ARE WE GIVING AROD A FREE PASS ??????????????????

[Pugger]

Should I have inserted the word 'otherwise' between the second and third sentence for more clarity?

I'll try this:

The last two weeks it was:

It's "well ...Aaron Rodgers would have been terrific if he was healthy in Seattle".


Today it's .... "Aaron Rodgers physical skill set is 'much better' than Tom Brady's."

Tom 'is still terrific' Brady just won his FOURTH SUPER BOWL RING.

I'm not going way out on a limb here and I'm sorry if it's shocking:

Aaron Rodgers with Mike McCarthy as his head Coach will not win four Super Bowl Rings.

This is what I was questioning: "Isn't this the same Aaron Rodgers that injured himself falling off the end of the bench?" What are you talking about here???

And bully for Brady. He won another ring. But GOING FORWARD I'll still take Aaron over Tom. Tom is gonna be 38 and Aaron is only 31 and still in his prime.

[Smidgeon]

No. Rodgers is the second best qb in the league. Rodgers had better stats than Brady but being great is not just about stats. Brady is number one, this is not even a debate. Its really not. No one leads a team/offense better, no one wants to win more than him, and no one is more clutch. Those attributes are clearly superior to Rodgers. What he did in the fourth quarter is legendary. What do you think the score of that game would have been had the Pats been given 5 turnovers?

Saying Brady is better is not an insult to Rodgers. I think he's the second best QB in the league. With the game on the line, in the biggest stage, with everything on the line, I would be lying if I said I want Rodgers over Brady. Brady won four superbowls with game winning drives, would have 6 if not for a few plays, has been to 9 AFC championship games (almost every year), and lets not forget he's 37. Brady >> Rodgers.

These are all arbitrary designations assigned by third parties without statistical proof without defining what "clutch" means independent of a supporting defense (Brady would have lost yesterday if it wasn't for his defense's INT in the final minutes).

So no. Those attributes aren't "clearly superior". They might be. It's possible. But logically there is no way to definitively say that. Intangibles are intangible for a reason.

[Pugger]

No. Rodgers is the second best qb in the league. Rodgers had better stats than Brady but being great is not just about stats. Brady is number one, this is not even a debate. Its really not. No one leads a team/offense better, no one wants to win more than him, and no one is more clutch. Those attributes are clearly superior to Rodgers. What he did in the fourth quarter is legendary. What do you think the score of that game would have been had the Pats been given 5 turnovers?

Saying Brady is better is not an insult to Rodgers. I think he's the second best QB in the league. With the game on the line, in the biggest stage, with everything on the line, I would be lying if I said I want Rodgers over Brady. Brady won four superbowls with game winning drives, would have 6 if not for a few plays, has been to 9 AFC championship games (almost every year), and lets not forget he's 37. Brady >> Rodgers.

You'd want a 37 year old QB over a QB with Rodgers' skill set in his prime in 2015? Nobody is saying Brady isn't great but physically right now going forward Rodgers is a better QB than Brady.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

These are all arbitrary designations assigned by third parties without statistical proof without defining what "clutch" means independent of a supporting defense (Brady would have lost yesterday if it wasn't for his defense's INT in the final minutes).

So no. Those attributes aren't "clearly superior". They might be. It's possible. But logically there is no way to definitively say that. Intangibles are intangible for a reason.

Four game winning drives in the superbowl? Rodgers had two/three fourth quarter drives against Seattle were all he needed was a few first downs and the game is over.

[Teamcheez1]

Four game winning drives in the superbowl? Rodgers had two/three fourth quarter drives against Seattle were all he needed was a few first downs and the game is over.

And AR was throwing on every play? If I'm not mistaken, there was at least one drive in the 4th qtr where three consecutive plays were runs for no yardage.

[woodbuck27]

You'd want a 37 year old QB over a QB with Rodgers' skill set in his prime in 2015? Nobody is saying Brady isn't great but physically right now going forward Rodgers is a better QB than Brady.

