PDA

View Full Version : Aaron Rodgers v. Philip Rivers


PACKmanN
07-19-2011, 12:07 PM
As of today, Peyton Manning and Tom Brady as the 1-2 in this league, but in the future these are the two guys who will be debated as 1 or 2.

Who do you see as the best qb in the next 2 years, Rodgers or Rivers

Sloopy
07-19-2011, 12:38 PM
Im gunna have to go with Matt Ryan here. Not only do I feel that he will be/is the superior QB, I believe that he will have the better supporting cast to back him up.

I'll give Aaron a close 2nd and believe that once Brady/Manning hang up the cleats we will indeed see similar debates to the ones that have gone on to no end about those 2

EricCartmann
07-19-2011, 12:42 PM
Good question. Right now I am going to say "push". However, if I had to nitpick...

- Rogers seems to be the slightly better decision maker.

- Rivers is tougher and the guy is a trooper. Not saying Rogers is fragile (or maybe he is?), but I just believe Rivers to be tougher and can play through injuries easier.

- Analysis For the Homos on this board: Rivers can probably break up fights easier and get the locker room quiet. It's because Rivers looks manly, while Rogers looks kinda wimpy, even if he has a beard he just looks wimpy.

Both guys can single handedly take over the game.

EricCartmann
07-19-2011, 12:44 PM
Both Peyton and Brady are not going anywhere anytime soon. Both have at least 5 years left.

Both Legal and Illegal Performance Enhancing Drugs are much better these days, and it will help these guys play at a high level till they're 40 or more.

killxswitch
07-19-2011, 12:55 PM
It depends on how long Rivers is stuck with AJ Smith and Norv Turner running the show. Rodgers is definitely in the better situation to keep winning.

bantx
07-19-2011, 01:42 PM
What do you mean? Norv is part of the reason why Rivers is playing at the level he is right now.

SickwithIt1010
07-19-2011, 01:56 PM
What do you mean? Norv is part of the reason why Rivers is playing at the level he is right now.

This, Norv is arguably the best OC in the NFL. While he isnt a great head coach....he is a huge part of Rivers' success.

killxswitch
07-19-2011, 02:17 PM
This, Norv is arguably the best OC in the NFL. While he isnt a great head coach....he is a huge part of Rivers' success.

BUt he's also a huge part of why the Chargers aren't winning. Unless the Chargers win more Rivers will never be the top QB in the NFL. I agree Turner has a great offensive mind and is one of the best QB mentors in the league.

Matthew Jones
07-19-2011, 02:18 PM
Before the season I would have said Philip Rivers, but obviously Rodgers has the ring now, so he's tops until Rivers can bring home a Lombardi Trophy of his own. Very close though, and Rivers didn't have the supporting cast Rodgers did, either.

Bucs_Rule
07-19-2011, 02:20 PM
Rodgers has been dominant in the playoffs. Rivers not so much.

SickwithIt1010
07-19-2011, 02:23 PM
BUt he's also a huge part of why the Chargers aren't winning. Unless the Chargers win more Rivers will never be the top QB in the NFL. I agree Turner has a great offensive mind and is one of the best QB mentors in the league.

For all we know, Norv's system is what is making Rivers so good.

EricCartmann
07-19-2011, 03:14 PM
I don't know where this idea that Norv Turner is a great OC comes from? He has shown me he cannot accomplish much even with the tools. When he has nothing, he does nothing.

The only reason Norv won all those Superbowls with the Cowboys as OC because he had 3 hall of famers in Smith, Irvin, and Aikman. Not to mention the countless Pro Bowlers.

bigbluedefense
07-19-2011, 03:53 PM
Aaron Rodgers and it isn't even close.

Wake me up when Philip Rivers does something worth a damn in the playoffs. Until then, he'll remain an overhyped player to me.

bigbluedefense
07-19-2011, 03:57 PM
I don't know where this idea that Norv Turner is a great OC comes from? He has shown me he cannot accomplish much even with the tools. When he has nothing, he does nothing.

The only reason Norv won all those Superbowls with the Cowboys as OC because he had 3 hall of famers in Smith, Irvin, and Aikman. Not to mention the countless Pro Bowlers.

Huh?

Have you been living under a rock? Norv is a brilliant offensive mind. Anyone who can make Alex Smith look like a half decent qb deserves to go to the HOF.

You can argue that he's not a great HC, but as an offensive mind, he's one of the best in the game.

AntoinCD
07-19-2011, 03:59 PM
Aaron Rodgers and it isn't even close.

Wake me up when Philip Rivers does something worth a damn in the playoffs. Until then, he'll remain an overhyped player to me.

Not just the playoffs IMO. The Chargers always seem to struggle in the big games. It may be a case of just getting over the hump, but until something changes he will always be a guy who will challenge for offensive player of the year honours, but isn't in the same league as the top guys in terms of everything that comes with being a top flight QB.

That being said, it only takes one year for this to change. Think about it, if the Packers don't sneak into the Wildcard round at week 17 last year then Rodgers wouldn't be getting talked about. If the Chargers can go far in the playoffs(they don't even necessarily have to win the Superbowl) then Rivers can go up in my estimation

FUNBUNCHER
07-19-2011, 04:00 PM
Norv Turner is NOT an NFL HC. He's had legitimate SB contenders in San Diego that he's turned into underachieving squads that barely qualified for the playoffs.

And I take offense that Turner 'made' Rivers and Aikman. Yes, he's incredible coaching QBs and maximizing their ability, but both Rivers and Aikman were highly regarded pro prospects before Norval entered the picture.

Norval as a HC is like when you have a slow leak from your gas tank. A team is never going to reach it's full potential with Turner as its HC.

Turner has had rosters in SD littered with All-pro/pro bowl talent, and he barely has that squad performing better than he did coaching the Skins.

The sooner Turner is shown the door, the faster the Bolts make it back to the AFCC.

The debate in three years is going to be between Luck and Stafford btw.

bigbluedefense
07-19-2011, 04:03 PM
Not just the playoffs IMO. The Chargers always seem to struggle in the big games. It may be a case of just getting over the hump, but until something changes he will always be a guy who will challenge for offensive player of the year honours, but isn't in the same league as the top guys in terms of everything that comes with being a top flight QB.

That being said, it only takes one year for this to change. Think about it, if the Packers don't sneak into the Wildcard round at week 17 last year then Rodgers wouldn't be getting talked about. If the Chargers can go far in the playoffs(they don't even necessarily have to win the Superbowl) then Rivers can go up in my estimation

I agree with all of that. And just to clarify, being overhyped doesn't mean I think he's a bad player, he's a great player, he's just overrated bc of his regular season stats.

To me, as it stands right now, he's this generation's Dan Fouts. Nothing more, nothing less.

That's not a bad thing, Fouts is a HOFer after all, but Fouts is also a guy who put up monster numbers who couldn't get it done when it mattered the most.

bantx
07-19-2011, 04:05 PM
Wow Rivers overhyped? Rivers has had great playoff games it's like you don't watch a chargers game at all bbd, you can say the chargers suck in the playoffs but saying he's sucked in the playoffs is idiotic. First time I've ever heard Rivers is overhyped.

bigbluedefense
07-19-2011, 04:15 PM
Wow Rivers overhyped? Rivers has had great playoff games it's like you don't watch a chargers game at all bbd, you can say the chargers suck in the playoffs but saying he's sucked in the playoffs is idiotic. First time I've ever heard Rivers is overhyped.

He has had bad playoff games. The Jets game, the Pats game (both of them), the only games he really showcased his skills in the playoffs in were games vs Indy.

I know it's often cited how he manned up and played the Pats with a torn ACL. And for that, I give him credit for risking his career. But let's not pretend the guy had a good game. Rivers was horrible in that game. Why does he get so much credit for it?

We reward players who gut it out and play hurt and have great games. Playing hurt and having a horrible game doesn't wow me, I'm sorry. You can make an argument they were better off going with the backup that game, bc SD's defense played out of their mind in that game.

It's not like the guy has had games like Rodgers in the playoffs vs Arizona, where he lights it on fire but his defense lets him down. The games he lost, he didn't play well.

ArkyRamsFan
07-19-2011, 04:20 PM
The debate in three years is going to be between Luck and Stafford btw.

Not hardly. The debate will involve Sam Bradford and either Matt Ryan or Andrew Luck.

Everyone else can just buy a ticket and enjoy the show....

AntoinCD
07-19-2011, 04:44 PM
Not hardly. The debate will involve Sam Bradford and either Matt Ryan or Andrew Luck.

Everyone else can just buy a ticket and enjoy the show....

Bradford's gonna need some help because without a threat to stretch the field then defenses can cheat up closer to the line of scrimmage and close off a lot of his options. This happened towards the end of last year where the Rams seemed as though they were playing in the Red Zone all the time as there was no real need for someone to cover 25 yards+ down the field. That's why they need a big, fast WR like Sidney Rice, V-Jax or Plaxico this year to be successful, or someone in that mould in the near future.

Josh McDaniels' offense is predicated on spreading the defense out and exploiting match ups. The defense can't be spread out if you have 11 players within a depth of say 25 yards.

In McDaniels' offense with the Pats they needed Moss to blow the top off the secondary. This allowed Welker, Faulk etc to operate in space underneath and pick up lots of YAC. This wont happen in St Louis until more firepower is added, regardless of how good Bradford becomes.

SickwithIt1010
07-19-2011, 04:47 PM
I don't know where this idea that Norv Turner is a great OC comes from? He has shown me he cannot accomplish much even with the tools. When he has nothing, he does nothing.

The only reason Norv won all those Superbowls with the Cowboys as OC because he had 3 hall of famers in Smith, Irvin, and Aikman. Not to mention the countless Pro Bowlers.

Youre high as ****

bantx
07-19-2011, 04:59 PM
He has had bad playoff games. The Jets game, the Pats game (both of them), the only games he really showcased his skills in the playoffs in were games vs Indy.

I know it's often cited how he manned up and played the Pats with a torn ACL. And for that, I give him credit for risking his career. But let's not pretend the guy had a good game. Rivers was horrible in that game. Why does he get so much credit for it?

We reward players who gut it out and play hurt and have great games. Playing hurt and having a horrible game doesn't wow me, I'm sorry. You can make an argument they were better off going with the backup that game, bc SD's defense played out of their mind in that game.

It's not like the guy has had games like Rodgers in the playoffs vs Arizona, where he lights it on fire but his defense lets him down. The games he lost, he didn't play well.

Or we can ignore the fact that Kaeding missed countless fg's that game

fenikz
07-19-2011, 05:12 PM
Rodgers > Manning & Brady

his era has begun

Ness
07-19-2011, 05:40 PM
As of today, Peyton Manning and Tom Brady as the 1-2 in this league, but in the future these are the two guys who will be debated as 1 or 2.

Who do you see as the best qb in the next 2 years, Rodgers or Rivers

I'd say Drew Brees has a say in that as well. Although with what Rodgers did in the playoffs was legendary. Especially since they had to play four games in a row. I haven't seen many dominant performances by a quarterback in the playoffs like that.

mellojello
07-19-2011, 05:43 PM
Rodgers > Manning & Brady

his era has begunShort, simple, to the point, and bold. I like.

ellsy82
07-19-2011, 06:06 PM
Short, simple, to the point, and bold. I like.

I agree. His small body of work so far highlights a Superbowl ring. I tip the scale towards Rodgers.

Dam8610
07-19-2011, 06:45 PM
If we're talking about QB play 3-5 years from now (because realistically that's about the timeframe in which Manning and Brady will fall off), then I'd honestly give very strong consideration to Sam Bradford. What he did as a rookie with pretty much no receiving corps to speak of was nothing short of incredible. I think once he is surrounded with some talent, he will start putting up phenomenal numbers, and coast to division titles in a very weak division.

descendency
07-19-2011, 07:15 PM
Rivers = Marino

Rodgers = Brady

EricCartmann
07-19-2011, 07:22 PM
Huh?

Have you been living under a rock? Norv is a brilliant offensive mind. Anyone who can make Alex Smith look like a half decent qb deserves to go to the HOF.

You can argue that he's not a great HC, but as an offensive mind, he's one of the best in the game.


I have been under this rock called the Earth's Atmosphere. Where have you been? Tell me what he did as an OC that makes him one of the best in the game?

He did wonders for Alex Smith? ahahahahahah. Alex was still a losing QB with Norv, and Norv did not do anything special with Alex Smith. Actually the past 2 years Alex put up better stats than he did under Norv.

EricCartmann
07-19-2011, 07:43 PM
For all we know, Norv's system is what is making Rivers so good.

In Rivers Senior year at NcState he posted a 72% completion, and had a 3-1 TD/Int ratio. Did Norv coach Rivers over the phone here? Because I did not see Norv on the sidelines or in the press box when Rivers threw at NCState.

Rivers was a Pro-Bowler in 2006, the year before Norv came aboard. Did Norv pull double duty as a SF and SD OC? Because all I remember was seeing Norv in the 49er's press box.

Jvig43
07-19-2011, 07:51 PM
Rodgers > Manning & Brady

his era has begun

If I didn't love you so much I would send an army of spiders and ants to come rip your flesh off.

Halsey
07-19-2011, 07:55 PM
I also believe that Rodgers may be the best QB on the planet right now. He hasn't had the sustained success of guys like Manning and Brady, but we're not talking about the past. Rodgers was lights out in the playoffs and that may be a preview of things to come.

SickwithIt1010
07-19-2011, 08:05 PM
I have been under this rock called the Earth's Atmosphere. Where have you been? Tell me what he did as an OC that makes him one of the best in the game?

He did wonders for Alex Smith? ahahahahahah. Alex was still a losing QB with Norv, and Norv did not do anything special with Alex Smith. Actually the past 2 years Alex put up better stats than he did under Norv.

Smith threw for a career-high 2,890 yards that season as his passer rating improved from the 40.8 he posted as a rookie to 74.8.

A year after throwing one touchdown pass against 11 interceptions, the numbers jumped to 16 and 16 with Norv.

"I felt really good, you know? Really good," he recalled this week. "I was excited about it. That second year for me was a lot of fun. (There was) a lot of development for me. I learned a lot of football from him."

http://www.nctimes.com/sports/football/professional/nfl/chargers/article_13c71b62-319e-5256-ae97-d6cf8ff91396.html

J-Mike88
07-19-2011, 08:12 PM
I don't know where this idea that Norv Turner is a great OC comes from? He has shown me he cannot accomplish much even with the tools. When he has nothing, he does nothing..
What great tools does Norv have there in San Diego?
A good TE, but nothing special at WR, plus VJ was out most of last year.
The RB last year was nothing special.... the OL is average at best.

Let's not pretend that's Dallas 1992-95 there around Aikman.

J-Mike88
07-19-2011, 08:16 PM
If we're talking about QB play 3-5 years from now (because realistically that's about the timeframe in which Manning and Brady will fall off), then I'd honestly give very strong consideration to Sam Bradford. What he did as a rookie with pretty much no receiving corps to speak of was nothing short of incredible.
When talking about the best QBs in the league, Sam Bradford cannot be mentioned. Look what Freeman did last year, statistically. Bradford's stats were nothing. I thought he was so overrated. He sucked coming down the stretch once some film was out of him.

I love the guy, but I find it comical to see his name mentioned in a thread like this.

AntoinCD
07-19-2011, 08:17 PM
What great tools does Norv have there in San Diego?
A good TE, but nothing special at WR, plus VJ was out most of last year.
The RB last year was nothing special.... the OL is average at best.

Let's not pretend that's Dallas 1992-95 there around Aikman.

