Vote!

[Pugger]

http://www.nfl.com/voting/players-air-and-ground/2012/YEAR/0

[Patler]

I voted for Manning and Peterson.

[Jimx29]

I don't know why they'd even consider having anyone else but AP for the ground vote

[Pugger]

I voted for Manning and Peterson.

Do you think Manning had the better numbers than Rodgers?

[Patler]

Do you think Manning had the better numbers than Rodgers?

No, pretty equal on the numbers.

[mraynrand]

I voted for RGIII for both

[Pugger]

No, pretty equal on the numbers.

Then what made you vote for Manning? Just curious.

[Patler]

Then what made you vote for Manning? Just curious.

At least one TD pass every game; 240+ yards passing every game; 13-3; 11 wins in a row. Just a very consistent season, game after game. Rodgers had a more up and down season, I thought. Then with the back story of a new team, new offense, new team mates and coaches, etc. His performance just seemed a little more special than either Rodgers or Brady.

[Joemailman]

At least one TD pass every game; 240+ yards passing every game; 13-3; 11 wins in a row. Just a very consistent season, game after game. Rodgers had a more up and down season, I thought. Then with the back story of a new team, new offense, new team mates and coaches, etc. His performance just seemed a little more special than either Rodgers or Brady.

I have no real problem with people voting for Manning. Rodgers had to deal with some things though that I'm pretty sure Manning didn't. His #1 WR missed 8 games. His #2 WR missed 4 games, and almost the entirety of a 5th. A musical chairs situation at RB with 5 different starters. An offensive line that had to replace 2 starters. Rodgers may have been more spectacular in 2011, but he had to be more resourceful in 2012.

[mraynrand]

uh, the Broncos' defense is kinda better than Green Bay's.

[Upnorth]

At least one TD pass every game; 240+ yards passing every game; 13-3; 11 wins in a row. Just a very consistent season, game after game. Rodgers had a more up and down season, I thought. Then with the back story of a new team, new offense, new team mates and coaches, etc. His performance just seemed a little more special than either Rodgers or Brady.

I think if you give Rodgers that Oline and Manning ours the numbers are no longer close to equal.

[mraynrand]

I think if you give Rodgers that Oline and Manning ours the numbers are no longer close to equal.

we have an O-line?

[Patler]

I think if you give Rodgers that Oline and Manning ours the numbers are no longer close to equal.

I doubt that. Manning has been Manning for a lot of years with a lot of different players in front of him. He gets rid of the ball, doesn't like to be sacked, and makes his lines seem better than they might be. I also believe there will always be an impression that lines in front of Rodgers aren't the best because he will always have a lot of sacks, just because of the way he plays. (Note: Rodgers sacks don't bother me as much as they seem to bother a lot of others.)

I suspect if they switched lines Manning would still have had a very Manning-like year and Rodgers would have had a very Rodgers-like year.

[mraynrand]

I also believe there will always be an impression that lines in front of Rodgers aren't the best because he will always have a lot of sacks, just because of the way he plays. (Note: Rodgers sacks don't bother me as much as they seem to bother a lot of others.)


yup. Rodgers takes sacks over INTs (eschewing both risky throws and risky throw-aways)

[Pugger]

Because of all the things Upnorth, mrraynrand and joemailman said I don't know what Manning did was any more special than what Rodgers did. Yes, PM went to a new team but that team was in the playoffs with Tebow at the helm last year. I'm sure the Broncos incorporated a lot of what Manning did in Indy too. Denver's division isn't as good as the NFCN is either. When it is all said and done I hope AP wins the league MVP because without him the Vikes might only win half the games they eventually did.

[Pugger]

I doubt that. Manning has been Manning for a lot of years with a lot of different players in front of him. He gets rid of the ball, doesn't like to be sacked, and makes his lines seem better than they might be. I also believe there will always be an impression that lines in front of Rodgers aren't the best because he will always have a lot of sacks, just because of the way he plays. (Note: Rodgers sacks don't bother me as much as they seem to bother a lot of others.)

I suspect if they switched lines Manning would still have had a very Manning-like year and Rodgers would have had a very Rodgers-like year.

I seriously doubt Manning would be able to escape pass rushers and make plays on the run like Rodgers does with our patchwork line. Denver's running game also aids Manning more than ours. Yes, we're running it better now but I'd wager most other teams don't lose sleep over our running game. ;-)

I don't mind that Rodgers takes sacks either. Often he will extend plays by trying to elude rushers and I'd rather he take that sack than throw it up for grabs. There are at least one or two times in a game where he is trying to elude one sacker and runs into the arms of another. My only concern is Rodgers taking all of these hits. His health and well being is the #1 priority around here.

[Patler]

I seriously doubt Manning would be able to escape pass rushers and make plays on the run like Rodgers does with our patchwork line. Denver's running game also aids Manning more than ours. Yes, we're running it better now but I'd wager most other teams don't lose sleep over our running game. ;-)


Manning is (and always has been) a bit like the older version of Favre, not very fast or nimble-footed, but able to somehow elude rushers and get a throw off. I also think he is s little more willing to throw into a tight window early in a play than Rodgers is, so he doesn't have the need to contend with the pass rush as much as Rodgers does.

[denverYooper]

I doubt that. Manning has been Manning for a lot of years with a lot of different players in front of him. He gets rid of the ball, doesn't like to be sacked, and makes his lines seem better than they might be. I also believe there will always be an impression that lines in front of Rodgers aren't the best because he will always have a lot of sacks, just because of the way he plays. (Note: Rodgers sacks don't bother me as much as they seem to bother a lot of others.)

