PFF gives Rodgers a negative grade for last night

TommyD4207 said:

In their primes, they each would have been the Patriots #1 WR. By a lot.

Also, at least two of those players have been on Rodgers' team at the same time, throughout his career.

You can blame blowing a 16-0 lead on a single special teams play, but that's silly. Rodgers was bad in the red zone, and went 6-12 for 57 yards in the second half, most of that on the desperation FG drive at the end.

Were it not for his defense picking Wilson off every other play, Seattle would have blown the Packers out. As it was, Seattle played terribly, and Rodgers couldn't take advantage. 4 times in the first 5 drives they were in the Seattle red zone, twice inside the 1...and they manage 16 points.

If you want to give Rodgers a pass, that's your business. Just sounds an awful lot like Manningsplaining to me.

Click to expand...

Rodgers not lighting it up against the league's best defense doesn't need a Manningsplanation. Tom has had poor games in the postseason as well. It happens.

As for Rodgers's weapons, they are solid like I said. I suppose there have been years when Jordy Nelson would be Brady's #1 target, but not in any year when Moss or Gronkowski was here. Cobb is great--an Edelman clone. My point is that he has never had a dominant guy that can just win on physical ability, a la the guys I mentioned. Brady has had Moss and Gronk in that category. Also, what has Greg Jennings done since he left? Do you even know what team he is on?

letekro said:

Rodgers not lighting it up against the league's best defense doesn't need a Manningsplanation. Tom has had poor games in the postseason as well. It happens.

As for Rodgers's weapons, they are solid like I said. I suppose there have been years when Jordy Nelson would be Brady's #1 target, but not in any year when Moss or Gronkowski was here. Cobb is great--an Edelman clone. My point is that he has never had a dominant guy that can just win on physical ability, a la the guys I mentioned. Brady has had Moss and Gronk in that category. Also, what has Greg Jennings done since he left? Do you even know what team he is on?

Click to expand...

You're understating the GB receivers. Two easy examples:

Nelson's a top tier WR.
Jenning's was putting up nice numbers with Favre before Rodgers, and his first year in Minnesota was on par with his later years in Green Bay.

letekro said:

Hard to take your comments seriously when you refer to him 5 times as "Rogers". Also hard when you cite winning percentage as the sole factor in determining QB greatness. There are 53 guys on a football team, and what, 10 coaches? You don't think those guys play a role in whether a team wins or loses? Use your eyes--Rodgers is a beast. His individual stats speak for themselves, he has won a SB despite being handicapped by a strategically unsound head coach and uninspiring defenses, and would have been in the big game last year if not for a cosmically bad special teams play. And let's not pretend that Greg Jennings, Randall, Cobb, James Jones, and Jordy Nelson are the most talented guys in the world. Solid guys, but they wouldn't be stars if they were playing with an average QB. There are no Megatrons, AJ Greens, Rob Gronkowskis, or Dez Bryants in that group.

Click to expand...

GB had the #2 defense when they won the SB. I don't understand how he's handicapped by coaching. McCarthy seems pretty good to me.

aluminum seats said:

Rodgers is a great quarterback. Any discussion of him, or a discussion of Brady vs. Rodgers, that doesn't start with that fact is flat-out embarrassing--just like it's embarrassing when other fan bases/boards try to put Brady down. It's pathetic, so let's not do that.

It is undeniably true that his performance in quantifiable "clutch" situations--overtime games, 4th quarter comebacks, playoffs--has been subpar (I think it was Cold Hard Football Facts that had him at the very bottom of a list a couple years back among qualifying QBs). He was winless in like the first half dozen OT games he played, he led the only 15-1 team in history to not win a playoff game, etc.

All of that is fair fodder for debate, w/the standard (and justified) caveat that football's a team game, not two QBs going mano y mano out there. I think the clutch stuff is real. I'd take Brady. But Rodgers is great.

Click to expand...

TBH - I haven't seen very much "Rodgers Sucks" in this thread. But the criteria changes when you start talking about GOAT.

letekro said:

Rodgers not lighting it up against the league's best defense doesn't need a Manningsplanation. Tom has had poor games in the postseason as well. It happens.

