Ryan Clark - "if Luck was a QB, pats win the SB 5 in a row"

PATS16N0 said:

The fact that Brady's numbers are right there close with Rodgers, who has a star studded offense, when Brady went through the 2013 injury season, the 2010 rebuild, and the 2009 rehabilitation seasons.

Brady is the ****ing man!

Click to expand...

Brady is about to get a trophy no other QB will get.

Chiuba E. Obele said:

Someone go ahead, and give this man a medal!

Click to expand...

That 06 team had no business beating SD. Schotsie turns into Grady Little and Troy forces the fumble to give TB the opportunity to go for the kill on the road vs a 14-2 team...and he delivered.

That SD team battered TB all day

TomPatriot said:

I thought the meme was that the Pats would be a .500 team without Brady? Now they'd win 5 SBs with someone else? I think these guys have spent too much time in a hurry up offense; they need to huddle up and get their stories straight.

Click to expand...

It varies, depending upon who's being discussed:

Best coach discussion? BB's done nothing without Brady
Best QB (etc...) discussion? Brady hasn't won without BB

You take those two riffs and modify them as needed.

BradyFTW! said:

If you're determined to deliberately misread my post and completely miss the point, I guess this is one way to do it.

Click to expand...

I disagree about Rogers being better in reg season. From 2009-2014. YMMV.

Time for Gronk to escort Mr. Clark from the club.

TommyBrady12 said:

there is no doubt statistically rodgers is better than brady right now. if that is what bledsoe is talking about i can't really argue with him there.

Click to expand...

Rodgers is a great QB, and if people want to put him #1 at the list, I understand that.

I just don't agree.

Rodgers is too much of a front-runner for my liking. When things are going well, he's on fire. But when the going gets tough, Rodgers doesn't seem to do much to change that fact.

FiveThirtyEight pointed out that Rodgers has never led his team to a comeback win from 9+ down in the second half. 0-21 at the time of the writing. Reading one Packers fan article "debating" this point, he mentioned that analysis included 4 games that Rodgers didn't start, and didn't include his 3 play-off games (0-3). Make those changes and Rodgers is only 0-20. Way to debunk that.

Not all of that is the QB's fault mind you. There was that 51-45 loss to the Cardinals in the play-offs where I could have thrown for at least 2 TDs against the Packers D. But you would think over the course of 20ish games, it would happen at least once. The article showed Peyton as a comparison, who was 14-35 in 49 games. It's hard to win games trailing by 2-possessions in the second half, but Manning wins over 1/4 of them, which is pretty impressive.

And what was interesting was the breakdown of INT percentage. Rodgers doesn't deviate much regardless of score. Manning's INT rate almost doubles when trailing by 9+. That would make many fans laugh at Manning but to borrow from old friend Herm Edwards, YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME. Manning is forcing the issue, and I'd rather have a QB force the issue when down big and sometimes pull it off than have a safe QB who plays the same way and always loses when we are down.

So yes, Rodgers may have a statistical edge in some areas, especially INTs (although nobody seems to care about the overinflated balls that might be tougher for DBs to catch, but I digress). However, considering we could not have won our 4th Super Bowl without Brady overcoming a 9+ deficit in the second half in 2 of our 3 play-off games (which actually included 2 comebacks down 9+ in the same game against the Ravens), a feat Rodgers has not done even once, I will gladly take our guy over anyone else. Rodgers fans can keep their statistical edge; I'd rather have the Lombardi Trophy.

As BB says, there's no QB I'd rather have than Tom Brady.

Oh, and I guess I should address the original post inspired by Ryan Clark.

Andrew Luck
Regular season: 86 TDs, 43 INTs, 86.6 RAT
Play-offs: 9 TDs, 12 INTs, 70.8 RAT

Tom Brady
Regular season: 392 TDs, 143 INTs, 95.9 RAT
Play-offs: 53 TDs, 26 INTs, 89.0 RAT

Brady's play-off RAT is higher than Luck's regular season RAT. Brady against play-off teams is consistently better than Luck against the field, including all the divisional lay-ups against the Jaguars and Titans.

So no. I'm taking Tom Brady.

convertedpatsfan said:

Rodgers is a great QB, and if people want to put him #1 at the list, I understand that.

I just don't agree.

Rodgers is too much of a front-runner for my liking. When things are going well, he's on fire. But when the going gets tough, Rodgers doesn't seem to do much to change that fact.

FiveThirtyEight pointed out that Rodgers has never led his team to a comeback win from 9+ down in the second half. 0-21 at the time of the writing. Reading one Packers fan article "debating" this point, he mentioned that analysis included 4 games that Rodgers didn't start, and didn't include his 3 play-off games (0-3). Make those changes and Rodgers is only 0-20. Way to debunk that.

