that's fair to Ben at all.

Bruce Arians isn't exactly Bill Walsh himself.

His oline is mediocre as hell.

His WR core isn't exactly the Packers unit, while it's good, it lacks a true #1 WR. It's actually similar to Eli's.

And Ben is not a game manager. He was early in his career, but not anymore, the guy carries that offense.

I'd say Ben and Eli are equal in terms of clutchness. So that's a wash too.


Ben is a stud. He's not the only qb in this league with a great defense. I don't buy that argument anymore. There are qbs in this league with great defenses and better supporting casts on offense that don't get it done like Ben does.

Ben makes plays during a game that no other qb in this league can make. That throw away vs the Ravens in the regular season? Only Ben does that. And that doesn't show up on the stat sheet but was an integral play for them winning the game.

Ben is probably the best qb in the league when a play breaks down. And that's why he's so successful in the playoffs. Bc what you do when things go wrong can sometimes define you as a qb. No one is better than Ben in those moments. Not even Brady and Peyton.

Look, we both know how difficult it is for Eli under the run n shoot choice route offense, that offense just is too complicated for WRs for consistent success, but the truth of the matter is, the rest of the league's fans don't know and don't care. So until Eli wins another ring he won't get his due.

And his offensive system isn't changing anytime soon, so don't expect anything different moving forward. WRs running wrong routes will still be the cause of 80% of his INTs, and will also be the cause of our killed drives. Couple in KillDrive's love for WTF plays in key moments, and you know how this story ends by now.

It is what it is.

What made it ideal was how well set up for early success he was. The great running game of the Bus and Parker plus all of the veteran leaders too take pressure off of Ben. That to me is a huge part of what's made Ben a successful QB the fact that he didn't have win over and galvanize that lockerroom it let Ben focus on the mental stuff he was weaker at. That's why I think the situation was perfect for a more raw and stupid QB like Big Ben, he didn't need to do all of the intangible things a franchise QB does, at least not his first couple of years.

jack1077
05-23-2011, 08:10 PM
Manning - Rodgers - Brady. That is my order. Haters gonna hate. Aaron is a beast when it matters, is still so young and basically carried the team through the superbowl win. No he did not have a last second drive to win. But he was in a 4 wideout set most of the game and there was no secret to what he was going to do. You wouldn't exactly call the Packers offense balanced. Rodgers is also the best QB in terms of rating for his first 3 years in the league, in history. He has led his team to 10 game tying drives, only to have the defence lose the game. This is the only stat i really care about in terms of a qb being a winner. You can't control the defence, it is a team game. If you do your job, get the points and still lose, how can you blame the QB. And yet people praise him for 'winning' the game against the bears in the NFC championship. The defence won the game, not Aaron, but this makes Aaron a winner because the team won. The same logic should be applied to Trent Dilfer. He won didn't he? But he was mediocre. Everyone seems to think that qb's who win are doing it alone. Look at the past 4 superbowl winners. With the exception of the saints they all had elite defences when they won. And the saints were not playing the steel curtain in the superbowl. They were playing a finese colts D. It is extremely hard to win the way Arizona tried.

People talk on this thread of how clutch Brady is. How about how clutch and incredible Rodgers has been for his first 3 years starting. I think only Bree's has thrown more touchdowns over that span, and Aaron has the best QB rating in the entire history of the NFL. Think about this, no other player has ever, in the entire history of the NFL started their career with a better stat line.

With regards to Eli, i think he is the epitome of Good, not great. He will win superbowls because he has a running game and a defence. Don't expect him to be able to go 4 wide - shotgun in the fourth quarter and throw it all over the field, he isn't that type of QB. I think this is the type of player the vikings hope that Ponder turns into. I just don't like Rapelisbuger because of his style. I'd actually rather the steady play of Eli, not flashy, but effective.

I think Rivers is a beast. He is suffering from the same thing Aaron was when people doubted him. He doesn't have the great talent at WR that you need in todays nfl. Jackson only came back halfway through the season and before that he was throwing to scrubs. Would love to see both Rodgers and Rivers in a superbowl in the next few years.

Peyton is the greatest thing since sliced bread and the colts fan should bow down before him. To quote Steve Young on him coming out of college "He is physically tough, mentally tough the kind of kid that you can trust." Nothing sums up Peyton better than that in my opinion. The hardest worker. The consummate pro. Tough as nails. When Steve Young talks about QB's, i listen.

I am not a Brady hater. I just feel that he has gotten the right calls at the right time, and has been the most opportunistic player since Montana. That in itself is a skill, but even the most die hard Pats fan would have to admit Brady had more than his fair share of calls in the superbowl winning years. (tuck rule etc) The dude can play and if you are 4 down with 2 minutes to go, i wouldn't care if Manning, Brady or Rodgers had the ball, i trust them all to get it done.

jack1077
05-23-2011, 08:14 PM
Cute.

Fortunately for me, I'm comfortable being an asshole. Can you say the same about your ignorance?

Btw, am i ignorant because i don't agree with your opinion? And i'm sorry i wrote that, i don't know you from adam so i shouldn't judge.

Rosebud
05-24-2011, 09:39 AM
I love reading people talk about Eli who clearly never watch Eli play and only look at his stats.

Pil
05-25-2011, 01:28 AM
What if Brady throws 40 TDs and 8 INTs and gets bounced in the first round and Rodgers goes for 30/12 or something and wins it all?

Brady all the way.

Saints-Tigers
05-25-2011, 02:55 AM
Brady and Manning have won the last 4 MVPs.... lol.

J-Mike88
05-25-2011, 08:33 AM
Brady and Manning have won the last 4 MVPs.... lol.
I thought Brees won one... no?

Shane P. Hallam
05-25-2011, 08:46 AM
I thought Brees won one... no?

Nope, Brees has never won an MVP.

jack1077
05-25-2011, 09:30 AM
Nope, Brees has never won an MVP.

Which is an indictment of the voting system.

Saints-Tigers
05-25-2011, 09:39 AM
Which is an indictment of the voting system.

Which MVP should Brees have won?

jack1077
05-25-2011, 04:12 PM
Which MVP should Brees have won?

Statistically he could have easily won 09 or 08. In 09 he had finished highest in tds and qb rating. 6th in yds but 3rd in yrd average. In 08 he actually broke 5000 yards which is incredible and had the most touchdowns, wasn't as efficient though. Hard to argue he doesn't deserve at least 1 award. I'd say 09. Not saying he was the best qb in the league, but he performed better that year than anyone else in that year.

J-Mike88
05-26-2011, 10:42 PM
Statistically ...... In 08 he actually broke 5000 yards which is incredible and had the most touchdowns...
That was a pretty damn good case right there.

http://smartasssports.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Brett-Favre-Aaron-Rodgers-ESPN-screen-cap.png

Saints-Tigers
05-26-2011, 11:06 PM
Statistically he could have easily won 09 or 08. In 09 he had finished highest in tds and qb rating. 6th in yds but 3rd in yrd average. In 08 he actually broke 5000 yards which is incredible and had the most touchdowns, wasn't as efficient though. Hard to argue he doesn't deserve at least 1 award. I'd say 09. Not saying he was the best qb in the league, but he performed better that year than anyone else in that year.

I thought he should have gotten more credit for that 5000 yard season, I think Matt Ryan and Chad Pennington had more MVP votes, but MVP voters think wins are everything.

In 09, I thought Peyton Manning led a weaker team to a better record. Tough sell. I mean, when you look deeper, the Saints were much more dominant in their wins though.

Either way, it's not like a huge travesty.

wicket
05-27-2011, 01:25 AM
I thought he should have gotten more credit for that 5000 yard season, I think Matt Ryan and Chad Pennington had more MVP votes, but MVP voters think wins are everything.

In 09, I thought Peyton Manning led a weaker team to a better record. Tough sell. I mean, when you look deeper, the Saints were much more dominant in their wins though.

Either way, it's not like a huge travesty.

