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

[denverYooper]

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.

[Patler]

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.

[mraynrand]

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".

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!"

[denverYooper]

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.
.

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.

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.

[pbmax]

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.

[Pugger]

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".

Or they will point out that that game was in Lambeau and not a neutral site. We have to remember there was a 10 year span between SB wins for Brady so was Brady not clutch during that time? If that kid doesn't intercept that slant from Wilson nobody would be talking about Brady = GOAT.

[Pugger]

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.

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.

P. Manning's playoff record is 9-11 so last year isn't the first time he's choked in the playoffs.

[Smidgeon]

Or they will point out that that game was in Lambeau and not a neutral site. We have to remember there was a 10 year span between SB wins for Brady so was Brady not clutch during that time? If that kid doesn't intercept that slant from Wilson nobody would be talking about Brady = GOAT.

I disagree. People were still talking about it before the game. But what people are now saying is that this game cemented his status as being "clearly superior" to anyone else. THAT is and always will be debatable. But he definitely is one of the 1%.

[Smidgeon]

P. Manning's playoff record is 9-11 so last year isn't the first time he's choked in the playoffs.

Nine times Peyton has been one and done in the playoffs. NINE TIMES!!!!

Perhaps the greatest regular season QB ever (5 MVPs) or just lucky in those great statistical years (i.e. no competition), but he either wilts in the postseason or he's perennially on weak teams that can't rise to the challenge against the best teams in the league.

The best postseason QB will always be a debate: Otto Graham, Bart Starr, Tom Brady, Joe Montana, etc.

[Bossman641]

Or they will point out that that game was in Lambeau and not a neutral site. We have to remember there was a 10 year span between SB wins for Brady so was Brady not clutch during that time? If that kid doesn't intercept that slant from Wilson nobody would be talking about Brady = GOAT.

Exactly. Brady was one Lynch run from having the media question whether he would ever win the SB again and why he had gone 0-3 in SB's over a 10 year stretch. Instead he will go down as 1 of the 2 best QB's ever. Football really is the true team sport. Our season was ruined by a 3rd string TE. Brady's season was saved, and his career will largely be remembered, by the actions of an undrafted rookie FA.

[pbmax]

Nine times Peyton has been one and done in the playoffs. NINE TIMES!!!!

Perhaps the greatest regular season QB ever (5 MVPs) or just lucky in those great statistical years (i.e. no competition), but he either wilts in the postseason or he's perennially on weak teams that can't rise to the challenge against the best teams in the league.

The best postseason QB will always be a debate: Otto Graham, Bart Starr, Tom Brady, Joe Montana, etc.

It could be that the long arc of regular season performance points out that Manning is superior, but that Brady's success is indicative of being on a better team.

[th87]

I'm suspicious that Brady had been a huge beneficiary of Spygate in the past, along with spectacular offensive lines, and generally good coaching (which instills a "no mercy" attitude and tries to find edges where other teams don't). He's also been able to beat up on an inferior AFC (particularly AFC East) for over a decade now, and thus has managed to be part of the best team out of that group.

That's not to say he's not one of the best of all time. He generally manages to play his game under most circumstances, and with his skill and the weapons he has, that's good enough. However, if he's hit in any way, he starts to unravel. I'm shocked that Seattle didn't try to put hits on him after his second interception.

[woodbuck27]

It could be that the long arc of regular season performance points out that Manning is superior, but that Brady's success is indicative of being on a better team.

How could **Peyton Manning be considered as a superior QB to Tom Brady?

The NFL is ultimately about the top teams and playoffs; getting to and winning the Super Bowl.

In the Modern Era there are two obvious candidates for who's best. Joe Montana or Tom Brady and they never faced one another. On those two outstanding quarterbacks the debate may be focused.

Joe Montana with a 16-7 playoff record (0.696) and 4 Super Bowls that 'included back to back wins in 1988 and 1989'. Montana's four Super Bowl wins cover a 9 year span.

Tom Brady is just getting better and has a sensational 21 - 8 playoff record and also 4 Super Bowls (0.724) and that included back to back Super Bowl wins 2003 and 2004. The 21 wins in the playoffs is an NFL best. Brady's four Super Bowl wins cover an incredible 14 years and he wants more.

If your going to add one or two more to thicken the debate:

Bart Starr's playoff performance (9-1 and 2 Super Bowls) is obviously impressive.

People seem to somehow ignore Terry Bradshaw ...14 - 5 and 4 Super Bowls in just 6 seasons 1974-79.

Troy Aikman and a 11-4 playoff record and 3 Super Bowl rings in just four season.

How about John Elway and all his comeback wins and 14-7 in the playoff's and 2 Super Bowls?

** Peyton Manning is THE RECORD MAN. When it comes to clutch and performance in the real time. He's not going to be in the conversation.

[th87]

I feel clutchness is a thing. I know it's dismissed as a sports cliche, but why? Different people have different abilities to handle stress. Some people panic, some people are in the middle, and some people don't care at all. I don't really think anyone RAISES their level of play, but when they stay consistent, while everyone around them folds, it may seem like they raised their level of play.

With Rodgers, early in his career, I don't think he handled stress as well as he does now. Yes, in 2008, Rodgers did have those go-ahead scores, only to have the defense give up another, putting him in a "now or never" situation. I don't think he did as well with those now or never situations, where if we don't score now, we lose. It's natural for a young quarterback replacing a legend. Over time, he's gotten a lot better at this, delivering on these opportunities.

Maybe there's still a residue of this type of thing in the playoffs, unless he goes "unconscious". It seemed this was happening in the second half of the Cowboys game, and most notably against Atlanta in 2010. Otherwise, he's still very good in the playoffs, but it appears to me that he sometimes misses throws that he normally makes easily, and then gets mad at himself or looks skyward. This too is understandable - he's an emotional dude and is smart enough to know what's at stake, and actually care.

Perhaps as his career progresses, he'll get better at blocking out the emotions of the moment and do a better job of getting into Flow, when the playoffs roll around. Again, this is not to say he's not already awesome. Just an improvement theory.

Flow: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_%28psychology%29

[yetisnowman]

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

Funny, when I googled 4th quarter comeback percentages quarterbacks the VERY first article that comes is "Aaron Rodgers Mr. Irrelevant in the 4th quarter"

When I google Aaron Rodgers not clutch An espn article, a sporting news article,(among others) come up regarding the subject. I am kinda lazy so I'm not digging super deep but after the Cincy loss last season A-Rod was 5 out of 29 when he had the ball in the 4th quarter with the Packers trailing by a score or less. The Miami game and the Dallas game were great, but unfortunately those games seem to be the exception. Tony Romo had 5 4th quarter comebacks in the 2012 season alone. Again I just thought this was common knowledge, being mathematical and all.