When your comparing Aaron Rodgers to Tom Brady and then venture into the going forward thingy:

You cannot ignore Rodger's poor performance in the post season after 2010-11. Aaron Rodgers hasn't looked good more so great since the last Green Bay Packer Super Bowl win. What has transpired in your Packer world that contradicts that fact?

Tom 'Terrific' Brady was 'still terrific' yesterday. That fact bodes better for Tom Brady in the future than Aaron Rodgers recent past since 2010-11. Specifically and attempting to discuss Aaron Rodgers and greatness doesn't make sense based on his NFL resume to date.

Now maybe six seasons from now we can legitimately discuss Aaron Rodgers in such glowing terms? I'm not optimistic we'll have enough to really get there. I'm really poor with blind faith.

Here's an article that focuses on Tom Brady and other NFL QB's and greatness and Aaron Rodgers isn't in the conversation.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...-best-ever-qb/

Fourth Super Bowl win for Brady will only spark more debate on game’s best-ever QB

Posted by Mike Wilkening on February 2, 2015, 12:35 PM EST

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

You'd want a 37 year old QB over a QB with Rodgers' skill set in his prime in 2015? Nobody is saying Brady isn't great but physically right now going forward Rodgers is a better QB than Brady.

As of 2/2/15, Brady is better than Rodgers all time and right now, yes. I have no idea if Brady will hit a wall next year. Everyone wants to talk about Rodgers not being healthy enough to scramble against Seattle, but Brady dropped 28 on Seattle without much scrambling around either. When Rodgers is 37 I doubt he's going to be running away from defenders and extending plays the way he is now. Brady at 31 and Brady at 37 are both better players than Rodgers. Brady at 38? who knows... I see no reason why the Pats aren't right back in superbowl number 7 w/ Brady next season.

People want to talk about how great Rodgers was playing hurt against Dallas (and he was) and yet those same people want to point to that as a reason why he didn't play good against Seattle. He could have been the difference in that game and he wasn't. He had at least 2/3 drives to end the game with a few first downs. If Brady was Qbing the packers that fourth quarter I truly believe the packers win. Thats the difference. Its not like plays weren't there. 3rd and 6 he throws a low pass to Cobb and misses the first down by less than a yard....

Rodgers is great. He's already top ten in my book, he's just not better than Tom Brady.

[mraynrand]

It's almost like these things don't matter.

I'd bet Belichick would trade Brady for Rodgers straight up.

You goddamn right he would

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

And AR was throwing on every play? If I'm not mistaken, there was at least one drive in the 4th qtr where three consecutive plays were runs for no yardage.

I'm a die hard packer fan and big supporter of AR. He's just not as good as Tom Brady though. Had Adams open on 3rd down to Quarless. Had bad pass to Cobb on 3rd and 6. I'm not talking down by ten needing two long touchdown drives in the superbowl with the game on the line. I'm talking big lead and a few first downs. This is not a debate. Throwing ability, arm strength, etc, etc, Rodgers is great.. He will go down as one of the best of all time.

But its not a coincidence the pats make it to the AFC title game almost every year.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

You goddamn right he would

No he wouldn't. Because Rodgers had his chance to beat Seattle and he didn't. Brady did. Now he has four rings. As good as Rodgers is he still only has one.

[mraynrand]

This thread is just getting tiring. People arguing against Rodgers aren't going concede any extenuating circumstances or factors, and I'm not going to concede that Rodgers sucks and that there weren't other factors.

Dave, this conversation can serve no purpose anymore.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

What sucks is not Rodgers, what sucks is whenever someone argues against an idea that is unpopular it turns into an emotional conversation with exaggerated attack rather than staying objective and about the topic. I don't remember anytime saying I wanted anyone to concede that Rodgers sucks. Rodgers is the second best Qb in the league in my book and is already a top ten QB all time. I'm arguing he's not better than Tom Brady and thats because he's not.