As for Rodgers's weapons, they are solid like I said. I suppose there have been years when Jordy Nelson would be Brady's #1 target, but not in any year when Moss or Gronkowski was here. Cobb is great--an Edelman clone. My point is that he has never had a dominant guy that can just win on physical ability, a la the guys I mentioned. Brady has had Moss and Gronk in that category. Also, what has Greg Jennings done since he left? Do you even know what team he is on?

Click to expand...

He's on Miami.

And Jordy Nelson can win on physical ability. Ask Darrelle Revis about that one.

So can Randall Cobb.

Throwing Gronk in there is a nice way to distract, but Jermichael Finley was pretty ****ing good there for a while before he got hurt.

Also, your first sentence should really end the argument.

Rodgers didn't light it up against the best defense in the league. Brady rallied from 10 down in the 4th quarter of the ****ing Super Bowl against the same best defense in the league.

That, my friend, is the difference.

TommyD4207 said:

TBH - I haven't seen very much "Rodgers Sucks" in this thread.

Click to expand...

Last night, he completed about 70 percent of his passes, for 333 yards, 5 touchdowns and no interceptions. You said, "he played pretty well." C'mon now.

aluminum seats said:

Last night, he completed about 70 percent of his passes, for 333 yards, 5 touchdowns and no interceptions. You said, "he played pretty well." C'mon now.

Click to expand...

He didn't play pretty well?

What, am I not using enough superlatives? Am I supposed to verbally fellate him after every good game he has?

He had a good game. He played pretty well. It wasn't the best game I've ever seen. It wasn't the best game I've seen from HIM, and I'm not going to pretend it was for fanbois.

TommyD4207 said:

He didn't play pretty well?

What, am I not using enough superlatives? Am I supposed to verbally fellate him after every good game he has?

He had a good game. He played pretty well. It wasn't the best game I've ever seen. It wasn't the best game I've seen from HIM, and I'm not going to pretend it was for fanbois.

Click to expand...

Settle down, killer. Point is, lukewarm "pretty goods," downplaying successful plays because of YAC, etc. makes whoever says that appear not objective, or in your words, a (shudder) "fanboi."

aluminum seats said:

Settle down, killer. Point is, lukewarm "pretty goods," downplaying successful plays because of YAC, etc., makes whoever says that appear not objective, or in your words, a (shudder) "fanboi"

Click to expand...

I'm not downplaying plays because of YAC, that's stupid.

But the fact that I'm not saying that last night was the greatest ****ing performance I've ever seen from a QB...when I saw a better one just last week, shouldn't make me worthy of scorn.

He played pretty well. I've seen him play better, stats be damned.

TommyD4207 said:

I'm not downplaying plays because of YAC, that's stupid.

But the fact that I'm not saying that last night was the greatest ****ing performance I've ever seen from a QB...when I saw a better one just last week, shouldn't make me worthy of scorn.

He played pretty well. I've seen him play better, stats be damned.

Click to expand...

Nobody said last night was the greatest performance we've ever seen.

Rodgers is great but he has to hang a lot more pelts on his wall before he enters any GOAT discussion. Right now it takes four rings just to get a seat at the table, and with any luck it will be five after this season. It's a small table, party of two.

TommyD4207 said:

He's on Miami.

And Jordy Nelson can win on physical ability. Ask Darrelle Revis about that one.

So can Randall Cobb.

Throwing Gronk in there is a nice way to distract, but Jermichael Finley was pretty ****ing good there for a while before he got hurt.

Also, your first sentence should really end the argument.

Rodgers didn't light it up against the best defense in the league. Brady rallied from 10 down in the 4th quarter of the ****ing Super Bowl against the same best defense in the league.

That, my friend, is the difference.

Click to expand...

Well, Jordy Nelson is not going to play this year, so here's a bet that Rodgers still posts insane numbers without him. Would you like to take that bet?

Cobb is like Edelman. I'll give you that. Davante Adams and Rodgers are solid too. You're kidding yourself if you consider these elite weapons.

How does Gronk distract? I don't get that comment. Gronk is far more physically dominant than anything Rodgers has played with.

