Rating QBs

GOAT & BOAT

#Packers Aaron Rodgers Inside the 30 Passing in 2017...

29/42 (69% <--@DBak69), 11 TDs, 0 INTs, 1 Sack - 120.1 Rating

— Ben Fennell (@BenFennell_NFL) October 9, 2017

G must be a plug.  Thank Goodness we didn't have to look at how Jay Cutler ranked against him!

CAPackFan95 posted:

Unfortunately was subjected to Mike and Mike this AM while I was taking my car in for some maintenance.

The topic of AR came up and "his place historically" and while Greenberg stated clearly that AR is a hall of famer, he started listing a couple QBs that were CLEARLY BETTER than AR. And, even without saying it, they default to the stupid trope of rings = only thing that matters.  

So, I'd like to present the following blind data and have you rank QBs.  This data is each QB relative to the time they played. So, this isn't taking raw stats and comparing Rodgers to YA Tittle or something. In the ERAs they competed in, this is how they fared. The game was the same for every other QB they played with at that time and how they finished relative to their peers at the time.

How would you rate the QBs 1-7, and who are they?

Average finish among QBs each year (1 being led league)

	Comp %	Yds/G	TDs %	Int %	QB Rating
QB A	14.9	10.9	14.4	13.1	13.0
QB B	8.6	8.2	3.9	5.8	4.6
QB C	13.5	17.3	14.5	19.0	15.2
QB D	15.3	11.8	11.6	17.3	13.8
QB E	13.7	10.3	15.1	17.0	15.4
QB F	17.6	7.7	17.4	16.4	14.0
QB G	3.6	7.7	9.6	5.5	4.1

 

Times each QB finished in the Top 5 

	Comp %	Yds/G	TDs %	Int %	QB Rating
QB A	2	4	4	2	5
QB B	4	2	8	6	7
QB C	0	0	1	0	1
QB D	0	3	4	1	4
QB E	2	3	2	0	2
QB F	2	3	1	0	2
QB G	10	6	4	8	10

Incomplete data. How many rings does each have.

Signed Dilfer > Marino.

B or G.  I wonder what kind of players each QB had.  For example, did QB G have some superb RB who took a good slice of TD's (with a game plan tailored for that)?  Did B have a TD machine at WR?

That sort of thing. 

Do need to have a sense of the supporting cast.

I didn't listen to the Mike and Mike bit, but the only guys you could possibly say are clearly better than Rodgers based on Super Bowl rings are Brady and Montana. Obviously, Brady and Montana have won more playoff games, but Rodgers statistics are clearly better overall. QBs get too much credit when they win sometimes and too much blame when they lose (except for Favre singlehandedly losing at least three playoff games with boneheaded interceptions - 2 in OT).

Aaron Rodgers playoffs

16 games started (9-7), 36 TDs, 10 Ints, 4458 yards passing, 99.4 QBR

Tom Brady playoffs

34 games started (25-9), 63 TDs, 31 Ints, 9094 yards passing, 89.0 QBR

Joe Montana playoffs

23 games started (16-7), 45 TDs, 21 Ints, 5772 yards, 95.6 QBR

The best players Rodgers has played with on offense are probably Nelson, Jennings, and Driver. On defense, he's played with CM3 and Charles Woodson.

Brady best guys have been Gronkowski, Randy Moss, Deion Branch, and Wes Welker. And he had Belichick as his DC.

Montana played with Jerry Rice, Roger Craig, Dwight Clark, etc. Not to mention the boatload of defensive HOFers he played with (Lott, Haley, etc.). In fact, Montana may not have been the best QB on his team during the latter part of his 49ers career. Steve Young actually had better stats once he was the starter.

The easiest way to look at it would be to imagine if you replaced Brady or Montana with Rodgers would those teams have suffered? Absolutely not. They would have been just as good if not better.

If you put Brady or Montana on the Packers during the last decade would they have been as good? No way.

One guy that often gets forgotten is Otto Graham who played in something like 9 straight championship games, some before the Browns were in the NFL.

