When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Brady has the passing stats to go along with be the winningest QB ever, thats why hes the best. What doesnt he have? What else could he possible need? What is he missing?
He has to play an awful team or incompetent coach. Scratch that, even a mediocre team.
The only thing you've rebutted in the Rodgers vs. Brady argument is that Brady has more wins and more stats... which will come from more playoff games played
It almost doesn't matter how capable a QB is if his team's pass defense is bottom 5 and his coach is incompetent, because he'll have to put up 35+ points consistently to win games.
If you look at Brady and Rodgers their numbers don't fall off in the playoffs, unlike Peyton Manning. And you don't even need to look at highlight reels or watch the game to objectively see that Rodgers puts up better numbers. Then you watch the highlight reels, and personally I'm more in awe of what Aaron does and has been doing for years. With a mediocre offensive line, a turnstile of RBs, a bad DC, and a HC that still has his job single-handedly because of Rodgers.
Listen I agree with everything you said about Gretzky, Jordan, and Walt. If you want to argue Montana, Elway, Marino, or Manning as the GOAT, I'm fine with that, they are absolutely in the convo. Rodgers is not even close yet. One day I'm sure he will be, but right now hes not there.
The difference between watching every game (like I do) and seeing the highlights on sportcenter (everyone else) is why we're yelling at each other here. Its everything he does over the course of the game that isnt shown in the 1:30 highlight.
This is the best example I have to compare the two. Brady is Jerry Rice. Rodger is Calvin Johnson. Rice is smooth and elegant, played in a "system". Megatron is like nothing we've seen, absolute freak, but we all know Jerry is king.
Until he had Moss in 07 and then Gronk in 2010 every single offense the pats had was mediocre. Take the time and look up the rosters, they were nothing compared to what these other "greats" had. In 2011 they had the worst defense in the league and still made it to the super bowl.
Look at the facts. Take the time to look into what youre talking about.
Giving up 400 yds total offense every game doesn't matter much if the opponent doesn't score or just gets field goals. You should know this, the pundits have beaten that dead horse. The famous Pats "bend, but don't break" defense. Must be nice to have a top 10 scoring defense for 13 seasons.
Meanwhile, this is what Rodgers had to work with. Hmm, I wonder how the Packers did in their 2010 season?
I don't even have anything against the Patriots or Brady. Brady grew up a 49ers fan, and he grew up in the same region that I did. I didn't give a crap about deflategate or anything like that. Out of the final four, I would have liked to see the Pats win second-most, and would've liked to see the Packers fail the most
Having NFL Redzone is a godsend. I've seen plenty of Pats games in their entirety. Likewise for the Packers, and I'm sure Yumcha has as well (he has to watch his Bears get rekt twice a season). But just like him, I am not a fan of the Packers in the slightest... the Packers are among my 5 least favorite NFL teams.
Regardless, I acknowledge greatness when I see it. Brady is excellent. He's in the uppermost echelon of the NFL in all of history as a QB. But Rodgers is a better QB, period.
Humor me with this. Let's say nothing else changes about Brady's performances or stats, at all.
But instead of going 4-2 in SBs, Brady goes 0-6 in Super Bowls. Unlucky special teams TD or whatever for the opponent, and Brady does not get enough time or opportunity to mount a comeback. He's now no longer the GOAT?
Last question I promise. Are you saying that as of today Rodgers is the best all time OR when hes done he'll be the best all time?
Because if you're saying he is the best as of today, outside of what you see with your eyes? You cant just completely disregard passing stats and wins. This is where he is all time as of today
Humor me with this. Let's say nothing else changes about Brady's performances or stats, at all.
But instead of going 4-2 in SBs, Brady goes 0-6 in Super Bowls. Unlucky special teams TD or whatever for the opponent, and Brady does not get enough time or opportunity to mount a comeback. He's now no longer the GOAT?
100% not the GOAT, winning is a factor, along with stats, and your ability to make your team better . Currently I have Brady 1 Montana is 2nd then Peyton. If Brady went 0-6 he'd be around 4-6th. With Marino, Elway, Bradshaw
Last question I promise. Are you saying that as of today Rodgers is the best all time OR when hes done he'll be the best all time?
Because if you're saying he is the best as of today, outside of what you see with your eyes? You cant just completely disregard passing stats and wins. This is where he is all time as of today
How can that person be the best to ever play the position?
I am telling you he is the best QB of all time as of right now.
Rodgers has only had 8 full seasons to play out of his career, of course his passing numbers are going to fall short of other greats, they have played a decade or much longer. Brady has literally played a hundred more games than Rodgers.
