Comparing Rodgers to others after 174 starts

[Patler]

Interesting chart I stumbled onto. After 174 starts for each

Yards
Rodgers - 47,073
Favre - 42,489
Manning - 45,524
Brady - 43,015
Brees - 47,175
Roethlisberger - 42,716
Montana - 42,160

My comment - Not surprised Brees is first. I'm very surprised Rodgers is only 100 yards behind him.


Touchdowns
Rodgers - 373
Favre - 316
Manning - 327
Brady - 321
Brees - 333
Roethlisberger - 271
Montana - 292

My comment - I expected Brees to be first. He has had some prolific TD years. I expected Rodgers to be somewhat close because of his steady performance. I'm very surprised Rodgers has a 40 TD lead on Brees after 174 starts.


Interceptions
Rodgers - 89
Favre - 188
Manning - 170
Brady - 129
Brees - 166
Roethlisberger - 149
Montana - 145

My comment - No surprises here. Rodgers first by a lot. Favre last by somewhat less than I expected.

[pbmax]

Late period Brees and Favre play a very similar game.

[red]

The TD to INT ratio is just insane

[texaspackerbacker]

Anybody want to claim Rodgers is not the GOAT?

[mraynrand]

GOATS win championships. Brady, Starr, Montana, Graham top my list. Rodgers is in the tier with guys like Marino and Young. Great great players but lacking the rings. It’s unfair but QBs get extra credit and take extra blame. Rodgers still has a chance tho.

[Joemailman]

Anybody want to claim Rodgers is not the GOAT?

Sure, many people. If you're just going to compare stats without taking into account the era that different players played in, you can argue that Jay Cutler was as great as Johnny Unitas.

[Radagast]

Sure, many people. If you're just going to compare stats without taking into account the era that different players played in, you can argue that Jay Cutler was as great as Johnny Unitas.

Joe I tend to agree with your reasoning. Statistical analysis can tell part of the story, but it is far from explaining why a player had a good/bad year/career. QB Alpha may have had personal injuries to his O-Line or WR/s that played a direct role in their success or lack of success. QB Beta may have played with an injury that limited him. QB Gamma may have had a near perfect season as all areas of his offense fell into place.

Let's not forget the great players that played for average and less than average teams. Dan Marino comes to my mind first of all. How many rings would he have collected had he played for a better team. Adrian Peterson, Barry Sanders, and Earl Campbell also come to mind.

Instead we need to look at how deep a team's roster is, and can they stop the run, and will the receivers be quick enough to get open for the QB. In addition will opposing teams be (correctly) predicting the next play or can the Offense be nearly unpredictable. Also when it comes right down to it can Team A out muscle Team B on the goalline or win the field position game with their Special Teams.

My point is that variables of endless variety go into the makeup of a team. Team chemistry can't be measured, but it may just be one of a teams most important assets or liabilities.

[Patler]

Sure, many people. If you're just going to compare stats without taking into account the era that different players played in, you can argue that Jay Cutler was as great as Johnny Unitas.

I thought including Montana in the comparison was kind of odd. The others are contemporaries, and Favre the record holder when he retired. Montana was in a different football time. Marino as previous record holder would have been a more interesting comparison.

[texaspackerbacker]

GOATS win championships. Brady, Starr, Montana, Graham top my list. Rodgers is in the tier with guys like Marino and Young. Great great players but lacking the rings. It’s unfair but QBs get extra credit and take extra blame. Rodgers still has a chance tho.

It's a team sport. All of the ones you mention had loaded teams around them. Rodgers has not - thanks again, Ted. None of those on your list or the list above remotely compare to Aaron Rodgers in overall quality and ability to dominate a game.

[texaspackerbacker]

I would ask the question, who was the GOAT before Aaron Rodgers came along - or put differently, who is in second place?

I find it interesting that nobody has mentioned Elway - who seems clearly better than several on the list(s). My candidate for second greatest all-time, of course, would be Favre ....... but then I'm an unabashed homer. If you take into consideration longevity, Favre may still be above Rodgers, although I'd bet money Rodgers goes on as long as Favre, maybe with more quality in the final years. Rules favoring QBs are part of the reason for that. Brady and P. Manning also are right up there 3rd and 4th IMO.

It will be interesting to see when Mahomes and/or any of the other newbies reach about 174 games where they come in. I'd bet money also that they are below Rodgers overall.

[mraynrand]

It's a team sport. All of the ones you mention had loaded teams around them. Rodgers has not - thanks again, Ted. None of those on your list or the list above remotely compare to Aaron Rodgers in overall quality and ability to dominate a game.

Even if I agree, I don’t care. Rodgers didn’t get it done. One championship. Maybe he didn’t inspire his guys like Otto or Bart. Maybe he doesn’t have the will to command. There are all sorts of show ponies who never win even with great supporting casts. Win some championships.

