Kenny Anderson was very good.
Yup....but he is not in this conversation.
QB E is Jim Everett. Ever see the "even steven" episode of Seinfeld? Jim Everett is the QB version of that. 10 seasons, 5 were good to very good. 5 were not so good. Threw for a lot of yards, basically mid pack vs his peers in everything else.
When this is all said and done, I'll explain my rationale here a bit more on who I picked and why, but Everett is a very good example of what I'd consider replacement level/0.0 WAR type player. You throw all NFL QB's in a hat during his career and there'd be as many better than him as worse. Kinda how I've viewed Eli Manning for a while.
Plus he fought Jim Rose.
Everett was really effing good when he was good. He was equally bad when he was bad.
Jim Kelly would be an interesting add to this comparison.
ChilliJon posted:Everett was really effing good when he was good. He was equally bad when he was bad.
Jim Kelly would be an interesting add to this comparison.
Added to original post. Very good numbers to be honest. Clear top 5 (vs his peers at the time) during his career other than he threw a lot of INTs. His numbers will actually help I think with my story here a lot.
Best point made in this thread thus far is that Rodgers isnât human.
No single person should be able to drag an entire NFL team to the playoffs every year. Rodgers has.
This years 53 looks like theyâve got buy in from some actual talent.
Rodgers has always been hyper competitive. But he looks positively possessed right now. He wanted to rip Dallasâ heart out yesterday. Then he went and did it. And left time on the clock to remind them 75 yards in 73 seconds only required 62.
Heâs not human.
CAPackFan95 posted: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.
You know it's interesting as I don't remember all the specific years of rule changes and such, but 2007 might have been sort of a turning point in terms of the "modern" game. ESPN cancelled their "Jacked Up!" segment as the NFL began trying to enforce rules that had always been there but really were not called as frequently as today.
You had Brady go from a guy who won with just good stats to becoming a guy with record setting stats in one season overnight. Some of that was due to personnel change, and I think some of it was because it was becoming incredibly easy for just about anyone who wasn't a complete bum to be able to throw the ball. You had Brett Favre suddenly make a resurgence and have some of his best statistical years in 2007 and 2009 even though he had looked like a washed up shell of himself just a couple of years before that.
As great as these guys like Rodgers/Brady etc. etc. look, I think it is fair to say it has never been easier for QBs and offenses in general to put up big numbers. We will never know how some of these guys from the '50s thru the '90s would look nowadays... When I saw that Tony Romo at one time a few years was one of the greatest statistical QBs in history in terms of rating, that was enough for me to say to myself that maybe QB rating is at least a little bit overrated. Tony Romo was a good QB, but I watched guys like Joe Montana/Roger Staubach, etc. with my own eyes and even though Tony Romo at one time may have been rated in their class in QB rating, no way in hades was he as good as those guys in terms of what it took to win a game.
Now Aaron Rodgers is a different story than Romo. He passes the eye test, he's actually won a Super Bowl, he's clearly in the discussion for GOAT. You can make some arguments against him in terms of the fact that the Pack hasn't done exceptionally well in the playoffs with him at the helm, but in a number of those games he came to play and unfortunately his supporting cast let him down. It's a fun discussion to have, but are there really any right or wrong answers when it comes to comparing greats like Rodgers, Montana, Brady, Staubach, P. Manning, Starr, Graham, Unitas, etc. etc.? No matter what, the ultimate trump card that guys like Brady and Montana can pull is "Look at all these nice shiny rings on my fingers, aren't these nice?", and the other QBs (other than Graham or Bradshaw) can only shake their heads and say to themselves "Man that would be nice to have that many".
I think 2004 was the change. Patriots beat the Colts in a physical AFCCG (2003 AFCCG in January 2004) and Peyton Manning bitched and bitched about the DBs until he got the rules changed.
Since baseball was brought here is a very interesting stat. During the time of Joe Dimaggio's 56 game hitting streak, Ted Williams actually had a higher batting average. So was Ted a better hitter during that stretch of 56 games or was Joe D better since he hit in 56 straight?
Dak was the better QB yesterday.....stats don't lie.
Oh good. Captain Strawman arrived.
ammo posted:Since baseball was brought here is a very interesting stat. During the time of Joe Dimaggio's 56 game hitting streak, Ted Williams actually had a higher batting average. So was Ted a better hitter during that stretch of 56 games or was Joe D better since he hit in 56 straight?
Trick question. No quality argument about hitting emphasizes batting average
ammo posted:Since baseball was brought here is a very interesting stat. During the time of Joe Dimaggio's 56 game hitting streak, Ted Williams actually had a higher batting average. So was Ted a better hitter during that stretch of 56 games or was Joe D better since he hit in 56 straight?
Who struck out less? That's all that matters?
QB C was Andy Dalton. Had one really solid year and been slightly below average since. Inaccurate, turns the ball over a more than he should.
QB F was Matthew Stafford. After his injury had 2 really above average years, followed by 2 below average years, and then two above average years. If he can stop throwing INTs he is a clear top 10 guy right now.
QB A was John Elway. And really the reason I started this. John Elway is in my opinion the most overrated athlete in the history of professional sports. To hear Greenberg say "Rodgers is great, but he's no Montana. (debatable but ok) Is he as great as Elway, no way." No way? What?
Before the Elway fanboys start up... John Elway was a very good QB. He's a Hall of Fame QB. Period. Full stop.
But he wasn't even one of the top 3-5 QBs of his own era. Let alone all time.