CA, I'll look at your numbers in a minute, as I'm a total stat nerd. But I want to, first, debunk this whole notion that rings somehow are an advanced metric of quarterback greatness. It's hogwash-a classic example of spurious logic. 

I'l been posting a smiliar blurb everywhere I can to dispel this inane way of thinking. 

"Super Bowl wins are a team accomplishment, not a metric of individual greatness. While great players at any position certainly increase the likelihood of a team winning it all, a Super Bowl win, in and of itself, is not indicative of individual greatness. 

Tom Brady has won five Super Bowls in seven trips. He is, for sure, an all-time great, and a first ballot Hall of Famer. But are those five wins indicative of his being the greatest of all-time? Is he better than a player like Aaron Rodgers? 

No.

First, I would mention that there are many, historically great players at the various positions who never won a Super Bowl-Dan Marino is considered by many to be the greatest pure passer the game has ever seen. He lost in his one Super Bowl appearance. Jason Whitten is one of the top five tight ends to ever play. No rings. Barry Sanders and Calvin Johnson-no rings. Adrian Peterson-the same. What about a guy like Dan Fouts, who ran Air Coryell to a tee. No rings for that Hall of Famer, either. Yet Eli Manning, a man who gets more praise than he deserves because of his lineage, has two rings. Jim Plunkett won two Super Bowls for the Raiders. Hell, even Trent Dilfer won one because of a tremendous Ravens defense. Nobody in their right mind would argue that Plunkett, Manning or Dilfer are better than Dan Marino.

Tom Brady, like all champions, benefited from playing on a great team. His teammates helped him. Certainly Adam Vinatieri's kicking helped tremendously in winning close games. Rob Gronkowski has been there since 2010, and he's a monster, when healthy. And what about the Patriot defense?

In their five Super Bowl wins, the Patriots have, in order, finished 6th, 1st, 2nd, 8th and 1st in the NFL in scoring defense. Brady has benefited greatly from that defense. 

The argument that Brady is better than Rodgers is untenable. Every individual metric there is shows Rodgers is better-touchdown to interception ratio, career passer rating (in both the regular season, where Rodgers is #1 all-time, and in post season, where Rodgers' 99.4 ranks 5th best), etc. The Rodgers-led Packers score more points per game in the playoffs than the Brady-led Patriots. So, where is the difference? 

Again, it's the defenses the two QBs have. Tom Brady has played in 34 playoffs games. The Patriots defense has surrendered over 30 points just three times in those games, and have never given up 40 or more points. Compare that to the performance of the Green Bay defense backing Aaron Rodgers. In 16 post season games, the Packer defense has surrendered 30 + points twice, and 40 or more points three other times. 

The Pats surrender 30 + points 8.8% of the time (3 in 34)

The Packers surrender 30 + points 31.2% of the time (5 in 16)

In the first three playoff losses of Aaron Rodgers career, the Packer defense surrendered 45 points to the Cardinals in 2010 (2009 season), 37 to the Giants in 2012 ('11 season), and 45 to the 49ers. 127 points surrendered, or 42.3 ppg. The most the Patriots defense has ever given up in a Tom Brady playoff game? 38 points in the 2007 AFC Championship against the Colts. 

Think about that. The Packers, in Rodgers' first three playoff losses, surrendered more points than the Patriots have in all but one of Tom Brady's 34 playoff games. 

New England has outscored their opponents 910-688 in Brady's 34 playoff games. I'm not going to go through each game to look for defensive points scored, so there could be some very slight variance. But, on average, the Pats have scored 26.76 ppg, and have given up 20.24 ppg. That's a 6.52 margin of victory.

Green Bay has outscored their opponents 457-423 in Rodgers' 16 playoff games. Again, slight variance possible. But, on average, the Packers have scored 28.56 ppg, and have given up 26.44 ppg. Look at the margin of victory: 2.12 ppg. Compare that to the 6.52 margin of victory the Patriots experience. A 4.4 point per game difference is a huge cushion for the Hall of Famer Brady.

The Packers score 1.8 more ppg under Rodgers than the Pats score under Brady. Rodgers and the Packer offense do their jobs better. The defenses are the difference. The Brady Pats surrender 20.23 ppg, while the Rodgers Packers surrender 26.44 ppg. Tom Brady's defense gives up nearly a touchdown less-6.21 ppg-than Rodgers' Packer counterparts. 

