well, we got our wish.Quote:
Originally Posted by woodbuck27
Printable View
well, we got our wish.Quote:
Originally Posted by woodbuck27
You don't need any numbers other than Tom Brady has 4 game winning drives in the superbowl, 6 super bowl appearances, and 9 AFC title game appearances. What he did in the fourth quarter yesterday was legendary. No matter how much success he has he always wants more and that's I think the key to him being so great. He wants it more than everyone else. Rodgers has been the starter for 7 years. One superbowl, 2 NFC title game appearances. The game against Seattle won't get easier than that ever and he couldn't pull it off. Injured leg or not, he didn't make enough throws when it counted most. Brady almost always does.
Don't want to talk about career achievements fine. Brady beat Seattle with greater pressure on him (losing by ten) and less help from his defense. Rodgers was given 5!!! turnovers...For all the bashing of the defense over the years as whats holding us back from winning more titles you can't blame them ay all this year. This did enough against Dallas and did more than enough against Seattle. Rodgers carried us over Dallas but couldn't against Seattle. Brady carried his team past Baltimore and again against Seattle. He's better...For his career and right now.
" Isn't this the same Aaron Rodgers that injured himself falling off the end of the bench? " woodbuck27Quote:
Originally Posted by Pugger
" What are you talking about here??? " Pugger
Pugger:
You don't recall this happening?
I looked today to find something more on that. That happened way back around 2006-07 as I recall it. I'll continue looking. I just recall some early stuff and Rodgers getting slightly injured and thinking:
Man this fella is soft.
Of course all that was relative to who the starter was back then and there wasn't any or many tougher than him.
I don't recall this incident...Quote:
Originally Posted by woodbuck27
It's a huge exaggeration. Rodgers sustained a hamstring injury in the 2007 season during practice, the week after his showing against Dallas. I think it was conveniently blown out of proportion in order to avoid a QB controversy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pugger
No offense, but this is a stupid ass thread. Who cares if we are giving arod a free pass, I am just so thrilled to have him on the packers, I am willing to give him more than one of them....
a few vicodins and some whiskey, and who even knows they're injured? #toughnessinabottleQuote:
Originally Posted by woodbuck27
An NFL record 297 consecutive starts (321 including playoffs).Quote:
Originally Posted by mraynrand
but this thread is about Aaron Rodgers.
Would everyone stop getting Favre in my Rodgers thread?
Rodgers vs. Brady. Who is better?
I have had this debate many times over the last 50 years; only with Bart Starr vs.______ (fill-in the blank).
It's not player stats, or championships won. Its not the quality of the defenses they played with or the relative strengths and weaknesses of the players around them, because they all play with varying levels of each. It's not injuries, because they all have and play with injuries at different times in their careers.
It really comes down to opinions based on watching the players in many, many different situations. How did they perform in those situations?
Bart Starr - having watched him play through out his career, one thing was very clear. No matter what the situation or conditions, no matter what had happened earlier, no matter who he was playing with or against, with the game on the line he was usually at his best. With the game on the line, he found ways to win more often than not. With the most miserable conditions that one could imagine, with the comfort of knowing he already had 4 championships in his pocket, with his team trailing by 3 he found a way to drive the field and score the game-winning TD, not the game-tieing FG.
Team mates have said that no one they ever played with wanted to win more than Bart Starr. I hear much the same about Tom Brady, and have seen the results.
For some players, odd things happen in clutch situations and they win. For others, odd things happen and they lose. Some become better players when the situation becomes tougher; for some, those "odd" things happen and they lose.
Faced with a final drive to win a game, with the pick of any QB I wanted, I would still pick Bart Starr. The drive to win the Ice Bowl was the norm for him. I always "knew" what would happen in those situations. Starr found ways to win, regardless.
My second choice very likely would be Tom Brady, or Joe Montana, or Johnny U.
Rodgers is a great QB. Peyton Manning is a great QB. However, neither has developed a reputation for being "clutch" in the most demanding situations. Have they engineered great comebacks? Of course they have, but they have also been on the field for more than their share of those "odd" situations that resulted in failures. I don't think it is a coincidence.
Oh, and in my opinion, Brett Favre deserves to be grouped with Manning and Rodgers in spite of the great wins he had during the season. I was never comfortable with my thoughts of how he would perform in the playoffs, until he became a Viking. Then I was very comfortable! :)
God love ya Patler!Quote:
Originally Posted by Patler
says the guy who keeps bringing up Favre!Quote:
Originally Posted by woodbuck27
This may be hard to determine because he was calling the plays, but I am assuming he had to follow his coaches game plan to some extent. If he didn't, I think its safe to assume bart would have been traded to the CFL.Quote:
Originally Posted by Patler
Was Starr's greatest accomplishment getting Lombardi to dump the gameplan and go with what the players on the field (maybe only Starr with some input from offense) saw was working on the field?
Was Starr more John Elway with Dan Reeves than Johnny U with Weeb or Shula?
