Jump to content

How does Aaron Rodgers stack up against retired greats?


NeptunePenguins

Recommended Posts

Just now, Pugger said:

Yes, Rodgers hasn't had Brady's success (but nobody else in NFL has either since the SB era) but Rodgers is still has time to get another ring.  IMO it is up to Packers' management to surround him with a better defense than anything else.  I submit AR could have won more rings already if he swapped teams with Brady in 2008.

I agree with you - The Packers do need to do a better job of acquiring defensive talent in general.  But I felt like the Packers were good enough to make it to the Superbowl last year.  They were good enough to make it to the Superbowl years ago when they were 15-1 and lost to the Giants.  What about a few years ago when they lost to Seattle in the postseason when they had the lead late in the game?  Just to be clear - I'm not blaming Aaron Rodgers for the Packers not making it to the Superbowl in any of those examples, but the players/coaches have to get that done.

Here's a more recent example.  Last year, the Falcons seemed like they were on a mission and they were great.  No shame in losing to the Falcons there, but the game wasn't even close.  Also, this season, the Falcons have been struggling a lot - yet they still beat the Packers pretty easily.  At one point that games score was 34-10.  Yes, the defense struggled, but so did the offense.  Rodgers didn't really play particularly well in the first half of that game and the Packers were in a massive hole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's one of the most physically talented QB's ever. That said he's a bit overrated. Whenever I see someone say "we've never seen anything like Rodgers" all I think is "well then you've seen Dan Marino or Steve Young". Also he is one of the most physically gifted players at a position that's 90% mental. So there's that. 

All time he's probably going to wind up 7-5 depending on how many Super Bowls and rings he gets. I don't think he'll have the longevity to catch Brady or Montana in either rings or great big game moments. I don't think he'll ever get the mental mastery of the position Brady and Manning had. I think 5 years after he retires he'll be more in the Young and Marino class. A guy some people will swear up and down by as one of the best talents they've ever seen, but won't ever be in that consensus discussion of guys who could be GOAT. 

I think when it's said and done he'll have tremendous efficiency stats, but nothing special in bulk all time stats that people care about and won't ever get the playoff legacy to off set it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/23/2017 at 5:46 PM, Kip Smithers said:

He's best QB I have ever seen. Better than Brady, Peyton, you name it. No amount of rings or wins matters to me or will change my mind.

People using SBs as their main argument is laughable. 

 

If everything else is equal, there's no other QB I would rather have than Aaron Rodgers. He plays the QB position the best. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, pollino14 said:

People using SBs as their main argument is laughable. 

 

If everything else is equal, there's no other QB I would rather have than Aaron Rodgers. He plays the QB position the best. 

When Rodgers retires he's going to probably retire as the QB with the best rating and that's it. Assuming he doesn't hang on too long and leave a few ducks out there. He won't lead in any other major categories. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, lancerman said:

When Rodgers retires he's going to probably retire as the QB with the best rating and that's it. Assuming he doesn't hang on too long and leave a few ducks out there. He won't lead in any other major categories. 

well yeah, he won't lead in volume stats because he sat for 3 years and has missed time w/ injuries so far. Brady isn't going to lead any major categories either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

well yeah, he won't lead in volume stats because he sat for 3 years and has missed time w/ injuries so far. Brady isn't going to lead any major categories either.

Well you could say the same thing for rating. He played post the big rule changes that are going to keep Brady/Manning/Brees out of rating (though Brady is top 3) and he sat through the early years where he would have gone through the growing pains of seasons that would drag his average down. He's the best QB to play almost exclusively in this era of passing. Incidently Brady will be top 3 in nearly every major bulk stat that matters (TD's, yards) and he's going to own pretty much all the playoff ones. 

Mostly I just think when his career's done the best thing that could be said about him was the same thing you could say about Marino or Young (not even Marino really because Marino owned a lot of records). But that he was one of the most physically gifted at the positions. Like I don't think that's going to put him over Manning or Montana. Even Marino tbh. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, pollino14 said:

People using SBs as their main argument is laughable. 

 

If everything else is equal, there's no other QB I would rather have than Aaron Rodgers. He plays the QB position the best. 

If there's one position where using Super Bowls is really NOT laughable. It's Quarterback. Your job is to lead your team above all else. If you can't lead them to success, then you're not successfully doing your job. No, Super Bowl's aren't the ONLY aspect to judge a Quarterback on, but they are a big factor.

 The only thing that's laughable here is your homerism if you truly think Aaron Rodgers is THE GOAT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Danger said:

If there's one position where using Super Bowls is really NOT laughable. It's Quarterback. Your job is to lead your team above all else. If you can't lead them to success, then you're not successfully doing your job. No, Super Bowl's aren't the ONLY aspect to judge a Quarterback on, but they are a big factor.

 The only thing that's laughable here is your homerism if you truly think Aaron Rodgers is THE GOAT.

No, its still laughable. How is Aaron Rodgers supposed to lead his defense to not allow 44 points in Atlanta, 45 in San Fran, 37 in New York, 51 in Arizona?  Does he play corner or safety when i'm not looking?  Did Brady change jerseys with Butler in the superbowl for the interception?  I'm confused because I swear there is another whole side to playing football where a QB doesn't have really any control unless your maybe playing in the 1940s. 