I agree mostly with what you're saying but come on, calling Antonio Gates a "good" TE is like calling Al Qaeda a bunch of trouble makers.

Gates is a great TE with a possibility to become the GOAT

Jvig43
07-19-2011, 08:18 PM
Bradford is so overrated, just look at all the weapons he had around him last season while he failed to win the sb. And Gates is a beast, top three TE in the league.

Bob Sanders Dreadlock
07-19-2011, 11:28 PM
Rodgers > Manning & Brady

his era has begun

Meh...Drew Brees effect. Lets see how he follows up this year.

killxswitch
07-19-2011, 11:43 PM
Rodgers > Manning & Brady

his era has begun

This is one of the silliest things I've ever read on this board. So flavor-of-the-month. Ridiculous.

EricCartmann
07-20-2011, 12:13 AM
http://www.nctimes.com/sports/football/professional/nfl/chargers/article_13c71b62-319e-5256-ae97-d6cf8ff91396.html

This is the problem with sheep's. They follow what is popular and they never question the herd's legitimacy. That article/link has no substance, just fluff. Evaluate the stats, the true substance and you will see that article and the herd is 100% wrong.

soybean
07-20-2011, 02:37 AM
This is one of the silliest things I've ever read on this board. So flavor-of-the-month. Ridiculous.

ahhh yes... SO flavor of the month.

It's not like the dude just slaughtered the best defense in the league with a 60+ completion percentage, with a 111 qb rating going 3 tds to 0 ints for 300+ yeards in the most important game of the year...

It's not like the dude went 9-2 in the entire playoffs including the superbowl.

But it was just one year and one playoffs. Anyone can win the superbowl, just look at all the superbowl winning qbs in the league.

why can't someone be considered better than other seasoned veterans just because of the number of years?

killxswitch
07-20-2011, 07:57 AM
You just gave me flavor-of-the-month stats. He is a great QB and I expect in a few seasons he will be considered the best in the league. But he hasn't done it consistently for enough years to say he is the best now. Manning and Brady are still in their primes. They have the resume, Rodgers is still building his.

Daunte Culpepper had an amazing season in the early or mid-2000s. Threw for 4500 yards and over 40 TDs if I remember correctly. Does that mean that he had passed the best QBs in the game, or that he had a really good year?

hockey619
07-20-2011, 08:52 AM
Meh...Drew Brees effect. Lets see how he follows up this year.

Yeah, where is everyone that said he was the best in the game after last season? He came back and laid an egg this past year, but that doesnt make him bad either. Everyone is way too quick to proclaim a guy the best just for the sake of change.

That said, Rodgers is definitely much better than rivers. Aside from the fact that rivers is a whiney unlikable dbag who screams at refs and then is proven completely and utterly wrong by the replay (video below), ive never been as impressed with his play as rodgers'. Rodgers is just so damn smooth, mobile, his accuracy is brady/manning esque, where the ball always seems like it lands exactly where it needs to.
o8PoD6RHBbg



I say the reason rodgers is still behind the big 2 is because he does have his inconsistencies, but thats really it.

and for all the dip****s saying 'well he won a ring so now yeah he could be tops.' the packers TEAM won a ring, and he also got one as being a part of the TEAM. ****ing christ, i hate how much credit qb's get for championships, its rediculous, even if rodgers did play great, so did the rest of his team.

This is the problem with sheep's. They follow what is popular and they never question the herd's legitimacy. That article/link has no substance, just fluff. Evaluate the stats, the true substance and you will see that article and the herd is 100% wrong.

BCE? he always talked about the herd.

SickwithIt1010
07-20-2011, 10:23 AM
You just gave me flavor-of-the-month stats. He is a great QB and I expect in a few seasons he will be considered the best in the league. But he hasn't done it consistently for enough years to say he is the best now. Manning and Brady are still in their primes. They have the resume, Rodgers is still building his.


Bull **** you cant....Its who is the best now. What you have done up until this moment in time doesnt mean a god damn thing anymore. Im not saying he is, im not saying he isnt, but Rodgers may very well be the best QB in the league right now and that is not a knock on Peyton, its not a knock Brady...but coming into this season there isnt a QB playing better than him.

wordofi
07-20-2011, 10:28 AM
Both Peyton and Brady are not going anywhere anytime soon. Both have at least 5 years left.

Both Legal and Illegal Performance Enhancing Drugs are much better these days, and it will help these guys play at a high level till they're 40 or more.

I highly doubt what you just said. Peyton Manning has a bad neck, and Brady is a statue in the pocket. That's not going to get any better as he ages. Brett Favre was 41 last year, and you saw what age did.

I think Rodgers is currently the 3rd best quarterback in the NFL, and he'll be the best within 2-3 years from now.

descendency
07-20-2011, 10:31 AM
Brett Favre was 41 last year, and you saw what age did

Did you miss his season at 40???

wordofi
07-20-2011, 10:37 AM
Did you miss his season at 40???

That was a fluke.

AntoinCD
07-20-2011, 10:41 AM
I highly doubt what you just said. Peyton Manning has a bad neck, and Brady is a statue in the pocket. That's not going to get any better as he ages. Brett Favre was 41 last year, and you saw what age did.

I think Rodgers is currently the 3rd best quarterback in the NFL, and he'll be the best within 2-3 years from now.

Are you kidding me???

Are you basing this on if Michael Vick was the average or something?

Tom Brady isn't fast and isn't a threat to run but his ability to move within the pocket and avoid hits and sacks is second to none in the NFL. No QB steps up in the pocket like Brady.

Everyone likes to see guys running around and making guys miss but that's not what QBs are paid for. For mobility in the pocket I'd take Brady and not think twice.

killxswitch
07-20-2011, 10:47 AM
Bull **** you cant....Its who is the best now. What you have done up until this moment in time doesnt mean a god damn thing anymore. Im not saying he is, im not saying he isnt, but Rodgers may very well be the best QB in the league right now and that is not a knock on Peyton, its not a knock Brady...but coming into this season there isnt a QB playing better than him.

Football fans today have the attention span of a gnat.

SickwithIt1010
07-20-2011, 10:55 AM
Football fans today have the attention span of a gnat.

Good one...

soybean
07-20-2011, 12:12 PM
You just gave me flavor-of-the-month stats. He is a great QB and I expect in a few seasons he will be considered the best in the league. But he hasn't done it consistently for enough years to say he is the best now. Manning and Brady are still in their primes. They have the resume, Rodgers is still building his.

Daunte Culpepper had an amazing season in the early or mid-2000s. Threw for 4500 yards and over 40 TDs if I remember correctly. Does that mean that he had passed the best QBs in the game, or that he had a really good year?

you act as if Aaron Rodgers only had one good season...

This was only his 3rd year starting and he already 100+ qb rating in two of the past three seasons.

You might have an argument if we're talking about one fluke season ala derek anderson but we're not.

soybean
07-20-2011, 12:17 PM
Are you kidding me???

Are you basing this on if Michael Vick was the average or something?

Tom Brady isn't fast and isn't a threat to run but his ability to move within the pocket and avoid hits and sacks is second to none in the NFL. No QB steps up in the pocket like Brady.

Everyone likes to see guys running around and making guys miss but that's not what QBs are paid for. For mobility in the pocket I'd take Brady and not think twice.

cmon... really...?

killxswitch
07-20-2011, 01:15 PM
And during those 3 years he's done nothing that Manning and Brady haven't done, and quite easily still could do. Rodgers wasn't even good for the first 8 weeks of the season last year.

soybean
07-20-2011, 03:14 PM
And during those 3 years he's done nothing that Manning and Brady haven't done, and quite easily still could do. Rodgers wasn't even good for the first 8 weeks of the season last year.

well if you're arguing Manning, Brady's past achievements > Rodger's past achievements then there's no question, i agree with you.

If you're arguing who right here and now is the best qb... why is it "silly" to say Rodgers?

EricCartmann
07-20-2011, 03:28 PM
well if you're arguing Manning, Brady's past achievements > Rodger's past achievements then there's no question, i agree with you.

If you're arguing who right here and now is the best qb... why is it "silly" to say Rodgers?

There are no games right now, so how do you know Rogers is better?

cmarq83
07-20-2011, 03:38 PM
It baffles me that Norv Turner still has a job. When your teams consistently start the season losing the first 5 or 6 games. Then the talent on the team comes together and miraculously wins a crappy division, but you go into the playoffs and consistently lose right off that bat, that would seem indicative to me as terrible coaching. When you consistently lose at the 2 points in the season where coaching makes the biggest difference, that means your coach sucks. Not to mention they lost a bunch of games last year because of special teams.

I'd still rank Rodgers at third behind Brady and Manning for next year. He's had some good statistical seasons the past 3 years, but then again who hasn't. His team barely made the playoffs, and had to have the Detroit Lions win a game at the end of the season to even make the playoffs. His playoff run was outstanding at the end of the season, but his sample size is way to small. Everything was clicking during that playoff run, but the NFL will eventually find his kryptonite, and luck will swing against him. It always does. As of right now his resume isn't nearly as good, and for most of the season he didn't look as good as Brady or Manning.

Malaka
07-20-2011, 03:47 PM
Drew Brees is being totally overlooked just because he had one season with high INT totals. Just because it's yesterday's news doesn't me his very own super bowl championship does not mean anything.

I love Rodgers and he's the heir apparent to Manning and Brady's shared throne, but until then I still see Brees as the number three QB in the league. Rodgers coming in at 4 followed by Phil Rivers.

bantx
07-20-2011, 03:52 PM
People like to write off a player because of one year.

yo123
07-20-2011, 03:55 PM
People like to write off a player because of one year.


Or a whole career of coming up short in the playoffs.

bantx
07-20-2011, 03:59 PM
Or a whole career of coming up short in the playoffs.

And of course it's always the qb to blame on coming up short

yo123
07-20-2011, 04:00 PM
And of course it's always the qb to blame on coming up short


No, but when it happens every year you have to look in his direction eventually.

bantx
07-20-2011, 04:04 PM
Why would you have to look at him? When it's clearly other people too. Of course people who don't watch or pay attention to a game will just look to the stats.

yo123
07-20-2011, 04:07 PM
Why would you have to look at him? When it's clearly other people too. Of course people who don't watch or pay attention to a game will just look to the stats.


Annnnd there it is. The "you don't watch the games" argument. 2 posts in I think that's a record.

The QB is the most important position on the field by a huge margin, and the Chargers have been extremely talented year in and year out. There is no good excuse really for them not even making the Super Bowl once during the Rivers era so far.

Malaka
07-20-2011, 04:10 PM
Well at least we know when Manning and Brady are gone whose going to play their parts.

Rodgers will be Brady, racking up very good stats and super bowl trophies.

Rivers will be Manning, racking up gaudy stats, OPOY's, and maybe MVP's.

Then every off-season there will be a debate between whose better, and then we can just re-use the Brady v. Manning arguments. Ringz vs. Statz. Till Rivers eventually wins one. That's an if though.

prock
07-20-2011, 04:29 PM
Rivers = Marino

Rodgers = Brady

Well, this is stupid. Rodgers won one Super Bowl. Rivers could easily win the next three and Rodgers could end his career with just this one. It's pretty silly to label them like this before they are even 30... Let's hold off on this for a few more years.

When Rodgers turns the Packers into a dynasty, then let's start comparing Rodgers to Brady.

bantx
07-20-2011, 04:48 PM
Annnnd there it is. The "you don't watch the games" argument. 2 posts in I think that's a record.

The QB is the most important position on the field by a huge margin, and the Chargers have been extremely talented year in and year out. There is no good excuse really for them not even making the Super Bowl once during the Rivers era so far.

It's the argument because it's true, when you base the QB is the most talented player on the field argument means you have no idea what happened in those playoff games. I mean a kicker missing 3 fg's in a game kind of has something to do with their loss, not one game, but multiple games. So it's obvious that Rivers should be kicking the FG because it was some how his fault for that. Putting the blame solely on one player rather than a TEAM is dumb. You obviously don't watch the game, mark that as 3 posts I said that. Because you obviously haven't.

yo123
07-20-2011, 05:17 PM
It's the argument because it's true, when you base the QB is the most talented player on the field argument means you have no idea what happened in those playoff games. I mean a kicker missing 3 fg's in a game kind of has something to do with their loss, not one game, but multiple games. So it's obvious that Rivers should be kicking the FG because it was some how his fault for that. Putting the blame solely on one player rather than a TEAM is dumb. You obviously don't watch the game, mark that as 3 posts I said that. Because you obviously haven't.


I forgot that game was the only playoff game Rivers has played in.

It's cool though just stick with your baseless lazy claim that I don't watch games. I'll just take it as your concession and be on my way.

bantx
07-20-2011, 05:27 PM
You have no claim except that its the qb fault because its the most important position. So do as you say and go on your way because you
ve brought no substance to your argument.

yo123
07-20-2011, 05:28 PM
Says the guy who literally only brought "you don't watch gamez."

Damnit. I'm done for real now.

monson
07-20-2011, 05:39 PM
Bull **** you cant....Its who is the best now. What you have done up until this moment in time doesnt mean a god damn thing anymore. Im not saying he is, im not saying he isnt, but Rodgers may very well be the best QB in the league right now and that is not a knock on Peyton, its not a knock Brady...but coming into this season there isnt a QB playing better than him.

How many ints did Rodgers throw? How many did Brady? Rodgers won the sb. but you are way off to say he is playing better than brady.

AntoinCD
07-20-2011, 05:48 PM
cmon... really...?

Yes really. As I stated Im not talking about running around and making people miss. I am talking about standing in the pocket, feeling pressure and making subtle movements to get out of the way. Movement in the pocket is completely different to being an elusive or mobile QB. Pocket QBs need to have superb footwork to do this. Being able to drop back, sense pressure and move in any direction while always keeping your feet under you and your eyes down field is something that IMO is way more important than being able to run bootlegs and options like Vince Young

soybean
07-20-2011, 06:04 PM
Yes really. As I stated Im not talking about running around and making people miss. I am talking about standing in the pocket, feeling pressure and making subtle movements to get out of the way. Movement in the pocket is completely different to being an elusive or mobile QB. Pocket QBs need to have superb footwork to do this. Being able to drop back, sense pressure and move in any direction while always keeping your feet under you and your eyes down field is something that IMO is way more important than being able to run bootlegs and options like Vince Young

Then of course he's second to none because you came up with a ridiculously stringent criteria...

so you're excluding all mobile qbs? So a mobile qb that can evade a rush doesnt count cause he's mobile? What bout Romo, Rodgers, Ben, Sanchez, Freeman, etc.?

AntoinCD
07-20-2011, 06:27 PM
Then of course he's second to none because you came up with a ridiculously stringent criteria...

so you're excluding all mobile qbs? So a mobile qb that can evade a rush doesnt count cause he's mobile? What bout Romo, Rodgers, Ben, Sanchez, Freeman, etc.?

Roethlisberger is horrible at it. He is able to avoid sacks by running around and being a big guy who's hard to knock down. Of the guys you mentioned the only one who clomes close to Brady or Brees for example is Rodgers, but even at that he has a tendency to move out of the pocket if he feels pressure.

And no, mobile QBs aren't excluded but they tend to use their legs more when pressure comes, therefore in general lowering their ability to fully survey the field. When you tuck it and run, keeping your eyes downfield, going through your reads and making accurate throws becomes so much more difficult.

SickwithIt1010
07-20-2011, 06:44 PM
And during those 3 years he's done nothing that Manning and Brady haven't done, and quite easily still could do. Rodgers wasn't even good for the first 8 weeks of the season last year.

