You done messed up A-A-Ron

[zoostation]

Quotes like this are really interesting because they show the extent to which people don't understand yet how historic the Patriots are. Nbody "should have" won 6 Super Bowls. It's an absolutely insane historical anomaly; you can argue that the Patriots themselves probably "shouldn't have" won all of the ones they did, and it's damn sure nobody else "should have".

True, you could also argue they "could/should have" won at the very least 2 of the last 3 SB losses.

 

[Patsfanin Philly]

For those who don't appreciate the title of this thread, this is the origin of it
(2:10 mark but don't fast forward)
Substitute Teacher Pt. 1 - Key and Peele (Video Clip) | Comedy Central

 

[TommyD4207]

I thoroughly enjoyed reading what a jerk Aaron Rodgers is and how Green Bay, that pantheon of NFL tradition, is just as messed up and dysfunctional as the best of them. Along with many on here, I get supremely annoyed when I hear, "the best QB of this generation!" about AR. On what planet? He had two good years and managed to win the SB only once. Part of being "the best QB of your generation" is being able to win with whatever team is around you; being able to take whatever lemons this particular NFL season has handed you and making some awesome lemonade. We have that QB, not Green Bay. I am glad former teammates are coming forward to confirm what has been rumored for years. I will enjoy the upcoming season when AR again underachieves and rolls his eyes as he chucks everyone under the bus, his new coach included. He should have taken Mike McCarthy's advice and called his mother. Maybe she would have talked some sense and humility into him.

The Best QB of Aaron Rodgers' Generation is Tom Brady.
The Best QB of Peyton Manning's Generation is Tom Brady.
The Best QB of Russell Wilson's Generation is Tom Brady.
The Best QB of Patrick Mahomes' Generation will be Tom Brady.

 

[Kargetina]

Rodgers being more talented than Brady is the biggest fallacy in sports fandom based on complete and utter misusing of the terms talent and athletic ability. There maybe other alternate universes where Rodgers has more talent to play the QB position but it certainly isn't the one we're living in.

Let's start with the coaching argument.

Before Mo Lewis changed NFL history, Belichick was a head coach for 6 years without Brady. In those 6 years he had 5 losing seasons, with records of 5-11 twice, 7-9 twice, and 6-10. He had one winning season, one playoff appearance and one playoff win. His coaching record before Brady took over was 41 wins and 57 losses. He also missed the playoffs in the only year where Brady was injured.

In summary, without Brady he has missed the playoffs in 6 of the 7 years he was a head coach, with Brady playing he has missed the playoffs once in 17 seasons, and went to 9 SB's in 17 years. His record with Brady is 207 wins and 60 losses.

Let's continue with the impact Brady and Rodgers had on their teams when they entered as starters. Brady replaced Bledsoe who had a 5-13 in the 2000/01 and led the Patriots to a 14-3 record while winning the SB. Rodgers replaced Favre and his 13-3-almost-made-it-to the-SB team and went 6-10 with, more or less, the same team.

Rodgers' talent has led his Packers to 100-57 record, 3 less losses than Brady...also 107 wins less. I'll write it again to put it into perspective:

Brady's career record: 207 wins, 60 losses.
Rodgers' career record: 100 wins, 57 losses, 1 tie.

Brady's playoff record: 30-10
Rodgers playoff record: 9-7


'But football is a team's game!'

Individual stats:

MVP:

Brady 3
Rodgers 2

SB MVP :

Brady 4
Rodgers 1

All Pro:

Brady 5
Rodgers 3

Game winning drives:

Brady 57 including 13 playoff and 6 SB game winning drives
Rodgers 22 including 2 playoff game winning drives

The legendary Matt Stafford has 33 game winning drives while the unsurpassed talent Andy Dalton has 24.

TD's:

Brady 517
Rodgers 338

Most TD's in a season:

Brady 50
Rodgers 46

Most TD's in a game:

Brady 6 (3 times)
Rodgers 6 (2 times)

Yards:

Brady: 70,514
Rodgers: 42,944

Most yards in a season:

Brady: 5235
Rodgers: 4643

Most yards in a game:

Brady: 500+ (3 times including a Super Bowl)
Rodgers: 500+ never

I'm not even going to bother to post playoff stats as it would be like comparing a Lambo with a Yugo.

Pats win because they always have great defenses while Rodgers doesn't! He has to win by himself! He does a lot more than Brady!

