Brady / Rodgers

[PatsFanInVa]

Don't forget the changing of the tennis shoes!!

Here comes the trolley to take us to the Lambeau of make believe...

 

[PatsFanInVa]

 

[Deus Irae]

I'm not weighting things in favor of my preferred guy. I have my preferred guy (in this context) because of how the three skills mentioned SHOULD BE WEIGHTED.

And not once have I mentioned the mental component - I've focused strictly on the physical skills, accuracy being by FAR the most important.

When one of the three skills is by far more important to play in QB than the other two (and accuracy IS that much more important), it's not only proper to weight them accordingly, it's virtually required, if you're actually going to have a serious discussion about this.

Yeah the guys who win the long drive context may have more raw power than actual pros on the PGA tour, but control and accuracy are FAR more important than raw power, and so you'd be a fool to argue that a golfer with more raw power has "more golf talent" than a guy who puts the ball where he wants to, even if it's a little shorter than the long drive guys. You'd weight those things accordingly, as you ought.

You're making up your position in order to fit your narrative and, yes, you're doing that by weighting things in favor of your preferred guy. This isn't even a close call. Vick is vastly superior to Rodgers in the "QB talents" department which, to repeat, is a great example of why "QB talents" don't really matter without the mind.

 

[DarrylS]

Vegas has Green Bay is the Pat's closest competition for the SB title. Apparently they think Rogers will have a good year.

They think that every year... Green Bay is usually the perennial early season NFC favorite..

 

[ivanvamp]

You're making up your position in order to fit your narrative and, yes, you're doing that by weighting things in favor of your preferred guy. This isn't even a close call. Vick is vastly superior to Rodgers in the "QB talents" department which, to repeat, is a great example of why "QB talents" don't really matter without the mind.

This is laughable. We all know you love to fight to the death on every little thing, even if you've adopted a losing position, but this is absurd.

But humor me.

Of the three skills mentioned: accuracy, arm strength, and athleticism, do you REALLY think that they're all equal in importance to the QB position? If not, how would you rank them in importance?

 

[PatsWSB47]

A friend at work is a passionate Packers fan and about this time last year he was in his glory expecting the Pats going 0-4 to start the season and missing the playoffs......and the Packers were favored to win every game. Rogers had a pretty poor to mediocre first half season but he is an all time great and we can't dismiss him. He can pull games out of his hat and the Packers being a Vegas high pick is more than just a whim.

 

[Nehalem]

Yes, we've been over this: arm strength, accuracy, and mobility. Of these three, accuracy is by FAR the most important skill for a QB. Like...it's not even close.

So no, Michael Vick, who was a very inaccurate passer, did not have more QB talent than Rodgers. He was more athletic and probably had a bigger arm, but Rodgers' overwhelming advantage in accuracy (one of the qualifications in this thread) dwarfs Vick's advantages in foot speed and arm strength.

If accuracy is so important why was John Elway in the original list of QB was approximately equal physical talent to Rodgers?

Elway has a 56.9% career completion. Whereas Montana(63.2) and Young(64.3) had much higher ones in the same era.

 

[Ross12]

You're making up your position in order to fit your narrative and, yes, you're doing that by weighting things in favor of your preferred guy. This isn't even a close call. Vick is vastly superior to Rodgers in the "QB talents" department which, to repeat, is a great example of why "QB talents" don't really matter without the mind.

Gotta agree in regards to "QB talent." Vick had more talent than any QB I've ever seen from a physical standpoint. No better example than Vick vs. Brady to be able to show how much the mental portion of playing QB means.

 

[Simpelton]

A friend at work is a passionate Packers fan and about this time last year he was in his glory expecting the Pats going 0-4 to start the season and missing the playoffs......and the Packers were favored to win every game. Rogers had a pretty poor to mediocre first half season but he is an all time great and we can't dismiss him. He can pull games out of his hat and the Packers being a Vegas high pick is more than just a whim.

agreed. No need to talk crap about Aaron Rodgers. He's one of the best in the world. Saying crap about Rodgers just because we're Brady fans says more about us than about Rodgers or Brady.