[texaspackerbacker]

Even if I agree, I don’t care. Rodgers didn’t get it done. One championship. Maybe he didn’t inspire his guys like Otto or Bart. Maybe he doesn’t have the will to command. There are all sorts of show ponies who never win even with great supporting casts. Win some championships.

All the love in the world to Bart Starr, but there were a lot less teams in those days. And Graham I hardly remember, but it was a way different league then even than in Starr's time, much less now or in between then and now.

Would you put Mark Rypien, Trent Dilfer, Brad Johnson, Jeff Hostetler, Doug Williams, etc. on the same level as Rodgers because they also only won one SB? It's surprising also that nobody has mentioned Bradshaw or Aikman, since some want to make SB wins the major factor.

[mraynrand]

All the love in the world to Bart Starr, but there were a lot less teams in those days. And Graham I hardly remember, but it was a way different league then even than in Starr's time, much less now or in between then and now.

Would you put Mark Rypien, Trent Dilfer, Brad Johnson, Jeff Hostetler, Doug Williams, etc. on the same level as Rodgers because they also only won one SB? It's surprising also that nobody has mentioned Bradshaw or Aikman, since some want to make SB wins the major factor.

Those guys made the most of their opportunities. Rodgers overthrew Jennings in 2009. Rodgers has awful games in 2011 vs Giants 2014 at Seattle and 2016 at ATL. He had opportunities and blew it. He is far above Brady in ability but didn’t get it done. So no, he is not the Goat - at all. But he still has a chance.

Consider this - maybe both times he got hurt he changed from a better play because he’s “smarter than everybody else.” Maybe his teammates don’t follow him because they know he doesn’t follow or respect the coach?

Win some championships.

[texaspackerbacker]

"made the most of their opportunities"? i.e. got lucky?

I still say, winning championships has little or nothing to do with being the GOAT. How well the team does when you aren't there has a helluva lot more to do with it. Hopefully, Rodgers will win several Super Bowls before he is through and silence the detractors.

[mraynrand]

"made the most of their opportunities"? i.e. got lucky?

I still say, winning championships has little or nothing to do with being the GOAT. How well the team does when you aren't there has a helluva lot more to do with it. Hopefully, Rodgers will win several Super Bowls before he is through and silence the detractors.


I'm not detracting, I'm just explaining why he's not the goat. yet.

Edit: I would say I'm trying to detract SO MUCH AS explain where he falls short of GOAT, IMO. You certainly can argue from stats that he's the best, but I don't think it's enough.

Brady didn't get lucky except maybe not to be injured more. Even as an old fart, the dude is cutting teams apart. Definitely has help in a great coach/organization, much like Starr and Montana. But intangibles are just that. So sorry, Rodgers ain't it - yet.

[pbmax]

I'm not detracting, I'm just explaining why he's not the goat. yet.

Edit: I would say I'm trying to detract SO MUCH AS explain where he falls short of GOAT, IMO. You certainly can argue from stats that he's the best, but I don't think it's enough.

Brady didn't get lucky except maybe not to be injured more. Even as an old fart, the dude is cutting teams apart. Definitely has help in a great coach/organization, much like Starr and Montana. But intangibles are just that. So sorry, Rodgers ain't it - yet.

He did get lucky given that his team in the first two Super Bowls was superior to him. He had hellacious defenses. He still needed to perform and get the last drive to FG range to beat the Rams, but that was one big drive in a game dominated by the Cheatriots Defense.

I take nothing away from him, except that he wasn't really the Brady of today until 2005 and later. Even then, he has had some superior help.

[texaspackerbacker]

I'm not detracting, I'm just explaining why he's not the goat. yet.

Edit: I would say I'm trying to detract SO MUCH AS explain where he falls short of GOAT, IMO. You certainly can argue from stats that he's the best, but I don't think it's enough.

Brady didn't get lucky except maybe not to be injured more. Even as an old fart, the dude is cutting teams apart. Definitely has help in a great coach/organization, much like Starr and Montana. But intangibles are just that. So sorry, Rodgers ain't it - yet.

Brady would be my #3 or 4 GOAT after Rodgers and Favre and maybe P. Manning. Brady's luck was in the form of having a much better supporting cast and arguably better coaching. The main ones I was ascribing luck to, though, were Dilfer, Rypien, etc. - low level QBs with SB rings, same as Rodgers.

What you say and what I say doesn't make a helluva lot of difference, but stats don't lie, nor does the fact that the Packers turned to shit without Rodgers - something which pretty much was not the case with Brady or the others on those lists - whose teams cruised on almost normally when they were injured. P. Manning is the only one comparable to Rodgers by that criterion.

[mraynrand]

In sports, stats lie all the time.

[smuggler]

GOATS win championships. Brady, Starr, Montana, Graham top my list. Rodgers is in the tier with guys like Marino and Young. Great great players but lacking the rings. It’s unfair but QBs get extra credit and take extra blame. Rodgers still has a chance tho.