What the **** does that matter? That makes his season any less impressive? His numbers were ridiculous.

OMGZZZZZ he had a bad first 8 weeks, hes not good.

SickwithIt1010
07-20-2011, 06:48 PM
How many ints did Rodgers throw? How many did Brady? Rodgers won the sb. but you are way off to say he is playing better than brady.

How was he not playing better than Brady to end the season?

killxswitch
07-20-2011, 07:16 PM
What the **** does that matter? That makes his season any less impressive? His numbers were ridiculous.

OMGZZZZZ he had a bad first 8 weeks, hes not good.

So is your argument that whichever QB won the SB is the best QB in the league? Because that is stupid, but if that isn't your point then I don't think you have one. In either case arguing with you on this is a waste of my time. Rodgers isn't the best yet, that's all I have to say on the matter.

SickwithIt1010
07-20-2011, 07:23 PM
So is your argument that whichever QB won the SB is the best QB in the league? Because that is stupid, but if that isn't your point then I don't think you have one. In either case arguing with you on this is a waste of my time. Rodgers isn't the best yet, that's all I have to say on the matter.

Im saying that he is the QB playing the best football. Yeah, he won a super bowl but even had he lost it that would still be the case. The guy is playing out of his ******* mind.

You must not have watched him this season...

J-Mike88
07-20-2011, 08:10 PM
As an obvious Rodgers-lover, I have to admit I have no problem with any order anyone ranks their top 4.

Rodgers show last year thru Atlanta and Pittsburgh in the playoffs was remarkable of course. I can't remember the last time Brady rolled like that thru to a Super Bowl even, and we all remember Manning choking vs the Saints in the Super Bowl 2 years ago.

Brees was awesome in that Super Bowl, but this past playoff, he lost at the Seachickens. Still, Brees is an A-lister without question and he does it with, IMO, less talent at the WR/TE position, like Brady.

Still, looking ahead, it's no shocker that Rodgers is the younger one here, with only 3 seasons starting under his belt, whereas Brady and Manning are old, and Brees is getting old.

Rivers is right behind Rodgers, and depending on his team, he's capable of leapfrogging them all. When the chips are down, I'd have full faith in Philip all things considered.

Remember, even with the most bizarre cast of WRs he's ever had, and with Gates hurt for a good month, Rivers threw for 4,710 yards and 30 TDs, both higher than my man Rodgers.

Rivers played most of last season without Vincent Jackson and lost Antonio Gates for good with a month left.

He's led the NFL in yards per attempt for 3 straight seasons.
He's also thrown at least 28 TDs for 3 straight years.

FUNBUNCHER
07-20-2011, 10:34 PM
Ben Roethlisberger is the most underrated QB in the NFL.

I don't think he's better than Rodgers at the moment, but to not even hear his name mentioned in this discussion?? Come on give the dude some love!!!

Malaka
07-20-2011, 10:48 PM
I respect Roethlisberger even though I just hate him as a person. But even with those Super Bowl rings, he's on the outside looking in, in this conversation.

He has had some great years and is essential to that Steelers team, but you cannot deny that he is a bit inconsistent. Also he might be the only one of these QBs who actually makes his offensive lines look worse than they actually are.

molenguinurtle
07-21-2011, 12:46 AM
I also don't understand how Freeman, who clearly has the best young supporting cast around him of all the names mentioned, has only been mentioned once for that "Stafford, Luck, Bradford, etc." bracket.

bigbluedefense
07-21-2011, 08:58 AM
I was just about to mention that. The fact that Roethlisberger wasn't even mentioned until page 4 is criminal.

You know, the guy that took his team to 3 SBs, won 2 of em, has had countless come from behind signature games and moments, a great playoff record and has had amazing playoff performances, has made plays that maybe only 2 or 3 qbs could make, that guy?

That guy isn't even in consideration? Really guys?


What a joke.

Bob Sanders Dreadlock
07-21-2011, 09:18 AM
I was just about to mention that. The fact that Roethlisberger wasn't even mentioned until page 4 is criminal.

You know, the guy that took his team to 3 SBs, won 2 of em, has had countless come from behind signature games and moments, a great playoff record and has had amazing playoff performances, has made plays that maybe only 2 or 3 qbs could make, that guy?

That guy isn't even in consideration? Really guys?


What a joke.

Come from behind moments are so overrated and need to be taken with a grain of salt.

FUNBUNCHER
07-21-2011, 09:33 AM
Come from behind moments are so overrated and need to be taken with a grain of salt.


John Elway agrees with you.

irishbucsfan
07-21-2011, 10:09 AM
I also don't understand how Freeman, who clearly has the best young supporting cast around him of all the names mentioned, has only been mentioned once for that "Stafford, Luck, Bradford, etc." bracket.


Tell me about it. If we're talking about upside, I'd like someone to point out a player with a better combination of work ethic, leadership, size, arm, mobility and 4th quarter cajones than Freeman.

I'm being objective. Bradford may have better accuracy (which Freeman seems to be able to improve on judging by the TD:INT ratio jump between year 1 and 2), Stafford may have a slightly bigger arm, but even that's doubtful. As a package I think Freeman has more than any young QB going forward.

killxswitch
07-21-2011, 10:17 AM
Freeman has more to prove because the expectation by everyone is that he would take a while to develop and that his ceiling would not be terribly high. He has already exceeded most peoples expectations so it will take a while for perception to catch up to his actual play.

Malaka
07-21-2011, 10:53 AM
His ceiling not being that high? I don't know about that.

He didn't have that many supporters on this board, but the ones who did support him drooled over his potential.

Hell I remember being called the Josh Freeman of guidos that year haha.

bigbluedefense
07-21-2011, 11:13 AM
I didn't believe in Freeman coming out.

Admittedly, I didn't watch many of his games in college, if any, but I was just weary of how his stock skyrocketed around draft time. I get nervous with qbs like that bc I always felt the great qbs stand out during the season and he should have been noticed beforehand.

I was even skeptical this year bc I didn't get to see any Bucs games and hate commenting on an NFL player without watching him for at least 4 games.

But I got to watch some games during the offseason, and I'm sold. Freeman is a stud in the making.

Most importantly, his character and work ethic are top notch. When you combine that kind of athleticism with his work ethic, you got something special.

killxswitch
07-21-2011, 11:13 AM
His ceiling not being that high? I don't know about that.

He didn't have that many supporters on this board, but the ones who did support him drooled over his potential.

Hell I remember being called the Josh Freeman of guidos that year haha.

A lot of people didn't think he would amount to much. I was one of them and I was obviously wrong.

Malaka
07-21-2011, 11:35 AM
I am not going to say I was Freeman's biggest fan, honestly my favorite QB that year was Sanchez, and he has been a little disappointing at least to me. I thought he'd be better. He's improving but that's besides the point.

Freeman always oozed potential, but people back then were afraid of him because of his supposed lack of accuracy, lack of experience, and lack of wins.

I am happy for him. He's a good guy, and has the potential to be pretty much what JaMarcus Russell was supposed to be. And honestly if Raheem Morris (since he was coaching at Kansas st.) passed on him that year, I think that would be a telling sign that he wasn't any good, like when Cameron passed on Quinn.

LonghornsLegend
07-21-2011, 11:44 AM
For all we know, Norv's system is what is making Rivers so good.

Exactly, let's not forget Norv Turner had Alex Smith looking like a starting caliber QB for awhile. He gets the most out of his QB's everytime, and when you have an elite talent like what Rivers is, the results are dynamic.


I think Rivers & Rodgers is really close to a wash. I am not going to place too much emphasis on a SB because both guys are young, Rivers could win the next 2 for all we know.


What Rodgers did last year was truly amazing. He played at a level that was just about impossible to stop, and he does get Jermichael Finley back.


Also what Rivers did last year without Vincent Jackson, LT, & Gates for alot of the season was remarkable. You could easily say with those guys here for awhile they were who made him, he just throws it up high and they go get it, LT runs it it, etc etc. This guy has shown time after time he's tough, and he doesn't care who lines up out there he is going to make a play.


I really think Rivers gets a SB soon, and these two will get debated back and forth. It's really hard to not take Rodgers, but it's probably 1A and 1B for me between the two. Rivers has had some nice stats along the way, but there were 2 things that impressed me so far about him to rank him with Rodgers.


Obviously how he played that playoff game with with NO ACL at all in his right knee, and still played very solid was something special. Type of thing you take for granted if you don't know what that type of pain is like to walk, let alone plant, and remember when Jay Cutler checked out with a sprained MCL? Yea. This kinda stuff isn't in all QB's, he has it, and I love that. People hate his attitude and how he talks trash but come on, anybody who does this, risking their career to put their team 1st is all I need to see.


Also how productive he was this year missing the big stars. Again Norv does get alot of credit, but he is coming off his best season as a pro. Career high in completion percentage and yards. While throwing to guys like Patrick Crayton, Legedu Nanee, and Seyi Ajirotutu. If he put up a crapper year everyone would use this as an excuse, but he just got better and better.


I definately think both are the top 2 young QB's and will be the top 2 when Brady & Peyton retire. Probably before then, it's just everyone will stick to the past so much. Aaron Rodgers has been better then Peyton for 2 years honestly, but it's like that's not possible to some people because Peyton was good for so long.

LonghornsLegend
07-21-2011, 11:46 AM
A lot of people didn't think he would amount to much. I was one of them and I was obviously wrong.

Freeman got bashed to no end here, it's not like people weren't a fan, but it was just about a foregone conclusion he would suck to most(not you in particuliar I just remember the consensus). I wasn't a huge fan, but I typically do like the QB's with a big arm and potential as long as they are a hard worker.

LonghornsLegend
07-21-2011, 11:49 AM
When you tuck it and run, keeping your eyes downfield, going through your reads and making accurate throws becomes so much more difficult.

For the defense.

bigbluedefense
07-21-2011, 11:52 AM
For the defense.

Only if they allow it to be. One thing that's so overlooked and not taught enough is what Spags taught our defense whenever a qb scrambles.

When a qb scrambles out of the pocket, he is assumed to be a runner, and his WRs are assumed to be blockers. In this case, you are allowed to grab WRs/TEs etc down the field bc they are blockers and can grab you.

So Spags taught his defenses that whenever a qb scrambles, just hold the crap out of your WRs, bc you are pretty much allowed to.

That forces a qb to scramble, he can't throw it, and you can't do that all game.

It's such a smart move, yet not enough teams do it. Especially against the bootleg.

LonghornsLegend
07-21-2011, 11:57 AM
Only if they allow it to be. One thing that's so overlooked and not taught enough is what Spags taught our defense whenever a qb scrambles.

When a qb scrambles out of the pocket, he is assumed to be a runner, and his WRs are assumed to be blockers. In this case, you are allowed to grab WRs/TEs etc down the field bc they are blockers and can grab you.

So Spags taught his defenses that whenever a qb scrambles, just hold the crap out of your WRs, bc you are pretty much allowed to.

That forces a qb to scramble, he can't throw it, and you can't do that all game.

It's such a smart move, yet not enough teams do it. Especially against the bootleg.



Yea it's just easier for mistakes to happen. I can think of a ton of broken plays vs the Giants where Austin got behind a Safety who took 1 step forward when Romo broke down the pocket. He never looks to run anymore, and seemingly when he scrambles around all it takes is 1 person to break down.


Same reason for Big Ben. I typically see a ton of big plays from QB's when that happens. I don't know if the plays I'm thinking about vs the Giants were after Spags or not, but Austin scores on a bunch of those plays a year, even before he was a starter.


I tend to see more bad things happening for the defense when a QB starts to break down the pocket then vice versa. This is of course only talking about mobile QB's who are comfortable in that area.

bigbluedefense
07-21-2011, 12:12 PM
Yea it's just easier for mistakes to happen. I can think of a ton of broken plays vs the Giants where Austin got behind a Safety who took 1 step forward when Romo broke down the pocket. He never looks to run anymore, and seemingly when he scrambles around all it takes is 1 person to break down.


Same reason for Big Ben. I typically see a ton of big plays from QB's when that happens. I don't know if the plays I'm thinking about vs the Giants were after Spags or not, but Austin scores on a bunch of those plays a year, even before he was a starter.


I tend to see more bad things happening for the defense when a QB starts to break down the pocket then vice versa. This is of course only talking about mobile QB's who are comfortable in that area.

*Sigh*....yeah that was after Spags left... :(

</3

When we played the Steelers with Spags, we destroyed them. Ben threw 4 picks in that game.

EricCartmann
07-21-2011, 12:13 PM
Not only should Ben Rothlisburger be in this discussion, but he should also be in the discussion where we talk about the Greatest QB of all time.

Ben is clutch, and to me that is the #1 category to measure a QB.

Brady, Manning, Rothlisburger, Rogers, and Brees in my eyes are all equals.

Rivers is up there too, but I rank him slightly below the 5 because he has lost some big games. Statistically Rivers has been one of the best the past 4 years, but he needs to win the big games to be elevated. I am sorry, it's all about the big wins, and until Rivers does this, in my eyes he will always be below the top 5.

Rogers has had only 1 really good year, but it was a great year and he was clutch when he had to be, this one year alone makes him among the best. There is no reason why he cannot continue the great play.

Drew Brees had an off year last year, it was only slightly worse than Peyton's. However for some reason though, Brees bad year stood out but Peyton gets a free pass?

killxswitch
07-21-2011, 12:28 PM
Ha ha, Rapistburger the GOAT? No, man. Just, no.

Dam8610
07-21-2011, 02:30 PM
To anyone arguing that championships matter for a QB, please do one of the following:

1) Explain why Charles Haley is the greatest player of the modern era.
2) Explain why QBs are not playing football, while the other 21 players on the field are.
3) Explain why QBs are playing football, while the other 21 players on the field are not.
4) Admit that your point is erroneous, and that championships should not matter any more or less in the evaluation of a QB than it should in the evaluation of a player of any other position. (simplest)

FUNBUNCHER
07-21-2011, 02:31 PM
Not only should Ben Rothlisburger be in this discussion, but he should also be in the discussion where we talk about the Greatest QB of all time.

Ben is clutch, and to me that is the #1 category to measure a QB.

Brady, Manning, Rothlisburger, Rogers, and Brees in my eyes are all equals.

Rivers is up there too, but I rank him slightly below the 5 because he has lost some big games.





THis is really an unusual era we're witnessing for NFL QBs.

Six QBs, all contemporaries, and odds are that ALL OF THEM end up in the HOF.

Brady/Manning and Brees because of winning a ring in New Orleans(!!)are IMO locks.

If the rest of Rodgers' career projects stats wise to the previous two years, he's a given for Canton.

Big Ben is a Steeler and has won 2/3 SBs. Add 8 to 10 more years to his career, possibly one or two more SB appearances, he's a 1st ballot HOFer.

And if Rivers never wins a SB but continues to put up Madden-esque stats, he's a lock too.

IMO none of those guys are reaches for Canton, but IMO they will have to go through each other to win the Lombardi over the next ten years.

End of the day, I think Roethlisberger has a great chance to finish his career with 4 SB rings.
The Packers arrived a year early last season, they're set up for a run.

I would not be surprised when Rodgers career is over, NFL historians look back in thirty years or so and argue this was the greatest era of Packers football.

prock
07-21-2011, 02:51 PM
To anyone arguing that championships matter for a QB, please do one of the following:

1) Explain why Charles Haley is the greatest player of the modern era.
2) Explain why QBs are not playing football, while the other 21 players on the field are.
3) Explain why QBs are playing football, while the other 21 players on the field are not.
4) Admit that your point is erroneous, and that championships should not matter any more or less in the evaluation of a QB than it should in the evaluation of a player of any other position. (simplest)

Quarterback is 10x more important than any other single position on the field, that's why. QB is the leader and the most important player. When you can't lead your team to a title, it reflects on the leader and the most important player. It isn't an end all argument, but it matters.

