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.