All the players you named had era-best teams. Green Bay 2008-present is not that.

[mraynrand]

All the players you named had era-best teams. Green Bay 2008-present is not that.

If they had won in 2011 and 2014 and maybe perhaps one other year (2009 or 2016) I bet you’d be singing a different tune. And I’ve made the argument that Rodgers could have played better enough in the playoffs to win those years.

But there’s no doubt you’re calling those teams era best teams because they won championships.

Wanna be GOAT? Wiin more championships.

[theeaterofshades]

Even if I agree, I don’t care. Rodgers didn’t get it done. One championship. Maybe he didn’t inspire his guys like Otto or Bart. Maybe he doesn’t have the will to command. There are all sorts of show ponies who never win even with great supporting casts. Win some championships.

or maybe Stubby killed his chances

[mraynrand]

or maybe Stubby killed his chances

could be

[run pMc]

I think Rodgers is a lock to be in the HOF. He's not the GOAT though. He might crack the top 5 when you consider Brady, Montana, Favre, Elway, Marino, and Manning...and that's primarily modern era passers.
A lot of folks swear by Otto Graham, and some say it's guys like Starr and Unitas.

[texaspackerbacker]

In sports, stats lie all the time.

Anybody whining that Rodgers somehow is not the GOAT needs to get off it. Yeah, stats can lie - like that Brady is the greatest because he won 6 SBs ....... He didn't; His team, the best of the era did. Of all those stats in the original post, the only one the is truly a game changer where the QB gets credit or blame is Interceptions. TD passes are important, as is yardage, but those are a product of the kind of offense the team plays and the quality of the receivers - as well as individual QB play. The real determinant is how good the team is when the prospective GOAT is out injured or whatever. A great all around team can win most of its games without a Brady or a Starr or a Favre or a Montana, etc. Bratkowski won most of his starts with Starr hurt; Doug Pederson did ok the few times Favre missed brief times; Steve Young moved right in when Montana went out and/or moved on; And the Patriots won with several QBs other than Brady. A mediocre supporting cast turns to shit without the superstar - like the Packers going 3-8 without Rodgers in 2017.

No QB in NFL history has performed as well overall as Rodgers; No QB in NFL history has made the most difference between success and failure as Rodgers. That spells GOAT.

[mraynrand]

How’d the Packers do with Rodgers running the show in 2018? Apparently he ‘took control’ of the offense more than ever before.

BTW: Pederson - lol

[RashanGary]

I think Rodgers is a lock to be in the HOF. He's not the GOAT though. He might crack the top 5 when you consider Brady, Montana, Favre, Elway, Marino, and Manning...and that's primarily modern era passers.
A lot of folks swear by Otto Graham, and some say it's guys like Starr and Unitas.

I agree. Brady is the best I’ve seen. He doesn’t get stubborn or picky or try to prove anything. He does whatever it takes to win. If it’s hand the ball off and throw easy short passes for a whole game, Brady never try’s to be a superhero and look good on the highlight reel. He’ll just churn out ugly, non flattering win after win after win. Greatest I’ve seen. Far better than AR.

Rodgers is a great player tho. Maybe Lafleur can help him become less stubborn and highlight reel oriented.

[smuggler]

If they had won in 2011 and 2014 and maybe perhaps one other year (2009 or 2016) I bet you’d be singing a different tune. And I’ve made the argument that Rodgers could have played better enough in the playoffs to win those years.

But there’s no doubt you’re calling those teams era best teams because they won championships.

Wanna be GOAT? Wiin more championships.

Counter argument to this is that players on better teams (specifically Brady) win championahips now and again when they look terrible in playoff games and their teams still win them.

[mraynrand]

Counter argument to this is that players on better teams (specifically Brady) win championahips now and again when they look terrible in playoff games and their teams still win them.

True enough. And the 2010 Packer defense did it’s job in some key spots too.

[smuggler]

Absolutely. But only in the one year. In 2014, the defense had 3, 4, 5 opportunities to do the same and failed. Rodgers wasn't on his game that day, but that had more to do with the elite Seachicken defense than Rodgers, I'd say.

[Patler]

The real determinant is how good the team is when the prospective GOAT is out injured or whatever. A great all around team can win most of its games without a Brady or a Starr or a Favre or a Montana, etc. Bratkowski won most of his starts with Starr hurt; Doug Pederson did ok the few times Favre missed brief times; Steve Young moved right in when Montana went out and/or moved on; And the Patriots won with several QBs other than Brady. A mediocre supporting cast turns to shit without the superstar - like the Packers going 3-8 without Rodgers in 2017.

No QB in NFL history has performed as well overall as Rodgers; No QB in NFL history has made the most difference between success and failure as Rodgers. That spells GOAT.