Dam8610
07-21-2011, 04:47 PM
Quarterback is 10x more important than any other single position on the field, that's why. QB is the leader and the most important player. When you can't lead your team to a title, it reflects on the leader and the most important player.

No, just no. I don't care how talented a QB is, he can't "lead" a deficient team to a championship. Dan Marino is the biggest reason why the championship argument doesn't work.

It isn't an end all argument, but it matters.

I agree with the first half, disagree with the second half. It isn't an end all argument, because Terry Bradshaw is not the best QB in the modern era. Now that that's settled, if it matters at QB, why doesn't it matter at RB? Could I argue that Terrell Davis is a better RB than Barry Sanders because "Barry Sanders haz no ringzzzzzzzzzzz!"? No, I'd look foolish. Yet it seems completely reasonable to some to make the same argument when discussing QBs. I don't get that, and until someone explains one of those first three things I posted in a way that makes sense to me, I won't, because it doesn't make sense.

AntoinCD
07-21-2011, 05:06 PM
No, just no. I don't care how talented a QB is, he can't "lead" a deficient team to a championship. Dan Marino is the biggest reason why the championship argument doesn't work.



In the salary cap era there shouldn't be deficient teams for any real period of time, unless they have problems with the QB position.

So-called "deficient" teams for large parts of this decade:

Buffalo Bills
San Francisco 49ers
St Louis Rams
Miami Dolphins
Washington Redskins
Detroit Lions
Cleveland Browns
Cincinnati Bengals
Oakland Raiders
Houston Texans

With the exceptions of Houston with Matt Schaub and Cincinnati with Carson Palmer, none of these teams have had even average QB play for most of the decade.

When St Louis had Kurt Warner they were successful. When they brought in Sam Bradford they made great strides. Everything in between has been poor.

The one year Cleveland had better than average play from the QB position they were a much better team.


In an era driven by parity, a lot of the times the difference between the top teams and the bottom teams is QB play.


How many times in the last ten or fifteen years can anyone pinpoint and say

"This DE completely turned this franchise around" or
"This RB completely turned this franchise around" or
"This Wr, this LB, this CB etc"

Now compare that with Peyton Manning in Indy, Tom Brady in NE, Drew Brees in NO, Matt Ryan in Atl, Josh Freeman in TB, Sam Bradford in Stl etc.

There are 22 starters on a team, and agreed no matter how good the QB is, if he is throwing to trash then they wont be good. But in the NFL, with the salary cap, free agency, reverse order drafting etc no team will be made up of complete scrubs. And really the difference between good players and mediocre players isn't as much as people think.

EricCartmann
07-21-2011, 05:16 PM
To anyone arguing that championships matter for a QB, please do one of the following:

1) Explain why Charles Haley is the greatest player of the modern era.
2) Explain why QBs are not playing football, while the other 21 players on the field are.
3) Explain why QBs are playing football, while the other 21 players on the field are not.
4) Admit that your point is erroneous, and that championships should not matter any more or less in the evaluation of a QB than it should in the evaluation of a player of any other position. (simplest)


1) Who says he is the greatest player? Also Haley himself won championships. So what's your point?

2) It's a team sport, and wins matter. Moon and Kelly are probably equally as great as all the QB's mentioned, but why is it that they are not mentioned among the best? That's because they did not win anything. Marino too falls short. If Marino would have just one won, I am sure his name would be mentioned in the same breath as Montana.

Please don't kill the messenger, I don't make the rules.

3) See #2

4) Greatness is measured in wins. In general if a QB wins with different players, he is considered a great QB. A QB can single handedly turn a team around with his play. See Drew Brees. The great Linebacker Jack Lambert could go to the Panthers, and most likely would not turn them around. Drew Brees would.

Again, sorry I don't make the rules and I don't give these guys direction. This is just how it is... please don't kill the messenger.

5) You need to understand this word call "Perspective". Measuring Greatness of a QB is not an exact Science. A lot of it is based on your perspective, and what gauges you are using to measure greatness. FYI: You can't use a voltmeter gauge to plug into Peyton or Rivers to measure how great they are, it's not that simple.

Once you understand this word called "Perspective", and stop trying to force your whacked out views on the world, you will be a better person for it.

Your Welcome,
Your friend and buddy,
EricCartmann

tjsunstein
07-21-2011, 07:06 PM
Rodgers over Rivers and it isn't close to me. I didn't read very far into the thread because once I see it's reached the sixth page, it's destined to be full of non-sense. However, I did read that someone said Manning and Brady are the clear cut 1 and 2 right now. I'm not so sure that they are. I question where Rodgers' is. I think he's right behind Brady and one above Manning to round out the top three.

Bob Sanders Dreadlock
07-21-2011, 08:06 PM
Rodgers over Rivers and it isn't close to me. I didn't read very far into the thread because once I see it's reached the sixth page, it's destined to be full of non-sense. However, I did read that someone said Manning and Brady are the clear cut 1 and 2 right now. I'm not so sure that they are. I question where Rodgers' is. I think he's right behind Brady and one above Manning to round out the top three.

bacause Rodgers could go out and throw 20 picks this year and get bounced in the 1st round?

Dam8610
07-21-2011, 08:20 PM
Rodgers over Rivers and it isn't close to me. I didn't read very far into the thread because once I see it's reached the sixth page, it's destined to be full of non-sense. However, I did read that someone said Manning and Brady are the clear cut 1 and 2 right now. I'm not so sure that they are. I question where Rodgers' is. I think he's right behind Brady and one above Manning to round out the top three.

I'm sure you argued the opposite side of this debate circa 2003, but, hey, whatever's most convenient at the moment is the convention to follow, right?

Dam8610
07-21-2011, 08:27 PM
Rodgers over Rivers and it isn't close to me. I didn't read very far into the thread because once I see it's reached the sixth page, it's destined to be full of non-sense. However, I did read that someone said Manning and Brady are the clear cut 1 and 2 right now. I'm not so sure that they are. I question where Rodgers' is. I think he's right behind Brady and one above Manning to round out the top three.

In the salary cap era there shouldn't be deficient teams for any real period of time, unless they have problems with the QB position.

So-called "deficient" teams for large parts of this decade:

Buffalo Bills
San Francisco 49ers
St Louis Rams
Miami Dolphins
Washington Redskins
Detroit Lions
Cleveland Browns
Cincinnati Bengals
Oakland Raiders
Houston Texans

With the exceptions of Houston with Matt Schaub and Cincinnati with Carson Palmer, none of these teams have had even average QB play for most of the decade.

When St Louis had Kurt Warner they were successful. When they brought in Sam Bradford they made great strides. Everything in between has been poor.

The one year Cleveland had better than average play from the QB position they were a much better team.


In an era driven by parity, a lot of the times the difference between the top teams and the bottom teams is QB play.


How many times in the last ten or fifteen years can anyone pinpoint and say

"This DE completely turned this franchise around" or
"This RB completely turned this franchise around" or
"This Wr, this LB, this CB etc"

Now compare that with Peyton Manning in Indy, Tom Brady in NE, Drew Brees in NO, Matt Ryan in Atl, Josh Freeman in TB, Sam Bradford in Stl etc.

There are 22 starters on a team, and agreed no matter how good the QB is, if he is throwing to trash then they wont be good. But in the NFL, with the salary cap, free agency, reverse order drafting etc no team will be made up of complete scrubs. And really the difference between good players and mediocre players isn't as much as people think.

The Texans are actually the case study we could follow that would settle this matter. They've gotten more than solid QB play from Schaub over the past couple of seasons, but haven't converted that to any playoff appearances because their defense hasn't been up to par, despite investment after investment into it. If they can turn around their misfortunes, then your argument works, but as of now, the Texans are the model of how to have a good QB and not translate that into success.

LonghornsLegend
07-21-2011, 08:35 PM
Yea but I think alot of people would argue that Matt Schaub isn't the caliber of QB were discussing here. Besides that, only 1 QB can win the SB each year. Look at what QB's have been playing at a high level since Schaub has been starting.


Is it really a knock on him he didn't carry his team to a SB over the elite QB's we have playing right now?

J-Mike88
07-21-2011, 08:54 PM
No, but when it happens every year you have to look in his direction eventually.
Exactly.
Like Tom Brady the last 7 years though?

Dam8610
07-21-2011, 09:04 PM
1) Who says he is the greatest player? Also Haley himself won championships. So what's your point?

Charles Haley is the only modern era NFL player with 5 championships on his resume. Therefore, if championships are the bar by which we measure greatness, then Charles Haley is the greatest player of the modern era.

2) It's a team sport, and wins matter. Moon and Kelly are probably equally as great as all the QB's mentioned, but why is it that they are not mentioned among the best? That's because they did not win anything. Marino too falls short. If Marino would have just one won, I am sure his name would be mentioned in the same breath as Montana.

Wins are important. Peyton Manning had the most wins of any QB in the 2000s. Therefore, Peyton Manning was the best QB of the 2000s.

Do you agree with that argument? Why or why not? Also, your argument does not accomplish objectives #2 or 3.

Please don't kill the messenger, I don't make the rules.

Actually, by definition, by forming and expressing an opinion and developing criteria by which you judge, you play a part in forming the consensus criteria. So yes, you do "make the rules", at least in part. Claiming ignorance to the process doesn't release you of the responsibility, but it does give me a better idea as to why this unreasonable criterion has persisted uninterrupted for so long.

4) Greatness is measured in wins. In general if a QB wins with different players, he is considered a great QB. A QB can single handedly turn a team around with his play. See Drew Brees. The great Linebacker Jack Lambert could go to the Panthers, and most likely would not turn them around. Drew Brees would.

Here's the dirty secret you're trying to avoid: winning =/= winning championships. I will absolutely agree that a good QB can change the fortunes of a franchise, but it's widely accepted convention that a great defense is a necessary component of a championship team. Please explain why this widely accepted convention gets thrown completely out the window if and only if discussing the ranking of QBs in terms of greatness.

5) You need to understand this word call "Perspective". Measuring Greatness of a QB is not an exact Science. A lot of it is based on your perspective, and what gauges you are using to measure greatness. FYI: You can't use a voltmeter gauge to plug into Peyton or Rivers to measure how great they are, it's not that simple.

Once you understand this word called "Perspective", and stop trying to force your whacked out views on the world, you will be a better person for it.

I have a better, more descriptive word for what you call "perspective": biases. That's actually exactly what I'm pointing out and trying to eliminate as part of the process. If production is the standard of greatness for all other positions, and it is widely accepted that it takes a great defense to win championships, then it should follow that production should be the standard for QBs, and championships should not be considered. If I'm wrong, then why does no one argue that Terrell Davis was a better RB than Barry Sanders?

J-Mike88
07-21-2011, 09:05 PM
I would not be surprised when Rodgers career is over, NFL historians look back in thirty years or so and argue this was the greatest era of Packers football.
I love this guy ^^

You could be right. Many others are saying it. And I wish you were right. I'd just like to match Brady winning 3 in 4 years, or Aikman the same. Bradshaw's 4 would be awesome.

However, I don't for see it because in today's NFL, things change so damn fast. Plus if Jennings goes down, done. If Matthews went down, done.
And even winning it this year, there was a lot of luck involved, starting with the Lions winning down in Tampa Bay, with their #2 QB, in week 16 I think, which was necessary for the Pack to even make the playoffs.

Then in wildcard weekend, David green Akers missed 2 short FGs or else Rodgers and the Packers would have exited immediately. There's too much luck these days.... and that doesn't even factor in the random game a zebra f***s everything up for one particular team.

I can't wait to watch Josh Freeman this year. I wasn't a believer of him before, but he's got charisma and poise, and obviously the physical side of things, from dad's side I believe. He looks good for the future! Can't wait for their games vs Saints and Falcons this year.

Dam8610
07-21-2011, 09:09 PM
Yea but I think alot of people would argue that Matt Schaub isn't the caliber of QB were discussing here. Besides that, only 1 QB can win the SB each year. Look at what QB's have been playing at a high level since Schaub has been starting.


Is it really a knock on him he didn't carry his team to a SB over the elite QB's we have playing right now?

Right refrain, wrong reason. It's not Schaub being an inferior QB that's holding the Texans back (after all, Brad Johnson and Trent Dilfer won Super Bowls), it's the Texans' abysmal secondary.

AntoinCD
07-21-2011, 09:35 PM
The Texans are actually the case study we could follow that would settle this matter. They've gotten more than solid QB play from Schaub over the past couple of seasons, but haven't converted that to any playoff appearances because their defense hasn't been up to par, despite investment after investment into it. If they can turn around their misfortunes, then your argument works, but as of now, the Texans are the model of how to have a good QB and not translate that into success.

Or, they could be the exception to the rule. Take the 2011 NFL draft for example. Of the top 12 teams in the draft, only two had stable QB play(Houston and Dallas). Carolina, Denver, Buffalo, Cincinnati, Arizona, Cleveland, SF, Tennessee, Jacksonville and Minnesota either had a big need at QB or a rookie QB or both.

Now look at the other end. GB, Pittsburgh, NYJ, NO, NE, Indianapolis, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Baltimore, Chicago. With the exception of the Jets these successful teams all have better than average play from the QB position.

Sure if you have a historically great defense(Baltimore early 2000s) then you can mask lesser QB play. Likewise if you have an historically bad defensive backfield(in a passing league) this will offset good QB play.

EricCartmann
07-21-2011, 09:46 PM
Charles Haley is the only modern era NFL player with 5 championships on his resume. Therefore, if championships are the bar by which we measure greatness, then Charles Haley is the greatest player of the modern era.


Oh I get your point now! Brilliant. Except Haley was a DE/LB/Elephant. Though they do play an impact, no where as near as much as a QB. Replace any of those 5 Haley's starting QB's with someone else, then most likely he would probably have none.

Again, I don't make the rules or control the system. This is just how it is.



Wins are important. Peyton Manning had the most wins of any QB in the 2000s. Therefore, Peyton Manning was the best QB of the 2000s.

Do you agree with that argument? Why or why not? Also, your argument does not accomplish objectives #2 or 3.


Peyton is considered one of the best. You do not know this? Also my argument does prove #2 and #3, though it is a team sport, the QB plays the biggest impact in the teams success. Replace anyone else on the team, and most like you will still win a championship and/or come close (See Tom Brady, Joe Montana, etc). Replace the QB, expect tough times.



Actually, by definition, by forming and expressing an opinion and developing criteria by which you judge, you play a part in forming the consensus criteria. So yes, you do "make the rules", at least in part. Claiming ignorance to the process doesn't release you of the responsibility, but it does give me a better idea as to why this unreasonable criterion has persisted uninterrupted for so long.


What are you a lawyer or something? Or just an ijiot? or both? There are no concrete formula's you can use to prove the best. In the end there will still be an argument. Most people use stats+wins+championships as a combination to determine the greatest.



Here's the dirty secret you're trying to avoid: winning =/= winning championships. I will absolutely agree that a good QB can change the fortunes of a franchise, but it's widely accepted convention that a great defense is a necessary component of a championship team. Please explain why this widely accepted convention gets thrown completely out the window if and only if discussing the ranking of QBs in terms of greatness.


