Not to make another Brady v Rodgers thread but

[gitgronked82]

Not like we have all that much to talk about for a week anyways.
A friend (who doesn't have bias against Brady) sent me the following text- how would you guys combat this? It certainly doesn't always work to say "5 rings" so...

"Look up his postseason stats he's not even a top 10 postseason QB. The ones that say he's pretty low in TDs/drive, pretty high in 3 and outs/drive, pretty high in punts/drive.

Yards per attempt career wise he's 28th.

Higher DVOA, DYAR

Rodgers ranks higher than him in all of the above. Plus, even the stats that he's really good at (like TD/INT ratio) Rodgers blows him out of the water "​

While some of these are more "team" stats, Rodgers does appear to have the edge in most statistical categories. Game winning drives is not one of those though

 

[RelocatedPatFan]

More sample size you get the closer to a true measure you can find. Even then Brady's sample set may not be as significant and some of it is based upon who you are competing against.

Part of it is looking at stats in a vacuum. Do you get to feast on weaker teams? Typically, the Patriots have first round byes and don't get to feed on the bottom tier playoff teams. They tend to get the teams that definitely deserve to be there (obviously some exceptions).

Continuing with stats, does Brady and the offense/system they run help the defense?

I know in the SBs they have not scored well or early in games and when the game has been in the line, Brady has performed.

You also have to consider the first 3 SBs/playoff runs they didn't go "full Brady" and played more conservative.

At the end of the day, if a guy likes any other QB better, let him. We've got our guy and in the end, the record speaks for itself. There are no "luck" factors in his ability to win. Just because the media can see why Rodgers is great and can't figure out how/why Brady is great doesn't mean Brady isn't great.

 

[Richard Camembert]

These are really derivative stats which he's using. How about a look at the more direct measures such as Lombardis, playoff wins, points, even late game winning or game-changing drives where Rogers is especially weak.

 

[gitgronked82]

At the end of the day, if a guy likes any other QB better, let him. We've got our guy and in the end, the record speaks for itself. There are no "luck" factors in his ability to win. Just because the media can see why Rodgers is great and can't figure out how/why Brady is great doesn't mean Brady isn't great.

Yes true, but if every pats fan is yelling "Brady's the goat" and can't back that up with an intelligent discussion, something is off. I'd like to be able to debate it

 

[RelocatedPatFan]

Yes true, but if every pats fan is yelling "Brady's the goat" and can't back that up with an intelligent discussion, something is off. I'd like to be able to debate it

Simply put, it's a team game and Brady/BB approach it as such.

Why it is the offense's job to score points it's also to not put the defense in a bad position and they actually play that mechanic very well.

If you are limiting QB play to what is being monitored in statistics, then you may have problems. Plus, if you or the other person in this equation haven't watched both teams alot then it's pointless to discuss.

 

[chris_in_sunnyvale]

Since the devil is always in the details, each playoff game needs to be looked at. While looking at them, pay particular attention to the 2014 and 2016 postseason runs, noting that Brady played outstanding against the teams that beat Rodgers in the NFCCG and that he did so at ages 37 and 39.

Regards,
Chris

 

[Doctor DDS]

Rogers has generally played very well in the playoffs - no need to argue against that fact. He had a tough OT loss against Arizona early in his career where he put up 45 points. Unfortunately for him he has been unable to lead his team to points in the playoffs when down as evidenced by only one 4th quarter comeback. For anyone that plays fantasy football the best thing to see for your QB is being down big in points as you know they will pass the rest of the game and the defense will likely be playing soft. Great for meaningless stats - not so great for winning. (ie: See Manning's 4th quarter in Superbowl against Seattle)

Brady and the Pats are typically ahead and will play much more conservative in those situations (ie: 4th Quarter Superbowl against Eagles, AFC Championship against Colts when Brady and Pats were content to run in for TD's instead of pass)

Plus a good portion of Brady's career was pre Polian rule changes while the entirety of Rogers has been in the more favorable era.

All that said, the Packers have only averaged about 2 points a game more than the Pats in their 17 vs 34 games. (Pats average slightly if you compare their most recent 17 games)

 

[XLIX]

Looking at relative playoff numbers is not a fair apples-to-apples comparison. Tom Brady has played in more Super Bowls and more CCGs than any player. So he is going against superior teams (and superior teams tend to have superior defenses) compared to the first and second round games Rodgers plays.