Bratkowski was 4-4-1 as a starter in GB.
Matt Flynn was 3-3 as a starter in GB.

[texaspackerbacker]

Bratkowski was 4-4-1 as a starter in GB.
Matt Flynn was 3-3 as a starter in GB.

At least one Flynn win, of course, was that meaningless $14 million game where he threw 6 TD passes and got his big contract.

Brady wouldn't do well with the Packers O Line. He's not mobile enough. Also, super accurate that he is, he just isn't Rodgers accurate - nobody is.

[run pMc]

Brady wouldn't do well with the Packers O Line. He's not mobile enough. Also, super accurate that he is, he just isn't Rodgers accurate - nobody is.

I don't think the issue would be the OL so much as the McCarthy offense. Brady can read a defense so well and get the ball out quick. NE's OLine isn't that great, but when you're dumping off to James White and Edelman 5-8 times a game each, it doesn't have to be. M3's long developing iso routes would get Brady killed. There have been stories in the past about how if Brady and Rodgers switched teams that Rodgers would destroy the rest of the league. I don't doubt he'd do well, but that was because of McDaniels and their scheme more than the surrounding players.


No QB in NFL history has performed as well overall as Rodgers; No QB in NFL history has made the most difference between success and failure as Rodgers. That spells GOAT.
I think it spells MVP, not GOAT. Remember when Peyton Manning had the neck injury and the Colts went in the dumper and picked Andrew Luck? By that argument Manning could be the GOAT.

[pbmax]

I don't think the issue would be the OL so much as the McCarthy offense. Brady can read a defense so well and get the ball out quick. NE's OLine isn't that great, but when you're dumping off to James White and Edelman 5-8 times a game each, it doesn't have to be. M3's long developing iso routes would get Brady killed. There have been stories in the past about how if Brady and Rodgers switched teams that Rodgers would destroy the rest of the league. I don't doubt he'd do well, but that was because of McDaniels and their scheme more than the surrounding players.


I think it spells MVP, not GOAT. Remember when Peyton Manning had the neck injury and the Colts went in the dumper and picked Andrew Luck? By that argument Manning could be the GOAT.

The entire NE offense is designed to make the read quick. Its literally the exact opposite of most of McCarthy's game planning. McCarthy wants to attack matchups. Belichick consults a library of (possibly illegally obtained) defensive adjustments in determining what the offense needs to attack.

McCarthy seems cover 3 with press then bail corners and he want to go deep.

Sometimes, when he is frightened, he actually gets down to the work of constructing openings. But not if he expects to win 1 on 1 matchups.

Just consider the difference between the first and second half of the first Seattle game against the Legion of Boom (Fail Mary). Or think about what the running game looked like against the Vikings with the Williams Wall. He could do it if he wanted, but as he literally was quoted after 2016, he didn't want to do that anymore.

[Tony Oday]

Not even close AR is the best QB of all time. Name one offensive player that went to another team and lit it up. He has rarely had elite WR, TE or RB. The guy is the best. Put him with Sausagestuffedinahoodie and he wins 10 SBs easy.

[Patler]

Something doesn't add up for me in the arguments, as I read them.
AR is the greatest of all time, but his results have not been great because he doesn't have elite receivers? A true GOAT should be successful even without elite receivers. If he needs elite receivers, he isn't the GOAT, in my opinion.

AR has played with some darned good receivers over the years, even if they are not future HoFers. Driver, Jennings, Jones, Nelson, Adams, Finley. At times he also had capable and reliable receivers out of the backfield, even if they were not elite.

Rodgers may be one of the most talented throwers ever, maybe the most talented. That alone doesn't make him the GOAT as a QB. As some one else mentioned above, the truly greatest QBs use what they have and get the most out of them. I have always had that doubt/reservation about Rodgers, and especially so last year. The truly great ones accept that inexperienced players will make mistakes, and deal with it. The greatest elevate the teams around them.

[run pMc]

Name one offensive player that went to another team and lit it up.
Brett Favre, Minnesota Viking and Bountygate target.

Depending on definition of 'lit it up', Kurt Warner and Carson Palmer both had some good seasons in Arizona.
Looking beyond QBs, Marshawn Lynch did pretty well in leaving Buffalo for Seattle.

I think everyone's idea of GOAT is different and the arguments don't align for that reason.
Regardless, AR has put up impressive stats and wins in 174 starts and is HOF worthy.

[texaspackerbacker]

I think it spells MVP, not GOAT. Remember when Peyton Manning had the neck injury and the Colts went in the dumper and picked Andrew Luck? By that argument Manning could be the GOAT.

What is GOAT if not MVP over the span of a career?

Yes, I said earlier, P. Manning is the only one who compares to Rodgers in terms of his team turning to shit without him. He would be my #3, tied with Brady, after Rodgers GOAT and Favre second.

