Is Aaron Rodgers better than Tom Brady?

[shmessy]

No, I'm comparing the rush to find the "next one" so early on, and the gullibility of people who are so willing to believe the hype. Brady was, far and away, the best QB in the NFL last year. Have you seen any signs of decline so far this year?

No.

You wrote, and I quote: "People fell for the same argument last year, only that was with Michael Vick. Why are people so gullible?"

This is not Michael Vick. YOU named that name to make a point.

Some day, Brady WILL lose his fastball. That day has not come yet and I hope it doesn't come for a long time.

However, when you introduce a comparison by naming Vick as the same argument as last year, you just fell down a flight of stairs. Your subsequent post was you claiming that you meant to do that, a la this guy at the end of the video:

Pee Wee's Big Adventure - Bike Flip - YouTube

 

[ScottieC]

All those things do not make an argument for how Brady is better in the present.

They are all happneing now, this season.

Why don't you make the argument, use info from the time period your living in....presently.

 

[Fball]

Brady was clearly the best in the league until that one bad game with 4 interceptions. Now there is a debate going on? Sure Rodgers is younger and quicker but right now in 2011 Brady is the better QB. I think if any team could choose between Rodgers or Brady to lead their team in 2011 I think most would chose Brady.

I would disagree w/ that. Most teams don't have the O-line that NE does.

When Brady doesn't have protection, he's not as good. Rodgers is much better under pressure.

 

[Deus Irae]

No.

You wrote, and I quote: "People fell for the same argument last year, only that was with Michael Vick. Why are people so gullible?"

This is not Michael Vick. YOU named that name to make a point.

Some day, Brady WILL lose his fastball. That day has not come yet and I hope it doesn't come for a long time.

However, when you introduce a comparison by naming Vick as the same argument as last year, you just fell down a flight of stairs. Your subsequent post was you claiming that you meant to do that, a la this guy at the end of the video:

Notice the bolded part emphasizing that it's the ARGUMENT that's the same (QB is better than Brady), followed by the observation that it was with a different specific person being argued about. Hell, before Vick, it was Manning and/or Brees. In other words, you got it completely wrong.

 

[robbomango]

GB goes to the SB w an 18-0 record and loses to the pats, Brady#1

 

[ScottieC]

I would disagree w/ that. Most teams don't have the O-line that NE does.

When Brady doesn't have protection, he's not as good. Rodgers is much better under pressure.

When Rodgers doesn't have protection, he's not as good.

In fact, I can unequivocally say, without prejudice, that when ANY QB does not have protection, he's not as good.

Now, perhaps you meant to say - That Rodgers is a very mobile QB and that benefit’s him, to the extent that he's better than Brady.

Some of that I agree with, some of it I do not.

 

[Trey]

Yes, they do.

Your first point is all nice and well, except for the fact Rodgers too is putting up ridiculous passing numbers, and has the added fact that he's not useless if he can't pass the ball.

Redzone TD/INT efficiency is nice, but it's a technical stat, because I can think of at least two INTs he threw in or around the endzone in the Bills game alone that do not add to that number because the play didn't originate inside the 20.

The other statistics are much more of a team oriented achievement as well. Though, if you want to count those, you would have to balance it against the Packers' record in the last somesuch games dating back into last season, including their SB win in which Rodgers won MVP. Also take into consideration the rating systems giving Rodgers the edge so far this year.

Also the fact that the Patriot "good team wins" (if you take stock into these things) are the Chargers and the Jets to the Packers' Falcons and Saints.

The focus should be on their individual play with respect to the present instead of streaks which have no bearing on real time events. That "on pace for passing yards" thing is a wash, while Rodgers has a much better TD:INT ratio for the season.

Unless I'm interpreting the question wrong, because I assumed the context is "right now," considering it would be foolish to try to gauge their entire careers against one another at this point.

 

[Deus Irae]

Your first point is all nice and well, except for the fact Rodgers too is putting up ridiculous passing numbers, and has the added fact that he's not useless if he can't pass the ball.

Redzone TD/INT efficiency is nice, but it's a technical stat, because I can think of at least two INTs he threw in or around the endzone in the Bills game alone that do not add to that number because the play didn't originate inside the 20.

The other statistics are much more of a team oriented achievement as well. Though, if you want to count those, you would have to balance it against the Packers' record in the last somesuch games dating back into last season, including their SB win in which Rodgers won MVP. Also take into consideration the rating systems giving Rodgers the edge so far this year.

Also the fact that the Patriot "good team wins" (if you take stock into these things) are the Chargers and the Jets to the Packers' Falcons and Saints.

The focus should be on their individual play with respect to the present instead of streaks which have no bearing on real time events. That "on pace for passing yards" thing is a wash, while Rodgers has a much better TD:INT ratio for the season.

Unless I'm interpreting the question wrong, because I assumed the context is "right now," considering it would be foolish to try to gauge their entire careers against one another.

If you can't figure out how long streaks that continued into week 5 of this season would serve to help the Brady argument, I really don't know what to tell you, because it should be abundantly clear. The same sort of argument would run in Rodgers/Packers favor if you were talking about best football team in the NFL, because you could point out that the Packers are not only 5-0, but have won their last 11 straight, dating back to last year.

 

[JoeSixPat]

Brady tied a record for most consecutive games with 2+ TDs. Brady is on pace to best Marino's passing yards record. Because Hernandez muffed that TD catch, Brady threw just his first red zone INT at home in his NFL career, leaving him with a better than 90-1 TD/INT ratio in that area. The Patriots are chasing the all-time record for most consecutive games scoring 30+ points.