A great defense is only there to put the QB in the position to win. When a great defense face a bad QB they are almost 100% likely to win. When they face a "great" QB, they are 50-50 at best. The Cleveland Browns Defense of the 80's were one of the best, unfortunately they had to face Elway on the last drive 2 times, and they failed. Even Elway was just another "Marino" until he won the SB.



I have a better, more descriptive word for what you call "perspective": biases. That's actually exactly what I'm pointing out and trying to eliminate as part of the process. If production is the standard of greatness for all other positions, and it is widely accepted that it takes a great defense to win championships, then it should follow that production should be the standard for QBs, and championships should not be considered. If I'm wrong, then why does no one argue that Terrell Davis was a better RB than Barry Sanders?

You seem to be lost and all over the place. Don't worry, that is what I am here for, to help you. As your friend and buddy I am here to help you. As I have been saying over and over and over again, wins and championships plays a big part in measuring greatness for the QB, not so much for the other positions. As great as Terrel Davis was, his replacements put up equal stats to him.. however, when Elway left, the team went totally down hill.

Please discuss further.......

Dam8610
07-21-2011, 09:53 PM
Likewise if you have an historically bad defensive backfield(in a passing league) this will offset good QB play.

Arguing sure gets easier when the other side makes your points for you. As I said, QBs cannot overcome deficient teams. The level of the deficiency will usually determine the level to which the team can have success.

By the way, there needs to be a distinction made here. I am not necessarily against including wins and/or comeback victories (real ones, though, none of that kick a FG in a tie game crap), as criteria on which to judge a QB, as there is strong empirical evidence that good QB play tends to correlate with these things. I am against inclusion of championships won as a criterion on which to judge a QB, as empirical evidence strongly suggests no correlation between good QB play and championships won.

AntoinCD
07-21-2011, 10:07 PM
Arguing sure gets easier when the other side makes your points for you. As I said, QBs cannot overcome deficient teams. The level of the deficiency will usually determine the level to which the team can have success.

By the way, there needs to be a distinction made here. I am not necessarily against including wins and/or comeback victories (real ones, though, none of that kick a FG in a tie game crap), as criteria on which to judge a QB, as there is strong empirical evidence that good QB play tends to correlate with these things. I am against inclusion of championships won as a criterion on which to judge a QB, as empirical evidence strongly suggests no correlation between good QB play and championships won.

I do believe in 2006 the Indianapolis Colts had a pretty deficient run defense. Not once in the regular seaon did they limit a team to under 100 yards rushing. 8 times did a team eclipse 150 yards, 4 times over 200 yards and the Jacksonville Jaguars shredded them for 375 yards in one game.

Yet they won the Superbowl. Are you saying Peyton Manning was only as important to this as say for example Raheem Brock?

As I said, extremely poor play from a certain area of a team will offset good QB play. But great QB play can make up for pretty much anything.

Dam8610
07-21-2011, 10:26 PM
I do believe in 2006 the Indianapolis Colts had a pretty deficient run defense. Not once in the regular seaon did they limit a team to under 100 yards rushing. 8 times did a team eclipse 150 yards, 4 times over 200 yards and the Jacksonville Jaguars shredded them for 375 yards in one game.

Yet they won the Superbowl. Are you saying Peyton Manning was only as important to this as say for example Raheem Brock?

As I said, extremely poor play from a certain area of a team will offset good QB play. But great QB play can make up for pretty much anything.

I would in fact say that Bob Sanders was the key to that championship run. It was Sanders who gave the necessary spark to the defense that allowed them to nearly halve their regular season rushing yards allowed average. It was Sanders who broke up the curl route to Troy Brown on 3rd and 3 to get the ball back for the game winning drive. And it was Sanders who forced two turnovers and took out a big part of the Bears' offensive gameplan which reduced its effectiveness even more. Did Manning play his part? Absolutely, but his wasn't the biggest part to play. Can a QB decide a game? Yes, but so can any other player on the field. There's so much more than skill that goes into winning a championship. As you've seen, one incredible catch and one ferocious pass rush can destroy 18 games of perfection. This is why championships should not be considered in the criteria. There's just too many things that have to go just right for it to happen that to attribute all of it to a QB, or any one player for that matter, is utterly absurd.

hockey619
07-21-2011, 10:30 PM
Not only should Ben Rothlisburger be in this discussion, but he should also be in the discussion where we talk about the Greatest QB of all time.

Ben is clutch, and to me that is the #1 category to measure a QB.

Brady, Manning, Rothlisburger, Rogers, and Brees in my eyes are all equals.

so....you love big ben... are you bce reincarnated? i mean, you said this the other day...

This is the problem with sheep's. They follow what is popular and they never question the herd's legitimacy. That article/link has no substance, just fluff. Evaluate the stats, the true substance and you will see that article and the herd is 100% wrong.

bce always talked about everyone else following the herd, while also having a hard on for big ben...

AntoinCD
07-21-2011, 10:45 PM
I would in fact say that Bob Sanders was the key to that championship run. It was Sanders who gave the necessary spark to the defense that allowed them to nearly halve their regular season rushing yards allowed average. It was Sanders who broke up the curl route to Troy Brown on 3rd and 3 to get the ball back for the game winning drive. And it was Sanders who forced two turnovers and took out a big part of the Bears' offensive gameplan which reduced its effectiveness even more. Did Manning play his part? Absolutely, but his wasn't the biggest part to play. Can a QB decide a game? Yes, but so can any other player on the field. There's so much more than skill that goes into winning a championship. As you've seen, one incredible catch and one ferocious pass rush can destroy 18 games of perfection. This is why championships should not be considered in the criteria. There's just too many things that have to go just right for it to happen that to attribute all of it to a QB is utterly absurd.

For sure and Im not saying that QBs deserve 100% of the credit. However because of their importance to their teams they must get more than any other player(in the vast majority of circumstances).

In todays NFL it is a passing league. Gone are the days of run on 1st down, run on 2nd down, complete short 3rd down pass-repeat until you score. QBs now have to pass more often than ever, they have to make in game and often in play adjustments on the fly.

The way I see it. If you have two virtually identical teams.

Team A

QB-Peyton Manning/Tom Brady/Aaron Rodgers/Drew Brees
RB-Maurice Jones-Drew
WR-Sidney Rice
WR-Michael Clayton
WR-Davone Bess
TE-Dustin Keller
LT-Eugene Monroe
LG-Jahri Evans
OC-Matt Birk
RG-Chris Snee
RT-Phil Loadholt

DE-Igor Olshansky
NT-Aubrayo Frankiln
DE-Brett Keisel
OLB-Matt Roth
ILB-D'Qwell Jackson
ILB-Bart Scott
OLB-Tamba Hali
CB-Corey Webster
FS-Malcolm Jenkins
SS-Adrian Wilson
CB-Brent Grimes

Team B

QB-Matt Cassell
RB-Maurice Jones-Drew
WR-Sidney Rice
WR-Michael Clayton
WR-Davone Bess
TE-Dustin Keller
LT-Eugene Monroe
LG-Jahri Evans
OC-Matt Birk
RG-Chris Snee
RT-Phil Loadholt

DE-Igor Olshansky
NT-Aubrayo Frankiln
DE-Brett Keisel
OLB-Matt Roth
ILB-D'Qwell Jackson
ILB-Bart Scott
OLB-Tamba Hali
CB-Corey Webster
FS-Malcolm Jenkins
SS-Adrian Wilson
CB-Darrelle Revis/Nnamdi Asomugha



Both the same team with the exception that team A has an elite QB whereas team B has an average to good QB and an elite CB. Both teams have arguably one of the best players in the NFL.

Question is

Who do you think wins this match up?





As for Sanders being the catalyst to the Colts run to the Superbowl I do agree that his return made a huge impact and they likely would not have won the Superbowl without him. However if the Colts had say Matt Schaub as their QB do they even make the playoffs with a run defense like the one they had in the regular season?

FUNBUNCHER
07-21-2011, 10:47 PM
Whatever.

You may not be able to win it all with just a great QB, but I see no way in hell a team can even dream of winning a SB in today's game with a stud signal caller.

If you don't have a guy capable of putting his team on his back for a quarter or more, you won't win big in today's NFL.

Don't expect to see another '72 Dolphins or 2000 Ravens blueprint used to win the Lombardi, namely a dominating run game complemented by a lockdown defense.

Even the 1985 Bears had a potent quick strike offense bolstered by Walter Payton rushing for over 1500 yards.

How valuable are QBs in today's game??

The Steelers, Chargers, Packers, Colts and Saints are all 6 to 9 win teams without their pro bowl, future HOF quarterbacks.

It's not the shoes. It's the QB.

Dam8610
07-21-2011, 11:25 PM
For sure and Im not saying that QBs deserve 100% of the credit. However because of their importance to their teams they must get more than any other player(in the vast majority of circumstances).

In todays NFL it is a passing league. Gone are the days of run on 1st down, run on 2nd down, complete short 3rd down pass-repeat until you score. QBs now have to pass more often than ever, they have to make in game and often in play adjustments on the fly.

I agree that a good QB is vital to a team's success, I'd just argue that attributing all the credit to them for championships (which is essentially what happens because QB is the only position where it seems to be deemed acceptable to have championships as one of the criterion for greatness) is utterly absurd and should be viewed as such. Either start making it a criterion for other positions, or (more sensibly) stop making it a criterion for QBs.

The way I see it. If you have two virtually identical teams.

Team A

QB-Peyton Manning/Tom Brady/Aaron Rodgers/Drew Brees
RB-Maurice Jones-Drew
WR-Sidney Rice
WR-Michael Clayton
WR-Davone Bess
TE-Dustin Keller
LT-Eugene Monroe
LG-Jahri Evans
OC-Matt Birk
RG-Chris Snee
RT-Phil Loadholt

DE-Igor Olshansky
NT-Aubrayo Frankiln
DE-Brett Keisel
OLB-Matt Roth
ILB-D'Qwell Jackson
ILB-Bart Scott
OLB-Tamba Hali
CB-Corey Webster
FS-Malcolm Jenkins
SS-Adrian Wilson
CB-Brent Grimes

Team B

QB-Matt Cassell
RB-Maurice Jones-Drew
WR-Sidney Rice
WR-Michael Clayton
WR-Davone Bess
TE-Dustin Keller
LT-Eugene Monroe
LG-Jahri Evans
OC-Matt Birk
RG-Chris Snee
RT-Phil Loadholt

DE-Igor Olshansky
NT-Aubrayo Frankiln
DE-Brett Keisel
OLB-Matt Roth
ILB-D'Qwell Jackson
ILB-Bart Scott
OLB-Tamba Hali
CB-Corey Webster
FS-Malcolm Jenkins
SS-Adrian Wilson
CB-Darrelle Revis/Nnamdi Asomugha



Both the same team with the exception that team A has an elite QB whereas team B has an average to good QB and an elite CB. Both teams have arguably one of the best players in the NFL.

Question is

Who do you think wins this match up?

Who do I think wins? Team A, probably about 7-8 out of 10 times, and therein lies the first problem. What if the QB of Team A plays the worst game of his life? What if one of the players on Team B plays the best game of their life? How do the special teams on these teams look and could Team B potentially get a 2-3 score advantage on that basis alone? In a one game elimination scenario, anything can happen, and the best team doesn't always win. Luck is a huge factor in any championship run. The funny thing is IMO the better QB is 7-13 in the last 20 Super Bowls, including 2-8 in the last 10 (Manning and Brady being the two winners).

As for Sanders being the catalyst to the Colts run to the Superbowl I do agree that his return made a huge impact and they likely would not have won the Superbowl without him. However if the Colts had say Matt Schaub as their QB do they even make the playoffs with a run defense like the one they had in the regular season?

No, and I've never denied the importance of having a good QB in winning consistently, but winning a championship is more about like and having something like what happened for the Colts defense in 2006 happen for your team than it is about being consistently good or the better team, or even having a great QB.

EricCartmann
07-21-2011, 11:35 PM
so....you love big ben... are you bce reincarnated? i mean, you said this the other day...



bce always talked about everyone else following the herd, while also having a hard on for big ben...


Who the hell is BCE? You said that and I have no idea what that is, what it means, where it comes from, or if it's the name of your favorite strip club????

If BCE talks about people following the herd, well he is right! In general people do follow the herd. I want to meet this guy so I can shake his hand.

AntoinCD
07-21-2011, 11:38 PM
I agree that a good QB is vital to a team's success, I'd just argue that attributing all the credit to them for championships (which is essentially what happens because QB is the only position where it seems to be deemed acceptable to have championships as one of the criterion for greatness) is utterly absurd and should be viewed as such. Either start making it a criterion for other positions, or (more sensibly) stop making it a criterion for QBs.



I think it should be applied to other positions as well however it should hold more weight when talking about QBs.

Take the Chad Ocho Cinco/Hines Ward HOF debate. Both of these guys have numbers around the fringes of being Hall of Fame worthy. However more people are likely to say Ward over Ocho based on his two rings. It's normally the second arguement brought up against both TO and Randy Moss when it comes to their HOF chances(obviously after character) that neither won a Superbowl.

IMO the reason why QBs should have more credit when it comes to Championships is because for most teams you can survive if your RB doesn't have a great game, or you OLB, or your slot WR etc. However, and particularly in the playoffs, if the QB has a bad game, the majority of the time it is the end of the line.

The buck stops with the QB. They get a lot of the credit, but also a lot of the blame. Peyton Manning was criticised for years for his playoff failures. People now have stopped talking about Brady being brilliant in the playoffs and have focused more on the fact he has lost three straight in the postseason. Is it all on Brady now? Was it all on Manning then? No absolutely not but you can be sure if they had played up to their capabilities in those defeats then it would be a different story

EricCartmann
07-21-2011, 11:39 PM
Arguing sure gets easier when the other side makes your points for you. As I said, QBs cannot overcome deficient teams. The level of the deficiency will usually determine the level to which the team can have success.

By the way, there needs to be a distinction made here. I am not necessarily against including wins and/or comeback victories (real ones, though, none of that kick a FG in a tie game crap), as criteria on which to judge a QB, as there is strong empirical evidence that good QB play tends to correlate with these things. I am against inclusion of championships won as a criterion on which to judge a QB, as empirical evidence strongly suggests no correlation between good QB play and championships won.


Your post was not directed at me. I am beginning to think you are either a Lawyer or just really really dumb. Or maybe it's both?

You seem to want to cut down all the trees, but you yourself have never explained what is it that makes a good tree.. ergo a good QB.

So please tell me in your eyes what makes a great QB?

Please discuss......

Dam8610
07-21-2011, 11:39 PM
Whatever.

You may not be able to win it all with just a great QB, but I see no way in hell a team can even dream of winning a SB in today's game with a stud signal caller.

If you don't have a guy capable of putting his team on his back for a quarter or more, you won't win big in today's NFL.

Don't expect to see another '72 Dolphins or 2000 Ravens blueprint used to win the Lombardi, namely a dominating run game complemented by a lockdown defense.

Even the 1985 Bears had a potent quick strike offense bolstered by Walter Payton rushing for over 1500 yards.

How valuable are QBs in today's game??

The Steelers, Chargers, Packers, Colts and Saints are all 6 to 9 win teams without their pro bowl, future HOF quarterbacks.

It's not the shoes. It's the QB.

I don't disagree with any of that, but none of it is a justification for using championship as part of the criteria for measuring the greatness of a QB.

EricCartmann
07-21-2011, 11:52 PM
I don't disagree with any of that, but none of it is a justification for using championship as part of the criteria for measuring the greatness of a QB.

Are you ignoring me now?