Only 4 of Rodgers' 16 playoff games were at the CCG level or Super Bowl. Brady has played 18 such games.

For example, Rodgers was abysmal against the Seahawks in January 2015. 19-34, 178, 1 TD and 2 INTs. Brady was 37-50, 328, 4/2 2 weeks later against the same team.

 

[patsfan13]

I posted a thread and made some points about Brady/Rogers stats and film observations from a third party:

"5. I think Aaron Rodgers is still the most difficult quarterback in football to reconcile. I was watching film the other night with one of my research guys, Allan Uy. What kept standing out was how often Rodgers left wide open receivers on the field. And these weren’t receivers who got open just because Rodgers extended the play. They got open within the context of the play’s design. And they were getting open because the play call was beating the coverage concept. Which means that Rodgers, reading the coverage, should have anticipated them being open. Rodgers leaves throws on the field almost every game. Other players who do this tend to be backups or fall out of the league (see Kaepernick, Colin; or Griffin, Robert). The difference? Rodgers still makes plays, even on the snaps where he misses plays. He is a unique talent and an impossible QB to classify."


Guest MMQB on David Johnson, Stephon Gilmore, NFL notes | The MMQB with Peter King

This hits an very important point Brady's football IQ, getting his team into the right play and then EXECUTING. NIt as much need for sandlot football which Rogers is better at.

Some stats from that thread to back up the point, Brady is penalized by some of his time playing before more rule changes to help QB's (the Manning rules):

I think that QBR and TD/INT is too simplistic. Brady 'hurts' his stats by throwing the ball away in lieu of taking a sack and saving the team yards. He will also take more calculated risks when behind.

Since 2010 Rogers has a sack % of 6.6% as opposed to Brady at 4.6%, even with Rodgers being a better runner.

Since 2010 Rodgers has a INT % of 1.5%, Brady 1.3%

Team scoring Since 2010 the Packers have averaged 27.6 ppg, The Patriots 30.5 ppg.

So Brady takes fewer sacks, throws fewer int's and his team scores 3 ppg more than Rodger team.

I avoided looking at the post season, Brady of course has a much higher winning % in the regular season and way better in the post season.

As others have pointed out Brady is much better when his team is trailing. The response of Brady and Rogers when playing the Falcons last year in many encapsulates the differences between the 2 over their careers.

 

[Ring 6]

Not like we have all that much to talk about for a week anyways.
A friend (who doesn't have bias against Brady) sent me the following text- how would you guys combat this? It certainly doesn't always work to say "5 rings" so...

"Look up his postseason stats he's not even a top 10 postseason QB. The ones that say he's pretty low in TDs/drive, pretty high in 3 and outs/drive, pretty high in punts/drive.

Yards per attempt career wise he's 28th.

Higher DVOA, DYAR

Rodgers ranks higher than him in all of the above. Plus, even the stats that he's really good at (like TD/INT ratio) Rodgers blows him out of the water "
While some of these are more "team" stats, Rodgers does appear to have the edge in most statistical categories. Game winning drives is not one of those though

25-9 5 rings
9-7 1 ring

Football is about winning. Winningbisnt dknd by accumulating statitistics or metrics it is won by making plays when needed.
Brady's 4th quarters in SB 49 and 51 alone exceed Rodgers playoff career.

 

[Ring 6]

For example, Rodgers was abysmal against the Seahawks in January 2015. 19-34, 178, 1 TD and 2 INTs. Brady was 37-50, 328, 4/2 2 weeks later against the same team.

Same last year

2014 and 2017 same opponents, Rodgers in NFCCG Brady in SB.

Rodgers. 51-89 548 5/2 team scores 41 points 2 losses

Brady. 80-112 794 6/3 team scores 62 points. 2 wins

 

[Bruins29]

Well all know that if Brady had all these amazing stats and 1 ring that nobody on this planet would have put him in the same sentence as Joe Montana. It wouldn't even be considered except for some desperate Brady homers holding on to some meaningless stats.

