I just dont understand this Brady-Rodgers stuff. Sorry

Who cares? This is a manufactured rivalry. The NFL is artificially validating this question purely out of commercial interests.

Brady is the GOAT of QBs. This may not be as settled as Jordan = GOAT of the NBA or Gretsky = The Great One, but right now, what meaningful debate is there to be had? It's settled until Aaron can actually start cranking out some wins-- critically playoff wins. The deficit is also so massive that Aaron can't hope to achieve this with a single season. It's going to take several seasons of this kind of dominance to close the gap.

Even Kareem and Lebron can't ride the advanced metric arguments to a spot on the mountain above Jordan, and they both have at least three rings. We could just as easily be talking about Brady vs. Brees, and haters would still find similar reasons to piss on Brady, but try switching it to Rodgers vs. Brees and this becomes an internet perma-meme ridiculing how the sports machine manufactures inauthentic controversy.

That tells you which of those names really belongs next to GOAT.
91123_300x300.jpg



RANGS ERNEH
 
No one is actually arguing that Rodgers is the GOAT on paper or by stats, just that he is more talented of a QB than Brady.
And he is.
Talent is hypothetical. Achievements are not.

One can assert all day that Rodgers is the more talented, versatile, capable QB...but in the absence of achievement that ultimately proves meaningless. We could do that for dozens of other QBs past and present. Otherwise we might as well be sitting here arguing that Greg Oden was more talented than Jordan. Why not? Could have been. We'll never know, will we? Except that we do. Talent is only as real as it is apparent. Thus, it isn't controversial to assert that Jordan was the more talented player.

Assessing talent irrespective of achievement is only a fruitful endeavor for coaches who have something to be gained by something risked. It's impotent in the arena of sports debate which is defined chiefly by results. In other words, there are two arguments in this thread that hold up.
  1. Tom Brady is the GOAT QB
  2. Aaron Rodgers might be the more talented and capable quarterback

#1 is real, and true. #2 is speculation and/or wishful thinking.
 
Talent is hypothetical. Achievements are not.
  1. Tom Brady is the GOAT QB
  2. Aaron Brady might be the more talented and capable quarterback

#1 is real, and true. #2 is speculation and/or wishful thinking.
This is a crock of shit.

Talent doesnt equal the most success and success isnt always attributed to the most talent.

By the achievements metric, Terry Bradshaw was as good as Montana. Better than Peyton. In reality, no, he fucking wasnt.
 
That throw is fucking disgusting.

Not as disgusting as the quick snap throws Brady makes to guys with 3 yards of separation. Don’t forget when he throws to gronk in double coverage. Fortunately gronk has a foot of height and 50+ pounds on the guys trying to cover him.
 
Talent is hypothetical. Achievements are not.

One can assert all day that Rodgers is the more talented, versatile, capable QB...but in the absence of achievement that ultimately proves meaningless. We could do that for dozens of other QBs past and present. Otherwise we might as well be sitting here arguing that Greg Oden was more talented than Jordan. Why not? Could have been. We'll never know, will we? Except that we do. Talent is only as real as it is apparent. Thus, it isn't controversial to assert that Jordan was the more talented player.

Assessing talent irrespective of achievement is only a fruitful endeavor for coaches who have something to be gained by something risked. It's impotent in the arena of sports debate which is defined chiefly by results. In other words, there are two arguments in this thread that hold up.
  1. Tom Brady is the GOAT QB
  2. Aaron Brady might be the more talented and capable quarterback

#1 is real, and true. #2 is speculation and/or wishful thinking.

You’ve got a self defeating argument but only chose to point out Super Bowl wins as a measuring stick - there are plenty of other stats that favor Rodgers

Brady averages 7.5 yds per attempt, throws a TD on 5.5% of them, and throws an interception 1.82% of the time

Rodgers averages 7.9 yds per attempt, throws a TD on 6.29% of them, and only throws a pick 1.5% of the time

So by the numbers Brady makes shorter (safer) throws which result in fewer TD’s but somehow still more interceptions - Rodgers has him beat across the board and to top it off has been sacked 2.46 times per game to only 1.78 for Brady

Anyone who knows anything about football can see who the more talented guy is
 
This is a crock of shit.

Talent doesnt equal the most success and success isnt always attributed to the most talent.
No, yours is a shortsighted argument that takes for granted the very thing demanded of it to demonstrate.