I agree with this post although i want to add that brees is due, he was a legit mvp option in quite a few of his saints seasons so i would think if another 50-50 situation occurs that brees gets the nod.

jack1077
05-27-2011, 08:08 PM
i'm curious, do you keep talking about rating just because it's a stat he did well in, or because you think it's actually a remotely relevant stat for use in a comparison?

because if it's the second one, you should stop.



to be fair, so does most of this board. see: any argument about the best qb, ever. inevitably, it will come down to 'zomg, super bowl wins, brady>manning' or something similar (for instance, substitute marino, if it's the 80's).

Rating = passing efficiency. Its not a coincidence that the majority of elite qb's have high qb ratings. If you dislike the fact that I use the stat, keep it too yourself, I don't care. I think it is a measure of a combination of stats to attempt to determine an overall view of a QB's efficiency. What other stat would you use? Wins? The only detractor for the QB rating stat is that it does not take into account sacks.

phlysac
05-27-2011, 08:36 PM
I think the QB rating is too heavily weighted on TDs and INTs. Not that those aren't insanely important but a HUGE game as far as yards and completion percentage without TD passes can illicit a lower QB rating than someone who doesn't have a bunch of yards and throws for under 50% but tosses a couple TDs.


Here's an example of the "importance" of QB rating...

What quarterback had the highest QB rating in the RedZone last season???

Alex Smith.

jack1077
05-27-2011, 09:42 PM
I think the QB rating is too heavily weighted on TDs and INTs. Not that those aren't insanely important but a HUGE game as far as yards and completion percentage without TD passes can illicit a lower QB rating than someone who doesn't have a bunch of yards and throws for under 50% but tosses a couple TDs.


Here's an example of the "importance" of QB rating...

What quarterback had the highest QB rating in the RedZone last season???

Alex Smith.

Here's an example of how it is a great judge of talent, top 10 career qb ratings:

1 Aaron Rodgers 98.4
2 Philip Rivers 97.2
3 Steve Young 96.8
4 Tony Romo 95.5
5 Tom Brady 95.2
6 Peyton Manning 94.9
7 Kurt Warner 93.7
8 Ben Roethlisberger 92.5
9 Joe Montana 92.3
10 Drew Brees 91.7

You were looking at a single situational stat. In the long haul, it definitely does separate the men from the boys. I see 8 of 10 superbowl winners on that list as well, if you want to give the 'wins are the only thing that matter' argument. Btw, this demonstrate what a beast Steve Young was.The only thing I dislike about it is that because today's NFL is so much more pass based, the qb rating for everyone is going up, that and it doesn't account for sacks, or not getting sacked. Why isn't there a sack per attempt stat actually?

jack1077
05-27-2011, 09:50 PM
there is

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2010/passing.htm

sort by SK %

Cheers. Apparently just writing cheers is too short.

phlysac
05-27-2011, 10:10 PM
You were looking at a single situational stat. In the long haul, it definitely does separate the men from the boys.

I don't disagree that Rating is less sensitive over a larger basis ofmeasurement. But of course the "best" QBs will have high completion percentages, yards and TDs while keeping INTs low. But it doesn't tell the story in short measurements (ie 1 season, 1 game, etc) in side-by-side comparisons.

Peyton Manning and Drew Brees were 10th and 12th in QB Rating last season and it'd be hard to find someone that would even attempt to argue that Manning and Brees were only the 10th and 12th best QBs.

Caulibflower
05-28-2011, 12:57 AM
ZOMGZ I love stats!

descendency
05-28-2011, 01:00 AM
Which MVP should Brees have won?

08 for sure. But the MVP will never go to a player on a bad team, no matter how great.

J-Mike88
05-28-2011, 06:53 AM
ZOMGZ I love stats!
That's zgood, because they're gonna keep on keeping track of them.
In all sports actually.

Rosebud
05-28-2011, 01:40 PM
That's zgood, because they're gonna keep on keeping track of them.
In all sports actually.

Stupid people doing stupid things? No whey!

jack1077
05-28-2011, 11:39 PM
I don't disagree that Rating is less sensitive over a larger basis ofmeasurement. But of course the "best" QBs will have high completion percentages, yards and TDs while keeping INTs low. But it doesn't tell the story in short measurements (ie 1 season, 1 game, etc) in side-by-side comparisons.

Peyton Manning and Drew Brees were 10th and 12th in QB Rating last season and it'd be hard to find someone that would even attempt to argue that Manning and Brees were only the 10th and 12th best QBs.

Well i believe you used the example of David Carr being a top 3 qb for 3 games, then you went on to basically agree that the rating system separate the more talented players from the weaker ones over a series of time. You could look at one Brady Quinn game and 1 Peyton Manning game and conclude that Quinn is better than Manning using your logic. Obviously common sense has to come into the equation at some point. Over 1 season, yes i think it does show, for the most part who were the better QB's. Obviously there will be exceptions occasionally. However, it does show that Aaron Rodgers is a much better player than say, Alex Smith. You never see Jamarcus Russell finishing the season with 100 QB rating. You see the GOOD QBs doing that. I do agree that there are some exceptions, Eli Manning last year for example was far better than his stats indicated. And Mark Sanchez was actually far worse than his stats indicated. But neither of these players were MVP contenders. The MVP winner was Brady, who surprise surprise was the league leader in, QB rating. There are faults to it, but they are never going to stop me using it in an argument, the same way Pats fans will always throw out that Brady has won 3 super bowls so he is god. I can't disprove their argument the same way you can't disprove mine. I believe it is a measurable, the same way that they do. We aren't dealing in absolutes here. By the way, have a look at that list i posted before, can you really argue that it doesn't show QB ability after that?

I do think we should have a 'Garbage time' rating. If you are down by like 25 points, with 4 minutes to go and you are throwing on a defence giving you the short, easy completions, it shouldn't count to the final tally as much. AKA, the Carson Palmer.

I think we can agree to disagree on this can't we? There are valid arguments on both sides, no one is ever going to win. I'm not saying its like "He has the best qb rating therefore he is the best ever", like i said, common sense does have to play a role.

J-Mike88
05-29-2011, 08:06 AM
Stupid people doing stupid things? No whey!
All statistics do is record what has happened. There's nothing there to call people stupid for keeping track of them.

phlysac
05-29-2011, 09:57 AM
Well i believe you used the example of David Carr being a top 3 qb for 3 games, then you went on to basically agree that the rating system separate the more talented players from the weaker ones over a series of time. You could look at one Brady Quinn game and 1 Peyton Manning game and conclude that Quinn is better than Manning using your logic. Obviously common sense has to come into the equation at some point. Over 1 season, yes i think it does show, for the most part who were the better QB's. Obviously there will be exceptions occasionally. However, it does show that Aaron Rodgers is a much better player than say, Alex Smith. You never see Jamarcus Russell finishing the season with 100 QB rating. You see the GOOD QBs doing that. I do agree that there are some exceptions, Eli Manning last year for example was far better than his stats indicated. And Mark Sanchez was actually far worse than his stats indicated. But neither of these players were MVP contenders. The MVP winner was Brady, who surprise surprise was the league leader in, QB rating. There are faults to it, but they are never going to stop me using it in an argument, the same way Pats fans will always throw out that Brady has won 3 super bowls so he is god. I can't disprove their argument the same way you can't disprove mine. I believe it is a measurable, the same way that they do. We aren't dealing in absolutes here. By the way, have a look at that list i posted before, can you really argue that it doesn't show QB ability after that?

I do think we should have a 'Garbage time' rating. If you are down by like 25 points, with 4 minutes to go and you are throwing on a defence giving you the short, easy completions, it shouldn't count to the final tally as much. AKA, the Carson Palmer.

I think we can agree to disagree on this can't we? There are valid arguments on both sides, no one is ever going to win. I'm not saying its like "He has the best qb rating therefore he is the best ever", like i said, common sense does have to play a role.

Firstly, I never mentioned Carr. My comment was that the player who lead the NFL in QB Rating inside the redzone for the entire 2010 NFL season was Alex Smith.

That was a statistic based on an entire year of data.

I never said that using QB rating (in its entirely) couldn't help to seperate to top QBs from the bottom QBs (Quinn vs Manning)

I just don't think that QB rating works in a side-by-side comparison (eluded to in Brees and Manning being rated 12 and 10 respectively).