I can't really say much about Bradshaw, Marino, and Montana as I wasn't alive to watch them play, or at least long enough to truly understand football. So I'm comparing contemporaries in the current NFL era, which is only fair.
What I do know by heart though, is Montana has been literally perfect in four SBs. 4-0 record, 11-0 TD/INT. So why is Brady better than him as of this moment? "Brady" is 4-2 in the games that matter the most. And I know he's thrown a few picks.
Just like how you are saying you cannot disregard passing stats and wins, you can't disregard the team as a whole. Even Big Ben won a Lombardi with an absolutely trash performance against the Seahawks. Probably will be the worst of all time for any SB-winning QB for the rest of NFL history. 9 for 21, 123 yards, 0 TDs, 2 INTs
You are discounting how great a team is and giving one player way too much credit.
I give up. All you do is discredit everyone else. Stats dont matter. Wins dont matter. You legit have presented zero evidence to why Rodgers is better than anyone.
Hes good and his defense sucks. Thats all you've said.
I give up. All you do is discredit everyone else. Stats dont matter. Wins dont matter. You legit have presented zero evidence to why Rodgers is better than anyone.
Hes good and his defense sucks. Thats all you've said.
Joneill, this is not a pile-on...but, I think the counterpoint on stats already was said which Costco agreed with -- in THIS case, Brady's stats alone cannot be a black and white indicator. This is not a case where his numbers are so overpoweringly better than anyone else (i.e. Gretzky). So, you now have a scenario where he's got to pass the eye-test and for MOST...and yes, we don't have your "bias" per se because he's not the QB of our fave team...Brady is not the GOAT. He just doesn't have that OMG-wow-hory-shet ability that some of the other examples offered possess.
This is like me arguing with 97Ack about Sidney Crosby and Jonathan Toews. The latter has won MORE...but, can you really say he's BETTER than Crosby? Um. No. Intangibes? Sure...but, is that a measurement of GOAT? I don't think so and I cannot use that as an argument in any debate on greatness in hockey. Brady has won a pile and he's an absolute byproduct of the Patriots machine. I ask you again: If he was that 6th rounder that ended up in a place where QBs die -- Cleveland or Chicago, do you think he's even in this conversation? Now...take Rodgers (and I HATE the Packers)...can you see him succeeding? Hate to say it, I've seen the f*cker run for his damn life and still make a throw I only think you can do in a freaking video game. Brady? He can't. If he gets touched, he gets mad and screams at his line. Over. His o-line is so amazing, I think he could knit you a sweater by the time he throws it. Does that take away his accuracy? No. Does that take away how good he's been? No. I don't think Cade McNown would have those numbers...BUT, BUT...then again, would a McNown have DECENT numbers? Um...yes. Why is every stupid Pats back-up so "amazing" and then turd in a new team?
If Brady were Rice then I'd say Rodgers is Moss. A lot of people argue Moss ability wise was better than Rice but Rice clearly has the stats and rings.
Dang Yum, discounting Pippen and Rodman's contributions. MJ to me is the GOAT. LeBron is probably more talented. Similar arguments too but basketball is easier to argue individualization of achievements.
But Moss is at least 2nd to Rice in all those stats, Rodgers is down in the 20s in QB stats. Look, Rice and Gretzky are the same when comparing stats. They are far ahead from the NEXT person on the list. Rice and Gretzky are separated from the NEXT top five in their stat categories.
In Passing Stats, there is no Rice or Gretzky at the top, everyone in the top 5 all have similar numbers so you can argue whos better between them. This is where all of you are getting lost. Just because there is no Gretzky passer at the TOP doesn't mean you can disregard stats completely because Brady has Gretzky like numbers when being compared solely to Rodgers. Try comparing Jagr to Joe Thornton. Jagr isnt first but has a billion more points than Thornton. Same goes for Brady - Rodgers. You cant use the excuse that Brady has played longer because I asked specifically if were talking as of today or when Rodgers retires, and you all said today so you're stuck with what Rodgers currently has.
This is why I compared Rodgers to Megatron. Both freaks of nature with unbelievable stat lines in terrible systems while they played but not all time numbers. We all agree Jerry numbers arent comparable so lets take him out for a second. Moss is 3rd in Yards and 2nd TDs. Megatron is 29th and 22nd. Thats the same difference between Brady and Rodgers when talking just stats.
Again I'm fine with you saying Peyton, Montana, Marino, Elway, is better than Brady because they all have similar stats/wins/titles. Rodgers has none of that.