[texaspackerbacker]

Rodgers may be one of the most talented throwers ever, maybe the most talented. That alone doesn't make him the GOAT as a QB. As some one else mentioned above, the truly greatest QBs use what they have and get the most out of them. I have always had that doubt/reservation about Rodgers, and especially so last year. The truly great ones accept that inexperienced players will make mistakes, and deal with it. The greatest elevate the teams around them.

No, being the best thrower alone doesn't do it, but combined with superb mobility and probably more good sense to not put it up for grabs than pretty much anybody ever, that spells GOAT.

Getting the ball out quick - forcing it anyway - IMO is a recipe for throwing interceptions and also for missing out on big plays.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Brett Favre, Minnesota Viking and Bountygate target.

Depending on definition of 'lit it up', Kurt Warner and Carson Palmer both had some good seasons in Arizona.
Looking beyond QBs, Marshawn Lynch did pretty well in leaving Buffalo for Seattle.

I think everyone's idea of GOAT is different and the arguments don't align for that reason.
Regardless, AR has put up impressive stats and wins in 174 starts and is HOF worthy.

Great Arm of Butte needs a couple more rings to be honorable mention GOAT after Tommy. However, if Rodgers ends up winning 5 more rings or he evolves into an even more extreme version of Lennon, then hot damn, he's the fucking GOAT.

Favre was the GOAT in my book, A Brief History of Tank: The Life and Times of Tank Elf Duke....Til I found out 'bout Favre refusing to throw to a Cinderella rookie in training camp. GOAT has to have humility.

[mraynrand]

I think everyone's idea of GOAT is different and the arguments don't align for that reason.
Regardless, AR has put up impressive stats and wins in 174 starts and is HOF worthy.

yup. That's about as good a bottom line as you're gonna get out of this debate.

[RashanGary]

As some one else mentioned above, the truly greatest QBs use what they have and get the most out of them. I have always had that doubt/reservation about Rodgers, and especially so last year. The truly great ones accept that inexperienced players will make mistakes, and deal with it. The greatest elevate the teams around them.

This too. I agree with this.

AR needs to be more adaptable. I hope Lafleur gets him to adjust and adapt to games and seasons and players better.

[Tony Oday]

Brett Favre, Minnesota Viking and Bountygate target.

Depending on definition of 'lit it up', Kurt Warner and Carson Palmer both had some good seasons in Arizona.
Looking beyond QBs, Marshawn Lynch did pretty well in leaving Buffalo for Seattle.

I think everyone's idea of GOAT is different and the arguments don't align for that reason.
Regardless, AR has put up impressive stats and wins in 174 starts and is HOF worthy.

I think you misunderstood, I meant what WR, RB, TE or Lineman that played with AR went somewhere else and lit it up?

[Upnorth]

GOATS win championships. Brady, Starr, Montana, Graham top my list. Rodgers is in the tier with guys like Marino and Young. Great great players but lacking the rings. It’s unfair but QBs get extra credit and take extra blame. Rodgers still has a chance tho.

When ever I see this statement I immediately begin to question that persons understanding of the sport in question. The only way you can say GOATs win championships and be correct is if it is a solo sport, such as boxing or golf.

In team games, it always boils down to the team and the system, and to me the ultimate proof is in the most superstar based team game - basketball. 5 years in a row the golden state warriors have been in the finals - not one player could be called the sole key on that team, and they rely on there starting line up more than the average team in the NBA. And I just want to reiterate that basketball is the most superstar based term sport. Or perhaps Lebron James loosing to the spurs multiple times in the finals proves he doesn't deserve to be in discussion for GOAT.

In football the superstar, while important, is never the sole source of victory. No QB can be the GOAT without decent receivers, no RB with out at least an average line. And ultimately if you have a stacked team and no coach, you have nothing. The Lombardi Packers were freaking stacked like none other, but with out Lombardi would Starr even have been starting by 1960? Or perhaps you feel Dan Marino is overrated because he doesn't have a ring.

[Upnorth]

I agree. Brady is the best I’ve seen. He doesn’t get stubborn or picky or try to prove anything. He does whatever it takes to win. If it’s hand the ball off and throw easy short passes for a whole game, Brady never try’s to be a superhero and look good on the highlight reel. He’ll just churn out ugly, non flattering win after win after win. Greatest I’ve seen. Far better than AR.

Rodgers is a great player tho. Maybe Lafleur can help him become less stubborn and highlight reel oriented.

I doubt the highlight reel is what makes great players make great plays. I have never seen a DE mug for the camera on the way to the sack. Once the play is over, sure, but before never because then the great play won't happen. Or do you really think a player like Rodgers runs around trying to make a play because it looks good? Because those are a lot of his best highlights and I don't think I have ever thought 'oh, he is just doing that for the camera'.

[mraynrand]

When ever I see this statement I immediately begin to question that persons understanding of the sport in question. The only way you can say GOATs win championships and be correct is if it is a solo sport, such as boxing or golf.

