Skip to main content

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/GTDs %Int %QB Rating
Elway14.910.914.413.113.0
Rodgers8.68.23.95.84.6
Dalton13.517.314.519.015.2
Esiason15.311.811.617.313.8
Everett13.710.315.117.015.4
Stafford17.67.717.416.414.0
Montana3.67.79.65.54.8
Brady8.97.67.16.56.1
Kelly8.69.58.716.510.0

Times each QB finished in the Top 5 (% of years where they had qualifying # of snaps) 

 Comp %Yds/GTDs %Int %QB Rating
Elway12.5%25.0%25.0%12.5%31.3%
Rodgers44.4%22.2%88.9%66.7%77.8%
Dalton0.0%0.0%16.7%0.0%16.7%
Esiason0.0%25.0%33.3%8.3%33.3%
Everett20.0%30.0%20.0%0.0%20.0%
Stafford28.6%42.9%14.3%0.0%28.6%
Montana76.9%46.2%30.8%61.5%69.2%
Brady33.3%40.0%40.0%40.0%40.0%
Kelly45.5%18.2%45.5%9.1%18.2%
Last edited by Timpranillo
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

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/GTDs %Int %QB Rating
QB A14.910.914.413.113.0
QB B8.68.23.95.84.6
QB C 13.517.314.519.015.2
QB D15.311.811.617.313.8
QB E13.710.315.117.015.4
QB F17.67.717.416.414.0
QB G3.67.79.65.54.1

 

Times each QB finished in the Top 5 

 Comp %Yds/GTDs %Int %QB Rating
QB A24425
QB B42867
QB C 00101
QB D03414
QB E23202
QB F23102
QB G1064810

Incomplete data. How many rings does each have.

Signed Dilfer > Marino.

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.

 

 

 

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. 

Last edited by lambeausouth
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).

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. 

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. 

Last edited by Timpranillo

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. 

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×