[mraynrand]

What sucks is not Rodgers, what sucks is whenever someone argues against an idea that is unpopular it turns into an emotional conversation with exaggerated attack rather than staying objective and about the topic. I don't remember anytime saying I wanted anyone to concede that Rodgers sucks. Rodgers is the second best Qb in the league in my book and is already a top ten QB all time. I'm arguing he's not better than Tom Brady and thats because he's not.

I could do without the emoting too

but you're not the only one posting.

It's hard to argue with Brady being the best, based on the ultimate results, but I still think Cheat would drop him in a nanosecond if he could get Rodgers (because the prospect of Rodgers playing for another 8 years is better than Brady for another few years - and Rodgers has a more accurate ball, both deep and shallow, runs better, and has an iron will when it comes to TOs, etc.)

[Rutnstrut]

You'd want a 37 year old QB over a QB with Rodgers' skill set in his prime in 2015? Nobody is saying Brady isn't great but physically right now going forward Rodgers is a better QB than Brady.

I would want Rodgers during the regular season and Brady in the post season. Brady is a much better clutch qb.

[yetisnowman]

These are all arbitrary designations assigned by third parties without statistical proof without defining what "clutch" means independent of a supporting defense (Brady would have lost yesterday if it wasn't for his defense's INT in the final minutes).

So no. Those attributes aren't "clearly superior". They might be. It's possible. But logically there is no way to definitively say that. Intangibles are intangible for a reason.

4th quarter comebacks and playoff wins are not an arbitrary designation. A-Rod's lack of clutch, signature moments are obvious to people who analyze qb play. Tom Brady has 35 regular season 4th quarter comebacks in the regular season. A- Rod has 8. Jay Cutler has 17. Alex freaking Smith has 14. Tom Brady has engineered a game winning drive in 4 super bowls. A-rod has 1 game winning drive in the playoffs ever. Russell Wilson in 3 years has 3. Nothing arbitrary about that at all. Those are numbers. Numbers don't lie.

[pbmax]

4th quarter comebacks and playoff wins are not an arbitrary designation. A-Rod's lack of clutch, signature moments are obvious to people who analyze qb play. Tom Brady has 35 regular season 4th quarter comebacks in the regular season. A- Rod has 8. Jay Cutler has 17. Alex freaking Smith has 14. Tom Brady has engineered a game winning drive in 4 super bowls. A-rod has 1 game winning drive in the playoffs ever. Russell Wilson in 3 years has 3. Nothing arbitrary about that at all. Those are numbers. Numbers don't lie.

Doesn't the fact that Alex Smith and Jay Cutler have significant fourth quarter comebacks make you wonder about the efficacy of that measure?

[mraynrand]

A-Rod's lack of clutch, signature moments are obvious to people who analyze qb play.

OK, give some examples. People of name and note.

[pbmax]

4th Quarter comebacks actually seem to be the ultimate in arbitrary measures. Who cares how many game you win late versus how many games you win overall?

You want a come from behind QB or a QB who wins 70% of the time by blowing out the opposition in Quarters 1-3?

At best, its one measure of a QB, immensely influenced by the Defense.

[woodbuck27]

Damn but don't we all really want Aaron Rodgers to excel !

I want him to be NFL MVP for two more consecutive seasons just like Brett Favre.

I want him to lead the Packers to back to back Super Bowls just like Brett Favre did but win two more rings.

I want Aaron Rodgers to be awarded the Walter Payton Man Of The Year award.

I want him to be FEDEX NFL Offensive Player of the Year Award winner for the next three seasons.

[mraynrand]

Numbers don't lie.

in football, rarely do they tell the whole story. My experience in football analysis is that people use numbers to support all sorts of claims that may or may not be consistent with careful analysis of entire games and seasons. Because unlike tennis or swimming or running any distance, football is a team sport, and a quarterbacks' numbers, in particular, are influenced dramatically by game situations. This board for example, has analyzed 'winning drive' 'comeback' and 'less than four point victories' ad nauseam, trying to figure out what they tell about quarterback play, and little if anything was agreed upon as much as the fact that such narrowly defined categories typically reveal very little about a quarterback.