John Elway is not on the same planet in terms of being a great QB as Rodgers, Brady, Brees, Montana, Marino, Young, Manning. He was, is, and always should be considered a very good QB that won a lot of regular season games while playing in a pathetic AFC, racked up some decent (but not great) counting stats due to playing for 16 years, was never close to being the best QB in the league when he played, and didn't win a Super Bowl that wasn't solely due to Terrell Davis. He is far more guys like Esiason, Kelly, Everett, Moon, and Cunningham than the best QBs of all time. If you don't think Warren Moon is one of the best QBs of all time, I don't know how you consider Elway to be.
Moon - 208 games, 49K yards, 4.3% TD, 3.4% INT, 80.9 Rating
Elway - 234 games, 51K yards, 4.1% TD, 3.1% INT, 79.9 Rating.
They are basically the exact same QB in terms of production. One had a better team around him consistently, the other didn't.
Elway is a very good QB. He's better than a ton of people. But he is not close to an elite all timer. He was basically a top 4-7 type guy his career and he was never the greatest QB of his era, let alone of all time.
And if we're playing the whole "DURRR HE'S A WINNER", he put up 3 of the most horrendous SB performances of all time. Overall in SB's he had 3 TDs and 8 INTs. He didn't win a single championship that wasn't solely due to Terrell Davis. Even in the win over GB he went 12/22 for 123 and 1 INT. Up until his last 2 years with Terrell Davis his playoff record was 7-8.
Again, he's a very good QB. Won a lot of games over 16 years. Hall of Famer. But he is not even close to the praise and mythology he gets. He is not an all time great. Either in statistical or in "winning the big games".
Hmmmm.
I never liked Elway ever since he bolted on the Colts.
I think he is the perfect example of a player where you had to see him play (such as The Drive). I don't know if you have a strong argument because the AFC was weak during his time.
I think his SB woes deserve tempering because his teams during those losses were overmatched and he was pressing.
I don't know where he belongs, but I think your assessment is a bit off.
I think the unique thing about Aaron Rodgers is that it's hard to classify what GB's "scheme" is because it's tailored so heavily based on Rodgers capabilities. Everything from the routes, to the blocking, to even the running game is unique to Aaron Rodgers. I don't think there are many (maybe any) QBs that can say that. NE's system and Indy's system aren't/weren't unique to Brady/Manning. Certainly the systems opened up because those guys are highlight intelligent players and could make any throw, but they run/ran a pretty typical WCO. Same for Montana. McCarthy always said he wanted GB to be "multiple", well Rodgers can do and be anything GB needs based on the defense they're facing.
This was an interesting discussion of the unknowable! Like most on this forum I am a serious GB packer fan and I love it when the Brady won 5 championships comes up. Starr won five and except for a mistake by Lombardi would have won 6. His Playoff passer rating is best of all time and when I point this out it becomes the Packer defense won those titles, odd I don't ever recall it mentioned how many top 10 defenses Brady had on his side of the filed during those 7 title appearances! But GOAT is a transitory thing, a few years ago Sucklisberger was ONE victory away (SB45) from being the greatest ever! I think Brady is a HOF player but if Rodgers had 7 top 10 defenses he would have to have one those rings on his penis as he would have run out of digits to append!
fightphoe93 posted:CAPackFan95 posted: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.
You know it's interesting as I don't remember all the specific years of rule changes and such, but 2007 might have been sort of a turning point in terms of the "modern" game. ESPN cancelled their "Jacked Up!" segment as the NFL began trying to enforce rules that had always been there but really were not called as frequently as today.
You had Brady go from a guy who won with just good stats to becoming a guy with record setting stats in one season overnight. Some of that was due to personnel change, and I think some of it was because it was becoming incredibly easy for just about anyone who wasn't a complete bum to be able to throw the ball. You had Brett Favre suddenly make a resurgence and have some of his best statistical years in 2007 and 2009 even though he had looked like a washed up shell of himself just a couple of years before that.
As great as these guys like Rodgers/Brady etc. etc. look, I think it is fair to say it has never been easier for QBs and offenses in general to put up big numbers. We will never know how some of these guys from the '50s thru the '90s would look nowadays... When I saw that Tony Romo at one time a few years was one of the greatest statistical QBs in history in terms of rating, that was enough for me to say to myself that maybe QB rating is at least a little bit overrated. Tony Romo was a good QB, but I watched guys like Joe Montana/Roger Staubach, etc. with my own eyes and even though Tony Romo at one time may have been rated in their class in QB rating, no way in hades was he as good as those guys in terms of what it took to win a game.
Now Aaron Rodgers is a different story than Romo. He passes the eye test, he's actually won a Super Bowl, he's clearly in the discussion for GOAT. You can make some arguments against him in terms of the fact that the Pack hasn't done exceptionally well in the playoffs with him at the helm, but in a number of those games he came to play and unfortunately his supporting cast let him down. It's a fun discussion to have, but are there really any right or wrong answers when it comes to comparing greats like Rodgers, Montana, Brady, Staubach, P. Manning, Starr, Graham, Unitas, etc. etc.? No matter what, the ultimate trump card that guys like Brady and Montana can pull is "Look at all these nice shiny rings on my fingers, aren't these nice?", and the other QBs (other than Graham or Bradshaw) can only shake their heads and say to themselves "Man that would be nice to have that many".
You failed to mention Starr in the look at all my 5 shiny rings, including one with 3 diamond for one of the only two threepeats in the NFL!! (GB 29-31, 65-67)
What....No Terry Bradshaw!??!
This thread is about pure QB play, not a team achievement of winning a Super Bowl.
I thought RG3 was going to have a shot at being the next "Aaron Rodgers" but he obviously couldn't stay healthy.
We may never see another one like him in our lifetime. He has the head/brains of Montana & the legs of Mike Vick in his prime. That's pretty tough to beat & if Aaron Jones keeps looking like Ezekiel Elliott, every Defensive Coordinator on the Packs schedule is probably ready to quit.
Can Capers quit too?
He's not on the Packs schedule