Every so often the argument of "Who is the greatest Q.B. of all time" comes up. Typically it starts with your own favorite. Such a great argument. Many times I have seen Joe Montana on top of the list.
But Moss is at least 2nd to Rice in all those stats, Rodgers is down in the 20s in QB stats. Look, Rice and Gretzky are the same when comparing stats. They are far ahead from the NEXT person on the list. Rice and Gretzky are separated from the NEXT top five in their stat categories.
In Passing Stats, there is no Rice or Gretzky at the top, everyone in the top 5 all have similar numbers so you can argue whos better between them. This is where all of you are getting lost. Just because there is no Gretzky passer at the TOP doesn't mean you can disregard stats completely because Brady has Gretzky like numbers when being compared solely to Rodgers. Try comparing Jagr to Joe Thornton. Jagr isnt first but has a billion more points than Thornton. Same goes for Brady - Rodgers. You cant use the excuse that Brady has played longer because I asked specifically if were talking as of today or when Rodgers retires, and you all said today so you're stuck with what Rodgers currently has.
This is why I compared Rodgers to Megatron. Both freaks of nature with unbelievable stat lines in terrible systems while they played but not all time numbers. We all agree Jerry numbers arent comparable so lets take him out for a second. Moss is 3rd in Yards and 2nd TDs. Megatron is 29th and 22nd. Thats the same difference between Brady and Rodgers when talking just stats.
Again I'm fine with you saying Peyton, Montana, Marino, Elway, is better than Brady because they all have similar stats/wins/titles. Rodgers has none of that.
Yeah if you remove Rice from the analogy equation, it makes more sense since Rice is pretty undisputed stat wise superior. Also the issue with the WR comparo is that those players are all retired. Based on Brady's older career (started first), of course Rodgers will trail. I get your point that Rodgers' current stats aren't up to par (yet, maybe, who knows if he catches up). Others are just projecting future stats and/or reducing stats weight on their argument due to other factors discussed (e.g. supporting staff). Remember you can't judge by a box score. I get that people are throwing that in there BTW but I'm not arguing on their behalf.
FYI, I'm not arguing for either side. Just putting out different data, indicators, etc on how to judge something as opinionated as this. Alchemy if you will.
What doesnt he have? What else could he possible need? What is he missing?
Speed and agility.
Originally Posted by Joneill44
I give up. All you do is discredit everyone else. Stats dont matter. Wins dont matter. You legit have presented zero evidence to why Rodgers is better than anyone.
I'm pretty sure he has consistently stated that physical ability is why Rodgers is best whether you agree with him or not. He has also acknowledged that Brady is right there behind Rodgers in his opinion.
Your tune has turned from one of persuasion to one of disgust that you aren't getting your way, and THAT is probably the number one reason everyone hates the Patriots.
I think upon his retirement - probably 3 years - Brady will be considered the greatest QB who has ever played the game.
I think it will forever be an argument among a small set of names.
In baseball you can almost perfectly isolate player ability using stats. Huge data samples because of all the games they play, and very little impact to consider by their teammates or environment.
Soccer, Basketball and Hockey have slightly more influences to consider from teammates, but not much IMO. There is still a fairly defensible correlation between the stats and individual abilities.
Football is at the other end of the spectrum by a huge distance. QBs bring individual skills to the table, but their success is also highly dependent on the skills of the receivers, the skills of the O-line, the intelligence and sophistication of the play calling, and you can even argue venue (indoor vs. outdoor). Throw in a miserably small sample size compared to the other sports (16 games a season vs. dozens or hundreds) and you have an insurmountable number of variables to chase with statistically weak sample sizes.
To quantify a QB you have to be able to quantify everything else around them. Every player, coach, system, and environment. Additionally, you have the compounding problem of quantifying players around them because that is dependent on other things too - other players, systems, etc. How do you quantify a coach? A system? Too difficult to do with a level of precision necessary to rank order. IMO the data can provide the ability to put some number of QBs "above the line" for discussion. But in the end ranking the QBs in that group is just going to come down to what you personally think is important and who you like. That is until we see a statistical separation like Rice or Gretzky.
I think one way to get around the variables is to isolate them and assume they are ideal. With a perfect O-line, highly talented receiving corps, and offensive scheme that highlights a player's strengths, which QB would you choose and why? That won't necessarily result in the GOAT, but it could help define the difference between two top-tier QBs like Rodgers and Brady.
In terms of stats, the way I look at it is in averages, not look at the total stats. In that regard it's not that straightforward. Longevity plays into it too, because one or two great seasons does not qualify someone as truly great.