The bottom line is this: If we went back, and looked at the playoff games Aaron Rodgers lost, and took away 6 points from the opponent score, look at what happens. Here are the losses affected:

2010 loss to the Cardinals. 51-45. Remember, the Cardinals won on a Rodgers fumble in overtime (and a blown facemask call by the refs). But, with 6 fewer points scored during regulation, the game never goes to overtime. All other things the same, Rodgers wins his playoff debut, 45-39. 

2014 loss to the 49ers. 20-23. Now, Rodgers and the Packers win 20-17.

2015 loss to the Seahawks. 22-28 in the NFC Championship Game. As with the Cardinals loss, this game went to overtime. The Seahawks win on a Russell Wilson TD pass to Jermaine Kearse. But if the defense surrenders six fewer points in regulation, that game never goes to overtime. Instead of 22-28, take off the OT TD, and the six during regulation. Now, the Packers win (all other things equal) 22-16. 

2016 loss to the Cardinals (again). 20-26. For the third time, the Packers and Aaron Rodgers lose a playoff game in overtime. This time, it's a Carson Palmer pass to Larry Fitzgerald that breaks the heart of Packer fans. But what if the defense behind Rodgers played at the same level the Patriots played for Brady, and allowed six fewer points during regulation? Again, this is a win for the Packers. The game never goes to overtime, less those six points. Instead of being tied 20-20 at the end of regulation, the Packers now win 20-14. 

Aaron Rodgers, instead of being 9-7 in the playoffs, is 13-3. Obviously that record changes depending on what Rodgers and the Pack do in the next playoff game. But if the Packer defense performs at the level that the Pats defense, on average, performs for Tom Brady, the Packers advance to the divisional round in 2010 and in 2014, the Super Bowl in 2015, and the NFC Championship Game in 2016. 

Clearly, it's not as simple as taking off six points, because one less TD scored by the opposition, or two fewer field goals, necessitates that other things change, too. But, the narrative about how "Rodgers cannot get it done in the playoffs" is drastically altered when the defensive behind him gives up a touchdown less per game.  

Football is not like the NBA, where one player stays on the court the whole game, and plays both offense and defense. Aaron Rodgers does not play defense, or special teams. All he can control, for his part, is how the offense performs. A 99.4 career QB rating in the playoffs shows he's played at a very high level. He's knocked off the #1 seed in the NFC twice (Atlanta and Dallas), and has beaten the NFL's #1 scoring defense in the Super Bowl (Pittsburgh). The reason, in large part, that the Packers, and Rodgers, have not won more in the post season, is that the defense has let the team, and Packer fans, down time and time again, outside of the 2010 season. 

So what we are saying is...

AR > TB
BB > TT
Therefore
GM > QB

lambeausouth posted:

.....

Tom Brady has won five Super Bowls in seven trips. He is, for sure, an all-time great, and a first ballot Hall of Famer. But are those five wins indicative of his being the greatest of all-time? Is he better than a player like Aaron Rodgers?

.....

This was the gist of the Mike & Mike discussion, and they concluded,
Brady: The greatest of all time (GOAT).
Rodgers: The best of all time (BOAT).

Y.A. Tittle, who just died today, lost every championship game he played in.

That's a thorough and interesting take, LS.  Thanks for the effort and for sharing.

just once, I would like to see Rodgers to play against a Capers Defense

Rodgers would shred all single game NFL QB records

— South African Gohan (@danpack6) October 8, 2017

bvan posted:

lambeausouth posted:

.....

Tom Brady has won five Super Bowls in seven trips. He is, for sure, an all-time great, and a first ballot Hall of Famer. But are those five wins indicative of his being the greatest of all-time? Is he better than a player like Aaron Rodgers?

.....

This was the gist of the Mike & Mike discussion, and they concluded,
Brady: The greatest of all time (GOAT).
Rodgers: The best of all time (BOAT).

Sounds like they're talking out of both sides of their mouth.

Babe Ruth is the GOAT.

