Is Aaron Rodgers better than Tom Brady?

[Trey]

I'd add the Raiders to that.

I could buy that this season, but I was basing it on last year. That's why I had the disclaimer in there.

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

True. It would take much more consideration than what I presented to disregard it completely. But it's enough to knock it down from bullet point status, because it's not logically sound enough to stand on its own as an argument. It's much cleaner to look at the players positionally (and scrutinize them, thus) and how they excel at their job than to try to produce covers and broad statistics that may or may not be indicative of their respective playing level.

 

[shmessy]

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.

Everyone here can see what you wrote - - that it is the same argument people made for Vick last year.

YOU wrote that.

You are what you are.

 

[shmessy]

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.

I could not care less about you.

I only care when someone writes something completey ridiculous on this board.

It's just a blind coincidence that most of the time, it happens to be you.

If I cared about you, I'd worry for the well-being of someone who thinks this subject is the same thing as when people compared Vick to Brady.

 

[Banjo]

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.

I'm not sure how you can say that if you've seen Brady's last three post-season games, starting with the Super Bowl they lost.

 

[Banjo]

please stop fighting in this thread, guys. Let's have a mature discussion!

 

[Deus Irae]

Everyone here can see what you wrote - - that it is the same argument people made for Vick last year.

YOU wrote that.

You are what you are.

That's not what I wrote, but thanks for making my point for me. Perhaps, had you read the thread title and the OP, you might have avoided all this. You probably wouldn't have, because you're too caught up in looking for the "gotcha", but it's possible.

Last year, the argument was that there was a QB playing better than Brady. Last year, the QB being pointed to was Vick.

The year before, the argument was that there were 2 QBs playing better than Brady. That year, the QBs being pointed to were Manning and Brees.

The arguments for/against specific players were different. Also, it wasn't just the pink hats, sorry. You can try that one all you want, but the reality is that you're just wrong on that.

 

[Deus Irae]

I could not care less about you.

I only care when someone writes something completey ridiculous on this board.

It's just a blind coincidence that most of the time, it happens to be you.

If I cared about you, I'd worry for the well-being of someone who thinks this subject is the same thing as when people compared Vick to Brady.

Smessy, it's obvious that you do care, because you stalk me. Also, given that my "ridiculous" posts are generally right, it would seem that, even by your excuse, you're either a stalker or absolutely clueless.

Given those choices, feel free to take your pick.

 

[Dutchmaster617]

Amazing what a few drops and tips can do, can't wait until week 17.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

That's not what I wrote, but thanks for making my point for me. Perhaps, had you read the thread title and the OP, you might have avoided all this. You probably wouldn't have, because you're too caught up in looking for the "gotcha", but it's possible.

Last year, the argument was that there was a QB playing better than Brady. Last year, the QB being pointed to was Vick.

The year before, the argument was that there were 2 QBs playing better than Brady. That year, the QBs being pointed to were Manning and Brees.

The arguments for/against specific players were different. Also, it wasn't just the pink hats, sorry. You can try that one all you want, but the reality is that you're just wrong on that.

Brees and Manning did outplay Brady in '09. Who could deny that?

Vick was not better than Brady last year, nor was there much of an argument. In addition to the many threads on this forum arguing Brady for MVP, Brady also received 50 out of 50 MVP and All-Pro votes; first time in NFL history there was no second team all-pro quarterback.

Thus far, Rodgers is outplaying Brady this year. 6 INTs to 2 INTs is really all you need to know, and that is the difference between 5-0 and 4-1. I hope Brady comes back to win his third MVP award, but you can't live in denial.

 

[Deus Irae]

True. It would take much more consideration than what I presented to disregard it completely. But it's enough to knock it down from bullet point status, because it's not logically sound enough to stand on its own as an argument. It's much cleaner to look at the players positionally (and scrutinize them, thus) and how they excel at their job than to try to produce covers and broad statistics that may or may not be indicative of their respective playing level.

There's not a single QB stat or data point that your claim doesn't apply to. It's the most dependent position on the field. Even taking a knee requires the help of the center.

 

[Deus Irae]

Brees and Manning did outplay Brady in '09. Who could deny that?

Vick was not better than Brady last year, nor was there much of an argument. In addition to the many threads on this forum arguing Brady for MVP, Brady also received 50 out of 50 MVP and All-Pro votes; first time in NFL history there was no second team all-pro quarterback.

First, I was not making the claim that Vick was better than Brady: I was arguing just the opposite, which is my point regarding Rodgers. However, to claim that it wasn't something being discussed for quite a bit of last year is just flat out wrong.

