Comparing Rodgers to others after 174 starts

[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.