In team games, it always boils down to the team and the system, and to me the ultimate proof is in the most superstar based team game - basketball. 5 years in a row the golden state warriors have been in the finals - not one player could be called the sole key on that team, and they rely on there starting line up more than the average team in the NBA. And I just want to reiterate that basketball is the most superstar based term sport. Or perhaps Lebron James loosing to the spurs multiple times in the finals proves he doesn't deserve to be in discussion for GOAT.

In football the superstar, while important, is never the sole source of victory. No QB can be the GOAT without decent receivers, no RB with out at least an average line. And ultimately if you have a stacked team and no coach, you have nothing. The Lombardi Packers were freaking stacked like none other, but with out Lombardi would Starr even have been starting by 1960? Or perhaps you feel Dan Marino is overrated because he doesn't have a ring.

Good points. I'm prioritizing championships for determination of GOAT. Not to say that other guys aren't great, just not the greatest. And 'great' also can stretch beyond pure technical skill at the position. There are all sorts of intangibles involved, like the mystique a player has. The comparisons of eras would kill Starr and Graham straight up, but Graham dragged his team to 10 consecutive championship games, winning 7. And he came back as an 'oldster' to win one final championship. Montana wasn't a great physical specimen, and he had his low spots, but he was a total gamer, and played some of his greatest games in the playoffs or when games were on the line he just came up big. Marino, Steve Young, Rodgers, and one of my favorites Warren Moon all were fantastic players worthy of being considered for GOAT - and you can easily make the argument that they are physically better and more statistically accomplished than Starr Graham or Brady. But for me, I placed championships up there because of the intangibles of leadership and team success. Please feel free to continue to disagree.

[RashanGary]

I doubt the highlight reel is what makes great players make great plays. I have never seen a DE mug for the camera on the way to the sack. Once the play is over, sure, but before never because then the great play won't happen. Or do you really think a player like Rodgers runs around trying to make a play because it looks good? Because those are a lot of his best highlights and I don't think I have ever thought 'oh, he is just doing that for the camera'.

I think Rodgers is addicted to the spectacular and the attention that comes with it. Whether it be interception records or deep passes. I think Brady is addicted to winning and cares only about his family and team.

[Upnorth]

Something doesn't add up for me in the arguments, as I read them.
AR is the greatest of all time, but his results have not been great because he doesn't have elite receivers? A true GOAT should be successful even without elite receivers. If he needs elite receivers, he isn't the GOAT, in my opinion.

AR has played with some darned good receivers over the years, even if they are not future HoFers. Driver, Jennings, Jones, Nelson, Adams, Finley. At times he also had capable and reliable receivers out of the backfield, even if they were not elite.

Rodgers may be one of the most talented throwers ever, maybe the most talented. That alone doesn't make him the GOAT as a QB. As some one else mentioned above, the truly greatest QBs use what they have and get the most out of them. I have always had that doubt/reservation about Rodgers, and especially so last year. The truly great ones accept that inexperienced players will make mistakes, and deal with it. The greatest elevate the teams around them.

And with those darned good not HOF receivers he has put up stats that no one else can catch despite having a system that started stalling out in 2013.
I don't put Rodgers as the GOAT, but he is one of the greatest for sure. As to the aspect of accepting other players mistakes, every great QB i have watched has yelled at there receivers from time to time. I don't get the label Rodgers gets compared to the others. Every QB gets upset almost every game from what I can see.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJgB2M8ex-g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oh1dIxeuOro

I was suprised I didn't find any Favre or Marino clips on quick youtube searches... I remember Favre launching on receivers all the time.

[Upnorth]

Good points. I'm prioritizing championships for determination of GOAT. Not to say that other guys aren't great, just not the greatest. And 'great' also can stretch beyond pure technical skill at the position. There are all sorts of intangibles involved, like the mystique a player has. The comparisons of eras would kill Starr and Graham straight up, but Graham dragged his team to 10 consecutive championship games, winning 7. And he came back as an 'oldster' to win one final championship. Montana wasn't a great physical specimen, and he had his low spots, but he was a total gamer, and played some of his greatest games in the playoffs or when games were on the line he just came up big. Marino, Steve Young, Rodgers, and one of my favorites Warren Moon all were fantastic players worthy of being considered for GOAT - and you can easily make the argument that they are physically better and more statistically accomplished than Starr Graham or Brady. But for me, I placed championships up there because of the intangibles of leadership and team success. Please feel free to continue to disagree.

Do you honestly think that Starr and Graham become Starr and Graham without Lombardi and Brown? In both cases, like with Brady, I think the coach made the team. The packers without Lombari, but with multiple future HOF were a below average team in the standings (admittedly the 3 '58 HOF were still growing in '59).
Personally, I feel Brady is a modern Starr, excellent execution in very well crafted system. I also believe that is the goal of all football players, to be the best they can be in a great system.
Unfortunately not all players get a great system, and the GOATs then have to drive the system. However star driven systems are not nearly as sustainable in any sport, let alone the ultimate team sport of Football.