Ted Williams is the BOAT.

Can't have it both ways when evaluating individual greatness. Ruth was a magnificent player, both as a hitter and a pitcher. The guy changed baseball forever, and is easily one of the top two or three offensive players to ever play the game. 

Yet, if my life depended on one player getting a big hit, all those guys from the distant past as options, I'd take Williams in a heartbeat. Greatest hitter to ever step up to the plate. That Ruth won a bunch of World Series rings, and Williams didn't win any, shouldn't detract at all from Williams place in the pantheon of baseball immortals. Ruth had Lou Gehrig for a big chunk of his career.

Who has been Aaron Rodgers' Lou Gehrig? Brady has had that D, and Gronk is a monster. The best that Rodgers has had, Jordy Nelson, has gone to one Pro Bowl. That should clue in people that there's a reality distortion going on somewhere. Put Brady and Rodgers both on the Browns, and which QB impacts their win total more? Both are deadly accurate. But outside of Joe Thomas, that O line might get Brady killed. Rodgers can get away, and make huge plays with his feet. He did it yesterday. He's always done it. Brady never has. Tom Terrific just can't do all the things Rodgers can. Rodgers can do everything Brady can. 

If Rodgers really is the best QB of all time, I really do feel like the Packers Organization has at least slightly failed him.  No way should that guy only have 1 title.  Let's just hope they've finally righted their mistakes from the past and given him enough tools to get some more rings. 

phaedrus posted:

B or G.  I wonder what kind of players each QB had.  For example, did QB G have some superb RB who took a good slice of TD's (with a game plan tailored for that)?  Did B have a TD machine at WR?

That sort of thing. 

Do need to have a sense of the supporting cast.

I will say that QB G would be considered to have the best supporting cast without question. 

I would argue that the rest are fairly similar. Each had good players some years great. 

MichiganPacker posted:

If you put Brady or Montana on the Packers during the last decade would they have been as good? No way.

I think an argument could be made that neither would be as good in the Packers system as Rodgers.

But to dismiss it as “no way” is vastly underrating both of these guys, and especially Montana IMO. 

I just want to go on the record as saying CA's original post is making my head hurt.  

One thing that gives me pause about ranking the individual QBs is not knowing where they played their games. Somebody like Drew Brees, or Matt Ryan, greatly benefit from playing at least 8 games a year at home in a dome, whereas somebody like Aaron Rodgers or Tom Brady are at a bit of a disadvantage because they play their home games at Lambeau and Foxborough. Those places, later in the year, can be very nasty. 

He's 6th all time (among QBs with 100 starts) in winning % (.660) which is ahead of Elway, Young, Favre, and Marino. He's 3rd among active QBs behind Brady and Big Ben and overall he's only behind Brady, Montana, Manning, McMahon, and Big Ben. If we finish 13-3 and the Steelers finish 10-6 then he will move into the top 5 ahead of Big Ben. 

Don't forget Brad Johnson. 

QB G is Joe Montana.

Joe Montana had great players around him, and arguably the best coaching mind of his time leading the way.  And, perhaps he was a product of that system, but holy crap was he great in that system. Finished in the top 3 of comp % 10/11 years in SF, and in KC was 12 and 10. Never finished lower than 8th in QB Rating in any season. In 89 he finished 1st in Comp %, TD%, Rating, and Y/G and 2nd in INT%.  

Joe Montana was an absolutely prolific QB. Add in the SB rings, and it's not surprising why he continues to get named as best ever in so many conversations. It's as hard to argue statistically (as compared to his peers) or rings and I have no issues with his name being thrown out as best ever.  

I place less value on things like yards per game, as that can be inflated by factors beyond the QB's control. If a team is a good deal behind, because of a poor defense, that QB might be forced to throw more often, thereby accumulating more passing yards. I look at a guy like Drew Brees. His comp % is also inflated by playing home games in a dome. No wind, no elements (precipitation makes a ball slippery), no cold hands to cause dropped balls. Manning benefited from that, as does Matt Ryan now. 

