BobDigital
Pro Bowl Player
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2013
- Messages
- 16,350
- Reaction score
- 15,044
This has been done before but not by me. Time to make the donuts!
Most people agree Brady is better than Rodgers. Some still hold out that Rodgers is the superior player who is just on a worse team. So I will start off my trying to eliminate my own bias (not entirely possible) and look at it objectively from a statistical and on the field perspective fairly.
Stat argument.
Rodgers has better stats than Brady. On the surface that is a win for Rodgers but we must look at it fairly and objectively as possible. To do this we can only compare them when both were in the league at the same time playing under the same rules. Also we should only look at them when both were relatively healthy. So which year to start at? Both were in during 2009 but this is not a fair start point. Brady was coming back from an ACL and was clearly not the same player he was during this year. To use it would give Brady an unfair disadvantage from a stat perspective so lets look at 2010 to now, (just regular season)
- Brady 2010 to now. 111 games. 2643 comp 4116 att. 64.2% 31830 (286.8YPG) 239 TDs (1 every 17.2 passes ) 53 Int (1 every 77.7 passes) 4.51 TD/Int Ration 101.8 passer rating.
- Rodgers 2010 to now. 107 games. 2415 comp 3681 att 65.6% 29172 (272.6YPG) 248 TDs (1 every 14.8 passes) 54 Ints (1 every 68.2 passes 4.59TD/Int ratio 106.1 passer rating
Rodgers appears to win the stat argument. Lets see how that lines up with other things.
- Since 2010 the Patriots offense has scored in the games Brady played in 3424 points in 111 games. This is 30.85 PPG. (I am not going through each game to look at STs and D scores. I will assume they about average each other out).
- Since 2010 the Packers offense has scored in the games Rodgers played in 2962 points in 107 games. This is 27.68 PPG.
This makes no sense. If Rodgers has the better stats why does his team score less? Shouldn't it be the superior offense? Instead Brady scores over 4 PPG more.
The biggest part of the reason is probably how each team scored. The Pats run for TDs more than the packers. Since 2010-2016 the Pats have ran for 127 TDs and the Packers have ran for 86 TDs. I can't really use this season since GB is currently 1 game ahead (though the Pats are ahead 4 to 3). So the Pats have 41 more TDs rushed in over 7 years. That is nearly 6 more per year. Rodgers biggest statistical advantage on Brady has always been he passes for more TDs but he doesn't lead his team to more TDs. This looks even worse when you consider they are probably more likely to run TDs in in games when Rodgers didn't play.
One is only left to conclude then the statistical superiority Rodgers has over Brady is artificailly inflated mostly due to the way each team scores TDs. If at the same ratio it would no doubt be a near wash.
Players around them.
Another thing we should look at is the cast each has had. It is clear to me both have played with star players over their career and made them better but since 2010 who has had the most offensive help?
Brady got to play a little with Randy Moss but he wasn't the same player then and it was only a few games. Other notable WRs he has had since 2010 are Wes Welker, Julien Edelman, Brandon Lafell Amendola, Hogan and very recently Cooks. He has also had Hernandez and Gronk at TE of course but Hernandez was often injured and so was Gronk. His RBs have been so-so but a few were good pass catchers. It is clear on the whole Brady has had good weapons.
Rodgers has gotten to play with Nelson who while he has missed some time has missed less than Gronk as well as Cobb, Jones, Jennings, Adams. They are a very good group headlined by Nelson who has been a true star for the past 6+ years. Also Lacy when on his game was the best RB either team has had in this stretch.
It is fair to say at the very least year in and year out the cast have not been too much different. Rodgers had a bad cast in 2015 just as Brady in 2013. Personally I think Brady's was worse being so many rookies. Both of their key players have missed time (Gronk and Nelson) but Gronk has missed more and been ineffective more on the whole. Personally I give a slight nod to Rodgers having better players but this isn't like Manning vs Brady pre 2006 when it was incredibly clear who had the better cast. It does bring up the question though if the cast and environments they play in are pretty equal then why the scoring gap?