[Upnorth]

I think Rodgers is addicted to the spectacular and the attention that comes with it. Whether it be interception records or deep passes. I think Brady is addicted to winning and cares only about his family and team.

So in the 1.5 to 7.5 seconds that Rodgers has the ball he is looking for attention instead of the play? He is overly protective of the ball so he does shy away from risk, yet he looks for the spectacular throws at the same time? IN a venn diagram of spectacular and safe throws there is not much over lap.

On a tangent, this is the most enjoyable cancelled appointment I have had in awhile. If I seem argumentative today, I think I am letting my thoughts from some comments on PFT about the nature of GOAT out here.

[mraynrand]

Do you honestly think that Starr and Graham become Starr and Graham without Lombardi and Brown? In both cases, like with Brady, I think the coach made the team. The packers without Lombari, but with multiple future HOF were a below average team in the standings (admittedly the 3 '58 HOF were still growing in '59).
Personally, I feel Brady is a modern Starr, excellent execution in very well crafted system. I also believe that is the goal of all football players, to be the best they can be in a great system.
Unfortunately not all players get a great system, and the GOATs then have to drive the system. However star driven systems are not nearly as sustainable in any sport, let alone the ultimate team sport of Football.

Good points.

Team sports are highly interlinked.

Anyone else see how the other night GS brought in Iguodala, played defense and crushed the Raptors without several stars?

[Patler]

Something doesn't add up for me in the arguments, as I read them.
AR is the greatest of all time, but his results have not been great because he doesn't have elite receivers? A true GOAT should be successful even without elite receivers. If he needs elite receivers, he isn't the GOAT, in my opinion.

AR has played with some darned good receivers over the years, even if they are not future HoFers. Driver, Jennings, Jones, Nelson, Adams, Finley. At times he also had capable and reliable receivers out of the backfield, even if they were not elite.

Rodgers may be one of the most talented throwers ever, maybe the most talented. That alone doesn't make him the GOAT as a QB. As some one else mentioned above, the truly greatest QBs use what they have and get the most out of them. I have always had that doubt/reservation about Rodgers, and especially so last year. The truly great ones accept that inexperienced players will make mistakes, and deal with it. The greatest elevate the teams around them.

And with those darned good not HOF receivers he has put up stats that no one else can catch despite having a system that started stalling out in 2013.
I don't put Rodgers as the GOAT, but he is one of the greatest for sure. As to the aspect of accepting other players mistakes, every great QB i have watched has yelled at there receivers from time to time. I don't get the label Rodgers gets compared to the others. Every QB gets upset almost every game from what I can see.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJgB2M8ex-g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oh1dIxeuOro

I was suprised I didn't find any Favre or Marino clips on quick youtube searches... I remember Favre launching on receivers all the time.

Certainly Rodgers is one of the most statistically accomplished QBs ever. I never intended to suggest differently.

I think my point regarding inexperienced players was misunderstood. I wasn't criticizing him for calling out, or yelling at their mistakes. That kind of thing always happens. My concern is his ability to use them even with their mistakes. At times he seemed to totally ignore them, and the players themselves said as much. He became so focused on Adams that plays available to others were passed up. There were some good videos at the end of the season that showed as much

Favre often got angry at WRs screw-ups, but that didn't stop him from throwing to them, even in ill-advised situations. One year GB went through something like 10 or 11 WRs due to injuries, and Favre commented that he didn't always know their names, but if they had the right jersey on he would throw to them.

I think Rodgers didn't always give the young guys enough of a chance. Yes, he did throw some critical passes to each, but I think he could have used them even more, even as he demonstrated disapproval when they made mistakes.

[Patler]

So, lets take a different comparison. The initial comparison was of Rodgers at his current spot (174 starts) to some older QBs who started a number of years before Rodgers, or a lot of years before. Lets compare Rodgers to a younger QB, Matt Stafford.

Stafford has 141 regular season starts. (The initial comparison was total starts, including playoffs).

After 141 regular season starts, each:

Yards:
Rodgers - 37,883
Stafford - 38,526

TDs
Rodgers - 309
Stafford - 237

Interceptions
Rodgers - 74
Stafford - 129

[gbgary]

rodgers is unarguably the goat statistically! do i wish he was different than he is in a lot of ways? oh yes! you can't have everything though.

[gbgary]

My concern is his ability to use them even with their mistakes. At times he seemed to totally ignore them, and the players themselves said as much. He became so focused on Adams that plays available to others were passed up. There were some good videos at the end of the season that showed as much

Favre often got angry at WRs screw-ups, but that didn't stop him from throwing to them, even in ill-advised situations. One year GB went through something like 10 or 11 WRs due to injuries, and Favre commented that he didn't always know their names, but if they had the right jersey on he would throw to them.

