I find those discussions pretty tiresome anyway. Especially since it’s virtually impossible to compare QB‘s today with those from the 70‘s. It was just a completely different game back then. The stats alone show that.
NFL 2017/18
- Thread starter JustAFan
- Start date
- Status
We had our shot a few years ago in that Seattle game. If we blow a game like that, I have no idea how we are supposed to win this thing. And MM won’t leave. I don’t think that’s how this organization works.
Yeah. I don’t think he will go either, but I do think you can win it with him there. All hopes not lost.
I don’t know. We have guys like Daniels, Clark, Matthews, Perry and Martinez on D and yet we struggle to even be average.
We constantly abandon the run for no apparent reason, we have no route concepts that work without magic from Rodgers and so on. And once we find real talent in the secondary, we let Hayward walk just so he can become a pro bowler for the Bolts, on a cheap contract. We just find ways to short ourselves in the foot all the time.
We draft well, we develop the players well, we have the best QB and the best LT in the game and yet struggle in the postseason. It just seems to be jinxed for us.
2 SB wins in about 20 years with Rogers and before him Favre as QB. Blown opportunities.
At least Favre made another SB.
I think the Rodgers years has been a blown opportunity just because of how great Rodgers has been. Its been laziness being bailed out by Rodgers to the point he would carry the team so far but then lose out (and lose out a few times in OT without even touching the ball).
Such a shame.
Exactly. Having Favre and Rodgers after each other should be the making of the most successful dynasty in NFL history. We should have won more.
EDIT:
Just checked. We got Favre in 92. So we‘ve had Favre and Rodgers for 25 years and only made the SB three times. That’s just not good enough.
Last edited:
In a way, NO are good example of what should have happened when you have Rodgers, you should concentrate on building a good running game and defense because the passing game is in great hands.
Yep. They we’re wasting Brees and now that he has a running game and a somewhat functional defense, they are winning again.
You're talking as if that DL comprises of Von Miller, JJ Watt, Aaron Donald and Khalil Mack and yet they suck. Those arent the top of the line pass rushers with the exception of Matthews but he is injury prone. Also defense is so much more than the DL. MLBs are key to reading the offense's routes, both running and receiving. SS needs to be good. You need proper leaders in a defense and right now I dont really see one.
The players you have arent great by any stretch of the imagination. I dont know if you have a payroll issue cause you paying the likes of Rodgers, Nelson and Cobb are causing problems of not being able to recruit top class defensive players but for years defense has been the issue for the Packers and the reason you guys cant take the next step.
Last edited:
And thinking about it, look at the Seahawks, the opposite happened. The lack of running game and a defense slightly less dominant saw them become ordinary despite Wilson playing at an MVP level. Does Rodgers have an opt-out? The Vikings could support him.
I really hate the term 'GOAT'.
I remember a few years back that a good few Xbox 360 achievements having this as there title. I took me quite a bit of time to figure out what it meant!
+1
My Panthers are playing a vital game at six o'clock on Christmas Eve. That's the worst time for a watcher from Iceland.
I have to construct a napkin that hides my phone so I can watch. It's not socially acceptable to watch sports at that time.
I have to construct a napkin that hides my phone so I can watch. It's not socially acceptable to watch sports at that time.
Aaaahh
Is Brady the best?
Missed this topic, has been ages
Is Brady the best?
Missed this topic, has been ages
First real test for Jimmy G this weekend.
What else do you have if you can't evaluate stats ? The subjective opinions of internet fans ?
I think we've had this debate before. Stats give a minor indication of whether a qb is good or bad, that's it. In fact they often lie, like Nick Foles' season in the Chip Kelly offense or even Brady in 2013. Either way, they don't account for scheme or teammates or luck (among many other factors).
They may not tell the entire career story over the course of a season but they generally never lie over the protracted course of an entire career. So I ask again, if you can't evaluate statistics (which are an official measure of a player's success) then how would you evaluate the greatness of a QB ? Do you have experience coaching American football where you can evaluate QB mechanics, dropback/footwork release timing, the ability to read opposing defensive schemes etc ?
Statistics don't tell you the quality of the team the qb played on. Brady/Brees/Anyone would not post the same career statline if they played for the Browns. You can't just look at stats and assume them to be comparable player to player. team to team.
No I don't. I can only judge relative to all the other QB's I've seen play. You can get a feel for most physical traits, and perhaps some obvious mental ability (constantly drawing offsides etc). I can bet most on this forum haven't coached football and yet can form opinions based on whether Modric is better than Cleverley even though they post similar stats? It's not that hard, and it only becomes subjective when you are comparing the very top (Brady, Rodgers etc.).
You're not evaluating the quality of a team a player played on, you're evaluating how good the player performed over a protracted 15 or more year career, probably among multiple teams.
Ok then, if you don't have any experience in that regard and you think statistics are off the table, then what do you have left in evaluating how good a player is/was ?
Yes, I know that, I'm saying you can't evaluate a qb from his career stats because it doesn't take into account the team he played for. Read it again?
The team he played for is irrelevant since it doesn't affect the player's individual skill. Nearly all QBs don't have any say on which teams draft them, what that said team's success prospects are, who the coach is etc. They are simply dealt a random hand and have to play it
In terms of evaluating QBs (imo) you have to look at statistics over an entire career with special attention to yards, attempts, completion percentage, TD passes and TD to INT ratio, and of course the vaunted fanboy favorite - QB Rating. The other half of the equation is how much success he had at the team level, where his own play was a central driver of the team's success.
In either case, its really hard to make a case for anyone other than Brady. He will likely have more yards, TDs etc than anyone other than Brees in the coming year or two and has more rings than any other GOAT contender. There's no one close to him when you combine both categories.
Rodgers - the darling of the current millennial generation - has the best rating but that's about all. He doesn't have a great resume at the ring level (and its not because he played for a poor team).
Yes they are, which is exactly the point I am making. If they've been given a shit team and coach they won't win as many superbowls or have great stats. But you are still be able to somewhat judge their overall ability by watching the game.
Yards? Attempts? TD's? I knew you were rallying behind stats, but you've picked out some of the worst ones. These are all rate statistics, they tell you nothing about skill. If the coach likes the passing game, or the running game is even worse than the passing game, then he picks a passing play. Completion percentages are hugely skewed by screen passes, taking sacks instead of throwing the ball away etc. I thought you were meaning advanced stats, which can be somewhat defended.
You don't penalize successful QBs for their success by promoting other QBs who haven't won multiple Super Bowls because you think they weren't on a great team. QBs don't have any say on who drafts them, coaches them, what system they play in - but they do, as the central position on the team, have immense say in how successful their franchise is. So even if, as you say, some QBs aren't on great teams, the teams will eventually rise to the top if the QB play is good enough to propel them in that direction.
And yes, by stats I mean yards, TD, ratings - the basic stats that all QBs are graded on. The rest is irrelevant.
Do you take the time a QB played in into consideration?
I'd say its one of many attributes to consider. For example, someone who plays at a high level for 15 plus years should and would be viewed more favorably than someone who played at a high level for 8-10 years.
What about the era he played in? How do you compare a QB from the 60‘s with one from today?
Older QBs generally lose out in terms of the GOAT discussions because they played during eras when the player pool was distinctly less heterogenius than it is today, as well as the fact that TV wasn't yet fully entrenched in terms of NFL coverage and most people knew about players through a bit of TV, a lot of radio, and NFL films. This is why older QBs are generally not given as much credit as perhaps they should. Bart Starr for example, won 7 championships including the first two SuperBowls but he is rarely talked about because of the era and his passing stats don't match his rings. YA Tittle, Unitas, Namath, Baugh et al are all generally not taken as seriously as they were in the pre-Montana era (before 1980).
Last edited:
O
it's not so much whether Brady is the best it was a poster who thought it was crazy to even consider him amongst the best. Then said you can't count a QB's achievements or stats when determining the best. Wants to remove from discussion any QB who had a good team around him (which should DQ Rodgers since it is not like the Packers have been the Cleveland Browns over his career). So basically he wants to remove anything from consideration that doesn't support his choice as GOAT.
I got the same impression. Really bizarre.
I've been anti-Pats and anti-Brady since the tuck rule game, but to be fair, its increasingly crazy talk to suggest he is not the greatest quarterback in the history of the NFL. He has played in and won more Super Bowls than any other QB and will likely wind up at the top (perhaps alongside Brees) of most major statistical categories before he retires, which astonishingly at 40, doesn't appear to be any time soon.
Precisely this.
I'm ok with people not putting him as the greatest (each to their own & all) but for people to consider it 'crazy' for him to be in the discussion is just wrong. Must hate Brady as a person, because there's no denying his QB skills.
I'm curious who else other than Brady, the rest of you would propose as the greatest ever - who when compared with Brady's team and personal accomplishments, looks better than him ?
I personally would always have Montana as #1.
Fair enough. What is your criteria for being #1 ?
What are you lot on about? 
My first post was me saying it was crazy that MOST considered him THE best. I then went on to say he was in my top-5. Clearly you didn't read anything I posted @ha_rooney (which is fair enough).
My first post was me saying it was crazy that MOST considered him THE best. I then went on to say he was in my top-5. Clearly you didn't read anything I posted @ha_rooney (which is fair enough).
- Status