If your argument is "Rodgers stunk against Seattle and Brady was great, therefore Brady is better," then I think we probably can't discuss this further. If you take the long view, Rodgers's career rating in the playoffs is significantly higher than Brady's. Brady has more super bowls because 1. Brady is probably one of the 5 greatest quarterbacks ever to play and 2. the Patriots as a team are consistently the most well-coached, well-prepared unit in the league, and had historically great defenses for at least 2 of the SB wins. Brady fanboys give him all the credit when we win ("He's the greatest of all time, count the rings baby!!!) and absolve him of the blame when we lose ("They wont give Tawmmy teh weaponz wah wah wah"). It's just not right. I've said this many times--switch BB and McCarthy and the fortunes of the two franchises would have been reversed.

PFF is not really great for evaluating QBs. Also slightly negative grade, rounds to 0.0, which means average NFL QB play. But back to point #1, IMO PFF is better suited to grading other positions where each play you can strongly say success, or fail. Combine that with several dozen snaps per game and take it with a grain of salt, and you get pretty good readings on the less glamorous positions. And for these, where else can you get someone to evaluate each snap for every player for every game? Also best when viewed against the rest of team. This is how I use them anyway.

Aaron Rodgers has better than a 4:1 TD/INT ratio. Not sure why anyone thinks that Rodgers' existence takes anything away from the legend of Tom Brady. It will take a few bad choke jobs for me to buy what people are selling about Rodgers being a chronic playoff disappointment. For the record, I thought he crapped the bed against Seattle last year, but one game of borderline choking does not mean his playoff legacy is anything like Manning's.

In the end, it doesn't matter. Brady will have unbreakable records for playoff and Super Bowl accomplishments, winning percentage, and about a zillion other things. I mean, no one really argued that Joe Montana was "the greatest" because he was actually the best quarterback in the league. No, it is about accomplishments, just like in everything.

I am comfortable saying Tom Brady is the greatest of all-time, based on his accomplishments, skills, longevity, leadership, and off-the-charts ability to WIN, but Aaron Rodgers plays the position at a higher level than anyone else ever has.

TommyD4207 said:

In their primes, they each would have been the Patriots #1 WR. By a lot.

Also, at least two of those players have been on Rodgers' team at the same time, throughout his career.

You can blame blowing a 16-0 lead on a single special teams play, but that's silly. Rodgers was bad in the red zone, and went 6-12 for 57 yards in the second half, most of that on the desperation FG drive at the end.

Were it not for his defense picking Wilson off every other play, Seattle would have blown the Packers out. As it was, Seattle played terribly, and Rodgers couldn't take advantage. 4 times in the first 5 drives they were in the Seattle red zone, twice inside the 1...and they manage 16 points.

If you want to give Rodgers a pass, that's your business. Just sounds an awful lot like Manningsplaining to me.

Click to expand...

The QB ratings from that weekend were incredible.

aluminum seats said:

Last night, he completed about 70 percent of his passes, for 333 yards, 5 touchdowns and no interceptions. You said, "he played pretty well." C'mon now.

Click to expand...

He did things that don't necessarily show up in stats. Gets a touchdown off of a defensive offsides call. Got too many men on the field called a few times.

Rodgers has had talented receivers. Brady's great X receiver was moss.

Ivan said:

Rodgers is great but he has to hang a lot more pelts on his wall before he enters any GOAT discussion. Right now it takes four rings just to get a seat at the table, and with any luck it will be five after this season. It's a small table, party of two.

Click to expand...

BSPN disagrees. Luck has been sitting at the table for a few years now.

Neat graph:

QuantumMechanic said:

Neat graph:

Click to expand...

This is the thing...people don't realize HOW good Rodgers really is. You see, if he had a history of playoff choke jobs like Manning (which he doesn't), then I can still understand why people would argue for him the way they do with Manning by basically saying, look, it has to be the rest of the team letting him down, he is too darn good to fail on his own like that. Unfortunately, Manning is not good enough, not even close to good enough, to get those types of excuses made for him and to use the argument that he "carried the team on his heavy shoulders" all year. Rodgers, yes. Manning, no.

Regarding the graph, though, I'll point this out. If you take a ruler and draw a line from the zero axis through Rodgers, you will find the angle is not THAT much different from Brady, who is on the closest trajectory. Brady played half his career in the non-QB dominance era, too. Just saying.