Top 100 highest scoring offenses of all time:

Under Brady:

#2 Patriots 2007
#5 Patriots 2012
#15 Patriots 2010
#17 Patriots 2011
#53 Patriots 2014
#58 Patriots 2015
#67 Patriots 2017
#90 Patriots 2013
#93 Patriots 2016

Under Rodgers:

#4 Packers 2011
#32 Packers 2014
#63 Packers 2009

Throwing and running faster are great attributes for the Madden series but they don't even begin to describe the all encompassing needs for the position. And throwing and running faster is all Rodgers has on Brady. Which is great, without any context considered. Andy Roddick was faster, more explosive and stronger than Federer. Zab Judah was faster, stronger and more explosive than Floyd Mayweather. Russell Westbrook is more athletic, faster, stronger than Jordan, Serge Ibaka is stronger, faster and far more athletic than Tim Duncan.

Athletic ability =/= talent otherwise Kevin Randleman would be a top 5 fighter of all time, Gael Monfils would be a top 5 tennis player of all time and Dirk Nowitzki would sell sausages instead of being the greatest Euro basketball player ever.

 

[Deus Irae]

On an all time basis, he doesn’t crack my top 100.

That's ludicrous.

 

[Deus Irae]

Rodgers being more talented than Brady is the biggest fallacy in sports fandom based on complete and utter misusing of the terms talent and athletic ability. There maybe other alternate universes where Rodgers has more talent to play the QB position but it certainly isn't the one we're living in.

Brady gets the Larry Bird treatment, where the obvious is ignored because of a perceived lack of underwear Olympics elitism.

 

[Steve102]

Brady gets the Larry Bird treatment, where the obvious is ignored because of a perceived lack of underwear Olympics elitism.

Bro, what are you talking about? Underwear Olympics elitism?

 

[Deus Irae]

Bro, what are you talking about? Underwear Olympics elitism?

Combine stuff. Run/jump/lift/etc...

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

From Wayne Gretzky's Wikipedia article:

Wayne Gretzky - Wikipedia

Gretzky's size and strength were unimpressive—in fact, far below average for the NHL—but he is widely considered the smartest player in the history of the game.[133][134][135] His reading of the game and his ability to improvise on the fly were unrivaled, and he could consistently anticipate where the puck was going to be and execute the right move at the right time.[28] His coach at the Edmonton Oilers, Glen Sather, said, "He was so much more intelligent. While they were using all this energy trying to rattle his teeth, he was just skating away, circling, analyzing things."

...

When he entered the league in 1979, critics opined that Gretzky was "too small, too wiry, and too slow to be a force in the [NHL]."[143] His weight was 160 pounds (73 kg), compared to the NHL average of 189 pounds (86 kg) at that time.[144] But that year, Gretzky tied for first place in scoring, and won the Hart Trophy for the league's most valuable player.[145] In his second year in the league, weighing just 165 pounds, he broke the previous single-season scoring record, racking up 164 points.[146] The next year (1981–82), at 170 pounds—still "a wisp compared to the average NHL player"—he set the all-time goal-scoring record, putting 92 pucks in the net.[147] He weighed "about 170 pounds" for the better part of his career.[148] He consistently scored last in strength tests among the Edmonton Oilers, bench pressing only 140 pounds (64 kg).[149]

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Muhammad Ali's Real Secret To Success--The Growth Mindset

Dr. Dweck writes that Muhammad Ali’s iconic boxing career had much more to do with his growth-oriented psychology as opposed to the widely accepted—yet erroneous—predictor of success: physical talent

“[Muhammad Ali] was not a natural. He had great speed but he didn’t have the physique of a great fighter, he didn’t have the strength, and he didn’t have the classical moves. In fact, he boxed all wrong. He didn’t block punches with his arms and elbows. He punched in rallies like an amateur. He kept his jaw exposed [see photo above]. He pulled back his torso to evade the impact of oncoming punches, which Jose Torres [former colleague of Ali] said was ‘like someone in the middle of a train tack trying to avoid being hit by an oncoming train, not by moving to one or the other side of the track, but by running backwards.’”

“Sony Liston, Ali’s adversary, was a natural. He had it all—the size, the strength, and the experience. His power was legendary. It was unimaginable that Ali could beat Sonny Liston. The matchup was so ludicrous that the arena was only half full for the fight.”