Playoffs
Since 2010 Brady has been to 3 superbowls and won 2. Rodgers has been to 1 super bowl and won 1. Rodgers has a record of 9-6 and Brady has a record of 11-5 in the post season. In those games Brady has lead his team to 29.75 PPG. Rodgers has lead his team to 27.46 PPG.
In those games Rodgers has 32 TDs 9 Ints. Brady has 35 TDs 16 Ints. The difference in interceptions in the post season is a good reason to argue Rodgers has been a better post season QB. But then why only 1 SB appearence and win vs Brady's 2 out of 3?
Part of it is cause Brady has had a better D but also he has outscored Rodgers in these games so even though his stats are not as pretty part of that is due to again GB preferring to pass TDs. Another is Brady has faced tougher teams. The Pats playoffs have generally started in the final 8. GB has generally started the wildcard. In those wildcard games Rodgers has posted 11 TDs 0 Ints. In Brady's three WC games (yes he has been in only 3) he has 7 TDs 3 Ints. He went 5 TDs 0 Ints in 2005 and 2006 and had a bad game against Baltimore in 2009 (2010 playoffs) when he had 2 TDs 3 Ints. Baltimore back then always gave the Pats a hard time though. Generally the WC games have been easy for both QBs though and routine stat padding besides the single anomaly.
This suggest to me maybe another part of Rodger's superior post season stats is he got to beat up on lesser teams more often in the playoffs.
Worth noting if you start both in the divisional round Rodgers is 21 TDs 9 Ints and 5-5 to Brady 35 TDs and 16 ints and 11-5, Rodgers PPG go down only slightly and it is not statically relevant.
While this is not an exercise to try to tear down Rodger's well earn playoff stats it is worth noting he he has benefited statistically from getting easier games than Brady in this time period.
Of course there are the comebacks to mention but that has been talked about to death and we all know how impressive Brady has been there and how unimpressive Rodgers has been.
Conclusion: The stats are not much different when put side by side in proper context but Brady scores more and does it arguably with less. He has won more games and gone deeper and clearly there is something he is doing on the offensive side of the ball better than Rodgers.
Taking wins and championships and everything else out of it... Brady has lead better offenses than Rodgers and lead his team to more points and points in key situations more often. Even judging without talking about wins too much one should conclude Brady is better.
Most people agree Brady is better than Rodgers. Some still hold out that Rodgers is the superior player who is just on a worse team. So I will start off my trying to eliminate my own bias (not entirely possible) and look at it objectively from a statistical and on the field perspective fairly.
Stat argument.
Rodgers has better stats than Brady. On the surface that is a win for Rodgers but we must look at it fairly and objectively as possible. To do this we can only compare them when both were in the league at the same time playing under the same rules. Also we should only look at them when both were relatively healthy. So which year to start at? Both were in during 2009 but this is not a fair start point. Brady was coming back from an ACL and was clearly not the same player he was during this year. To use it would give Brady an unfair disadvantage from a stat perspective so lets look at 2010 to now, (just regular season)
- Brady 2010 to now. 111 games. 2643 comp 4116 att. 64.2% 31830 (286.8YPG) 239 TDs (1 every 17.2 passes ) 53 Int (1 every 77.7 passes) 4.51 TD/Int Ration 101.8 passer rating.
- Rodgers 2010 to now. 107 games. 2415 comp 3681 att 65.6% 29172 (272.6YPG) 248 TDs (1 every 14.8 passes) 54 Ints (1 every 68.2 passes 4.59TD/Int ratio 106.1 passer rating
Rodgers appears to win the stat argument. Lets see how that lines up with other things.
- Since 2010 the Patriots offense has scored in the games Brady played in 3424 points in 111 games. This is 30.85 PPG. (I am not going through each game to look at STs and D scores. I will assume they about average each other out).
- Since 2010 the Packers offense has scored in the games Rodgers played in 2962 points in 107 games. This is 27.68 PPG.
This makes no sense. If Rodgers has the better stats why does his team score less? Shouldn't it be the superior offense? Instead Brady scores over 4 PPG more.