Rodgers had 1 playoff loss ever where  his team held the other offense under 24 points. In playoff losses the Packers on average let the opponent score a whopping 36 points per game. With the two lowest scoring being 23 and 26 points. On the other hand in Brady's playoff losses his defense held the other team to 26 PPG including a 17 point day and 21 point day.  

Scoring points is the only sure fire way of winning a football game which I think we can both agree with but another decent strategy is not allowing your opponent to score points. Something the Patriots have done a much better job of over Brady's career than the Packers have over Rodgers. 

Also, i'd just like to point out that he never said Aaron Rodgers was the "GOAT".  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

No, its still laughable. How is Aaron Rodgers supposed to lead his defense to not allow 44 points in Atlanta, 45 in San Fran, 37 in New York, 51 in Arizona?  Does he play corner or safety when i'm not looking?  Did Brady change jerseys with Butler in the superbowl for the interception?  I'm confused because I swear there is another whole side to playing football where a QB doesn't have really any control unless your maybe playing in the 1940s. 

Rodgers had 1 playoff loss ever where  his team held the other offense under 24 points. In playoff losses the Packers on average let the opponent score a whopping 36 points per game. With the two lowest scoring being 23 and 26 points. On the other hand in Brady's playoff losses his defense held the other team to 26 PPG including a 17 point day and 21 point day.  

Scoring points is the only sure fire way of winning a football game which I think we can both agree with but another decent strategy is not allowing your opponent to score points. Something the Patriots have done a much better job of over Brady's career than the Packers have over Rodgers. 

Also, i'd just like to point out that he never said Aaron Rodgers was the "GOAT".  

Starr

Namath

Dawson

Unitas

Staubach

Griese

Bradshaw

Plunkett

Montana

Theisman

McMahon

Phil Simms

Hostetler

Rypien

Aikman

Young

Favre

Elway

Warner

Dilfer

Brady

Johnson

Roethlisberger

P.Manning

E.Manning

Brees

Rodgers

Flacco

Wilson

 

Those are the 29 QB's that won a Super Bowl. The vast majority (19/29) are Hall of Famers or absolutely going to be (Wilson will likely join that class too). 5 of them were legitimate franchise QB's who played great during their run. Then 5 are players I would consider "bad". Of that bad to mediocre 5 players atleast 4 were supported by historically significant defenses. 

QB's have far more of an impact on Super Bowl outcomes than any other position. Rodgers did win a Super Bowl off great play from himself. He didn't look good most of the Giant or Falcons game (the Falcons were beating the hell out of him). His defense was the only reason he was in the game against the Seahawks. Maybe the San Fran loss was a shootout he wound up on the wrong side of, but the San Dran defense was giving up points too, so it's not like the playing field wasn't even. The reality is, when your offense isn't dominating TOP and staying on the field for long periods of time and driving for scores. It's not like he had fantastic games and was losing. In most cases he had subpar games by his standards.

Even the Butler example is totally devoid of context. For one Brady orchestrated what was at the time the biggest comeback in Super Bowl history (well a tie for it) and had one of the best statistical 4th quarters ever in a Super Bowl to regain the lead. Then the only reason the game was even in doubt was because the other QB made a ridiculous pass play that put them in position to score with very little time on the clock. 

I mean no offense but against the Cardinals and Giants the Packers scored 20 points. That was a below average game for their offense. 2014 the defense got like 6 turnovers for the Packers that the offense wasn't capitalizing on. And then the Packers didn't do much against the Falcons until what was basically garbage time at that point. It wasn't like Rodgers was lighting these teams up and the defense was hemoraging points.

It's really overstating things looking only at the opponents score. The fact is Rodgers didn't deserve to win some of those.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

Rodgers had 1 playoff loss ever where  his team held the other offense under 24 points. In playoff losses the Packers on average let the opponent score a whopping 36 points per game. With the two lowest scoring being 23 and 26 points. On the other hand in Brady's playoff losses his defense held the other team to 26 PPG including a 17 point day and 21 point day.  

Also, i'd just like to point out that he never said Aaron Rodgers was the "GOAT".  

That's incredibly poor reasoning. If your defense holds the other team under 24 points, and you're a QB in the discussion for being one of the best ever, you should absolutely win if the other team only scores 24 or less. Aaron Rodgers has had 4 playoff games out of 17 where he's posted a passer rating under 80. You also like to say "Well Green Bay's defense is always bad"

Pretty sure they held the opponents under 24 points plenty of times of the years if you go back and look at the scores. The Super Bowl they won against Pittsburgh? Only 25 points on their part. So it's not like the defense is the only thing to blame.

As for the "GOAT" thing. 

 

19 hours ago, pollino14 said:

If everything else is equal, there's no other QB I would rather have than Aaron Rodgers. He plays the QB position the best. 

He never said "there's no other QB playing right now I would rather have than Aaron Rodgers." He just said it flat out in a thread that is comparing Rodgers to QB's past and present, so it was pretty heavily implied. If he didn't mean to imply it then he had a very poor choice of phrasing.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...