"…Ali’s brilliance was his mind. His brains, not his brawn. He sized up his opponent and went for his mental jugular. Not only did he study Liston’s fighting style, but he closely observed what kind of person Listen was out of the ring:

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

The physique of an athlete | Forums

In modern times, we have been conditioned to think of athletes as having Arnold Schwarzenegger like physiques, huge biceps, bulging chests, thighs like treetrunks.

But in fact, is this myth true?

Consider George Herman 'Babe' Ruth.

Here is a picture of him in 1921, when most Sportswriters thought he was at his peak:

<photo didn't copy>

Yep, that's a paunch, and those arms look kinda skinny don't they? Almost makes one want to laugh...

Yet that was the year he hit .378 had 59 home runs and had a slugging percentage of .846. Ruth also set major league records in total bases (457), extra base hits (119) and times on base (379), all of which remain records.

Now typically, people denigrate the achievements of yesteryears athletes, saying they don't measure up to the standards of today's intensively conditioned and trained specimens.

But consider this:

In the era the Babe played, the typical stadium often had considerably larger dimensions than modern ballparks. Babe's home field had a center field depth of 500 ft.

Not only that, until 1931 in the American League, balls that hit the foul pole were considered ground-rule doubles, and balls that went over the wall in fair territory BUT hooked foul were ruled foul.

Author Bill Jenkinson's carefully researched 2006 book, "The Year Babe Ruth Hit 104 Home Runs", examined the data and calculated that if Ruth was batting in today's parks, he would have hit 104 home runs in 1921.

The fact remains that this funny looking, curious guy, who loved to party, spent no time in the gym, and preferred to charm the ladies rather than wast time on batting practice still holds the best percentage record for (untainted) home runs in games. (Roger Maris hit 61 in 162)

Compare him to the steroid enhanced jocks of today:

Ruth held the home run crown for 10 straight years in a row.

Barry Bonds was tops for one year, Mark McGwire for two.

A triumph of technique over physique.

 

[Seacoast Fan]

That's ludicrous.

Nope. It’s not.
Orr Gretzky lemeuix Howe hull Richard LaFleur Esposito Mahovolich Mikita. That’s 10 without even breaking a sweat and I haven’t even started on goalies or current players.

 

[Deus Irae]

Nope. It’s not.
Orr Gretzky lemeuix Howe hull Richard LaFleur Esposito Mahovolich Mikita. That’s 10 without even breaking a sweat and I haven’t even started on goalies or current players.

It's ludicrous. Let it go at that. Doubling down on your position isn't going to make you look any better. There's a hell of a difference between claiming he's not a top 10 player and claiming that he's not a top 100 player.

 

[Mike the Brit]

Good article that really points the finger at McCarthy. It explains why even the Jets weren't dumb enough to hire him.

Yes, Rodgers is obviously a d*ck, but he's a very, very, very talented player and it's the coach's job to get the best out of him. If McCarthy moved out a QB coach who threatened to get too close to Rodgers because of his own ego, he needed to go -- badly. Quite the opposite, in my opinion: the Packers should have hired Tedford when UCB let him go and made him QB coach just to baby-sit Rodgers. If that's what it takes to win, do it without a second thought. (And give some attention to building a defense.)

 

[Pats Fanatic]

For those who don't appreciate the title of this thread, this is the origin of it
(2:10 mark but don't fast forward)
Substitute Teacher Pt. 1 - Key and Peele (Video Clip) | Comedy Central

That was great I had forgotten that clip.

 

[fnordcircle]

The Best QB of Patrick Mahomes' Generation will be Tom Brady.

Probably not but I hope I'm wrong! I think you're underestimating the value of longevity when evaluating a QB. A QB who is great for 2-3 years doesn't qualify in my book and I think it's probably bordering on ridiculous to think we're going to get more than 2-3 more seasons of Tom, as sad as that makes me say.

I'd never trade Tom for anything.

But if I was just looking at it from a pure team building standpoint and leaving aside how much I love the guy I'd absolutely trade Tom Brady for Mahomes and a few others. It's just the sad reality. Actually, it's not even sad, the greatest QB of all time has sustained the highest level of play for the longest period of time so I have no right to feel sad.

 

[TB_Helmet]

The physique of an athlete | Forums

In modern times, we have been conditioned to think of athletes as having Arnold Schwarzenegger like physiques, huge biceps, bulging chests, thighs like treetrunks.

But in fact, is this myth true?

Consider George Herman 'Babe' Ruth.

Here is a picture of him in 1921, when most Sportswriters thought he was at his peak:

<photo didn't copy>

Yep, that's a paunch, and those arms look kinda skinny don't they? Almost makes one want to laugh...

Yet that was the year he hit .378 had 59 home runs and had a slugging percentage of .846. Ruth also set major league records in total bases (457), extra base hits (119) and times on base (379), all of which remain records.

Now typically, people denigrate the achievements of yesteryears athletes, saying they don't measure up to the standards of today's intensively conditioned and trained specimens.

But consider this:

In the era the Babe played, the typical stadium often had considerably larger dimensions than modern ballparks. Babe's home field had a center field depth of 500 ft.

Not only that, until 1931 in the American League, balls that hit the foul pole were considered ground-rule doubles, and balls that went over the wall in fair territory BUT hooked foul were ruled foul.

Author Bill Jenkinson's carefully researched 2006 book, "The Year Babe Ruth Hit 104 Home Runs", examined the data and calculated that if Ruth was batting in today's parks, he would have hit 104 home runs in 1921.

The fact remains that this funny looking, curious guy, who loved to party, spent no time in the gym, and preferred to charm the ladies rather than wast time on batting practice still holds the best percentage record for (untainted) home runs in games. (Roger Maris hit 61 in 162)

Compare him to the steroid enhanced jocks of today:

Ruth held the home run crown for 10 straight years in a row.

Barry Bonds was tops for one year, Mark McGwire for two.

A triumph of technique over physique.

Those are all great anecdotes about other athletes.

104 HR is a little mind blowing. Maybe I’ll check out that book.

 

[Seacoast Fan]

It's ludicrous. Let it go at that. Doubling down on your position isn't going to make you look any better. There's a hell of a difference between claiming he's not a top 10 player and claiming that he's not a top 100 player.

Happy to triple down.
Go back and read my post. I said, Crosby doesn’t make my top 100. Not your top 100 or the top 100, what ever the hell those might be.
I’ve played, coached and watched hockey for over 50 years. I know a little bit about the sport. There’s no room for a whiney be-yotch like Crosby in my top 100.
I do have guys you may not, a lot of hard nosed D like Shore and Baun and Robinson and Savard not to mention Harvey, Lidstrom, Potvin and a guy named Bourque. Any number of Russians. Plus about 20 goalies. So, my list fills up and no Crosby.
By the way, for a long time your signature line was a quote to the effect of, don’t just follow the herd. Yet, when someone expresses a differing opinion, on a topic they know something about, you sure are dismissive.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Happy to triple down.
Go back and read my post. I said, Crosby doesn’t make my top 100. Not your top 100 or the top 100, what ever the hell those might be.
I’ve played, coached and watched hockey for over 50 years. I know a little bit about the sport. There’s no room for a whiney be-yotch like Crosby in my top 100.
I do have guys you may not, a lot of hard nosed D like Shore and Baun and Robinson and Savard not to mention Harvey, Lidstrom, Potvin and a guy named Bourque. Any number of Russians. Plus about 20 goalies. So, my list fills up and no Crosby.
By the way, for a long time your signature line was a quote to the effect of, don’t just follow the herd. Yet, when someone expresses a differing opinion, on a topic they know something about, you sure are dismissive.

Admittedly I’m not a huge NHL guy but am a somewhat casual fan/observer.

The wide consensus is that Crosby is one of the best hockey players of this generation, and he has three titles with th Penguins, along with several MVPs. I think you’d be very hard pressed to find many experts who put him outside the top 5 of his era (and most have him top 2.). Scoring averages are lower than they used to be (imagine that, NFL), so his efficiency numbers aren’t comparable to many others in a vacuum and without context of the league average.

Outside of his perceived whiny attitude and demeanor, what is it about his actual hockey skills/production that is vastly misunderstood by so many people? For example, many on here talked about Rodgers’ lack of leadership, obsession with stats, lack of needed risk-taking, and relatively unimpressive PPG. What’s the breakdown for Crosby? I’m interested to hear your opinion, honestly, without a dog in this fight.

 

[Patsfanin Philly]

No question. Having a great leader at QB who teammates will die for overcomes a lot of faults.

Michael Holley wrote about one story in Patriots Reign (time for a sequel) that typified it. Early in 2001 preseason an unnamed free agent signee was in the weight room and Brady ( remember he is still a backup fighting for a roster spot) is holding court telling the defensive players what he looks for when he reads coverages. the new player asked who that was. When told it was the backup quarterback, he was stunned that a backup had such knowledge... and this was a player who had been with at least one other team.....