There were varying reports of what was said and done at that final timeout, but the one consistent thread through them all is that Starr told Lombardi what he intended to do and why. Many have said that when an assistant asked what Starr was calling, Lombardi said he had no idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by pbmax
The statement that one guy wants to win more than anyone else is mostly hogwash in professional sports. Sure, there may be some guys who can turn it off (Cutler). It's a quality that gains reverence only in retrospect, based on the final results of one player's career. Hell, if I were to bestow that mantle one someone, I'd give it to Jarrett Bush and all of those hardworking less glamorous guys. I'd give it to Butler, the guy who gave Brady's legacy an immediate boost by recognizing a play he got beat on in scout team practice.
Let's not forget that a healthy Rodgers-led team beat a healthy Brady-led team earlier in the season. But that doesn't count now because a couple of plays by bottom-roster players changed the entire narrative about "legacies".
Brady had the most dominant team in football and brought them into the superbowl as 13.5 point favorites at the very same stadium they played in on Sunday.
He failed against a #5 seed. He put up only 14 measly points with a record-setting offense that featured Randy Moss at WR. He couldn't seal the deal. Did he just not want to win that day?
He was one questionable playcall away from being 0-3 in his last 3 appearances. Because of an interception by a backup DB, he's now in the conversation for the greatest postseason QB.
Well, like I said, my opinion is not based on specific occurrences, or individual stats, or any one game result. Its a general impression based on many, many situations, some in which they succeed and some in which they do not.
The interception at the end of the game, and thus whether they won or not, did not change one bit what Brady did in the 4th quarter. He did what he needed to do to win the game. To actually win it required also others doing what they needed to do. Especially a QB can find ways to do what needs to be done to win the game, but still not win it when the defense or special teams has a final chance and fail. Rodgers was victimized by this several times the first few seasons he played.
It's funny that professional athletes themselves are willing to identify team mates and competitors who are more driven by the need/desire to win than the run of the mill professional, yet fans consider it hogwash? Maybe it's as much about confidence as anything, or the display of confidence regardless of their internal feelings. By confidence, I do not meen bravado.
It is not one play, one drive, one game or even one season. It's impression based on a career of seasons, many games, many many drives and countles plays.
People 'casting the narrative' want to reduce the game to simplicities they can understand and stories that are easier to write. Like the distance runner kicking it in for the win in the final 400 yards. Trying to encapsulate the efforts of (at least) 22 players is confoundingly messy and requires too many brain cells to integrate. It also doesn't make for flashy magazine covers up close camera shots, and commercial spots. Imagine: "Bill Belichick takes his complex schemes with a mix of 3-4 and 4-3 under defensive fronts into Green Bay for a battle with Mike McCarthy's multiple vertical with underneath options and shotgun run audible offense." Or "Brady versus Rodgers!"Quote:
Originally Posted by denverYooper
When used as a distinguishing factor in the discussion about "which of these HOF QBs" is better, it has very little relevance and often seems to come down to a combination of body language analysis and whether the end result of a team game is favorable or not. Every one of them is driven to be the best. There were a raftload of stories last year about what a workaholic Payton Manning was, leading extra sessions after practice every day, about how much he wanted to win. But that matters little now, because in the end of the season he ran into one of the best defenses in history. Now he's just a playoff choker.Quote:
Originally Posted by Patler
I have a fair amount of experience with pro athletes. I swam for several years with many pro triathletes (Boulder is a huge training spot for many). One of whom was a 2-time IronMan champion. No one ever said he "wanted it more" because they all wanted to win all of the time. Some were really just better, more gifted, and yes, just found more favorable circumstances than others. Maybe it's different for the much more media-hyped team sports like pro football than individual endurance sports, but the context when I've noticed it used in those circles is as a coded way of calling someone an asshole in polite company.
So in short, I do think it's mostly rhetorical flourish in a soundbyte-driven sport based on post-hoc analysis.
I think there are some standouts from a competitiveness standpoint or dedication standpoint, but its only obvious and confirmable over years. Rodgers has been identified as extremely competitive in practices since he was a rookie changing the scout team play to burn the starting Defense. Bush has even his more talented teammates in awe of his workouts.
But traits describe individuals, not success. Those traits might lead to greater indv. success, or they may simply enable one to maintain a roster spot. I have no doubt that Starr had something that made his teammates believe, but his ultimate success might have depended on deploying the talents of others well, more than his individual traits.
I think that its possible to simply insist on not giving up. Every team sport I have been involved with demonstrated that the smartest or most talented were not necessarily the most tough minded. The best of them inspired or embarrassed others into continuing to work hard and not throw in the towel. I think a mix of attributes that pushes players toward maximum preparation and maximum effort in a game or practice probably helps a great deal. The environment matters. But I am not sure that is someone one player can deliver by themselves.
I am not sure that such descriptions of individuals are much more useful than AJ Hawk being calm, composed in the huddle and accurate in lining up the defense. Did anyone notice Barrington called the D when Hawk got his fanny sent to the sideline? Did it seem more disorganized than before? The mix matters. Indeed, one of Belichick's mantra's in scouting is how dedicated is the player to football versus outside interests. But the individual traits are too easily mixed to be determinative.