I completely agree that there are no absolutes, that common sense needs to be used (it's not too common), garbage-time should definitely be considered. And most importantly, as you said, there are strong arguments on both sides.

descendency
05-29-2011, 11:49 AM
the only people who want to rely on stats for all measurement are people who have no interest in actually spending any time thinking about or learning about the subject at hand.

Or who feasibly can't. I was born in the 80s, so I didn't get to see players like Bill Russell play. When someone asks me to list the greatest players of all time though, I can't leave him off a list. (which is why I ignore making such lists)

Though, "Stats are for losers, final scores are for winners."

phlysac
05-29-2011, 12:39 PM
Statistics are, sadly, as dependable or more dependable than history books.

All written history is a "perspective." Trusting someone else's perspective may not always prove to be wise. Also, two accounts of same event are often polar-opposites. Considering, this should also be relevant when discussing football. Hence the fun nature of bantoring on an internet forum.

jack1077
05-29-2011, 02:56 PM
Statistics are, sadly, as dependable or more dependable than history books.

All written history is a "perspective." Trusting someone else's perspective may not always prove to be wise. Also, two accounts of same event are often polar-opposites. Considering, this should also be relevant when discussing football. Hence the fun nature of bantoring on an internet forum.

I agree. The guy was saying before that stats are subjective? Well, they are a record of what happened. They are fact. There is no opinion or bias.

"Stats are for losers. You keep looking at stats, we'll keep trying to get wins" - Rahim Morris.

phlysac
05-29-2011, 04:20 PM
I agree. The guy was saying before that stats are subjective? Well, they are a record of what happened. They are fact. There is no opinion or bias.

"Stats are for losers. You keep looking at stats, we'll keep trying to get wins" - Rahim Morris.

I get what you're saying, but I also get what njx was saying. Stats may, indeed be a factual documentation, however, they are still subjective when determing "best" The question is always "who is the best QB?" not "which QB had the best stats?" The difference in the question allows for the subjectivity.

jack1077
05-29-2011, 06:17 PM
wow. first, you repeatedly mis-attribute things i've said. then you deliberately mis-read things i've said. then you completely fail to interpret the things i've said. can you please spend a little mroe time thinking before typing?

i *never* said stats are subjective. i said your bloody interpretation of them is. there's such a vast wilderness of difference between the two, that i can't even adequately begin to understand how you missed it.

So my interpretation of fact is subjective? So when i state that Brady won the MVP last year (fact) and had the highest QB rating as well (fact) i am somehow being subjective? Its not subjective to use certain stats in my argument. I use the stats that support it and are relevant. How exactly do you want me to articulate my points?

Its opinion that is going to be discussed here. All i can do to support my opinion is use factual examples that back up my point of view. Its subjective in that, i have a point of view, but not in the stats i use.

J-Mike88
05-30-2011, 06:17 AM
no, all statistics do is keep track of one point of view of what happened, and often an unreliable one at that. tom brady thew 36 touchdowns last year. how good were the throws? what were the passes? how many of those touchdowns were due entirely to the wr making a play after catching the ball, and how many were due to brady putting the ball in the perfect spot?
here you go again.
there are thousands of different stats.
they track thousands of things.

all sports have stats, even kinda-non-sports like golf, gymnastics, swimming, etc.

you want to invent the stat that keeps track of the scenario you laid out above, go ahead.

a pitcher throws a great pitch and saws off jose bautista, gets him to pop one up. but in the bright high sun in oakland, it falls in out in short right field because the right fielder loses the ball.

guess what, the pitcher is charged with giving up a hit.

aaron rodgers throws a perfect pass to james jones for what should-be a touchdown.
the bast*rd drops it.
rodgers gets charged with an incompletion.
but jones gets hit with a "drop".

actually, in the mysterious loss at the lions last year, rodgers hit jennings for a deep bomb, gorgeous pass, behind the safety and an easy TD.
jennings dropped it, let it bounce off his helmet, and then up into the air for a simple fair-catch like interception for that lions DB.
rodgers charged with an int on what should have been a TD.

but stats are facts. they're things that happened, fair or not.
one day you'll get it: life's not always fair.
same thing is true in sports.

CameronCropper
05-30-2011, 07:37 AM
Aaron Rodgers is already the best quarterback in football.

As much as it pains me to say.

someone447
05-30-2011, 02:07 PM
"He uses statistics as a drunk man uses light posts, for support rather than illumination."

Not directed at anyone in particular.

jack1077
05-30-2011, 06:49 PM
wow. first, you repeatedly mis-attribute things i've said. then you deliberately mis-read things i've said. then you completely fail to interpret the things i've said. can you please spend a little mroe time thinking before typing?

i *never* said stats are subjective. i said your bloody interpretation of them is. there's such a vast wilderness of difference between the two, that i can't even adequately begin to understand how you missed it.

Can you please explain how stating facts is subjective? Please, i'd like to hear how a fact is considered slated to one side when it is a record of what happened. I guess saying that Brett Favre has the most passing yards in a career is subjective then? Your argument makes no sense. You are purposefully being contrary for the sake of it.

jack1077
05-30-2011, 08:35 PM
yes.



no, you used a single stat (passer rating), initially, to push an argument. further, THAT stat actually is relatively subjective, as demonstrated every single year. again, would you have rather had alex smith than mark sanchez? or david 'dumpoff' carr? i still fully maintain that passer rating is the most worthless, easily abused stat in any sport, ever.



i don't see what opinion has to do with anything. if you choose to support your opinion with bad stats (rating) or with poor arguments, i have no reason to respect those opinions.



thanks for that. never knew.



that's sort of the point. there isn't one. relying on stats as alone to back up any argument is ridiculous, at least in football. i won't speak to stats in any sport i don't care about.



this couldn't have less relevance.



so is aaron rodgers now a demonstrably worse qb? because that's what you're pushing. the fact that he has an int on his stat sheet is meaningless, unless you know how it was thrown. if jamarcus russell goes out and throws 50 balls directly into a dbs hands, then rodgers goes out and his receivers bobble 51 passes into a dbs arms, rodgers looks like an absolutely atrocious qb. then, when you actually watch the games, you'd realize the massive difference between the two situations. this is precisely why stats are a terrible thing to use in exclusion of all other evidence in football.



i have no idea what this has to do with anything that's been said anywhere, ever on this site. are you bitter because you think i'm hating on rodgers?



i couldn't think of a more apt quote, however you may have meant it. stats can absolutely be used in certain ways, very effectively. but the minute that they're the entire basis for your argument in football, you're likely missing something.



the fact that he led the nfl in passing yards *is* fact. sure. now, are you going to use that single fact to argue that he's the greatest qb of all time? that's where the problem would lie. that's the issue i've always had in these discussions. use stats as backup, not as your primary argument. i can't think of another sport where game tape has such massive importance when comparing two players, or even discussing a single player.

again, it's like saying tom brady threw the most td passes in a season a few years ago. cool. i'm with you. but, for the sake of argument, let's say every single one of those passes was a swing to the running back, who then had to beat half the defense to get into the end zone. does that mean anything in regards to the stat itself? no. but it damn well should mean something when we interpret what that stat means.

Game tape is subjective, stats aren't. Using stats to back up your argument is the only way you can have an impartial base for an argument. As i demonstrated, the better qb's on film almost always lead in passer rating. There is no argument against that. My use of the passer rating stat was completely justified. Stats are not entirely fair, but at least they are agreeable. You can't argue against them. Yes, they don't tell the whole story, but i would argue that they do show over time who is better. You can't get lucky all the time, eventually it has to come down to skill. For instance, Where is David Carr on the list of qb rating? 93rd. Where is Alex Smith? 116th. The highest season QB rating he ever posted was an 82.1. With 11 td's and 12int's. He also had one of the worst Averages per attempt in the league at 5.9. Argue that Carr's stats are inflated.

It's the same argument i can make about anything in football and never be proved wrong. Because unlike stats, game tape is SUBJECTIVE. If it wasn't, the draft would be a hell of a lot easier. I do not think that qb rating is the be all and end all when it comes to discussing qb's, i do think it gives a great indication of who was the most efficient. There are things you can't quantify, but argue those points with me, i can make excuse after excuse and you will never win the argument, as can you. Players don't think like a statistician by the way, it's not like Brees is thinking "well we are down by 50, i may as well dink and dunk to make my stat line look better".

