Comparing Rodgers to others after 174 starts

[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.