Dam8610
07-22-2011, 12:15 AM
I think it should be applied to other positions as well however it should hold more weight when talking about QBs.

Take the Chad Ocho Cinco/Hines Ward HOF debate. Both of these guys have numbers around the fringes of being Hall of Fame worthy. However more people are likely to say Ward over Ocho based on his two rings. It's normally the second arguement brought up against both TO and Randy Moss when it comes to their HOF chances(obviously after character) that neither won a Superbowl.

IMO the reason why QBs should have more credit when it comes to Championships is because for most teams you can survive if your RB doesn't have a great game, or you OLB, or your slot WR etc. However, and particularly in the playoffs, if the QB has a bad game, the majority of the time it is the end of the line.

The buck stops with the QB. They get a lot of the credit, but also a lot of the blame. Peyton Manning was criticised for years for his playoff failures. People now have stopped talking about Brady being brilliant in the playoffs and have focused more on the fact he has lost three straight in the postseason. Is it all on Brady now? Was it all on Manning then? No absolutely not but you can be sure if they had played up to their capabilities in those defeats then it would be a different story

That's a position I can at least respectfully disagree with. At least it's no longer hypocritical at that point. But if you're counting them at every position, then where and how do you draw the line in terms of how you value it? For example, under your criteria, does Terrell Davis become a better RB than Barry Sanders? Granted, Davis had a brief period of greatness, but it was undeniable greatness, so does the fact that he was the focal point of the Broncos offense that won 2 championships during which he won an MVP, a Super Bowl MVP, and 2 of his 3 All-Pro selections, make him a better RB than Sanders, who was the focal point of a Lions offense whose team did nothing in the postseason?

This is why I prefer to exclude championships as a criterion altogether, it takes much luck and random chance out of the equation.

Dam8610
07-22-2011, 12:44 AM
Your post was not directed at me. I am beginning to think you are either a Lawyer or just really really dumb. Or maybe it's both?

You seem to want to cut down all the trees, but you yourself have never explained what is it that makes a good tree.. ergo a good QB.

So please tell me in your eyes what makes a great QB?

Please discuss......

What makes a good QB? Performance, plain and simple. Those who perform well and get recognized are typically the best. Will there be some mistakes in the recognition process? Certainly, but the greats will get the recognition they deserve over the course of their career. What types of things qualify as criterion?

Performance - Very simply put, the greats perform at an atypical level for their position. They are among the league leaders in most statistical categories important to their position

Consistency - The greats are consistently great. You'll see their teams win their division almost every year, and you'll see them at or near the top of the leaderboard in important statistical categories.

Awards and Recognition - When was the last time you saw a former MVP (or perhaps DPOY), 3+ time first team All-Pro selection, who made the most recent All-Decade team and thought to yourself "that guy is a terrible player"? If the answer is never, you should understand the relevance of considering this.

Comeback Victories - When the greats get an opportunity to decide a game, they tend to take advantage of it. One sign that your team has a great QB? Your team is down by 4 with 2 minutes left in the game, has the ball at their own 20 and one timeout, and you're confident that they'll win. One sign your team is playing a great QB? The other team has the situation described above, and you're nervous about your team's chances of winning. Obviously a great QB doesn't take advantage of every opportunity like this he gets, but giving a great QB the ball with a chance to win the game should scare the opposing team.

but most importantly

Dominance relative to their Era - If a QB just completely blows everyone else out of the water in terms of performance over a given time period (Unitas in the late 50s/early 60s, Marino in the early-mid 80s, Favre in the mid 90s, Manning in the 2000s), it's likely that he's a great QB. The greatest separate themselves like that, to the point that if you're looking at performance and performance alone, it's very clear who was the best in that period of time.

EricCartmann
07-22-2011, 01:51 AM
What makes a good QB? Performance, plain and simple. Those who perform well and get recognized are typically the best. Will there be some mistakes in the recognition process? Certainly, but the greats will get the recognition they deserve over the course of their career. What types of things qualify as criterion?

Performance - Very simply put, the greats perform at an atypical level for their position. They are among the league leaders in most statistical categories important to their position

Consistency - The greats are consistently great. You'll see their teams win their division almost every year, and you'll see them at or near the top of the leaderboard in important statistical categories.

Awards and Recognition - When was the last time you saw a former MVP (or perhaps DPOY), 3+ time first team All-Pro selection, who made the most recent All-Decade team and thought to yourself "that guy is a terrible player"? If the answer is never, you should understand the relevance of considering this.

Comeback Victories - When the greats get an opportunity to decide a game, they tend to take advantage of it. One sign that your team has a great QB? Your team is down by 4 with 2 minutes left in the game, has the ball at their own 20 and one timeout, and you're confident that they'll win. One sign your team is playing a great QB? The other team has the situation described above, and you're nervous about your team's chances of winning. Obviously a great QB doesn't take advantage of every opportunity like this he gets, but giving a great QB the ball with a chance to win the game should scare the opposing team.

but most importantly

Dominance relative to their Era - If a QB just completely blows everyone else out of the water in terms of performance over a given time period (Unitas in the late 50s/early 60s, Marino in the early-mid 80s, Favre in the mid 90s, Manning in the 2000s), it's likely that he's a great QB. The greatest separate themselves like that, to the point that if you're looking at performance and performance alone, it's very clear who was the best in that period of time.


You are a lawyer!!! That was a lot of fluff you wrote with no substance. Just like lawyers!

Having lot great games over Mediocre games with no meaning means they are great?

The thing is this, Champions steps up in the biggest games. Winning and Championship is everything. Being clutch when you have to is the key. When you step in the moment when your team needs you most is what makes you great.

If 1 QB has 10 really great years and only 1 championship, he will be considered among the best....

However, if a QB has been in the game 10 years, with 10 really great years, but only took his team to one semifinal game (cough cough dan marino). and the guy (cough cough dan marino) has a 77% QB rating in the playoffs, and he has a 1:1 TD/INT ratio in the playoffs. You really have to question his greatness. If a guy can't step up when his team needs him most, can you really call him great?

As a wise EricCartmann once said, "being great in great times is not what makes you great, what makes you great is being great during bad times."

EricCartmann
07-22-2011, 01:55 AM
What makes a good QB? Performance, plain and simple. Those who perform well and get recognized are typically the best. Will there be some mistakes in the recognition process? Certainly, but the greats will get the recognition they deserve over the course of their career. What types of things qualify as criterion?

Performance - Very simply put, the greats perform at an atypical level for their position. They are among the league leaders in most statistical categories important to their position

Consistency - The greats are consistently great. You'll see their teams win their division almost every year, and you'll see them at or near the top of the leaderboard in important statistical categories.

Awards and Recognition - When was the last time you saw a former MVP (or perhaps DPOY), 3+ time first team All-Pro selection, who made the most recent All-Decade team and thought to yourself "that guy is a terrible player"? If the answer is never, you should understand the relevance of considering this.

Comeback Victories - When the greats get an opportunity to decide a game, they tend to take advantage of it. One sign that your team has a great QB? Your team is down by 4 with 2 minutes left in the game, has the ball at their own 20 and one timeout, and you're confident that they'll win. One sign your team is playing a great QB? The other team has the situation described above, and you're nervous about your team's chances of winning. Obviously a great QB doesn't take advantage of every opportunity like this he gets, but giving a great QB the ball with a chance to win the game should scare the opposing team.

but most importantly

Dominance relative to their Era - If a QB just completely blows everyone else out of the water in terms of performance over a given time period (Unitas in the late 50s/early 60s, Marino in the early-mid 80s, Favre in the mid 90s, Manning in the 2000s), it's likely that he's a great QB. The greatest separate themselves like that, to the point that if you're looking at performance and performance alone, it's very clear who was the best in that period of time.


You are a lawyer!!! That was a lot of fluff you wrote with no substance. Just like lawyers!

Having a lot great games over many Mediocre games with no meaning means they are great?

The thing is this, Champions step up in the biggest games. Winning and Championship is everything. Being clutch when you have to is the key. When you step up in the moment when your team needs you most is what makes you great.

If 1 QB has 10 really great years and only 1 championship, he will be considered among the best.... If a QB with 10 great years but has ZERO championship, you really have to question his greatness. It's not like I am asking for 10 out 10, just 1 or 2 championships (along with great stats) is all it takes to make them great.

If a QB has been in the game 10 years, with 10 really great years, but only took his team to one semifinal game (cough cough dan marino). and the guy (cough cough dan marino) has a 77% QB rating in the playoffs, and he has about a 1:1 TD/INT ratio in the playoffs. You really have to question his greatness. If a guy can't step up when his team needs him most, can you really call him great?

As a wise EricCartmann once said, "being great in great times is not what makes you great, what makes you great is being great during bad times."

Seamus2602
07-22-2011, 02:16 AM
You are a lawyer!!! That was a lot of fluff you wrote with no substance. Just like lawyers!

Having a lot great games over many Mediocre games with no meaning means they are great?

The thing is this, Champions step up in the biggest games. Winning and Championship is everything. Being clutch when you have to is the key. When you step up in the moment when your team needs you most is what makes you great.

If 1 QB has 10 really great years and only 1 championship, he will be considered among the best.... If a QB with 10 great years but has ZERO championship, you really have to question his greatness. It's not like I am asking for 10 out 10, just 1 or 2 championships (along with great stats) is all it takes to make them great.

If a QB has been in the game 10 years, with 10 really great years, but only took his team to one semifinal game (cough cough dan marino). and the guy (cough cough dan marino) has a 77% QB rating in the playoffs, and he has about a 1:1 TD/INT ratio in the playoffs. You really have to question his greatness. If a guy can't step up when his team needs him most, can you really call him great?

As a wise EricCartmann once said, "being great in great times is not what makes you great, what makes you great is being great during bad times."

I think the argument that Dam is making is that that standard isn't applied to any other position other than Quarterback. There are 10 other guys on the field every play with the Quarterback. There is an entire other starting 11 on the sideline. Yet somehow out of a team of 25 starters if they have a bad game it all lies on the Quarterback. In the 2010 Playoffs the Colts lost to the Jets. Peyton Manning had a QB Rating of 108.7. It clearly wasn't his fault. He put the team in a position to win and other members of the team ****** it up. Cause Manning doesn't play Special Teams. He doesn't play on defence. Yet it was the Special Teams and the Defence that allowed to Jets to move up the field for the game winning Field Goal.

Forget needing a great quarterback to win the Superbowl. You need a great team. If you have a weak link you are probably going to lose. The Colts won the Superbowl a few years ago because for one of the first times in the post season the run game showed up post season and the defence showed up post season. They also had probably the greatest kicker of all time which came in handy against the Ravens. Some of the losses post season since that and before that year were Manning's fault. But he wasn't the only one. And the same applies to all other Quarterbacks. Look at the recent Superbowl winners. They all had difference making defences. They all had good offences. They probably all had at least decent Special Teams. You need all 25 starters and probably the other 20 backups to be playing well. Not 1.

prock
07-22-2011, 03:00 AM
No, just no. I don't care how talented a QB is, he can't "lead" a deficient team to a championship. Dan Marino is the biggest reason why the championship argument doesn't work.

As I said, it isn't an end all argument. There are exceptions. I get that you can't always win, because football is the ultimate team sport. But to discount winning when you are talking about how great a player was entirely is just ignorant.

I agree with the first half, disagree with the second half. It isn't an end all argument, because Terry Bradshaw is not the best QB in the modern era. Now that that's settled, if it matters at QB, why doesn't it matter at RB? Could I argue that Terrell Davis is a better RB than Barry Sanders because "Barry Sanders haz no ringzzzzzzzzzzz!"? No, I'd look foolish. Yet it seems completely reasonable to some to make the same argument when discussing QBs. I don't get that, and until someone explains one of those first three things I posted in a way that makes sense to me, I won't, because it doesn't make sense.

You obviously don't get what I said. It matters, but it isn't an end all argument. There are other factors that go in. And championships matter a whole lot less when determining player greatness for other positions as opposed to quarterback. You're whole TD/Sanders thing is not at all what I was saying at all. When you play the most important position in sports, at some point in a 10+ year career, you should be able to get your team at least to a Super Bowl if you are a HoF talent. I don't get how you want to completely discount winning for a quarterback in a game, which has the ultimate goal of winning.

Seamus2602
07-22-2011, 03:24 AM
You obviously don't get what I said. It matters, but it isn't an end all argument. There are other factors that go in. And championships matter a whole lot less when determining player greatness for other positions as opposed to quarterback. You're whole TD/Sanders thing is not at all what I was saying at all. When you play the most important position in sports, at some point in a 10+ year career, you should be able to get your team at least to a Super Bowl if you are a HoF talent. I don't get how you want to completely discount winning for a quarterback in a game, which has the ultimate goal of winning.

The ultimate goal for all players is to win. It is the ultimate goal of quarterbacks, running backs, receivers, linemen, defenders and special teamers. If Matt Millen had drafted Peyton Manning then Manning would never win a Superbowl because he would never have been able to build a team around him to win the Superbowl. The same for Brady, Rodgers, Brees, Roethlisberger etc. It takes more than a Hall of Fame quarterback to win a Superbowl. So to blame the Quarterback and the Quarterback only for the failings of an entire team is incorrect. No Hall of Fame quarterback has ever won a Superbowl with a pack of donkeys. They have always had great teams. So I don't think it is completely fair to blame a great quarterback for not having a great team.

irishbucsfan
07-22-2011, 05:21 AM
I can't wait to watch Josh Freeman this year. I wasn't a believer of him before, but he's got charisma and poise, and obviously the physical side of things, from dad's side I believe. He looks good for the future! Can't wait for their games vs Saints and Falcons this year.


Watching Rodgers and Freeman follow up from last year is one of the things I'm most looking forward to for the upcoming season. I like the way the Packers are put together and I really like the demeanor with which Rodgers leads them. Freeman has always talked about comparing himself to the standard set by the best in the game, rather than his draft classmates Stafford and Sanchez, who I think right now are an almost laughable comparison. Rodgers is a good standard to hold himself up to going forward, and I'd love to see both teams develop a Ravens-Steelers/Colts-Patriots equivalent in the NFC.

SickwithIt1010
07-22-2011, 09:53 AM
The Texans are actually the case study we could follow that would settle this matter. They've gotten more than solid QB play from Schaub over the past couple of seasons, but haven't converted that to any playoff appearances because their defense hasn't been up to par, despite investment after investment into it. If they can turn around their misfortunes, then your argument works, but as of now, the Texans are the model of how to have a good QB and not translate that into success.

Defenses win championships, Quarterbacks form dynasties.

Sure ya need the pieces around you to be successful...you would be dumb to say otherwise. An elite QB however, sets you over the top.

EricCartmann
07-22-2011, 11:05 AM
The ultimate goal for all players is to win. It is the ultimate goal of quarterbacks, running backs, receivers, linemen, defenders and special teamers. If Matt Millen had drafted Peyton Manning then Manning would never win a Superbowl because he would never have been able to build a team around him to win the Superbowl. The same for Brady, Rodgers, Brees, Roethlisberger etc. It takes more than a Hall of Fame quarterback to win a Superbowl. So to blame the Quarterback and the Quarterback only for the failings of an entire team is incorrect. No Hall of Fame quarterback has ever won a Superbowl with a pack of donkeys. They have always had great teams. So I don't think it is completely fair to blame a great quarterback for not having a great team.

1) Wins are just one measuring stick.
If we are talking "greatness" it has to be considered as one of your measuring stick.