My argument for Bree's being an MVP candidate was that he also led the league in passing yards and touchdowns. He carried the offense in 08'. And Yes, he had a great passer rating. 2nd in the league in average yards per attempt but still had the most attempts, that's impressive. I do not for a second think that because he had a .1 better qb rating he is better than the next guy. But if his rating is in the top 5 and he leads in other category's surely it should be a contributing factor.

Stats are not perfect, but i would still much rather Aaron Rodgers than Rapelisburger despite Ben winning more superbowls. I'll take the most efficient qb in history over Ben's 'heroics' any day of the week. Funny how the top 5 QB's in the league (on tape) being discussing in this thread are in the list of top 10 qb's by rating all time.

Go ahead and disagree and say that QB rating is meaningless. To me stats are like the 40 yrd dash or the bench press at the combine. You use it to discern between 2 players who are equal on tape.

phlysac
05-30-2011, 09:02 PM
Both of you (jack and njx) have very good arguments. Both of you should look at each other's gray area and actually see you're kinda saying similar things. Just need more gray area. LOL

Game tape is subjective, stats aren't. Using stats to back up your argument is the only way you can have an impartial base for an argument. As i demonstrated, the better qb's on film almost always lead in passer rating. There is no argument against that. My use of the passer rating stat was completely justified.
There is an argument and you mentioned it in your own argument... "almost always."

The "almost always" allows for gray areas where Passer Rating can be completely disregarded as a meaningless stat. David Carr's 144.1 rating in 2008 for instance.

Stats are not entirely fair, but at least they are agreeable. You can't argue against them.
Unless the stats are 1. represented are out of context (My David Carr reference earlier is completely out of context as he only threw 12 passes all season making his Passer Rating irrelevant... or 2. If the stats aren't completely accurate within your argument.

The highest season QB rating he ever posted was an 82.1. With 11 td's and 12int's.
Carr had a 144.1 in 2008 (irrelevant), and 93.6 in 2009 (irrelevant) but also a 83.5 in 2004 (relevant) with 16 TDs (not 11) and 14 Ints (not 12)

All I can say is that IMO both stats AND tape can be an unfair representation of play and/or ability which allows for equal parts of subjectivity.

jack1077
05-30-2011, 09:08 PM
Both of you (jack and njx) have very good arguments. Both of you should look at each other's gray area and actually see you're kinda saying similar things. Just need more gray area. LOL


There is an argument and you mentioned it in your own argument... "almost always."

The "almost always" allows for gray areas where Passer Rating can be completely disregarded as a meaningless stat. David Carr's 144.1 rating in 2008 for instance.


Unless the stats are 1. represented are out of context (My David Carr reference earlier is completely out of context as he only threw 12 passes all season making his Passer Rating irrelevant... or 2. If the stats aren't completely accurate within your argument.


Carr had a 144.1 in 2008 (irrelevant), and 93.6 in 2009 (irrelevant) but also a 83.5 in 2004 (relevant) with 16 TDs (not 11) and 14 Ints (not 12)

All I can say is that IMO both stats AND tape can be an unfair representation of play and/or ability which allows for equal parts of subjectivity.

My mistake on the 04' stat. I don't think it changes my point though.

jack1077
05-30-2011, 09:11 PM
Both of you (jack and njx) have very good arguments. Both of you should look at each other's gray area and actually see you're kinda saying similar things. Just need more gray area. LOL


Unless the stats are 1. represented are out of context (My David Carr reference earlier is completely out of context as he only threw 12 passes all season making his Passer Rating irrelevant... or 2. If the stats aren't completely accurate within your argument.


Carr had a 144.1 in 2008 (irrelevant), and 93.6 in 2009 (irrelevant) but also a 83.5 in 2004 (relevant) with 16 TDs (not 11) and 14 Ints (not 12)

All I can say is that IMO both stats AND tape can be an unfair representation of play and/or ability which allows for equal parts of subjectivity.

There is an argument and you mentioned it in your own argument... "almost always."

The "almost always" allows for gray areas where Passer Rating can be completely disregarded as a meaningless stat. David Carr's 144.1 rating in 2008 for instance.

This is an irrelevant stat. Common sense has to be used here. Throwing 12 passes does not constitute a season. I believe they even set requirements that you have to meet in order for you stats to count in the final season tally.

phlysac
05-30-2011, 09:23 PM
This is an irrelevant stat. Common sense has to be used here. Throwing 12 passes does not constitute a season. I believe they even set requirements that you have to meet in order for you stats to count in the final season tally.

See this is where you get yourself in trouble when arguing your point. You have to be more careful when processing the opposing position before issuing your rebuttal. As you can see, I clearly stated the irrelevance of Carr's stat in my post...
The "almost always" allows for gray areas where Passer Rating can be completely disregarded as a meaningless stat. David Carr's 144.1 rating in 2008 for instance.


Unless the stats are 1. represented are out of context (My David Carr reference earlier is completely out of context as he only threw 12 passes all season making his Passer Rating irrelevant

Carr had a 144.1 in 2008 (irrelevant)

My point was that using stats (as the argument began stating the importance of Passer Rating) is sometimes not a good way to go about it because of the gray areas. Irrelevant as an example or not (Peyton Manning having the 10th best Rating being relevant) it illustrates that stats aren't free from different translations of performance.

jack1077
05-30-2011, 09:33 PM
See this is where you get yourself in trouble when arguing your point. You have to be more careful when processing the opposing position before issuing your rebuttal. As you can see, I clearly stated the irrelevance of Carr's stat in my post...


My point was that using stats (as the argument began stating the importance of Passer Rating) is sometimes not a good way to go about it because of the gray areas. Irrelevant as an example or not (Peyton Manning having the 10th best Rating being relevant) it illustrates that stats aren't free from different translations of performance.

Manning didn't win last year. Brady did. What did he lead the NFL in, Passer Rating. The MVP is never "who is the best player" it's who had the best season. I think Manning is the better qb, but Brady obviously had the better season. Not just because of Passer Rating, but because of other factors as well (yrds, tds etc). Passer Rating is not the be all and end all, but a great guideline.

Rosebud
05-31-2011, 01:05 AM
i can't think of another sport where game tape has such massive importance when comparing two players, or even discussing a single player..

Soccer is really the only one now that they have some sabermetrics type stats for the NBA, TS% and what not.

soybean
10-09-2011, 04:20 PM
Best qb in the league. Primtetime evidence tonight.

BigBanger
10-09-2011, 04:29 PM
Best player in the league.
Fixed


10char

BigBanger
10-09-2011, 04:41 PM
njx9 ... you are worthless. Debating stats? Get a life. Seriously. Thats ******* pathetic.

J-Mike88
10-09-2011, 05:02 PM
Best qb in the league. Primtetime evidence tonight.I hope so. But anything can happen in a single game.Even McNabb won today.

cvv84
10-09-2011, 05:03 PM
Best qb in the league. Primtetime evidence tonight.

Opening night wasn't enough?

tjsunstein
10-09-2011, 06:56 PM
Never saw this thread before...

I wouldn't start a franchise with any other player right now.

yo123
10-09-2011, 07:00 PM
I cannot believe no is beating yes. Winning two consecutive Super Bowls? At this stage in your career? And just watch him play QB, I've never been more impressed just watching a QB make throws.

ImBrotherCain
10-09-2011, 07:11 PM
I voted no in this 5 months ago... Even as a Packer fan. I think the man is a beast and if the Pack wins another it will be on his shoulders but to me winning Super Bowls does not make you the best QB in the league. It stems back to the age old argument whether a player should be judged on how many Super Bowls they won.

The man looks inhuman at times and I rate him and Brady as the top two QBs in the league but "The Best QB in the League" is such an subjective title. I don't see enough between Brady and Rodgers to really claim one as the best.