I think Rodgers didn't always give the young guys enough of a chance. Yes, he did throw some critical passes to each, but I think he could have used them even more, even as he demonstrated disapproval when they made mistakes.
absolutely!

[pbmax]

Favre often got angry at WRs screw-ups, but that didn't stop him from throwing to them, even in ill-advised situations. One year GB went through something like 10 or 11 WRs due to injuries, and Favre commented that he didn't always know their names, but if they had the right jersey on he would throw to them..

I am pretty sure that Billy Schroeder was phased out of active chances for most of a year after one too many instances of waving while on the wrong route. Just a guess, but Driver's first big year might coincide with this. There were a couple of throws to Schroeder that I thought looks like a fit of pique or an attempt to induce injury. It was a weird year and he was a weird player.

Young Favre favored Sharpe above all else for similar reasons that Rodgers preferred Adams.

In my head. 2016 erased whatever last doubts I had about Rodgers being able to create a passing game by himself with modest talent at skill positions. The remaining deficiencies are hard to tease out between Rodgers preferences and McCarthy's offensive shortcomings. We have discussed the Rodgers second offense before (precursor to the extended offense) and I think that is the starting point of WR not being able to fit in immediately to the team's offensive plans.

Even with the clean break we are getting this year, I am not sure we will ever know why this developed, because it developed while the offense was prolific. But I suspect it was McCarthy tendency to prefer to win matchups rather than scheme people open. The slowdowns on offense at the end of 14, most of 15 and the opening of 16 provide clear evidence for why the extended offense was used. But I still am not sure why the second offense came into being.

Honestly, I would prefer to hire a Peyton Manning type (all of one ever produced) to run his own offense rather than a hybrid. Favre was close with the stints in NY and Minnesota, but that was passing game only.

[pbmax]

So, lets take a different comparison. The initial comparison was of Rodgers at his current spot (174 starts) to some older QBs who started a number of years before Rodgers, or a lot of years before. Lets compare Rodgers to a younger QB, Matt Stafford.

Stafford has 141 regular season starts. (The initial comparison was total starts, including playoffs).

After 141 regular season starts, each:

Yards:
Rodgers - 37,883
Stafford - 38,526

TDs
Rodgers - 309
Stafford - 237

Interceptions
Rodgers - 74
Stafford - 129


Stafford makes some foolish mistakes at times, but that offense should be better with him. It frigtening at times, but always seems to break down.

[texaspackerbacker]

rodgers is unarguably the goat statistically! do i wish he was different than he is in a lot of ways? oh yes! you can't have everything though.

You blundered into the truth on several counts hahahaha.

I wish the rest of the team was better - so that Rodgers GOATism would make more of a difference in the record. We'll see if we can have that aspect of everything. I wouldn't bet against it this season.

[smuggler]

Brady's championship last year will always be used against him as GOAT, which is amazing, but it's true. Same reason why people don't really typically think of Starr as GOAT. Brady:Starr::Belichick:Lombardi

The more Brady plays, the weaker his case gets. And the less I respect people who get hard for him as GOAT.

[mraynrand]

Brady's championship last year will always be used against him as GOAT, which is amazing, but it's true. Same reason why people don't really typically think of Starr as GOAT. Brady:Starr::Belichick:Lombardi

The more Brady plays, the weaker his case gets. And the less I respect people who get hard for him as GOAT.

There's no way to know for certain if Lombardi or 'Cheat would have been as successful without their QB generals, although I think they both would have been, given better circumstances. Lombardi didn't live long enough to make it work in DC and I suspect 'Cheat will retire when Brady quits. Still, I don't know of any analyst in the game of football who thinks that Brady winning more championships makes him less of a candidate for GOAT. * It's hard for me to wrap my head around that logic. Brady just keeps winning, even when he's an old GOAT.


*If you find one, please link it, I'd seriously love to read the argument, but I suspect it will be heaping the praise, deservedly, on 'Cheat.

[Upnorth]

There's no way to know for certain if Lombardi or 'Cheat would have been as successful without their QB generals, although I think they both would have been, given better circumstances. Lombardi didn't live long enough to make it work in DC and I suspect 'Cheat will retire when Brady quits. Still, I don't know of any analyst in the game of football who thinks that Brady winning more championships makes him less of a candidate for GOAT. * It's hard for me to wrap my head around that logic. Brady just keeps winning, even when he's an old GOAT.


*If you find one, please link it, I'd seriously love to read the argument, but I suspect it will be heaping the praise, deservedly, on 'Cheat.

He won his first 2 sb as an average QB who was supported by the system. He won his last two sb as an average QB who was supported by the system and arguably the goat te. I think that is the argument. If the system supports him that well at his worst it takes the shine off his best as well