Not all of that is the QB's fault mind you. There was that 51-45 loss to the Cardinals in the play-offs where I could have thrown for at least 2 TDs against the Packers D. But you would think over the course of 20ish games, it would happen at least once. The article showed Peyton as a comparison, who was 14-35 in 49 games. It's hard to win games trailing by 2-possessions in the second half, but Manning wins over 1/4 of them, which is pretty impressive.

And what was interesting was the breakdown of INT percentage. Rodgers doesn't deviate much regardless of score. Manning's INT rate almost doubles when trailing by 9+. That would make many fans laugh at Manning but to borrow from old friend Herm Edwards, YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME. Manning is forcing the issue, and I'd rather have a QB force the issue when down big and sometimes pull it off than have a safe QB who plays the same way and always loses when we are down.

So yes, Rodgers may have a statistical edge in some areas, especially INTs (although nobody seems to care about the overinflated balls that might be tougher for DBs to catch, but I digress). However, considering we could not have won our 4th Super Bowl without Brady overcoming a 9+ deficit in the second half in 2 of our 3 play-off games (which actually included 2 comebacks down 9+ in the same game against the Ravens), a feat Rodgers has not done even once, I will gladly take our guy over anyone else. Rodgers fans can keep their statistical edge; I'd rather have the Lombardi Trophy.

As BB says, there's no QB I'd rather have than Tom Brady.

Click to expand...

Rodgers is the QB you draft for Fantasy Football over Brady.

That's about it.

robertweathers said:

Rodgers is the QB you draft for Fantasy Footballs over Brady.

That's about it.

Click to expand...

Exactly - statistically he is better but Brady gets the job done.

TommyBrady12 said:

Exactly - statistically he is better but Brady gets the job done.

Click to expand...

Rodgers is a great, great QB. Hes won a SB and has a winning playoff record. I don't necessarily blame him totally for all of the Packers' spotty playoff performances. Brady went 10 years without a SB and also had spotty playoff performances along the way but like Rodgers, some of those losses are not on Brady.

When it comes to QBing, there is more than passing and putting up big numbers and having impeccable QB ratings. Brady gets the edge b/c the regular season and playoff numbers are close and he has 4 Super Bowls and has done more winning than Rodgers. Thats basically it.

Andrew Luck seems to be a very likable young man. It's not his fault he was drafted by the Colts, so I refuse to hold that against him.

However, he is rapidly becoming the most overrated QB of his generation. People have attributed god-like status to the man whose career QB rating rests in the mid-80's, roughly 4 points lower than RG3.

I have no problem with what Bledsoe said. That wasn't a shot, it was praise of someone else. And that Aaron guy, hes pretty good.

Great idea by Clark, the Colts should move Luck to QB. That's wicked smaht.

XLIX said:

Andrew Luck seems to be a very likable young man. It's not his fault he was drafted by the Colts, so I refuse to hold that against him.

However, he is rapidly becoming the most overrated QB of his generation. People have attributed god-like status to the man whose career QB rating rests in the mid-80's, roughly 4 points lower than RG3.

Click to expand...

That's only 4 points lower than the best QB in football. Not too shabby imo.

Luck is pretty amazing, especially considering he only has 3 years in the league. His passing numbers are mind blowing.

He will be getting better, which again, is crazy. His problem is that he suffers from poor coaching and a GM that focuses on offense over defense. That is not his fault.

convertedpatsfan said:

There was that 51-45 loss to the Cardinals in the play-offs

Click to expand...

Ya but Rodgers got the ball to start OT and got strip sacked and the Cardinals ran it in for a TD. So he had a chance to win that game and turned it over.

robertweathers said:

Rodgers is the QB you draft for Fantasy Football over Brady.

That's about it.

Click to expand...

Fantasy like Mr. Rodgers(sic) neighborhood

JMC00 said:

Ya but Rodgers got the ball to start OT and got strip sacked and the Cardinals ran it in for a TD. So he had a chance to win that game and turned it over.

Click to expand...

Yeah but anytime you score 45 points and lose that game wasn't on the offense. It's like the two Giants SBs, people blame the defense for giving up untimely scores but, ultimately it was the offense that didn't get the job done those days.

Nunchucks said:

Luck is pretty amazing, especially considering he only has 3 years in the league. His passing numbers are mind blowing.

He will be getting better, which again, is crazy. His problem is that he suffers from poor coaching and a GM that focuses on offense over defense. That is not his fault.

Click to expand...

Yep- He tries to do too much which is the problem QBs have when their team lacks talent on the offensive and defensive side of the ball.

Froob said:

Yeah but anytime you score 45 points and lose that game wasn't on the offense. It's like the two Giants SBs, people blame the defense for giving up untimely scores but, ultimately it was the offense that didn't get the job done those days.

Click to expand...

Brady had both those teams in the lead with minutes to go. Rodgers had the ball to start OT and just needed to get in position for a FG and coughed it up for a touchdown.