 

[SanAngeloState]

this year rodgers is playing a lot better. Quicker release, deadly accuracy, better movement in the pocket. Career wise, who cares, if NE plays GB in the SB, past career won't mean anything. I fear that if my goal does happen and NE goes to the SB, GB would blow them out. This defense stops no one, and GB's can sometimes stop someone.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Depends on what you mean by "best." If neither threw another pass in his lifetime, one is a lock for first round induction into Canton, the other would be a long shot for ever getting in. However, if I was to build a team today, given how they are playing currently, age, injury history and future prospects then Rodgers not Brady would be my first choice.

Minus the ring, Carson Palmer was the guy Felger was certain was the logical first choice given age, injury history and future prospects back in 2005...right around the time the Bengals gave him that premature $98M extension less than two weeks before be blew out his ACL/MCL and dislocated his kneecap. And while he bounced back briefly he was never remotely the same player thereafter (although unlike Felger I was never convinced he was going to be that player even beforehand...).

A year ago they were talking about whether Rodgers would even have a shot at a HOF (Packers) career due to his multiple concussions in close succession... For three years before the stretch run last season he was pretty pedestrian despite his lengthy period as an understudy...during which he managed to break his foot in the process...

 

[Trey]

There's not a single QB stat or data point that your claim doesn't apply to. It's the most dependent position on the field. Even taking a knee requires the help of the center.

Nah, the most dependent position on the field is wide receiver.

The margin of error (or differential) between statistic like TDs, passing yards and completion percentage is much smaller than that of broad, general stats like streaks over a certain amount of games or other stress factors, and more correlative to wins. Simply because when you try to extrapolate over time while including more factors that influence the result, you inherently increase the entropy of the system. You introduce more factors outside the QB's control, which is what we're trying to compare.

 

[Kid~Brady]

Amazing what a few drops and tips can do, can't wait until week 17.

Most of Brady's interceptions were'nt his fault. I hate that stat.

 

[robbomango]

I compared the 2 players last 3 complete season plus the last 5 games of this season, since rodgers has been full time since 2008.(Brady's 07 season is listed in place of his 08)

Brady 67.1comp% 128tds 31ints 14790yds rtg108.4 rushing 187yds 4tds
rodgers 66.2comp% 100tds 33ints 14115yds rtg105.2 rushing 931yds 15tds

this doesn't look at playoffs but Rodgers does have an SB and we missed the same opportunity in 07".

 

[Trey]

I compared the 2 players last 3 complete season plus the last 5 games of this season, since rodgers has been full time since 2008.(Brady's 07 season is listed in place of his 08)

Brady 67.1comp% 128tds 31ints 14790yds rtg108.4
rodgers 66.2comp% 100tds 33ints 14115yds rtg105.2

This is a step in the right direction. Although I would also partition stats within certain timeframes (through seasons, playoffs, win streaks, etc), correct for strength of competition, pretty much watch film and break down games, measure release time, throw in Rodgers' running stats/ability, and consider the scheme they both run.

So, pretty much ESPN's Total QBR, except without the arbitrary modifiers they leave to the whim of their stat teams.

 

[shmessy]

First, I was not making the claim that Vick was better than Brady: I was arguing just the opposite, which is my point regarding Rodgers. However, to claim that it wasn't something being discussed for quite a bit of last year is just flat out wrong.

The argument about Rodgers has NOTHING to do with Michael Vick.

You portraying that it does is completely ridiculous.

Equating an argument over QB quality by lumping in Vick and Rodgers (your words not mine, "same argument") is delusional.

 

[shmessy]

I compared the 2 players last 3 complete season plus the last 5 games of this season, since rodgers has been full time since 2008.(Brady's 07 season is listed in place of his 08)

Brady 67.1comp% 128tds 31ints 14790yds rtg108.4 rushing 4tds
rodgers 66.2comp% 100tds 33ints 14115yds rtg105.2 rushing 15tds

THIS.

Right now (not over a career), I would put Brady and Rodgers on the same level.

Anyone ridiculously bringing Michael Vick into this discussion just throws smoke on the subject.

 

[Deus Irae]

Nah, the most dependent position on the field is wide receiver.

The margin of error (or differential) between statistic like TDs, passing yards and completion percentage is much smaller than that of broad, general stats like streaks over a certain amount of games or other stress factors, and more correlative to wins. Simply because when you try to extrapolate over time while including more factors that influence the result, you inherently increase the entropy of the system. You introduce more factors outside the QB's control, which is what we're trying to compare.

The receiver can block one-on-one. The receiver can get open one-on-one. The QB can't do anything on his own, save in those rare instances where the QB is not really the QB because of some level of trickery (Wildcat, direct snap).

Furthermore, your argument here doesn't hold up because, just to point to one, TDs are obviously extremely dependent upon the good play of your team. Brady and Manning have actually proven that with their amazing seasons. As good as they are, they don't get close to those numbers without having an excellent surrounding cast playing at top level.