Now with that said if Rodgers can keep this level of play up all season and at a similar level over the next few seasons. I don't see how he couldn't earn that decree as Brady enters his decline.

soybean
10-09-2011, 07:12 PM
Right now it goes:

1. Rodgers
2. Brady

You can be a raging Pats homer and talk about Brady's stats and projected stats but Rodgers smokes every qb in the eyeball test. He looks like varsity vs. jv out there.

MetSox17
10-09-2011, 07:15 PM
Yeah, winning back to back championships in this league, he definitely has to be considered the best in the game.

The only argument you could make for Brady (one more ring) would be completely irrelevant. Rodgers is already better at everything, he just needs to win another title.

jack1077
10-10-2011, 02:16 AM
Had Rodgers rated ahead of Brady when this thread was created, now feel like a major Bawse. Also still think that if Peyton was playing he would be No.1.

soybean
10-24-2011, 09:54 PM
Is there any doubt about the MVP this year?

We're witnessing one of the all time greats at the peak of his career.

wogitalia
10-24-2011, 10:11 PM
Now with that said if Rodgers can keep this level of play up all season and at a similar level over the next few seasons. I don't see how he couldn't earn that decree as Brady enters his decline.

I know you are trying to temper expectations and all, but if he keeps playing like he has for the last season and a half for a few more years then he isn't going to be pushing for discussions of being the best QB in the league, he will be creating the hype for the best ever.

Quite simply he is on another level right now, even from Brady, which is scary!

Still feels good that we had the pleasure of drafting and cutting Erasmus and Troy instead of him...

SickwithIt1010
10-24-2011, 10:13 PM
Been saying this since the playoffs last year and people called me stupid...

ImBrotherCain
10-24-2011, 10:28 PM
I know you are trying to temper expectations and all, but if he keeps playing like he has for the last season and a half for a few more years then he isn't going to be pushing for discussions of being the best QB in the league, he will be creating the hype for the best ever.

Quite simply he is on another level right now, even from Brady, which is scary!

Still feels good that we had the pleasure of drafting and cutting Erasmus and Troy instead of him...

Well you have to keep yourself on an even keel... You never know when any play could be your last. I agree the man is playing on a different level right now... Its hard to imagine where we would be if he didn't fall so far.

San Diego Chicken
10-24-2011, 11:08 PM
Right now I honestly believe Rodgers is the best player in the entire league.

tjsunstein
10-24-2011, 11:47 PM
Been saying this since the playoffs last year and people called me stupid...
And I got called a homer because it wasn't the popular opinion, yet.

Breed
10-24-2011, 11:49 PM
And I got called a homer because it wasn't the popular opinion, yet.

You're a homer...

I voted no, brady will still be better!

tjsunstein
10-24-2011, 11:54 PM
You're a homer...

I voted no, brady will still be better!
Says the guy that was defending Vick as the best QB in the league after Week 1.

I would say it's the pot calling the kettle back but I'm not so you're just just flat out wrong in both statements you just made.

Send me some more PMs about how much you hate your neg rep, it's a constant reminder for me to actually do it.

DanZilla
10-25-2011, 12:16 AM
Is there any doubt about the MVP this year?

We're witnessing one of the all time greats at the peak of his career.
IMO, Rodgers will more than likely get OPOTY and not MVP. I (everyone) expects Rodgers to light up every team he plays with his supporting cast over there. The Packers have the most complete team in the NFL, there is no denying that. I sort of agree with Brett, he stepped into a great situation and has fully taken advantage of it. Not taking anything away from Rodgers because I think he's an awesome QB to watch play. I just firmly believe you can place a young QB on the Packers team as is now and they would be successful and play great.

Manning should play the last game of season and win that game in a dominate fashion and show why he should easily be MVP lol

With everything being said, Go Brady for MVP :D

tjsunstein
10-25-2011, 12:18 AM
I just firmly believe you can place a young QB on the Packers team as is now and they would be successful and play great.

Manning should play the last game of season and win that game in a dominate fashion and show why he should easily be MVP lol

With everything being said, Go Brady for MVP :D
I was going to rip you for making up a scenario to use against Rodgers and penalizing him for utilizing his talent around him but the bold indicates you have an agenda here so I won't even bother attempting to talk logically with you.

Flyboy
10-25-2011, 12:25 AM
Saints / Packers rematch in the NFCCG. I want.

tjsunstein
10-25-2011, 12:28 AM
Saints / Packers rematch in the NFCCG. I want.
It'd be an epic game. We can't cover Sproles or Graham, and you guys can't cover everyone at once.

SickwithIt1010
10-25-2011, 12:32 AM
You're a homer...

I voted no, brady will still be better!

Dude, im a big eagles fan...and to be completely honest your ******* high. I dont need to read all your posts talking about how the eagles are better than the pack when they ******* arent right now. Our guys are playing like ****, and for me to come here and see you tooting our horn is just simply annoying.

Even being and eagles fan I can flat out say that Rodgers is the best QB in the league. Will i root against him when our eagles play him? Sure as hell will, but when hes playing against anyone else in this league my jaw is on the floor with the things he does. Im sorry, but Brady is not on this kids level right now, no one is.

DanZilla
10-25-2011, 12:46 AM
I was going to rip you for making up a scenario to use against Rodgers and penalizing him for utilizing his talent around him but the bold indicates you have an agenda here so I won't even bother attempting to talk logically with you.

Just my opinion *shrugsshoulders*. No sure what is wrong with anything I said.

tjsunstein
10-25-2011, 12:48 AM
Just my opinion *shrugsshoulders*. No sure what is wrong with anything I said.
You basically called Rodgers replaceable in the Packers system with their surrounding talent...

wogitalia
10-25-2011, 12:59 AM
Rodgers is pivotal to the Packers, they are actually built a lot like the Colts have been in the past. They have a really opportunistic defense that is built to play with a lead, they have a lot of really solid WR, a run game built on the opponent playing pass first and an OL that is solid but made better because their QB moves so well to buy time.

Anyone who thinks you could replace him with anyone outside of Brees and Brady right now and not see a significant drop off is just hating, imo at least.

Right now Rodgers deserves MVP and OPOY if it was awarded right now, things can change in the next 8 weeks, but right now I just don't see a case for anyone else.

I also like that this thread has evidence of me calling it straight away!

Still feels good to have experienced the Erasmus James and Troy Williamson era, that was a special time for Vikes fans and not at all indicative of where we are as a team right now...

DanZilla
10-25-2011, 01:03 AM
You basically called Rodgers replaceable in the Packers system with their surrounding talent...
I think other players would thrive in the Packers system sort of how people say that Matt Cassel did well in the Patriots system because of the surrounding coaching + talent as compared to starting for the Rams. All my opinion.

Ness
10-25-2011, 01:06 AM
Rodgers is at a level where he's playing like the best quarterback in the NFL. But I think Brees and Brady can make the same case too. In my opinion. If we're talking team, I think it's obviously the Packers as they are the most consistent and seem good in just about all areas. If Rodgers wins another title, I guess you can make the case that he would be the best quarterback in the NFL, but at the same time I think once certain quarterbacks play at a certain level in a team sport it's hard to just list them as better or worse. Brees, Brady, and Rodgers are all playing at a fantastic level.

soybean
10-25-2011, 01:08 AM
people who say rodgers is irreplacable because of the talent or that if you switched alex smith and aaron rodgers and their destinies would be reversed are clearly going off of baseless claims rather than actually watching the games.

Rodgers makes that team.

Just watch the way he plays, the way he moves, the way he THROWS THE FOOTBALL and where he places it.

He's smart, great arm, great mobility, places the ball exactly where it needs to be throws it to be caught in stride.

He has it all and he should go down as one of the best to ever play the game. I feel.

Even if you replaced Rodgers with Brady or Brees, the packers would have success but they still wouldnt be as elite as aaron rodgers is right now because they still make a more mistakes than he does.

He's basically... the perfect qb.

Ness
10-25-2011, 01:15 AM
He's basically... the perfect qb.