I suspect if they switched lines Manning would still have had a very Manning-like year and Rodgers would have had a very Rodgers-like year.

Yeah, I think the lines are closer than some might think. The Broncos have had some injury problems on their line, losing their center early (they picked up Dan Koppen in season) and their RG, Kuper, an excellent player has been in and out this year. Manny Ramirez has been a mess at times. They do have one of the top LT in the league in Clady and a decent, if still green RT in Franklin. So Denver's injury problems have mostly on the interior where any QB hates to be bothered.

Denver has a better running game but they committed to running much earlier in the year. I'd say their running backs are a click above Green Bay's, though, pending what comes of DuJuan Harris.

Green Bay's WR corps is deeper but Demariyus Thomas is a clear cut above GB's guys this year. The guy is huge, fast, and has great hands. Eric Decker is similar to Jordy. James Jones is a cut above Stokely physically but Stokely has a long history with Manning and has been his go-to guy at times. Denver doesn't really have anyone like Cobb. They could have but he (Royal) went elsewhere to get paid. Jennings is a great player but he's been out so long that it's hard to involve him in a comparison.

I'd give Denver's TEs a lean right now.

Denver's defense is better. Miller and Dumervil will be a problem for GB, very much like the Giants are, should both teams make it that far, and they're more consistent than Big Blue's talent up front (at least this year). Green Bay's secondary is a bit better top to bottom but Denver's front 7 can force the ball to come out a lot faster than GB's.

The AFC West is bad, though, and Denver got a lot of easy wins there after the Chargers tapped out early. Green Bay has faced a better slate of teams and defenses. So that is a confounding factor.

All that said, Patler is right in that both QBs play very different styles, even though both are very cerebral players and meticulous preparers. Manning gets the ball out much faster on average and will take more chances in tight coverage. He might throw a few more INTs where Rodgers might take more sacks. I guess you might say they approach risk/reward a bit differently.

It's close, and at the end of the day, both team's records would probably be +/- 1 game of where they are now if you switched QBs. Manning did come back from a year off and Denver with the same team is clearly dramatically better with him under center, so it's easy to look at that and see his impact, though no one is fooling themselves about how the Packers would fare without Rodgers.

[pbmax]

Manning does fall between Favre and Rodgers in terms of throw/don't throw and he will not escape unless there is a clear, straight line path. And if a sack is unavoidable, he will simply go down.

However, given the slate of defenses Manning has seen, I think his INT number goes up in Green Bay as he has to get rid of more balls early with either line.

Consistency, to me, seems his best argument.

[denverYooper]

Manning does fall between Favre and Rodgers in terms of throw/don't throw and he will not escape unless there is a clear, straight line path. And if a sack is unavoidable, he will simply go down.

However, given the slate of defenses Manning has seen, I think his INT number goes up in Green Bay as he has to get rid of more balls early with either line.

Consistency, to me, seems his best argument.

Per FO, Green Bay has faced the #1, #2, #3, #4, #6, and #7 defense this year. #5 is Denver, #8 is GB. Chicago is #1, and they played them 2x. That's 7 games against the top 7 in defensive ratings.

[Patler]

Per FO, Green Bay has faced the #1, #2, #3, #4, #6, and #7 defense this year. #5 is Denver, #8 is GB. Chicago is #1, and they played them 2x. That's 7 games against the top 7 in defensive ratings.

Interesting. Does their ranking of defenses put a large emphasis on turnovers, and/or points off turnovers?

[denverYooper]

Interesting. Does their ranking of defenses put a large emphasis on turnovers, and/or points off turnovers?

Turnovers are worth a lot in their system and TDs scored off of turnovers are another bump. Their core metric is basically a weighted average of all plays over the course of the season as compared against the average play given that situation on the season. Most plays are worth 0 to 1 points, dependent on their success in a given situation. As for turnovers, "interceptions averaging -6 points and a "fumble is worth anywhere from -1.7 to -4.0 points depending on how often a fumble in that situation is lost to the defense". Also "There is a bonus given for a touchdown, which acknowledges that the goal line is significantly more difficult to cross than the previous 99 yards (although this bonus is nowhere near as large as the one used in fantasy football)."

Their method is outlined here: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/info/methods

Their rankings had Chicago being one of the best defenses in history up until the San Fransisco game.

[smuggler]

Rodgers is a better QB than Manning, so I voted Rodgers

[woodbuck27]

Voting for AP was easy. 'All Day' wins it all day. It's not even close.

Peyton Manning was nominated for FedEx Air Player of the Week five times, winning once. He had 37 TD's and 11 Picks. Tom Brady was nominated for FedEx Air Player of the Week five times, winning three times. Tom Brady had 34 TD's and 8 Picks. So it's Tom Brady over Peyton Manning.

Aaron Rodgers was nominated for FedEx Air Player of the Week three times, winning twice ('a best' 0.667 winning percentage). Aaron Rodgers passed for 39 touchdowns which was second best in the NFL (Drew Brees 43 TD's) and only had 8 picks. Aaron Rodgers led the NFL again in 2012 with a QB rating of 108. I looked at the number of injuries to Packer week one starters and especially the condition of Aaron Rodgers OL, for much of the season like a patch work quilt. I looked at the number of games that AR's No. 1 and 2 WR's missed.

A close call between Tom Brady (QB Rating 98.7) and Aaron Rodgers but AR gets my vote. It's hard to argue with the fact he has the best QB rating in the NFL again this season at 108 or nearly ten points higher than Tom Brady.