No, Rodgers is not better than Brady.

Agreed.

Rodgers is also doing it with the better all around team. There's a bunch of guys on the Patriots who have really stepped up (Brady and Welker among the most obvious) but overall I don't think there's any doubt Green Bay is the better team right now.

That just showcases Brady all the more.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

I would disagree w/ that. Most teams don't have the O-line that NE does.

When Brady doesn't have protection, he's not as good. Rodgers is much better under pressure.

Sure he is...and he has the multiple concussions to prove it...:bricks:

 

[Trey]

If you can't figure out who long streaks that continued into week 5 of this season would serve to help the Brady argument, I really don't know what to tell you, because it should be abundantly clear. The same sort of argument would run in Rodgers/Packers favor if you were talking about best football team in the NFL, because you could point out that the Packers are not only 5-0, but have won their last 11 straight, dating back to last year.

I touched on this very thing in the third paragraph.

I don't think it makes the argument for QBs, because it relies on the logical premise that wins and points come because the QB is playing well, which is not always the case. So the logic is flawed.

A more apt streak would be consecutive +100 QBR games. Or take the aggregate of their statistics over a certain time frame and compare them.

 

[shmessy]

Notice the bolded part emphasizing that it's the ARGUMENT that's the same (QB is better than Brady), followed by the observation that it was with a different specific person being argued about. Hell, before Vick, it was Manning and/or Brees. In other words, you got it completely wrong.

It's NOT the same argument when you name Vick in it. Vick can't even read an opposing Defense (by his OWN admission!). When you name Vick, you CHANGE the argument.

And you fell again. Can I help you up?

YOU introduced Vick's name in this discussion. Now, you lump him in with Brees and Manning! At no time ever has Vick been on a level with Manning, Brees or Rodgers. All three have won Super Bowls. All three can read defenses with the best.

Do I think Brady is the best THIS year. Perhaps. But I would say Rodgers is right there with him - - THIS year.

Your argument is cheap and shallow when you bring Vick into it. Only pink hats talked up Vick last year.

Why don't you use Sanchez's name to make your point next?

 

[shmessy]

GB goes to the SB w an 18-0 record and loses to the pats, Brady#1

That would be the most watched sporting event in American history, hands down. (Especially if the Pats are 17-1 at the time!).

 

[Deus Irae]

I touched on this very thing in the third paragraph.

I don't think it makes the argument for QBs, because it relies on the logical premise that wins and points come because the QB is playing well, which is not always the case. So the logic is flawed.

A more apt streak would be consecutive +100 QBR games. Or take the aggregate of their statistics over a certain time frame and compare them.

Something not being 100% due to one factor does not make that factor irrelevant.

 

[shmessy]

Also the fact that the Patriot "good team wins" (if you take stock into these things) are the Chargers and the Jets to the Packers' Falcons and Saints.

I'd add the Raiders to that.

 

[Deus Irae]

It's NOT the same argument when you name Vick in it. Vick can't even read an opposing Defense (by his OWN admission!). When you name Vick, you CHANGE the argument.

And you fell again. Can I help you up?

YOU introduced Vick's name in this discussion. Now, you lump him in with Brees and Manning! At no time ever has Vick been on a level with Manning, Brees or Rodgers. All three have won Super Bowls. All three can read defenses with the best.

Do I think Brady is the best THIS year. Perhaps. But I would say Rodgers is right there with him - - THIS year.

Your argument is cheap and shallow when you bring Vick into it. Only pink hats talked up Vick last year.

Why don't you use Sanchez's name to make your point next?

It is the same argument. You're just being the typical you. In your zeal to try finding "gotcha" moments about my posts, you generally make yourself look foolish.


This is no different.

 

[Patriot_in_NY]

As a snapshot in time........... Rogers is certainly in the conversation right now as it relates to playing better than Tom Brady for the moment, and really the only dif. right now is 4 bad Ints from the Buffalo game.

However, in the grand scheme of time and achievement........ He does not belong anywhere near there. TB is the GOAT........ Montana wasn't the best week in and week out in his era either and there were games, or even seasons, where others played better statistically, but in the grand scheme of things........ When he was playing, there were no one that was better then he was. Brady is in that same place now.

Rogers has not been great nearly long enough to even remotely make the statement that he is "better" then TB.

 

[upstater1]

I would disagree w/ that. Most teams don't have the O-line that NE does.

When Brady doesn't have protection, he's not as good. Rodgers is much better under pressure.

Not true. The stats show that Brady is the best under pressure. Gives up the fewest turnovers and makes the plays. This is what he actually excels at. No one is better than him at moving around in the pocket while under pressure.

 

[shmessy]

If you can't figure out how long streaks that continued into week 5 of this season would serve to help the Brady argument, I really don't know what to tell you, because it should be abundantly clear. The same sort of argument would run in Rodgers/Packers favor if you were talking about best football team in the NFL, because you could point out that the Packers are not only 5-0, but have won their last 11 straight, dating back to last year.

So..... the 2 TD per game streak is more important to you than say a 14-2 vs. 14-6 TD-INT ratio.

Wow, you truly worship that 2 TD per game record.

 

[Deus Irae]

So..... the 2 TD per game streak is more important to you than say a 14-2 vs. 14-6 TD-INT ratio.

Wow, you truly worship that 2 TD per game record.

Your obsession with me is both touching and creepy at the same time. Your all-too-frequent deliberate misrepresentations of what I've posted is just pathetic, though.