Whoa, let's not get carried away here. Rodgers is playing out his mind, but it's not the first time we've seen this. Rodgers is simply hitting his peak and having a magical season which might turn out to be his best when it's all said and done. We've seen this with a lot of players before. Kurt Warner in 1999, Peyton Manning in 2004, Tom Brady in 2007, the list goes on and on. Rodgers is also on a good team, in a system with players he's familiar with.

wogitalia
10-25-2011, 01:21 AM
Rodgers is simply hitting his peak and having a magical season which might turn out to be his best when it's all said and done.

I'm torn on this, I actually really like Rodgers, just seems like he is always having fun out there, and thus want him to be successful, but as a Vikes fan it will be an awfully long decade if this isn't his peak...

So I guess it would be good if it is his peak!

DanZilla
10-25-2011, 01:22 AM
He has it all and he should go down as one of the best to ever play the game. I feel.

Even if you replaced Rodgers with Brady or Brees, the packers would have success but they still wouldnt be as elite as aaron rodgers is right now because they still make a more mistakes than he does.

He's basically... the perfect qb.
We got a certified man-crush over here. There will never be a perfect QB lol

soybean
10-25-2011, 01:22 AM
Whoa, let's not get carried away here. Rodgers is playing out his mind, but it's not the first time we've seen this. Rodgers is simply hitting his peak and having a magical season which might turn out to be his best when it's all said and done. We've seen this with a lot of players before. Kurt Warner in 1999, Peyton Manning in 2004, Tom Brady in 2007, the list goes on and on. Rodgers is also on a good team, in a system with players he's familiar with.

what's his knock? the one knock we use to have on him was that he held on to the ball too long and took too many sacks. but now that doesn't even seem to be remotely a problem.

BloodBrother
10-25-2011, 02:14 AM
He doesn't have prototypical size for a QB!

In any case, another thing to note, 2 of his 3 INT were passes right to open receivers who clanked them off their hands. He's only thrown one pick right to a defender. His accuracy is just ridiculous

I honestly think he may be the most accurate QB throwing on the move that I've ever seen

prock
10-25-2011, 02:46 AM
I REALLY ******* hate Aaron Rodgers, like a whole lot. I acknowledge that he is the best in the game. In fact, I think his weapons are a bit overrated. He is a much better player than anyone else on his team. Jennings is a true #1, but I think Nelson, Finley, Jones, and Grant are all overrated. Rodgers is already the best QB in the game.

That was really hard for me to say, I need a shower.

wogitalia
10-25-2011, 02:52 AM
I REALLY ******* hate Aaron Rodgers, like a whole lot. I acknowledge that he is the best in the game. In fact, I think his weapons are a bit overrated. He is a much better player than anyone else on his team. Jennings is a true #1, but I think Nelson, Finley, Jones, and Grant are all overrated. Rodgers is already the best QB in the game.

Hey maybe we get lucky and can have the last 2 years of his career after he dominates us for 15... and he can take an almighty dump on our franchise in those 2 years...

TACKLE
10-25-2011, 02:57 AM
i'm aware that it's easier to pass the ball now than any point in NFL history and yes i'm aware that the NFL existed before the year 2000....

still, i tend to believe that right now, rodgers and brady are playing the quarterback position as well as anyone has ever played it. i'm not saying better than anyone else, but i have a hard time believing that there have been qb's who have played a higher level than those two are playing at right now.

Ness
10-25-2011, 04:08 AM
what's his knock? the one knock we use to have on him was that he held on to the ball too long and took too many sacks. but now that doesn't even seem to be remotely a problem.

Nothing. But no quarterback is perfect in the literal sense. He's having a great season right now, but I'd be surprised if every season after this one is going to be similar to what we're seeing now. That just doesn't happen in the NFL. Tom Brady and Peyton Manning would have more rings in that sense. The Packers right now are also clicking on all cylinders. I'd be surprised if that team doesn't represent the NFC in the Super Bowl again. The only team I can see that could potentially stop them is New Orleans, and they've already lost once.


still, i tend to believe that right now, rodgers and brady are playing the quarterback position as well as anyone has ever played it. i'm not saying better than anyone else, but i have a hard time believing that there have been qb's who have played a higher level than those two are playing at right now.

I'm torn on that. I take quarterback play in the NFL today with a grain of salt. There is a reason why more quarterbacks are having higher passing ratings than they did in the 90's. A lot of it has to do with the advantage offenses have gotten over the past ten years with the rule changing. Even in the last decade or so we've seen quarterbacks perform at the level of Rodgers at this point. Kurt Warner in 1999 and Peyton Manning in 2004 are two that come off the top of my head.

tjsunstein
10-25-2011, 07:27 AM
I REALLY ******* hate Aaron Rodgers, like a whole lot. I acknowledge that he is the best in the game. In fact, I think his weapons are a bit overrated. He is a much better player than anyone else on his team. Jennings is a true #1, but I think Nelson, Finley, Jones, and Grant are all overrated. Rodgers is already the best QB in the game.

That was really hard for me to say, I need a shower.
I have a hard time believing Jordy Nelson is overrated, as well as Grant right now. Grant was overrated two years ago, maybe even last year pre injury. I completely agree with Jones and Finley, though. I guess it's all subjective as to where you think they're rated, too.

killxswitch
10-25-2011, 08:39 AM
I think this whole "it's easy to pass" thing has gotten a little blown out of proportion. Yes, it is easier to pass this year, and it has been since maybe 2008. But it has not been 10+ years since the league made it easier to pass. As recently as 2005 I can remember receivers getting mugged regularly with no calls and QBs or receivers getting smashed without the ridiculous protection they get today. The rules that go too far in protecting receivers and QBs are still new rules. Warners '99 season and Manning's 2004 season, even Brady's 07 season, were all special seasons and I don't think it's right to act like they weren't because of some decade-long conspiracy to make defense impossible. Yes, the changes we've seen the last few years are stupid. But they do not extend back into the early/mid 00's, and definitely not into the 90s.

descendency
10-25-2011, 09:14 AM
He's basically... the perfect qb.

When you Google 'perfect quarterback' (no quotes) the first link is to Tom Brady's wikipedia page and the first (relevant - the first image is actually an LP cover) image is:

http://l.yimg.com/a/p/sp/editorial_image/59/59498a4cc1120647dc1566617592db5f/woah.jpg

I think we know what that means.

bantx
10-25-2011, 10:10 AM
Brady still has a lot left in the tank and I'd still take Brady over Rodgers now. It's funny how 1 super bowl and a few good seasons make people forget how good Tom Brady is.

killxswitch
10-25-2011, 11:00 AM
When you Google 'perfect quarterback' (no quotes) the first link is to Tom Brady's wikipedia page and the first (relevant - the first image is actually an LP cover) image is:

http://l.yimg.com/a/p/sp/editorial_image/59/59498a4cc1120647dc1566617592db5f/woah.jpg

I think we know what that means.

If you Google Tom Brady GOAT, this is the picture that comes up.

http://thecovertwo.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/tom-brady-goat1.jpg

tjsunstein
10-25-2011, 11:13 AM
Brady still has a lot left in the tank and I'd still take Brady over Rodgers now. It's funny how 1 super bowl and a few good seasons make people forget how good Tom Brady is.
Who forgot how good Brady was?

bantx
10-25-2011, 11:25 AM
I don't know the people who's nominating Rodgers as the greatest player ever having 3 good seasons? I can see the argument being made for him playing the best this season, but Brady is up there too. Rodgers Career doesn't even compare to Brady's, but he's getting the greatest ever nods all over this thread.

A Perfect Score
10-25-2011, 11:51 AM
I love Tom Brady as much as anyone, but I watched the Packers-Vikings game and Aaron Rodgers is operating as well or better then any QB in the NFL this season. He was 13/14 to start the game. Thats just embarrassing.

bantx
10-25-2011, 11:56 AM
It's Minnesota.....same can be said to what Brees did to the Colts both defense are ****

FlyingElvis
10-25-2011, 11:59 AM
I cannot believe no is beating yes. Winning two consecutive Super Bowls? At this stage in your career? And just watch him play QB, I've never been more impressed just watching a QB make throws.

No was much easier to choose pre-season.

Right now Rodgers is the best player in the NFL.

soybean
10-25-2011, 12:39 PM
Brady still has a lot left in the tank and I'd still take Brady over Rodgers now. It's funny how 1 super bowl and a few good seasons make people forget how good Tom Brady is.