That said, there's plenty to nitpick about with Rodgers' performance over the years. If he was our quarterback and delivering the same results, I think our New England cynicism would bubble over at times. We've taken some pretty sweet people and run them through the wringer here. Brady's gotten his share of that, and he's handled it like a champion.

By comparison I think Rodgers is well placed where he is, in a land of irrational fanboys that let him play his dream game without a lot of crap. And his performance for them has been way more good than bad and the Packer fans seem to appreciate that. And I think TB12 was and is the perfect New England quarterback for his ability to simply absorb or ignore all the famous New England negativity and use it to fuel his competitive drive. I don't think Rodgers would have done that quite so well in the same situation.

 

[patsinthesnow]

Now you're weighting things in favor of your chosen player. Can't do that, sorry. It's cheating.

Look, I get it. It runs counter to your sensibilities to admit the obvious on this. It should. Rodgers is a better QB than Vick. You'd take him over Vick 100 times out of 100 if you were picking your team, and so would anyone who knew the game of football.

He just doesn't have better QB talent (per thread's definition). And that's why



is the right answer when discussing "QB talent", and it's why we put Brady above Rodgers.

I get your bigger point now. QB talent is tougher than other positions in sports where you can see all aspects of the talent more clearly.

What label would be appropriate for Rodgers? He isn't the best QB or QB talent, hmmm....maybe most gifted passer?

 

[TBR]

Who?

 

[Deus Irae]

I get your bigger point now. QB talent is tougher than other positions in sports where you can see all aspects of the talent more clearly.

What label would be appropriate for Rodgers? He isn't the best QB or QB talent, hmmm....maybe most gifted passer?

I'd just call him an all-time great QB. He's not the best at anything, and there's nothing wrong with that. Chad Pennington, especially before his shoulder injuries, is probably the most accurate QB in NFL history. Brady (and others) are better at the mental game. Vick (and others) are better "QB talent" guys. Rodgers is an excellent combination of it all.

 

[ivanvamp]

If accuracy is so important why was John Elway in the original list of QB was approximately equal physical talent to Rodgers?

Elway has a 56.9% career completion. Whereas Montana(63.2) and Young(64.3) had much higher ones in the same era.

I didn't make the original list, so I can't answer that. Here are these three guys' completion percentages, relative to the league average in the years they were playing in the NFL...

Montana (1979-94) - 63.2 (league: 56.0), +7.2
Elway (1983-98) - 56.9 (league: 56.5), +0.4
Young (1985-99) - 64.3 (league: 56.5), +7.8

Montana and Young were two of the all-time most accurate passers. Maybe the two most accurate ever. So comparing anyone to them is going to make the other guy look bad, when it comes to accuracy. Part of it was their skill. Part of it was their system. The West Coast offense threw passes much shorter and quicker than traditional offenses. That's what SF ran. Elway threw downfield much more. But he also simply wasn't as accurate. He was slightly better than league average in terms of accuracy. Combine that with his all-time great athleticism and arm strength for an NFL quarterback, and it's a compelling mixture.

Other QBs...

Vick (2001-15) - 56.2 (league: 60.5), -4.3
Cunningham (1985-2001) - 56.6 (league: 56.8), -0.2
Brady (2000-16) - 63.8 (league: 60.6), +3.2
Rodgers (2005-16) - 65.1 (league: 61.2), +3.9
Marino (1983-99) - 59.4 (league: 56.5), +2.9

Marino (very good arm, not as strong as Elway; poor athleticism; very good accuracy). Rodgers (great arm, outstanding athleticism, outstanding accuracy). Brady (great arm, modest athleticism, outstanding accuracy). Cunningham (great arm, elite athleticism, below average accuracy). Vick (great arm, elite athleticism, way below average accuracy).

It's just not hard to see, unless you're purposefully trying not to see it.

Tebow had a great arm and tremendous athleticism but was horribly accurate. Conversely, you had guys like Chad Pennington be fairly successful in the NFL despite a weak arm and modest athleticism, because he had tremendous accuracy.