Passer rating, TD and INT % are key here. I want a guy with a high passer rating, obviously, but I don't want a "game manager" that doesn't, and can't take risks. That said, I want a guy like Rodgers over Brett Favre, because while both put up a lot of TD passes, Rodgers was much better at protecting the ball than the "gunslinger" Favre. 

Looking at that list, I'd start with quarterback B at the top, ahead of QB G. Both finished with similar QB ratings, and pass intercept %, but QB B is much more effective at putting the ball into the end zone. 

How can QB G be Joe Montana? You state he finished top 5 in QB rating 10 times. Pro-football-reference shows he finished top 5 9 times. 

1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1987, 1989, 1993. 

lambeausouth posted:

How can QB G be Joe Montana? You state he finished top 5 in QB rating 10 times. Pro-football-reference shows he finished top 5 9 times. 

I screwed up 1986, he was 10th, I cut/pasted it as 1st.  Updated data in original post to correct.

Good catch.

I think of a QB like D as being John Elway. Threw a good number of TD passes relative to the rest of the league, so he could be in the top 5 a few times. Threw a lot of picks, though, too, and had a low pass completion %. 

Then, I see somebody like Eli Manning being a QB C. Low completion percentage, throws a lots of picks, so wouldn't be in the top 5 best for INT %. But he throws some TD passes, so, in one of the seasons where he doesn't lead the league in picks, he might sneak into the top 5 in passer rating. 

My head tells me QB B is Rodgers, especially if Montana is G. 

CAPackFan95 posted:

lambeausouth posted:

How can QB G be Joe Montana? You state he finished top 5 in QB rating 10 times. Pro-football-reference shows he finished top 5 9 times. 

I screwed up 1986, he was 10th, I cut/pasted it as 1st.  Updated data in original post to correct.

Good catch.

When looking at that much raw data, it's easy to do that from time to time, even using Excel to plot things out. I thought at first it might be Brady, but he wasn't that strong from a QB rating perspective relative to the rest of the league early on. 

He is in the conversation.  Along with Montana, Brady, Elway, Starr, Unitas, Manning and I guess Graham.  If you throw out the need for championships Marino is added to the list.  Lots of variables when coaching, teammates, defenses, weather, rules, playing surfaces, domes etc are added to the mix. 

He is still young enough to knock it out of the park and solidly put himself in the position of GOAT.  It's up to him and the Packers to see to that.

QB B is in fact Aaron Rodgers.

Statistically, he's as good as, or better than, any other QB that has ever played compared to his peers.  His "worst" category is Yards/Game which is probably the least useful of the stats here.  No one has a better TD/INT ratio. Highest QB Rating ever.  

Look at it this way. 2015 was a godawful year for him. He went 3821 yards, 31 TDs, 8 INTs with a 92.7 Rating and it's awful for him.  

He's not human.  

Super Bowl rings are a team stat, not a QB stat.  

I think my rankings would go like this:

B (Rodgers?)

G (Montana)

A

D

F

E

C

Interestingly, the first five go in order of best average QB rating, but the last two do not. E and C are close there (average finish of 15.4 and 15.2), and are close on TD % (15.1 and 14.5 average finish). The kicker for me is their average finish by interceptions %. Again, they're similar, but QB E finishes, on average, 17th best, while QB C finishes 19th best. I want a guy that ranks better, against his peers, on interception % when the other metrics are so close. Nothing kills a team's chances to win like turning the ball over. That's why a guy like Aaron Rodgers is so lethal. That 4:1 + TD to INT ratio is huge. Of course, he benefits from modern rules that hamper defensive backs and pass rushes. But I think Rodgers would be highly successful in any era. That toughness, accuracy, mobility and swagger would translate in the 50s as it does now. 

I added Tom Brady to the stats in original post without trying to have you guess.  

I'm not advocating you to love the guy, or like the guy. I hate that team, I hate their fans, and I hate their coach.

That said, Tom Brady is REALLY farking good. He protects the ball almost as well as Rodgers, he throws about as many TDs, he's lived with a bunch of adequate WRs other than one year with Moss and he keeps producing eye popping numbers.