Same applies here. Brady is head and shoulders over Rodgers. He wins. Rodgers dosent. Sorry Rodgers homers. Get over it, find a new hero.

 

[borg]

The deeper into the playoffs, the better the competition. Rogers has rarely faced the best of the best each year. Brady faces it most every year

 

[sb1]

Not like we have all that much to talk about for a week anyways.
A friend (who doesn't have bias against Brady) sent me the following text- how would you guys combat this? It certainly doesn't always work to say "5 rings" so...

"Look up his postseason stats he's not even a top 10 postseason QB. The ones that say he's pretty low in TDs/drive, pretty high in 3 and outs/drive, pretty high in punts/drive.

Yards per attempt career wise he's 28th.

Higher DVOA, DYAR

Rodgers ranks higher than him in all of the above. Plus, even the stats that he's really good at (like TD/INT ratio) Rodgers blows him out of the water "
While some of these are more "team" stats, Rodgers does appear to have the edge in most statistical categories. Game winning drives is not one of those though

01-03 were a different era of the game as it was before the Polian rule changes so Brady's total numbers are an apples to oranges comparison to Rodgers numbers. Rodgers has played his entire career in the modern NFL with rules that favor passing. Brady has not.

I would say Brady has played better competition in the postseason. When you are looking at Super Bowl numbers Brady has also faced elite to historically elite level defenses in at least 4 of his Super Bowl appearances. Maybe 5 if you count the 07 Giants. It really is amazing when you think about it. No tomato cans.

 

[patsfan13]

BTW let's look at wins and losses by the respective QB's

Brady 183-52 Regular season, Rogers 90-45. So Brady has 7 more losses Reg season that Rogers BUT has >2X as many wins, 93 MORE wins. Rogers would have to go 93-7 in his next 100 games to match Brady's current numbers winning %.

IF we include post season games the numbers are worse for Rogers:

Brady 208-61,
Rogers 99-53,

Rogers 108 FEWER wins with only 9 FEWER losses than Brady.

Brady will retire with FEWER losses than Rogers and almost 100 more wins. Think about THAT.

3 QB's in the modern era have winning % over 70 including playoffs. Brady 77.3%, Staubach 73.3%, and Joe Montana 71,1%.

Brady has 75 more wins in his career than Montana and only 7 more losses. That is a shocking level of superiority.

As Bill Parcells would say "You are what your record says your are".

 

[Deus Irae]

Not like we have all that much to talk about for a week anyways.
A friend (who doesn't have bias against Brady) sent me the following text- how would you guys combat this? It certainly doesn't always work to say "5 rings" so...

"25-9 with 11 championship game appearances, 7 SB appearances and 5 rings" works every time.

 

[bormio]

Looking at relative playoff numbers is not a fair apples-to-apples comparison. Tom Brady has played in more Super Bowls and more CCGs than any player. So he is going against superior teams (and superior teams tend to have superior defenses) compared to the first and second round games Rodgers plays.

Only 4 of Rodgers' 16 playoff games were at the CCG level or Super Bowl. Brady has played 18 such games.

For example, Rodgers was abysmal against the Seahawks in January 2015. 19-34, 178, 1 TD and 2 INTs. Brady was 37-50, 328, 4/2 2 weeks later against the same team.

It can be fairly said that Rodgers' play was a large part of why they lost to Seattle. Wilson had 4 INTs - one late that GB failed in ending the game. No way Seattle should have been close enough for a comeback.

 

[Ring 6]

The curse of the madden era.

Football is played to win.
People try to look at statistics to say who should have won and ignore actual football player on the field, you know where you get only one chance in every situation.

Norv turner rated manning ahead of Brady because he thinks there might be a way that manning could have won 5 or6 SBs.
Crazy.

 

[bormio]

Even Rodgers leading the tying FG drive was not all it seemed. GB actually got into Seattle territory very fast, then they played for the FG. No killer instinct to go for the TD.

 

[Nehalem]

Norv turner rated manning ahead of Brady because he thinks there might be a way that manning could have won 5 or6 SBs.
Crazy.

Its crazy because Brady actually did win 5 SBs

Who is better? The guy who could have won 5 SBs? Or the guy who did?