Unless you either put accuracy, arm strength, and athleticism all on the same level, or put the latter two ahead of accuracy in importance, it's hard to argue that Vick had more QB talent than Rodgers. Athleticism, yes. QB talent? No. Sorry. Just no.

 

[Deus Irae]

I didn't make the original list, so I can't answer that. Here are these three guys' completion percentages, relative to the league average in the years they were playing in the NFL...

Montana (1979-94) - 63.2 (league: 56.0), +7.2
Elway (1983-98) - 56.9 (league: 56.5), +0.4
Young (1985-99) - 64.3 (league: 56.5), +7.8

Montana and Young were two of the all-time most accurate passers. Maybe the two most accurate ever. So comparing anyone to them is going to make the other guy look bad, when it comes to accuracy. Part of it was their skill. Part of it was their system. The West Coast offense threw passes much shorter and quicker than traditional offenses. That's what SF ran. Elway threw downfield much more. But he also simply wasn't as accurate. He was slightly better than league average in terms of accuracy. Combine that with his all-time great athleticism and arm strength for an NFL quarterback, and it's a compelling mixture.

Other QBs...

Vick (2001-15) - 56.2 (league: 60.5), -4.3
Cunningham (1985-2001) - 56.6 (league: 56.8), -0.2
Brady (2000-16) - 63.8 (league: 60.6), +3.2
Rodgers (2005-16) - 65.1 (league: 61.2), +3.9
Marino (1983-99) - 59.4 (league: 56.5), +2.9

Marino (very good arm, not as strong as Elway; poor athleticism; very good accuracy). Rodgers (great arm, outstanding athleticism, outstanding accuracy). Brady (great arm, modest athleticism, outstanding accuracy). Cunningham (great arm, elite athleticism, below average accuracy). Vick (great arm, elite athleticism, way below average accuracy).

It's just not hard to see, unless you're purposefully trying not to see it.

Tebow had a great arm and tremendous athleticism but was horribly accurate. Conversely, you had guys like Chad Pennington be fairly successful in the NFL despite a weak arm and modest athleticism, because he had tremendous accuracy.

Unless you either put accuracy, arm strength, and athleticism all on the same level, or put the latter two ahead of accuracy in importance, it's hard to argue that Vick had more QB talent than Rodgers. Athleticism, yes. QB talent? No. Sorry. Just no.

You keep making the same wrong argument and expecting different results. That's not really a recipe for success. QB talent, as intended in this thread, is essentially a physical skills comparison, and Rodgers simply doesn't win that against the likes of Vick, Cunningham, etc....

 

[ivanvamp]

You keep making the same wrong argument and expecting different results. That's not really a recipe for success. QB talent, as intended in this thread, is essentially a physical skills comparison, and Rodgers simply doesn't win that against the likes of Vick, Cunningham, etc....

And accuracy was one of those skills, Deus. It's by far the most important of the three mentioned, in fact.

If all that this thread is about is who can run the fastest, well sure, Vick and Cunningham have it over Rodgers. I wouldn't disagree with that.

But then.... That would be a world-class stupid thread if that's all this was about.

More than ANYTHING at the NFL level, being a QB is about your ability to deliver the football where it needs to go. Passing accuracy, therefore, is the number one athletic skill for an NFL quarterback.

We've been talking about three skills: athleticism, arm strength, and passing accuracy. All three. And so no, it's not a failed argument to point out the vast inferiority of Vick and (to a lesser degree) Cunningham in the area of accuracy, and to make the case that that vast inferiority of Vick in this most important area makes him a lesser QB talent than Rodgers who, of course, has a great arm and is a great athlete in his own right.

 

[patsfan13]

To be the GOAT you have to be good enough physically, BUT you have to be the BEST at reading and getting the team in the RIGHT PLAY and getting the ball to the right skill player.

HAving a table of qn skills running speed, running ability, arm strength and Accuracy is fine, but what separates Brady and to a lesser extent Montana from the rest is the Ability to read the d and get the ball to the correct skill player.

 

[Deus Irae]

And accuracy was one of those skills, Deus. It's by far the most important of the three mentioned, in fact.

If all that this thread is about is who can run the fastest, well sure, Vick and Cunningham have it over Rodgers. I wouldn't disagree with that.