The most impressive thing in my mind is his consistency.  He was very good from his first full year, then in 2007 he turned otherworldly, and since 2007 he's been amazingly great.  It feels like after 2007, BB trusted him to be the singular focus of the offense. 

I'm trying to decide if CA is limiting the QB comparisons to guys that have won championships, or if it's being opened up to guys who didn't win it all. That, in and of itself, will be interesting to see. 

I've been thinking of guys like Joe Namath, and Fran Tarkenton. Namath was an early Favre, imho. Guy had a ridiculously strong arm, but he was a wild child on and off the field. I got the impression that Namath just said, "F it", and threw into tight holes where nobody else would ever dare try. When it worked, it would have made the Sportscenter highlight reel, had ESPN been around back then. If not, that was an easy pick waiting.

All are from 1980-2017.  

Identifying these other QBs is proving challenging, CA. Changing it to percentage of years in the top 5 (with qualifying attempts) has made it infinitely more difficult, and I'm trying to look at this from every possible perspective to find the answers. One starts to see things they didn't before. Quarterback A, at first, I thought of as several steps below Rodgers and Montana, simply because of their average QB rating finish. But when I look now, and see they finished top 5 in 31.3%, and the other finishes being 25%, or 12.5%, these are all factors of 8. 1/8 is 12.5%, and 2/8 is 25%. So, QB A threw enough passes in 16 seasons to qualify for the league leadership. That means they finished top 5 in the NFL in QB rating 5 times, as 5 of 16 is 31.3% (31.25% rounded). Finishing five times in the top 5 in passer rating is actually pretty damned good. That average finish could easily be skewed by a few rough seasons at the start of his career, and another one or two at the end. But that peak...would be Pro Bowl-caliber for at least half a decade. 

My head is swimming.

I heard part of that conversation going to the gym this morning, and almost drove off the road I was so mad at their bull talk.  Then Greenberg had the audacity to mention Brett!!!!  Trying to compare My boyfriend to Brett.....statistically to Brett, the guy that has MORE INT'S THEN ANYONE, EVER.     Oh yah, I was soooooo mad and couldn't really enjoy the Queen fans at the gym saying it was luck that A-12 made that last TD.  

D is Boomer Esiason.  Had 12 full seasons.  Very solid his for first 5-6 years, fell off a bit, had one final nice season in 93, and then fell off pretty significantly.  Overall decent numbers, didn't accrue a lot of the counting stats as other QBs, but played on bad teams for much of his career so doesn't get the attention that other QBs with very similar stats put up.  

Aaron Rodgers has benefited greatly from having Dom Capers as his defensive coordinator.  Imagine if he didn't have to traipse all over the field in the forth quarter trying to make up deficits.  

You don't see Brady and Montana inflating stats with ****ty defenses, that is a real QB.  

Goldie posted:

I heard part of that conversation going to the gym this morning, and almost drove off the road I was so mad at their bull talk.  Then Greenberg had the audacity to mention Brett!!!!  Trying to compare My boyfriend to Brett.....statistically to Brett, the guy that has MORE INT'S THEN ANYONE, EVER.     Oh yah, I was soooooo mad and couldn't really enjoy the Queen fans at the gym saying it was luck that A-12 made that last TD.  

You know driving through the gym doesn't really count as a work out.

CAPackFan95 posted:

D is Boomer Esiason.  Had 12 full seasons.  Very solid his for first 5-6 years, fell off a bit, had one final nice season in 93, and then fell off pretty significantly.  Overall decent numbers, didn't accrue a lot of the counting stats as other QBs, but played on bad teams for much of his career so doesn't get the attention that other QBs with very similar stats put up.  

 

Fawk. I was going through the Bengals QBs when you said 1980 to present. I'd been digging into Kenny Anderson, and when I I saw you comment, I just had a brain fart, moved on, not even thinking of Esiason. Didn't know he was All Pro in '88. My mind bounced around, from Phil Simms and Joe Namath, to Johnny Unitas and Fran Tarkenton. I even looked up Joe Ferguson. 

And now we know it's not restricted to Super Bowl winning QBs only. Oof. 

This is one of the more fascinating topics I've seen in all my years on X4, CA. Gebbins to you, sir.