The biggest part of the reason is probably how each team scored. The Pats run for TDs more than the packers. Since 2010-2016 the Pats have ran for 127 TDs and the Packers have ran for 86 TDs. I can't really use this season since GB is currently 1 game ahead (though the Pats are ahead 4 to 3). So the Pats have 41 more TDs rushed in over 7 years. That is nearly 6 more per year. Rodgers biggest statistical advantage on Brady has always been he passes for more TDs but he doesn't lead his team to more TDs. This looks even worse when you consider they are probably more likely to run TDs in in games when Rodgers didn't play.
One is only left to conclude then the statistical superiority Rodgers has over Brady is artificailly inflated mostly due to the way each team scores TDs. If at the same ratio it would no doubt be a near wash.
Players around them.
Another thing we should look at is the cast each has had. It is clear to me both have played with star players over their career and made them better but since 2010 who has had the most offensive help?
Brady got to play a little with Randy Moss but he wasn't the same player then and it was only a few games. Other notable WRs he has had since 2010 are Wes Welker, Julien Edelman, Brandon Lafell Amendola, Hogan and very recently Cooks. He has also had Hernandez and Gronk at TE of course but Hernandez was often injured and so was Gronk. His RBs have been so-so but a few were good pass catchers. It is clear on the whole Brady has had good weapons.
Rodgers has gotten to play with Nelson who while he has missed some time has missed less than Gronk as well as Cobb, Jones, Jennings, Adams. They are a very good group headlined by Nelson who has been a true star for the past 6+ years. Also Lacy when on his game was the best RB either team has had in this stretch.
It is fair to say at the very least year in and year out the cast have not been too much different. Rodgers had a bad cast in 2015 just as Brady in 2013. Personally I think Brady's was worse being so many rookies. Both of their key players have missed time (Gronk and Nelson) but Gronk has missed more and been ineffective more on the whole. Personally I give a slight nod to Rodgers having better players but this isn't like Manning vs Brady pre 2006 when it was incredibly clear who had the better cast. It does bring up the question though if the cast and environments they play in are pretty equal then why the scoring gap?
Playoffs
Since 2010 Brady has been to 3 superbowls and won 2. Rodgers has been to 1 super bowl and won 1. Rodgers has a record of 9-6 and Brady has a record of 11-5 in the post season. In those games Brady has lead his team to 29.75 PPG. Rodgers has lead his team to 27.46 PPG.
In those games Rodgers has 32 TDs 9 Ints. Brady has 35 TDs 16 Ints. The difference in interceptions in the post season is a good reason to argue Rodgers has been a better post season QB. But then why only 1 SB appearence and win vs Brady's 2 out of 3?
Part of it is cause Brady has had a better D but also he has outscored Rodgers in these games so even though his stats are not as pretty part of that is due to again GB preferring to pass TDs. Another is Brady has faced tougher teams. The Pats playoffs have generally started in the final 8. GB has generally started the wildcard. In those wildcard games Rodgers has posted 11 TDs 0 Ints. In Brady's three WC games (yes he has been in only 3) he has 7 TDs 3 Ints. He went 5 TDs 0 Ints in 2005 and 2006 and had a bad game against Baltimore in 2009 (2010 playoffs) when he had 2 TDs 3 Ints. Baltimore back then always gave the Pats a hard time though. Generally the WC games have been easy for both QBs though and routine stat padding besides the single anomaly.
This suggest to me maybe another part of Rodger's superior post season stats is he got to beat up on lesser teams more often in the playoffs.
Worth noting if you start both in the divisional round Rodgers is 21 TDs 9 Ints and 5-5 to Brady 35 TDs and 16 ints and 11-5, Rodgers PPG go down only slightly and it is not statically relevant.
While this is not an exercise to try to tear down Rodger's well earn playoff stats it is worth noting he he has benefited statistically from getting easier games than Brady in this time period.
Of course there are the comebacks to mention but that has been talked about to death and we all know how impressive Brady has been there and how unimpressive Rodgers has been.
Conclusion: The stats are not much different when put side by side in proper context but Brady scores more and does it arguably with less. He has won more games and gone deeper and clearly there is something he is doing on the offensive side of the ball better than Rodgers.
Taking wins and championships and everything else out of it... Brady has lead better offenses than Rodgers and lead his team to more points and points in key situations more often. Even judging without talking about wins too much one should conclude Brady is better.
Last edited:
