NFL 2017/18
- Thread starter JustAFan
- Start date
- Status
Speaking of Seahawks and collapse, it was that playoff game that i lost all faith in conservative Mccarthy.
Rodgers back on IR - as expected.
Makes absolute sense but also a bit silly to risk him in the first place given they probably had zero chance of winning the SB in the first place. hence writing him off for the season instead of speeding up the recovery surely should have been the best thing for Rodgers.
Given the inexperience of current teams in the NFC in playoff contention, an on form Rodgers would really have given them a legitimate shot of making the SB. Other than the Panthers and Falcons there’s little recent playoff pedigree in the NFC, except Vikings too maybe. With A Rod GB had a real chance I think.
As it turns out with hindsight Rodgers was rusty and frankly not ready, but I can understand the risk taken - as proven by the fact that even with Rodgers struggling they gave the Panthers a tough game.
Green Bay would have been smacked in a Super Bowl by New England or Pittsburgh anyhow.
They wouldnt have got past the first round of the playoffs let alone get to the SB.
Is Alex Guerrero the NFL’s version of like Alex Ariza?
With an in form Rodgers? Don’t think they couldn’t beat a Falcons / Saints / Panthers / whoever else might be 3-4
Falcons maybe. Definitely not the Saints and the Panthers. Especially since they will be away to these teams.
No way is it definite they’d lose. Rodgers played his worst game just this week against the Panthers and it was close despite throwing 3 picks. With Rodgers on form it would be a close game.
Their defense is their weakness. Going to Saints away this year is such a hard game since they have improved both their defense and offense. Panthers are in form now thats its business end of the season. Falcons have been inconsistent all year thats why I said maybe.
Colin Cowherd just said that Steve Young is a greater QB than Aaron Rodgers...
It's a weird American thing. For some reason greatness is more intertwined with longetitivty and winning. Less about talent (although the Young/Rodgers comparison isn't too egregious). If football was American and Messi suddenly retired after his 4th season, they'd rate players like Giggs and Raul over him. Case and point: Brady is considered the greatest by most fans now. Crazy.
Young was a great QB. There's not much between him and Rodgers imo.
Smacked by anybody with a good offence tbh.z
I think before Rodgers got hurt, we had a legit chance for getting to the SB on him alone. After he got hurt, we saw the rise of some running backs. With Rodgers return, suddenly Mccarthy stopped the running game and went to default Mccarthy reliance on Rodgers magic. Bleh
D is poor though. And Capers plays soft D all the time. Or just madly blitzes.
Yeah how dare people not realize how awful Brady's stats are when compared to others.....
Brady is the greatest though lol
But Cowherd puts Marino like 4th all time cause he’s the best QB talent ever. Why doesn’t ARod fall into the same category?
If Messi did retire after his 4th season then hell I definitely would rate a player like Giggs as greater.
Being the greatest ever is not purely a question of being the most talented ever. Two separate issues two separate questions. Talent is merely one factor which goes into the consideration of greatest.
Stats are awful when comparing who is the best. It's also weird that you brought them up as Brady has amazing stats.
On the question of natural talent I've actually heard Matt Stafford's name mentioned on a couple of occasions as being one of the best around currently. Whether it's been of his own making or the responsibility of those around him I guess he has been thus far unable to convert that talent into consistently positive results on the field.
Whooooooosh
The thing is how do you measure talent? What defines talent?
So what's your point then?
You said it was crazy for Brady to be considered the best, I made a sarcastic remark about his stats which rank him near the top in almost every category. So obviously winning is only part of the picture with Brady.
It's really not crazy at all for people to consider him the greatest. There's a damn good arguement for it.
Winning (and to a lesser extent stats) are more reflective of supporting cast and coaching schemes rather than qb talent. Obviously talented players will perform better than worse players under the same conditions (eg. Rodgers and Hundley, Peyton and Painter a few years back), but that only relates to one team's situation. The thing is, BB is without a doubt the greatest NFL coach ever, and Brady has played with him his entire career. Does that make his achievements any the less spectacular? Not really, but it does mean they can't be compared to those of Rodgers or Brees or Wilson (this year) who've all struggled more with crap coaching and teammates.
Agree. Brady can’t scramble and make obscene throws like Rodgers. Plenty would say that’s “less talent”.
But Brady delivers when the game is on the line. In the highest of pressure situations. For example we can talk all day about catch no catch, or Big Ben’s poor throw - but it’s only relevant cos when it counted Brady got the ball down field.
That’s a mental skill - to be able to handle the pressure and control your body to deliver on those big downs. Yet that’s not often deemed “talent”.
I agree with you. Talent isn't just arm strength or athleticism, otherwise QB's like Peyton and Brady are 'talentless'. For me talent is just the eye-test. You don't need to be an expert scout to see the likes of Ronaldo/Messi/Modric are better than x player from Dundalk, it's the same for the NFL.
This is silly, sorry but it is. Don’t disagree that coaching and team have impact but let’s take each in turn.
Coaching allows Brady to thrive true. But clearly you don’t want games to see exactly how much Brady does at the line. The quality of his throws. How he reads defences. The touch on his passes. QB intelligence.
As for team, what a bizarre one. If anything plenty of people would agree that Brady has not always had the best supporting cast, relative to his peers.
Of course you can compare achievements , the only time people say you can't is when using them won't support the conclusion you want to make.
So do you through out the seasons of all QB's when they had good teams and coaching around them?
We can't know what Brady or Belichek would have done without each other. We can never know what would happen if you switch the teams Brees, Brady, Rodgers were on. It used to be the same arguement with Marino and Montana , switch their teams and what would their careers look like? No way of knowing.
How a player plays, what he accomplishes with his team, his stats, how long he plays at a high level are all parts of determining their greatness.
I am not saying Brady is the greatest but he certainly belongs in the conversation, even if you are using some undefinable "eye test."
Last edited:
Eye test - which is essentially short hand for my opinion.
Agree that an eye test is an important element but is way subject to bias and frankly error. Simply because a lot of QB qualities can’t be seen on TV by the eye.
To form a proper opinion you need a combination of many factors - one of which is eye test. But not only.
Anyway, for me this discussion is futile. Opinions and preferences will dictate who people like.
So when you are watching him play you know exactly what was called by McDaniels, what progression Brady is going through, and all the adjustments he makes pre-snap? Why do people spout stuff like this when it's all baseless. You have no idea if Brady has more 'QB intelligence' than Brees or Manning or Rodgers.
This is silly, sorry but it is. Don’t disagree that coaching and team have impact but let’s take each in turn.
Coaching allows Brady to thrive true. But clearly you don’t want games to see exactly how much Brady does at the line. The quality of his throws. How he reads defences. The touch on his passes. QB intelligence.
As for team, what a bizarre one. If anything plenty of people would agree that Brady has not always had the best supporting cast, relative to his peers.
This isn't the NBA, there's a whole other side of the ball which the QB does not take part in. There's way too many other factors for achievements or wins to always be pinned onto the play of the Quarterback. Especially in the playoffs.
We do know BB went 11-5 with Matt Cassell. That's pretty telling, I'm not sure many other coaches could have done that.
Actually a lot of that information is known. Anyway I’m done debating with you because we do a good job in this thread of putting aside agendas for good debates and I don’t wanna be involved in one that isn’t.
Last edited:
True the QB doesn't play defense but that does not change the fact that Brady is among the best QB's to play the game.
Do you honestly think if Matt Cassell had been the Patriots QB instead on Brady every season the achievements would be the same?
I am thinking your eye test is just about who you want to suck off more and not on any knowledge of the sport.
I think Brady is top-5 all-time. That used to be enough for pats fans but not anymore.
Cassell would be lucky to win a Superbowl in Brady's place, obvious class difference. But I think there's a lot who could match or nearly match Brady's achievements with BB.
It's not, because honestly I would rank Brady no.1 in the suck-off power rankings.
By the way, as a cheesehead I'm starting to make my peace with the idea that Rodgers won't win another SB. I'm at a point right now where I seriously doubt he'll even get another real shot at it. It's so frustrating to see this unique talent being wasted by the teams inablity to build a solid D. Even when the pieces are there.
As a Patriots fan, if someone said Brady was top 5 all time, I wouldn’t complain. I understand it is incredibly difficult if not impossible to distinguish between top 5 QBs in order of best to worst objectively. And anyway, being the official singular GOAT has never fussed me. Being in the conversation, on merit, is good enough tbh.
But I take issue with biased individuals with agendas who think it’s “crazy” if someone says Brady is the GOAT. That implies he is not in the conversation or in the top 5. For any in the top 5 would have a legimate claim to GOAT, depending who you speak to and what emphasis they put on certain things over others.
If someone says Brady is the GOAT, fine. If someone says Young is the GOAT, fine. But if someone says someone is crazy for saying either of those things, then lol, that’s crazy talk yo.
But I take issue with biased individuals with agendas who think it’s “crazy” if someone says Brady is the GOAT. That implies he is not in the conversation or in the top 5. For any in the top 5 would have a legimate claim to GOAT, depending who you speak to and what emphasis they put on certain things over others.
If someone says Brady is the GOAT, fine. If someone says Young is the GOAT, fine. But if someone says someone is crazy for saying either of those things, then lol, that’s crazy talk yo.
- Status