Use murders per capita in cities for example. A city with a population of 10 million and 100 murders per million is going to have a lot more deaths than the town with 100,000 people and 500 murders per million. But which city is safer overall?
IMO counting a player's accolades and statistics totals are a lazy way of factoring in how great a player truly is. I'm open to other justifications, but not just xyz has the most wins and TDs, therefore is the greatest
If you ask me who the greatest coach is, it's gotta be Belichick, whether or not he wins this SB or any others for that matter. Nobody else has come close to his level of success over such a sustained period of time with different coordinators and players. It's an anomaly to deal with late round draft picks year in, year out and still be able to do all of that.
Regarding Megatron and Rice, that is a much tougher one. I didn't see the season unfold, but he still has the record for receiving TDs, and that was in the strike shortened season. But Megatron is the only receiver I've seen that has beat triple coverage multiple times. I don't think Jerry or Moss has even done that.
In any case, this has been a lot more interesting than taking about the Pro Bowl
In terms of stats, the way I look at it is in averages, not look at the total stats. In that regard it's not that straightforward. Longevity plays into it too, because one or two great seasons does not qualify someone as truly great.
Certainly stats are an indicator, but I don't know if they are an absolute discriminator. Take Brees, who spent years in a pass-heavy offense vs. Brady in a more balanced attack. Sheer volume would favor Brees, even when looking at averages. Then you have the variable of who they are throwing to - accurate throws can still be dropped, and bad throws can be caught. All impacts the data.
Originally Posted by Costco
If you ask me who the greatest coach is, it's gotta be Belichick, whether or not he wins this SB or any others for that matter. Nobody else has come close to his level of success over such a sustained period of time with different coordinators and players. It's an anomaly to deal with late round draft picks year in, year out and still be able to do all of that.
Regarding Megatron and Rice, that is a much tougher one. I didn't see the season unfold, but he still has the record for receiving TDs, and that was in the strike shortened season. But Megatron is the only receiver I've seen that has beat triple coverage multiple times. I don't think Jerry or Moss has even done that.
In any case, this has been a lot more interesting than taking about the Pro Bowl
I vote Bilichick too. With coaches, I think the criteria is consistent success over a sustained period of time using a variety of players. I think once he retires it will come out he had a very elaborate statistics-based approach to selecting players (a-la-Money Ball) and also play construction. You always hear about the Pats taking away what you are good at and exploiting where you are weakest. IMHO there is data behind how they are determining that, not just smart guys watching film. Anyway, I think there is a systemic and repeatable engine behind the scenes at the Pats looking at players and play calling and Bilichick is behind it.
I think one way to get around the variables is to isolate them and assume they are ideal. With a perfect O-line, highly talented receiving corps, and offensive scheme that highlights a player's strengths, which QB would you choose and why? That won't necessarily result in the GOAT, but it could help define the difference between two top-tier QBs like Rodgers and Brady.
Interesting question. If it were my team, honestly I'd lean toward Brady. I think out of all the QBs, Brady is the best decision maker. You rarely see him make a stupid throw, he gets rid of the ball, he clearly has outstanding timing and accuracy. He's also freakishly consistent. Rarely does he have an really off day. If everything else is perfect, I think he's the guy that can best exploit it all week after week.
I'd also consider Peyton in his prime (for many of the same reasons), Rodgers too. I'll have to think about the others.
^ To add to my reply, if you change a variable (like say mediocre line), I think that may change you consider. If mobility counts, maybe Rodgers then. If a QB has no team defect to overcome, then you can rely on accuracy and decision making. If they have to be mobile, then that becomes more important criteria.
Ty Montgomery to be a full-time running back next year for the Packers. He put up good numbers and showed confidence in his running ability. Can't wait to see what he does full-time next year!!!
I'm pretty sure he has consistently stated that physical ability is why Rodgers is best whether you agree with him or not. He has also acknowledged that Brady is right there behind Rodgers in his opinion.
Your tune has turned from one of persuasion to one of disgust that you aren't getting your way, and THAT is probably the number one reason everyone hates the Patriots.
Q: In reference to your quickness in the pocket, I know you're not fast but --
TB: Don't tell my mom that either because she would totally disagree with that.
Q: She thinks you're fast?
TB: Yes, she thinks I'm very fast. I know. She says, 'I think you're the fastest person on the field.' I say, 'Mom, you are crazy. No way.' That's moms.
01-25-2017 | 04:01 PM
Tom "The Gazelle" Brady