2) There is no position on the field that plays a bigger role than the QB.
I have said it many times before, take any pro bowler on your team, replace with whomever.. most like you will find an adequate replacement. Not so for the QB. It's hard to find a halfway decent QB, and even harder to find a clutch QB that knows how to win. Tom Brady has had many different receivers, and O lineman, and still won. Brady also lost many pro-bowlers on the defense of his teams, and guess what? Pats still win. They are in contention every year that Brady is behind center. Same goes for Peyton, Rogers, Rivers, Brees, Roth, etc.

3) Championships and wins are not the only measuring stick.
Lamonica, Plunkett, Bart Starr, and Terry Bradshaw won a lot of games and a lot of championships, but they are not considered among the best due to their stats.

4) All it takes is 1
If a QB plays at such a high level for 10 years but does not even have 1 championship, you really have to questions a QB's greatness. You figure a great QB can at least go 1 for 10 and bat 100. 1 Championship is all it takes to be considered among the best.

5) Jim Kelly
I feel Jim Kelly should also be considered for among the best, he may not have won a SB, but taking your team to 4 SB is quite a feat and shows he won when he had to. When Kelly left the Bills, they have been in disarray ever since.

6) Good QB = wins
Take any random year, and you will see that the team with a top 12 rated QB will most likely make the playoffs. For 2010, the only top-12 QB that did not make the playoffs were Schaub and Freeman. Freeman should have but the dumb playoff rules allowed an NFC west team in. Schaub is anomaly, a QB of his caliber usually makes the playoffs.

FUNBUNCHER
07-22-2011, 01:16 PM
Defenses win championships, Quarterbacks form dynasties.

Sure ya need the pieces around you to be successful...you would be dumb to say otherwise. An elite QB however, sets you over the top.

Agreed.

Look at the current Steelers, who IMO aren't really much different talent-wise than the Pittsburgh squads led by Kordell Stewart, Neil O'Donnell, Bubby Brister and Mark Malone.

They consistently have had good to great defenses, a dependable run game and a decent Oline.

In fifteen years, Cowher coached the Steelers to 10 playoff appearances which may be an NFL record. But there was ONE POSITION that was consistently deficient; their QB.

Imagine if Roethlisberger was drafted by the Steelers in '92, Cowher's first year as a HC?? I don't think it's hype to say realistically they could have won at least FIVE SUBERBOWLS in that time, instead of one.

Championships 'may' not be the end all in pro sports. But if winning it all matters to a franchise, you've absolutely got to have someone special back there under center.

prock
07-22-2011, 01:49 PM
The ultimate goal for all players is to win. It is the ultimate goal of quarterbacks, running backs, receivers, linemen, defenders and special teamers. If Matt Millen had drafted Peyton Manning then Manning would never win a Superbowl because he would never have been able to build a team around him to win the Superbowl. The same for Brady, Rodgers, Brees, Roethlisberger etc. It takes more than a Hall of Fame quarterback to win a Superbowl. So to blame the Quarterback and the Quarterback only for the failings of an entire team is incorrect. No Hall of Fame quarterback has ever won a Superbowl with a pack of donkeys. They have always had great teams. So I don't think it is completely fair to blame a great quarterback for not having a great team.

No ****. I never said they were entirely to blame. But it has to be considered.

Jvig43
07-22-2011, 03:49 PM
This is why I prefer to exclude championships as a criterion altogether, it takes much luck and random chance out of the equation.

Or it takes the argument against your starting QB out of the equation :)

Dam8610
07-22-2011, 04:48 PM
The thing is this, Champions step up in the biggest games. Winning and Championship is everything. Being clutch when you have to is the key. When you step up in the moment when your team needs you most is what makes you great.

In a one game elimination format, a QB can get the ball with 3 minutes left down by 4 on his own 10, execute a perfect 90 yard TD drive leaving a paltry 20 seconds on the clock, and if his special teams suck, they allow the other team to return the kickoff for a TD and he loses the game. Is that his fault? No. Is he still eliminated? Yes. This is why championships aren't a reliable measure, it takes too much luck.

If 1 QB has 10 really great years and only 1 championship, he will be considered among the best.... If a QB with 10 great years but has ZERO championship, you really have to question his greatness. It's not like I am asking for 10 out 10, just 1 or 2 championships (along with great stats) is all it takes to make them great.

I'd say first you have to question the team around him. If his defense was consistently atrocious, for example, that should not be held against him.

If a QB has been in the game 10 years, with 10 really great years, but only took his team to one semifinal game (cough cough dan marino). and the guy (cough cough dan marino) has a 77% QB rating in the playoffs, and he has about a 1:1 TD/INT ratio in the playoffs. You really have to question his greatness. If a guy can't step up when his team needs him most, can you really call him great?

Not really, Marino never had a running game to speak of, his defense was fairly suspect, and he still led his team to the Super Bowl in 1984, his second year in the league. The fact that his team ran into the buzzsaw known as the 49ers isn't his fault. Since you said this, though, I'm curious about your opinion of Jim Kelly.

As a wise EricCartmann once said, "being great in great times is not what makes you great, what makes you great is being great during bad times."

You're not wise, and that doesn't make sense in relation to QB play. Are you saying that a great QB should be able to overcome any deficiency his team has? Because that's a ridiculous opinion.

Dam8610
07-22-2011, 04:50 PM
Defenses win championships, Quarterbacks form dynasties.

Sure ya need the pieces around you to be successful...you would be dumb to say otherwise. An elite QB however, sets you over the top.

So Aikman was the best QB of the 90s? Because I'm sure you don't believe that.

Dam8610
07-22-2011, 04:51 PM
Or it takes the argument against your starting QB out of the equation :)

No, really it's just the fact that I've watched the playoffs year after year, and seen how much luck is involved in making a championship run. Also, I don't think guys like Fran Tarkenton, Dan Marino, Jim Kelly, and Warren Moon get nearly the credit they deserve.

Dam8610
07-22-2011, 08:03 PM
Agreed.

Look at the current Steelers, who IMO aren't really much different talent-wise than the Pittsburgh squads led by Kordell Stewart, Neil O'Donnell, Bubby Brister and Mark Malone.

They consistently have had good to great defenses, a dependable run game and a decent Oline.

In fifteen years, Cowher coached the Steelers to 10 playoff appearances which may be an NFL record. But there was ONE POSITION that was consistently deficient; their QB.

Imagine if Roethlisberger was drafted by the Steelers in '92, Cowher's first year as a HC?? I don't think it's hype to say realistically they could have won at least FIVE SUBERBOWLS in that time, instead of one.

Championships 'may' not be the end all in pro sports. But if winning it all matters to a franchise, you've absolutely got to have someone special back there under center.

I think you're exaggerating and overstating a little there, but what you're not realizing is this also does nothing to enhance the position that a QB should be judged on championships. Yes, you need a certain level of competence from your QB to win a championship, but the same can be said for any position on the team, and when you realize that QBs like Namath, Bradshaw, Doug Williams, Aikman, Trent Dilfer, and Brad Johnson have won it all, it makes you wonder exactly what that level of competence is, and undermines the whole argument.

SickwithIt1010
07-22-2011, 10:00 PM
So Aikman was the best QB of the 90s? Because I'm sure you don't believe that.

Not once did I say anything about who the best QB of the 90s was. It was just a quote man, dont put words in my mouth.

I didnt even mention a name in that entire post.

FUNBUNCHER
07-22-2011, 10:43 PM
I think you're exaggerating and overstating a little there, but what you're not realizing is this also does nothing to enhance the position that a QB should be judged on championships. Yes, you need a certain level of competence from your QB to win a championship, but the same can be said for any position on the team, and when you realize that QBs like Namath, Bradshaw, Doug Williams, Aikman, Trent Dilfer, and Brad Johnson have won it all, it makes you wonder exactly what that level of competence is, and undermines the whole argument.

The Jets would not have one their only SB without Namath, or even reached the game.

Without Doug Williams throwing four TDs in the 2nd quarter against the Broncos, who's to say John Elway wouldn't have pulled that one out or made the game close??

People love to bash Bradshaw, but football fans really need to check out his playoff performances. Oftentimes he was the BEST player in the game on either side of the football field. He complimented the Steel Curtain, he wasn't hiding behind them.

The three dominant QBs of the 1970s; Tarkenton/Staubach/Bradshaw.

Aikman made the HOF because of how he performed once the playoffs started.

1992 - Aikman for the entire playoffs was 61/89(68%), 795 yds, NO ints, 8 TDs.

Putting Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson on a list with Aikman/Bradshaw/Namath/Doug Williams implies a lack of understanding about how each player impacted the game from the QB position.

EricCartmann
07-22-2011, 11:21 PM
In a one game elimination format, a QB can get the ball with 3 minutes left down by 4 on his own 10, execute a perfect 90 yard TD drive leaving a paltry 20 seconds on the clock, and if his special teams suck, they allow the other team to return the kickoff for a TD and he loses the game. Is that his fault? No. Is he still eliminated? Yes. This is why championships aren't a reliable measure, it takes too much luck.


Championships are a good measuring stick.

Taking exception cases or isolated cases to prove a point like what you did above is not a great way to go about things. But that's just me, YMMV. I know as a lawyer you love to take exceptions and make it the rule.

Ask yourself when a good QB does lose, How did the other team get in a position to return that kick? Most likely it was because of great QB play from the other side right?

Great QB's lose all the time. Like I have been saying over and over and over again, it only takes 1 Championship to be considered among the best.

Anyone can pad his stats against poor opponents or with frequency. Winning in the playoffs means you are beating quality opponents. Most the the time, when a quality QB does lose in the playoffs, it is because he faced a better QB. So in the end you will find for the most part it all boils down to the QB,

It is by no accident 10 of the top 12 rated QB's last year made the playoffs. This is not by accident. Year in and year out you will find that 75% or more the teams that made the playoffs were not only tops in wins, but also QB rating.



I'd say first you have to question the team around him. If his defense was consistently atrocious, for example, that should not be held against him.


It is by no accident 10 of the top 12 rated QB's last year made the playoffs. This is not by accident. Year in and year out you will find that 75% or more the teams that made the playoffs were not only tops in wins, but also QB rating.



Not really, Marino never had a running game to speak of, his defense was fairly suspect, and he still led his team to the Super Bowl in 1984, his second year in the league. The fact that his team ran into the buzzsaw known as the 49ers isn't his fault. Since you said this, though, I'm curious about your opinion of Jim Kelly.

Ratings are ratings and it has no bearing on frequency. Marino's ratings were very average in the playoffs. The thing about high frequency passing offense is they have and will never win anything. Passing a lot means the clock stops a lot. If you have 2 bad series then that means your defense will be spent. The reason running offenses tend to have good defenses is because even if the offense has 2 bad series, they still will take a fair amount of time off the clock. Marino put up great numbers because of frequencies, but if you were to gauge his stuff on the overall grade, you will see he was very average. His TD-INT ratio was less than 2-1. Many QB's have a around a 2-1 TD/INT ratio, so why are they not mentioned when we talk about the greatest?


You're not wise, and that doesn't make sense in relation to QB play. Are you saying that a great QB should be able to overcome any deficiency his team has? Because that's a ridiculous opinion.

A good QB puts his team in position to win. He makes the game close, now he may not win them all, but he should at least win half of them (against tough opponents).

EricCartmann
07-23-2011, 12:29 PM
Please discuss.......

descendency
07-23-2011, 12:35 PM
Championships are a horrible measuring stick. However, performance in championship games is a pretty good one.

I'd forgive an 80 QBR in the regular season if he is 120 QBR in the post season. Or 14-2.

EricCartmann
07-24-2011, 12:02 AM
I think the Cardinals are one QB away from being NFC contenders. Yes just one QB can turn that team around. Actually we seen it first hand, when Kurt Warner left them, they went totally down hill.

Dam8610
07-24-2011, 09:22 AM
Not once did I say anything about who the best QB of the 90s was. It was just a quote man, dont put words in my mouth.

I didnt even mention a name in that entire post.

You said quarterbacks make dynasties. The only dynasty of the 90s was the Cowboys, and the QB of that dynasty was Troy Aikman. Since that was the bar you were using, one could only assume that that meant you thought Troy Aikman was the best QB of the 90s, by virtue of being the only QB of a dynasty in the 90s.

Dam8610
07-24-2011, 09:46 AM
The Jets would not have one their only SB without Namath, or even reached the game.

And left to Namath's performance in the game as the deciding factor, they would've been blown out. It's yet another illustration of the team game concept I'm talking about.

Without Doug Williams throwing four TDs in the 2nd quarter against the Broncos, who's to say John Elway wouldn't have pulled that one out or made the game close??

And what did Doug Williams do after that year? Nothing. He wasn't even a one year wonder, he was a one game wonder, and as we've all seen, anyone can have a great game.

People love to bash Bradshaw, but football fans really need to check out his playoff performances. Oftentimes he was the BEST player in the game on either side of the football field. He complimented the Steel Curtain, he wasn't hiding behind them.

I highly disagree, the Steel Curtain was the reason they were there in the first place, and of course Bradshaw had big game performances, Swann and Stallworth stepped up big time in big games, making Bradshaw look much better. Of course Bradshaw was going to look good in the playoffs when his Hall of Fame WR duo got better in big games (Swann had highlight catch after highlight catch in some playoff games) and he had a Hall of Fame RB to hand the ball off to. He had 4 other Hall of Famers on his offense, and his production was mediocre in most cases.

The three dominant QBs of the 1970s; Tarkenton/Staubach/Bradshaw.

Not sure I'd agree. The first two are definitely up there, but I'd say Stabler and Griese are at least in the conversation, and I'd probably put at least one of them ahead of Bradshaw.

Aikman made the HOF because of how he performed once the playoffs started.

1992 - Aikman for the entire playoffs was 61/89(68%), 795 yds, NO ints, 8 TDs.

Which is a lot easier to do when you have one of the best OLs in history and a running game that is the crux of your offense. Aikman was supporting cast on that offense, not the star.

Putting Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson on a list with Aikman/Bradshaw/Namath/Doug Williams implies a lack of understanding about how each player impacted the game from the QB position.

No, it just makes them out to be what they were: roleplayers on loaded championship teams. That's what all six of those QBs have in common.

FUNBUNCHER
07-24-2011, 11:22 AM
Namath was 17/28, 206 yards, no TDs/INTs in the SB. That game was about field position and the run game. However the Jets had to beat the Raiders to even get to the SB, and despite throwing for less than 40%, Namath still hooked up for 3 TDs and 1 INT in the conference championship.

DOug WIlliams was a a 1st round pick by the expansion Tampa Bay Bucs in 1978, and led that woeful franchise to three winning seasons and three playoff appearances in five years as the starter. When WIlliams was let go, in 1982, the Bucs didn't have another winning season for 16 years!!!
His performance in the SB was more of a lifetime achievement award, not a journeyman fluke performance by a bum QB. Recall that HOF HC Joe Gibbs coached WIlliams in TB and sought him out to bring him to D.C.
Not an average QB.

In the Steelers first SB win, Lynn Swann had zero catches and Stallworth had three for 24 yards. Only two offensive touchdowns were scored the entire game, one by Franco Harris and the other was a Bradshaw to Larry Brown TD pass.
Bradshaw outplayed Staubach in every head-to-head matchup, when the Cowboys doomsday D matched up with the Steel Curtain as two of the most dominant units in the league. In SB X, the Steelers scored two FGs, a safety, and two TDs by Bradshaw, one to Swann. Pittsburgh won by 4 points. (BTW Swann gets too much credit for FALLING down and still catching a non TD pass. Great recovery by Swann, but it doesn't make it any less of a throw by Bradshaw.)