But then.... That would be a world-class stupid thread if that's all this was about.

More than ANYTHING at the NFL level, being a QB is about your ability to deliver the football where it needs to go. Passing accuracy, therefore, is the number one athletic skill for an NFL quarterback.

We've been talking about three skills: athleticism, arm strength, and passing accuracy. All three. And so no, it's not a failed argument to point out the vast inferiority of Vick and (to a lesser degree) Cunningham in the area of accuracy, and to make the case that that vast inferiority of Vick in this most important area makes him a lesser QB talent than Rodgers who, of course, has a great arm and is a great athlete in his own right.

More than ANYTHING at the NFL level, being a QB is about your ability to win games (and titles) while implementing your team's offensive game plan (and knowing when to go off script), whether that be by running, throwing, or dancing a jig. That's why Brett Favre is considered an all-time great, and Chad Pennington is largely forgotten.



And, yes, your argument is a failed one. It's a terrible one, actually.

 

[chris_in_sunnyvale]

I thought this was the funniest quote of the column, talking about the guy who got the pick 6 against Brady in the Super Bowl:

"That’s where Alford played in Super Bowl 51, against the league’s shiftiest slot receiver, Edelman. It’ll be lost in history, but it’s evident on film: Alford won the battle against Edelman that day. "

Really? All I can say is, LOL.

Taking off my Pats glasses, the author has a point and the film does back that claim. Three of Edelman's catches were in the first half, two against Alford. One was a nice inside-out that Alford played well. The other was the broken play right before the Blount fumble. After that, there were a bunch of incomplete passes to Edelman with Alford almost exclusively in coverage and defending a few. Edelman's fourth catch came on the highlight play of the game where Alford made a great play nonetheless. His fifth and final catch was that sick throw Brady made in OT with Alford draped all over Julian, even getting his arm on the ball instantly to break it up, but Jules did a great job holding on.

It's a credit to Brady and the offense that they were able to spread the ball around and put up 20pts on drives where Edelman was shut out.

Regards,
Chris

 

[ivanvamp]

More than ANYTHING at the NFL level, being a QB is about your ability to win games (and titles) while implementing your team's offensive game plan (and knowing when to go off script), whether that be by running, throwing, or dancing a jig. That's why Brett Favre is considered an all-time great, and Chad Pennington is largely forgotten.

Good grief Deus. We are talking about THREE SKILLS: raw athletic ability, arm strength, and passing accuracy. Can you please stick to the subject?

And, yes, your argument is a failed one. It's a terrible one, actually.

Oh well, Deus Irae has spoken. Just...made a pronouncement without any argument whatsoever. THAT settles it! LOL.

I'm still waiting for your answer to my question a few posts ago: Do you REALLY think that those three skills listed above are all of equivalent importance to playing QB in the NFL? If not, how would you rank them?

I'm pretty sure I know why you haven't answered it.

 

[Nehalem]

And accuracy was one of those skills, Deus. It's by far the most important of the three mentioned, in fact.

If all that this thread is about is who can run the fastest, well sure, Vick and Cunningham have it over Rodgers. I wouldn't disagree with that.

But then.... That would be a world-class stupid thread if that's all this was about.

More than ANYTHING at the NFL level, being a QB is about your ability to deliver the football where it needs to go. Passing accuracy, therefore, is the number one athletic skill for an NFL quarterback.

We've been talking about three skills: athleticism, arm strength, and passing accuracy. All three. And so no, it's not a failed argument to point out the vast inferiority of Vick and (to a lesser degree) Cunningham in the area of accuracy, and to make the case that that vast inferiority of Vick in this most important area makes him a lesser QB talent than Rodgers who, of course, has a great arm and is a great athlete in his own right.

The problem is that passing accuracy, certainly as measured by completion percentage, is not just a physical talent.

I believe it was you who pointed out the type of system run will have an innate impact on completion percentage. Ie dumpoffs vs deep bombs.

And it is also a mental attribute. As throwing it "accurately" to the player who is doubled covered is going to probably result in a worse completion percentage than throwing it "inaccurately" to the guy who is wide open.