I would actually say this board is the opposite. They have a hard time letting go of the past. Saying rodgers is the best isn't saying tom brady isn't good. He's still 2 or 3, but right now Aaron Rodgers is playing at a different level than anyone right now.

sweetness34
10-25-2011, 12:46 PM
people who say rodgers is irreplacable because of the talent or that if you switched alex smith and aaron rodgers and their destinies would be reversed are clearly going off of baseless claims rather than actually watching the games.

Rodgers makes that team.

Just watch the way he plays, the way he moves, the way he THROWS THE FOOTBALL and where he places it.

He's smart, great arm, great mobility, places the ball exactly where it needs to be throws it to be caught in stride.

He has it all and he should go down as one of the best to ever play the game. I feel.

Even if you replaced Rodgers with Brady or Brees, the packers would have success but they still wouldnt be as elite as aaron rodgers is right now because they still make a more mistakes than he does.

He's basically... the perfect qb.

I really think you need to give more credit to his coaches and teammates on offense. Need we forget that Rodgers was considered a 'project' coming out of Cal because of his mechanics?

Rodgers is a helluva QB, but he also has great coaching and his weapons are fantastic. His offensive line has significantly improved as well.

Rodgers is the best QB in the game right now, but he's far from a perfect QB. McCarthy has molded his system around Rodgers' talents.

SickwithIt1010
10-25-2011, 09:19 PM
I don't know the people who's nominating Rodgers as the greatest player ever having 3 good seasons? I can see the argument being made for him playing the best this season, but Brady is up there too. Rodgers Career doesn't even compare to Brady's, but he's getting the greatest ever nods all over this thread.

No one is forgetting how good Brady is, hes just not the best in the game right now. Rodgers is.

Abaddon
10-25-2011, 09:23 PM
Already better than Favre ever was.

Ness
10-25-2011, 09:26 PM
Yes, the changes we've seen the last few years are stupid. But they do not extend back into the early/mid 00's, and definitely not into the 90s.

Yeah they do. After the 2003 playoff loss of the Colts to the Patriots, Bill Polian complained to the NFL and lobbied for the NFL to crackdown on defenders and how much contact they were allowed to have with receivers. He got his wish the following season.

wogitalia
10-25-2011, 09:48 PM
Rodgers is a helluva QB, but he also has great coaching and his weapons are fantastic. His offensive line has significantly improved as well.

Has it? Or is he just getting the ball out a lot faster? I'd say the line has barely improved in the last two seasons(it was horrible when it was missing half the starters a few years ago now) but Rodgers is just getting the ball out quicker.

It's like the Bears OL, it looks poor when Cutler gets the ball out quickly to shorter routes, it looks all time awful when he holds the ball and they try deeper routes.

Rodgers is just playing incredible football right now. Whether it be the rule changes or not, he is putting the ball in just about perfect places on an absurd amount of his throws. Obviously he is in a great situation, you don't win Superbowls in this league without having a very strong team around you but there are plenty of other guys in similar situations that aren't playing nearly as well as him also.

The thing that surprises me is how few teams are really using a full fledged spread offense. The Packers, Saints and Patriots are just annihilating teams with it, the NFL has made about as many rule changes as possible to make the spread the most viable offense without banning handoffs and secondaries at this point. It's just amazing how resistant to change the majority of coaches are, especially those that have a guy like Tebow who struggle with just about everything in a traditional offense. I mean come on, look at the Bills who have no case for being able to compete and yet they are even managing to using a heavy spread offense.

That would be the main thing I've noticed this season, no one has worked out how to stop the spread or even really to slow it yet so few teams are using it. Just surprises me that with every defense complaining about how they aren't allowed to cover(fair complaint I'll add) why teams aren't doing it more.

mellojello
10-25-2011, 10:15 PM
Only an injury will stop Rodgers. Even though he won't admit it, he's on a mission to prove everyone wrong.

tjsunstein
10-25-2011, 10:37 PM
Only an injury will stop Rodgers. Even though he won't admit it, he's on a mission to prove everyone wrong.
Does he have to admit it? It's obvious by his facial expressions when asked about anything related to how he got here even though he may say the right things.

tjsunstein
10-25-2011, 10:40 PM
Already better than Favre ever was.
...
Has it? Or is he just getting the ball out a lot faster? I'd say the line has barely improved in the last two seasons(it was horrible when it was missing half the starters a few years ago now) but Rodgers is just getting the ball out quicker.

The amount of time it takes him to go through his reads has improved significantly, he holds on to the ball a lot less than he did in previous years.

WCH
10-25-2011, 10:48 PM
Through the first (almost) half of a season, AR is averaging 9.9 yards/pass with a 71.5% completion percentage.

He's quietly posting one of the best "Mad Bomber" seasons in NFL history.

BigBanger
10-26-2011, 12:30 AM
Through the first (almost) half of a season, AR is averaging 9.9 yards/pass with a 71.5% completion percentage.

He's quietly posting one of the best "Mad Bomber" seasons in NFL history.
Are you talking about Aaron Rodgers? The QB of the Green Bay Packers?

He's have a quiet season? Hmm. I'll tell my friends.

niel89
10-26-2011, 02:29 AM
Hold the phone. Aaron Rodgers is the Green Bay Packers QB? The same guy who slipped in the draft and was selected after Alex Smith?

Saints-Tigers
10-26-2011, 11:26 AM
Aaron Rodgers could be the best QB in the league even if he had 0 titles. Team success doesn't make him any better or worse.

ImBrotherCain
10-26-2011, 11:56 AM
Already better than Favre ever was.
Umm... I love Rodgers as our QB but Favre has had more than 4 good seasons under his belt.

Don't forget Favre helped turn around the franchise. He also won 3 consecutive MVPs and is the only player to ever do so. Led the team to 2 Super bowls and won one.

A Perfect Score
10-26-2011, 11:59 AM
Hold the phone. Aaron Rodgers is the Green Bay Packers QB? The same guy who slipped in the draft and was selected after Alex Smith?

Aaron Rodgers wishes he was Alex Smith.

tjsunstein
10-26-2011, 12:04 PM
Aaron Rodgers wishes he was Alex Smith.
The 49ers wish he was Alex Smith.

CC.SD
10-26-2011, 12:40 PM
Agent Smith wishes he were Alex Smith

A Perfect Score
10-26-2011, 12:45 PM
Agent Smith wishes he were Alex Smith

Stop being so awesome, I can only rep you so much and you've been on a roll recently.

...Lets snuggle.

mellojello
10-26-2011, 01:40 PM
Umm... I love Rodgers as our QB but Favre has had more than 4 good seasons under his belt.

Don't forget Favre helped turn around the franchise. He also won 3 consecutive MVPs and is the only player to ever do so. Led the team to 2 Super bowls and won one.Yeah, but Farve was a douche.

sweetness34
10-26-2011, 02:24 PM
Has it? Or is he just getting the ball out a lot faster? I'd say the line has barely improved in the last two seasons(it was horrible when it was missing half the starters a few years ago now) but Rodgers is just getting the ball out quicker.

Against New Orleans I watched the line a lot and saw them pick up the Saints' blitzes all night long. Rarely was there pressure on him. The line has significantly improved from 2 years ago. It's not the best in the league, but even against us they did a great job picking up our blitzes, sliding protection, etc.

Give credit to McCarthy as well. He sets up plays later in the game with different looks.

It's like the Bears OL, it looks poor when Cutler gets the ball out quickly to shorter routes, it looks all time awful when he holds the ball and they try deeper routes.

There's absolutely no comparison between the two lines. I would say that Green Bay has an upper echelon OL, whereas Chicago is at the bottom of the barrel. I can't count how many times one of our tackles/tight ends has blocked down and left an edge rusher a free lane to Cutler. The missed assignments by our offensive line is laughable. And let's not even talk about blitz pickup. When the defense stacks players up on the line of scrimmage I have this pit in my stomach as to what will happen next.

Rodgers is just playing incredible football right now. Whether it be the rule changes or not, he is putting the ball in just about perfect places on an absurd amount of his throws. Obviously he is in a great situation, you don't win Superbowls in this league without having a very strong team around you but there are plenty of other guys in similar situations that aren't playing nearly as well as him also.

Oh there's no doubt he's playing incredible football. It's fairly obvious that the weapons don't make the Quarterback, but they certainly help. Prime example was on Sunday when Jennings broke free down field as Rodgers extended the play. His receivers know how to play and help their QB out. They are a machine right now because everyone is pulling their own weight. The only way you stop that offense is if you either knock Rodgers out of the game (make him gunshy) or if they beat themselves. It's like they have answer for everything.

Blitz = hot read. Sit back = pitch and catch. Press coverage = ball over the top. Overpursue the backside = rollout. They are one step ahead of everyone right now in terms of the playcalling and execution.

That would be the main thing I've noticed this season, no one has worked out how to stop the spread or even really to slow it yet so few teams are using it. Just surprises me that with every defense complaining about how they aren't allowed to cover(fair complaint I'll add) why teams aren't doing it more.

I personally believe the way to the beat the Packers is to knock Rodgers on his ass. Peppers knocked the **** out of him last year (albeit it was a hit to the helmet) and Rodgers wasn't the same in the 2nd Half. He's way too comfortable in the pocket. Sure, you might give up some big plays, but blitz consistently and get some shots in on him.

It was hilarious to me to see New Orleans sit back and let Rodgers dictate where he wanted to go with the ball. You have to dictate what he does with the ball and force his hand by brining pressure.

I know I said earlier that they do a great job picking up blitzes, but eventually you'll get to him and make him uncomfortable. I'd rather get beat being aggressive than sitting back and watching him slice me to pieces.

I guess my argument is that Rodgers gets all this love, but it's the sum of the parts that make the offense what it is. Sure, the QB should get the lions share of the credit, but he has the best receiving core in the game, a brilliant OC/QB coach, a solid run game and a good offensive line.

I mentioned this on another board, but Rodgers is the blueprint of how to build pieces around a franchise QB and develop him. Cutler is the blueprint of how to bring in a talented QB and see him crumble because you didn't give him a good foundation.

Rodgers was set up to succeed. Cutler was set up to fail. Angelo believed that getting the QB would solve everything (he even said it in an interview).

Jay is always going to be a risk QB that'll make boneheaded plays (much like Favre), but those mistakes would be far less if he had more protection, an offense built to cater to his strengths and a set of legit receivers to throw to. He has none of those. I really don't know if he'd be as successful as Rodgers is right now, but I'd like to think he'd be a much better QB with more efficiency because of the individual talent he possesses.

Breed
10-26-2011, 02:26 PM
All i was saying in my previous post was i still think a guy like Brady with 3 ringz will still be ahead of Rodgers. i know ringz isn't what make s a good QB, but Brady is better with less talent around him...

sweetness34
10-26-2011, 02:28 PM
Let me put it this way. Rodgers is the engine that drives the Ferrari. On the outside it looks really nice, but if you put a mediocre engine in it all it'll be is a pretty exterior.

Is Rodgers the most important piece of the offense? Of course. He's what makes it go, but I think that's what makes their offense so ******* good. It's the sum of the parts. They all work extremely well together, which is why it's hard to shut it down.

sweetness34
10-26-2011, 02:32 PM
All i was saying in my previous post was i still think a guy like Brady with 3 ringz will still be ahead of Rodgers. i know ringz isn't what make s a good QB, but Brady is better with less talent around him...

Define 'less talent.' Brady has a ridiculous offensive line that let's him pick and choose where he wants to go with the ball without much pressure. He doesn't have Rodgers' receivers, but Brady is set up to succeed as well.

And let's not act like Welker, Hernandez and Gronkowski are stiffs. That's a pretty reliable receiving core right there.

Raiderz4Life
10-26-2011, 02:45 PM
Define 'less talent.' Brady has a ridiculous offensive line that let's him pick and choose where he wants to go with the ball without much pressure. He doesn't have Rodgers' receivers, but Brady is set up to succeed as well.

And let's not act like Welker, Hernandez and Gronkowski are stiffs. That's a pretty reliable receiving core right there.

He didn't always have them though. But the discussion is of right now, so I shall agree with you. Its not like Brady is playing with unknowns either.

Saints-Tigers
10-26-2011, 03:02 PM
Aaron Rodgers can play like he's playing now and his team could give up 52 points with the opposing QB throwing 12 passes, and people here would argue that Rodgers got outplayed because he lost... smh lol.

SickwithIt1010
10-26-2011, 03:50 PM
All i was saying in my previous post was i still think a guy like Brady with 3 ringz will still be ahead of Rodgers. i know ringz isn't what make s a good QB, but Brady is better with less talent around him...

No hes not.

murdamal86
10-26-2011, 03:54 PM
As of right NOW at this very moment, of course Rodgers is the best QB in the league, how is this debatable

J-Mike88
10-26-2011, 04:05 PM
Rodgers receivers, and the O-coordinator, do not get the credit they deserve.
Yes Arod makes some unbelievable passes, into barey a footxfoot window. See the Super Bowl.

But when watching the Ravens Monday night.... seeing replays of Flacco's targets.... those POS's are NOT open. He has everyone covered, and can either throw it to his guy and it's picked, or he can throw it extra wide before he gets sacked.

Almost always when I see Rodgers throw it, the camera then follows the ball to the target, and the receiver is somehow almost always open. Like 70% of the time these days.

That's A) great playcalls/schemes, and B) great route-running.
It is the sum of all parts, it's not all Rodgers for sure.

And even though I am the Packer homer, to say he's separated himself from Tom Brady, that's false. He may be currently above him for this year's MVP, but Brady just had the one bad half in Buffalo, otherwise it's neck & neck.

Lotta football left.

I sure would like to see those two #12's face off against each other in February in Indy.

soybean
11-07-2011, 04:31 PM
There is something I have to add...

There is a very strong likelyhood that the Packers can go 17-0 in this regular season.

I just looked at their remaining schedule and honestly the only team that looks like a threat is the Giants and MAYBE 1/2 from the lions.

freakin packers man...

Rosebud
11-07-2011, 04:44 PM
There is something I have to add...

There is a very strong likelyhood that the Packers can go 17-0 in this regular season.

I just looked at their remaining schedule and honestly the only team that looks like a threat is the Giants and MAYBE 1/2 from the lions.

freakin packers man...

I disagree. I'm willing to guarantee that there is no way the Packers go 17-0 this regular season...

mqtirishfan
11-07-2011, 05:24 PM
There is a very strong likelyhood that the Packers can go 17-0 in this regular season.

I will gladly do a sig bet with you on that.

soybean
11-07-2011, 05:38 PM
hahah sorry im stupid. didnt pay attention to the bye and was just looking at the week number.

I know there's only 16 games in a season, i just brain farted =(

Abaddon
11-08-2011, 02:36 AM
Umm... I love Rodgers as our QB but Favre has had more than 4 good seasons under his belt.

Don't forget Favre helped turn around the franchise. He also won 3 consecutive MVPs and is the only player to ever do so. Led the team to 2 Super bowls and won one.

Favre was also a colossal choke artist and a turnover waiting to happen. Being a complete and total doucher, while largely irrelevant, likely factored into his atrocious decision making.

As for the league MVPs, meh. The one he split with Barry should have been Barry's outright. Hard to put much stock in a popularity contest anyway. John Madden probably stuffed the ballot box that year.

TitleTown088
11-08-2011, 09:20 AM
@ESPNStatsInfo: Rodgers: 65.2 comp pct on throws 20+ yards downfield. Only 3 QB have higher comp pct on ALL throws

http://www.totalpackers.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/rodgershalloween1.jpeg

Rosebud
11-08-2011, 09:21 AM
hahah sorry im stupid. didnt pay attention to the bye and was just looking at the week number.

I know there's only 16 games in a season, i just brain farted =(

I still think they're going to lose the Bears or Giants and one of the two against the Lions. Not that 14-2 isn't an incredible record or anything, but I just don't see them going 16-0 with 4 division games left of which only one is against the Vikings who only lost by a score last time themselves.