SB XIII was Bradshaw's finest moment. Four TD passes, over 300 yards, beating the Cowboys and Staubach 35-31. Steelers don't win that game without Bradshaw playing like a HOFer.

Griese isn't in any conversation about the best QBs of the 70's. ( If Redskins QB Sonny Jurgensen hadn't been injured, I think the undefeated Dolphins lose SB VII). Bradshaw was too physically gifted for any serious fan to put Stabler ahead Bradshaw on a best-of list. There's a reason why Stabler isn't in the HOF.

Aikman/Bradshaw/Namath/Doug WIlliams were 'role players'??

IMO you are severely underrating the QB position.

The Steelers don't win 4 SBs without Bradshaw. The Jets don't even get to the SB to win it without Namath.
The Cowboys don't win 3 SBs without Aikman.
And who knows how that SB victory for the Skins would have played out if Doug Williams didn't return from hyperextending his knee in the first quarter??

As a rule, average to below average QBs, except for Dilfer and Brad Johnson, don't win championships.

That's why they're taken 1/1 in the draft more often than not.

PackerLegend
07-24-2011, 12:02 PM
I will take Rodgers over Rivers.. :D

Seems im the only one who has went with the question since page 1, post 1, after a hundred posts of bitching...


Continue

CameronCropper
07-24-2011, 01:51 PM
I will take Rodgers over Rivers.. :D

Seems im the only one who has went with the question since page 1, post 1, after a hundred posts of bitching...


Continue

Way to derail a thread about whether QBs or defenses make a good team into a dynasty by talking about Aaron Rodgers and Philip Rivers, dude.

EricCartmann
07-24-2011, 05:10 PM
If you guys don't think a thread should not evolve and be derailed at least 3 times, then I suggest you guys take up other activities instead of posting on forums.

Such as going shopping with your wives (or boyfriend) while holding her purse?? Or maybe ballroom dancing? How about sewing? Those types of activities have more order and there will be no differences of opinion so your sensitive feelings don't get hurt.

Ness
07-24-2011, 05:11 PM
At this point it doesn't really matter. Just like Manning and Brady. Both Rodgers and Rivers can win your team a championship.

EricCartmann
07-24-2011, 05:11 PM
You said quarterbacks make dynasties. The only dynasty of the 90s was the Cowboys, and the QB of that dynasty was Troy Aikman. Since that was the bar you were using, one could only assume that that meant you thought Troy Aikman was the best QB of the 90s, by virtue of being the only QB of a dynasty in the 90s.

What position other than the QB makes dynasties?

EricCartmann
07-24-2011, 05:14 PM
At this point it doesn't really matter. Just like Manning and Brady. Both Rodgers and Rivers can win your team a championship.

I agree, that's why I say it's a push, back on page 1.

J-Mike88
07-24-2011, 05:58 PM
At this point it doesn't really matter. Just like Manning and Brady. Both Rodgers and Rivers can win your team a championship.
I think so too.
But, sadly, until Rivers does it, it's all a guess.

Remember, Peyton has just one in his fantastic 13-year career. It ain't easy.
I'd say the odds Rivers wins any Super Bowl is about 10% at best.
The Chargers are not better now than they were 1, 2, 3, 4, years ago, and really there might be 5 teams better than they are now in the AFC.

But, just get in, and anything can happen as the Cheese showed this January.

I clearly recall Rivers being clutch as hell in college and in the NFL. But the NFL playoffs are tough. I still blame Marlon McCree for all the Bolts ills. Was that clusterphuq-mishap with Brees as their QB or was it Rivers?

tjsunstein
07-24-2011, 06:09 PM
I'm sure you argued the opposite side of this debate circa 2003, but, hey, whatever's most convenient at the moment is the convention to follow, right?
What exactly is the criteria you're ranking the QBs on? As far as previous accomplishments, Brady and Manning outlast Rodgers all day but my criteria was basing it off of the last two years and a year going forward. It's a three year window, which is more than fair evaluation to me.

For sure and Im not saying that QBs deserve 100% of the credit. However because of their importance to their teams they must get more than any other player(in the vast majority of circumstances).

In todays NFL it is a passing league. Gone are the days of run on 1st down, run on 2nd down, complete short 3rd down pass-repeat until you score. QBs now have to pass more often than ever, they have to make in game and often in play adjustments on the fly.

The way I see it. If you have two virtually identical teams.

Team A

QB-Peyton Manning/Tom Brady/Aaron Rodgers/Drew Brees
RB-Maurice Jones-Drew
WR-Sidney Rice
WR-Michael Clayton
WR-Davone Bess
TE-Dustin Keller
LT-Eugene Monroe
LG-Jahri Evans
OC-Matt Birk
RG-Chris Snee
RT-Phil Loadholt

DE-Igor Olshansky
NT-Aubrayo Frankiln
DE-Brett Keisel
OLB-Matt Roth
ILB-D'Qwell Jackson
ILB-Bart Scott
OLB-Tamba Hali
CB-Corey Webster
FS-Malcolm Jenkins
SS-Adrian Wilson
CB-Brent Grimes

Team B

QB-Matt Cassell
RB-Maurice Jones-Drew
WR-Sidney Rice
WR-Michael Clayton
WR-Davone Bess
TE-Dustin Keller
LT-Eugene Monroe
LG-Jahri Evans
OC-Matt Birk
RG-Chris Snee
RT-Phil Loadholt

DE-Igor Olshansky
NT-Aubrayo Frankiln
DE-Brett Keisel
OLB-Matt Roth
ILB-D'Qwell Jackson
ILB-Bart Scott
OLB-Tamba Hali
CB-Corey Webster
FS-Malcolm Jenkins
SS-Adrian Wilson
CB-Darrelle Revis/Nnamdi Asomugha



Both the same team with the exception that team A has an elite QB whereas team B has an average to good QB and an elite CB. Both teams have arguably one of the best players in the NFL.

Question is

Who do you think wins this match up?


Just to note, I'm not sure you could have picked a more random bunch of players to fill those other positions.

Regardless, give me team A 9/10 times. You can avoid a CB, people have been beating the Raiders for years now and the Jets aren't all world even though they both have the two best corners in football. However, the QB dictates more of the game more than any other position on the field. As a defense, it's hard to avoid a QBs impact if not impossible. From the opposite outlook there are plenty of ways to take an elite CB out of the game, even if he's taking a WR out with him.

LonghornsLegend
07-24-2011, 06:49 PM
You can avoid a CB, people have been beating the Raiders for years now and the Jets aren't all world even though they both have the two best corners in football.


Which two Corners would these be?

tjsunstein
07-24-2011, 06:51 PM
Which two Corners would these be?
Context clues would suggest Revis and Asomugha.

LonghornsLegend
07-24-2011, 07:19 PM
Context clues would suggest Revis and Asomugha.

I completely forgot about the scenario he just posted. This thread has gone all over the place from where it started...

EricCartmann
07-24-2011, 10:25 PM
Regardless, give me team A 9/10 times. You can avoid a CB, people have been beating the Raiders for years now and the Jets aren't all world even though they both have the two best corners in football. However, the QB dictates more of the game more than any other position on the field. As a defense, it's hard to avoid a QBs impact if not impossible. From the opposite outlook there are plenty of ways to take an elite CB out of the game, even if he's taking a WR out with him.

Truth!

To say Championships and wins have no bearing how great a QB is just plain being
A) Stubborn and self serving, I am always right attitude
B) mentally hadicapped

Or maybe it's both?

EricCartmann
07-24-2011, 10:26 PM
Since the Steroids thread and the Michael Vick thread did not go to 100 pages, I am hoping this one does.

ellsy82
07-24-2011, 10:28 PM
I will take Rodgers over Rivers.. :D

Seems im the only one who has went with the question since page 1, post 1, after a hundred posts of bitching...


Continue

Not the only one, but few and far between.

Dam8610
07-25-2011, 07:43 PM
What position other than the QB makes dynasties?

There isn't a position that makes a dynasty. You have to have an all around talented team to win it all even once, let alone more than that. In the 90s and 00s, the better QB was 7-13 in the Super Bowl. Include the 80s, and it "improves" to 11-19. Getting the picture? The best QB usually doesn't win the Super Bowl, so judging QBs by whether or not/how often their team has won it all is ridiculous.

Dam8610
07-25-2011, 08:00 PM
What exactly is the criteria you're ranking the QBs on? As far as previous accomplishments, Brady and Manning outlast Rodgers all day but my criteria was basing it off of the last two years and a year going forward. It's a three year window, which is more than fair evaluation to me.

Did you have Manning ahead of Favre after the 2003 season? Also you must be judging on a 1 year window, because in a 3 year window, Manning is a 2 time MVP and 1st team All-Pro.

Just to note, I'm not sure you could have picked a more random bunch of players to fill those other positions.

Regardless, give me team A 9/10 times. You can avoid a CB, people have been beating the Raiders for years now and the Jets aren't all world even though they both have the two best corners in football. However, the QB dictates more of the game more than any other position on the field. As a defense, it's hard to avoid a QBs impact if not impossible. From the opposite outlook there are plenty of ways to take an elite CB out of the game, even if he's taking a WR out with him.

Look, you illustrate my point yet again. How many times would most anyone have taken the 07 Patriots over the 07 Giants? Probably something like 99 times out of 100, but the Giants won. The randomness of the playoffs eliminates the possibility of using championships as any sort of valuable measurement of success at any position.

EricCartmann
07-25-2011, 09:41 PM
There isn't a position that makes a dynasty. You have to have an all around talented team to win it all even once, let alone more than that. In the 90s and 00s, the better QB was 7-13 in the Super Bowl. Include the 80s, and it "improves" to 11-19. Getting the picture? The best QB usually doesn't win the Super Bowl, so judging QBs by whether or not/how often their team has won it all is ridiculous.

The better QB is one that wins. Get the picture? Inflating your stats against inferior teams does not make a better QB. I would like to see the stats for the numbers you got above, and how you came to the conclusion that the "better qb" was 7-13.

There is a reason year and year out the 3/4th of the top rated QB's make the playoffs. Last year 10 of the top 12 rated QB's made the playoffs.

The Best Linebacker (Patrick Willis) and the best cornerback (Nnamdi) did not even make the playoffs last year. Oh how about the best RB? Nope. The best WR? nope.

EricCartmann
07-26-2011, 12:15 PM
Bump this thread back up to the top.

Dam8610
07-26-2011, 03:17 PM
The better QB is one that wins. Get the picture? Inflating your stats against inferior teams does not make a better QB. I would like to see the stats for the numbers you got above, and how you came to the conclusion that the "better qb" was 7-13.

There is a reason year and year out the 3/4th of the top rated QB's make the playoffs. Last year 10 of the top 12 rated QB's made the playoffs.

The Best Linebacker (Patrick Willis) and the best cornerback (Nnamdi) did not even make the playoffs last year. Oh how about the best RB? Nope. The best WR? nope.

Again, getting to the playoffs =/= Winning the Super Bowl. Winning in the regular season =/= Winning the Super Bowl. I'd absolutely agree that consistent winning in the regular season is something that a great QB does, but with the randomness and luck involved in a single elimination format, you can't say that a great QB will win it all even once, let alone multiple times. One loss bounces your team from the playoffs, whereas one loss in the regular season makes your team 15-1.

EricCartmann
07-26-2011, 03:24 PM
Again, getting to the playoffs =/= Winning the Super Bowl. Winning in the regular season =/= Winning the Super Bowl. I'd absolutely agree that consistent winning in the regular season is something that a great QB does, but with the randomness and luck involved in a single elimination format, you can't say that a great QB will win it all even once, let alone multiple times. One loss bounces your team from the playoffs, whereas one loss in the regular season makes your team 15-1.

If you had a 10 year career and always lost in the playoffs, against other great teams, how can you be considered among the best? To me this just shows you can beat inferior opponents but do not know how to beat good teams.

It's not like we are asking for Championships ore even playoff wins every year, but you should take your teams deep in the playoffs at least twice in those 10 years.

Me personally, I consider Jim Kelly and John Elway (before he won the Superbowl) among the GOATs because they won many playoff games and won mulitple AFC Championship. But again, I don't make the rules, so therefore Kelly is out of the conversation when you are talking about GOAT. Both QB's also had rating in the playoffs on par with what they had in the regular season.

Wins matter, Championships matter. But for Championship, all it takes is 1. If you can't see that it does matter, then I don't know what to say. Should we start over? I am willing to go back to the drawing board. I want to get this page to 100 pages... but more so, I am willing to sit down and take the time with you so you can see the light.

Your Welcome.
Your Friend and Buddy,
EricCartmann

Dam8610
07-26-2011, 03:27 PM
If you had a 10 year career and got in the playoffs every year, and are considered an elite QB, and can't take your team to 2 superbowls, that to me says you can't beat the tough teams. Like I said, all it takes is 1 Superbowl Championship and you are considered among the best.

Me personally, I consider Jim Kelly and John Elway (before he won the Superbowl) among the GOATs because they won many playoff games and won mulitple AFC Championship. But again, I don't make the rules, so therefore Kelly is out of the conversation when you are talking about GOAT. Both QB's also had rating in the playoffs on par with what they had in the regular season.

Wins matter, Championships matter. But for Championship, all it takes is 1. If you can't see that it does matter, then I don't know what to say. Should we start over? I am willing to go back to the drawing board. I want to get this page to 100 pages... but more so, I am willing to sit down and take the time with you so you can see the light.

Your Welcome.
Your Friend and Buddy,
EricCartmann

I disagree, and I'm leaving it at that. You're talking in circles, and refuse to accept basic facts.

EricCartmann
07-26-2011, 03:32 PM
I disagree, and I'm leaving it at that. You're talking in circles, and refuse to accept basic facts.

What is not fact about winning in the playoffs against other great teams? What basic facts are you talking about?

EricCartmann
07-26-2011, 03:46 PM
Do you think think you might be the one ignoring the basic facts?

Please discuss....

tjsunstein
07-26-2011, 04:07 PM
Did you have Manning ahead of Favre after the 2003 season? Also you must be judging on a 1 year window, because in a 3 year window, Manning is a 2 time MVP and 1st team All-Pro.

Look, you illustrate my point yet again. How many times would most anyone have taken the 07 Patriots over the 07 Giants? Probably something like 99 times out of 100, but the Giants won. The randomness of the playoffs eliminates the possibility of using championships as any sort of valuable measurement of success at any position.
I'm bowing out of this. Seems as if I came in way too late and argued a completely different point than what is being discussed. Maybe I should have read the other 5 pages.

EricCartmann
07-28-2011, 04:35 PM
How valuable is a QB?

Must be pretty valuable if you are trading your Pro-Bowl CB and a 2nd Round Draft pick for an unproven QB who has shown only flashes of brilliance.

Bob Sanders Dreadlock
07-28-2011, 06:41 PM
How valuable is a QB?

Must be pretty valuable if you are trading your Pro-Bowl CB and a 2nd Round Draft pick for an unproven QB who has shown only flashes of brilliance.

Right lets make judgements based on what the cardinals organization does. Brilliant!

CC.SD
08-03-2011, 10:54 PM
I clearly recall Rivers being clutch as hell in college and in the NFL. But the NFL playoffs are tough. I still blame Marlon McCree for all the Bolts ills. Was that clusterphuq-mishap with Brees as their QB or was it Rivers?

It was Rivers in his first year starting, 06.

Raiderz4Life
08-03-2011, 11:26 PM
Damn lol did someone instul Dam's fat-headed QB? Dude just went off haha