What is talent? Prefontaine believed it was a myth. I do not, but the problem with talent is its ephemeral nature. It's impossible to concretely gauge when defined in an abstract sense as you guys are using it, here. Is it Tom's 40-yd dash time? Because if we are assessing physical attributes Aaron isn't the most talented QB we've ever seen, either. I used to enjoy the more philosophical think pieces by T-Nation S&C coaches over a decade ago. A moderator named @Urban turned me onto a theologian with a specialty in track & field named Dan Johns, and I always appreciate the more philosophical approach to his articles. Few are better acquainted with the nebulous nature of the talent debate than these coaches. Dan once wrote a piece where he mused on the fact the most talented ultrarunner in history likely wouldn't be perceived as an extremely athletically gifted person in our culture because our sports revolve around strength and power, and these exceptional ultrarunners often had more mediocre potential for those pursuits. He mused on the fact the least controversial way to define talent was as the "capability to perform a certain task."

So what task is Aaron able to perform so well towards being the best QB that Tom cannot? The truth is the question of what it takes to be great at QB is as controversial and slippery as the question of how to define or quantify talent itself. There's always disagreement about where to focus a player's practice & gym sessions: what capabilities to develop. There is heated disagreement between coaches and scouts who will be the most valuable or talented recruit. You can talk about his weak arm, but it hasn't prevented Tom from marching down that field.

In the broadest sense I believe talent, the way it is being treated here, is similar to general strength carryover. The guy with the biggest squat might not be able to beat the guy with the best leg extension, but take those two around-the-world on leg day, and the guy who squats more is going to win. He has more "talent" (in this sense absolute strength of the legs and posterior chain).

You guys believe Aaron has the greater natural squat strength. I did, too, then Tom appeared in 3 of the last 4 Super Bowls, and won 2. Dude was 40 playing for it last year. So how do you prove that Aaron is more talented? The notion is that if you were picking teams with a rookie Tom Brady and rookie Aaron Rodgers both available you would take Rodgers. This decision would hinge on the belief that Aaron would prove more capable/successful with a wider array of teams than Tom would.

Where is the evidence for that? Because the one poster showed quite well, I think, that Tom has seen a revolving door of personnel, and he has managed to succeed wildly and consistently regardless of the other names on the lockers.
By the achievements metric, Terry Bradshaw was as good as Montana. Better than Peyton. In reality, no, he fucking wasnt.
Objectively wrong. The "achievement" metric isn't just rings. Apparently this is confusing more than one of you (which is bizarre given how many of you are aware of my extreme distaste for this ESPN-driven talking heads logic with regard to basketball).
You’ve got a self defeating argument but only chose to point out Super Bowl wins as a measuring stick - there are plenty of other stats that favor Rodgers

Brady averages 7.5 yds per attempt, throws a TD on 5.5% of them, and throws an interception 1.82% of the time

Rodgers averages 7.9 yds per attempt, throws a TD on 6.29% of them, and only throws a pick 1.5% of the time

So by the numbers Brady makes shorter (safer) throws which result in fewer TD’s but somehow still more interceptions - Rodgers has him beat across the board and to top it off has been sacked 2.46 times per game to only 1.78 for Brady

Anyone who knows anything about football can see who the more talented guy is
I most certainly did not point out Super Bowl wins as the "only" measuring stick. It's about regular season wins, longevity, and production, too. Aaron's shelf is light.

I find the level of irrational naysaying that Brady & the Patriots provoke to be one of the more curious phenomenons in American sport.
 
Rodgers is under Brady, Peyton, Montana, Elway, Marino, and arguably Brees.

He's ridiculously talented, but his attitude is awful. The guy has Cutler type intangibles.
 
There's a lot of guys who technically could be more "talented" than Brady. Can Aaron make a wider array of throws? Sure. So can Mahomes.

But Brady makes the throws that he needs to and his ability to think the game, his timing and his ability to find the open guy is unbelievable.

Down 4 with a minute and a half to go, super bowl on the line, I take Tom every time until proven otherwise. I am curious to see what Rodgers can do with some better coaching those. McCarthy is shit.
 
Rodgers loses again. Yet he made some nice throws.

Am i doing it right?

Brady and its not even close.
 
I most certainly did not point out Super Bowl wins as the "only" measuring stick. It's about regular season wins, longevity, and production, too. Aaron's shelf is light.

You actually didn’t point to anything and just stated that Brady is the GOAT, I assumed that your reasoning is Super Bowls because that’s the default argument. I actually don’t disagree, he’s the greatest when you take into account his body of work, but his biggest achievements and what separates him are team accomplishments

Of course he has more production, he’s played forever, but literally every statististic you can find favors Rodgers - his QBR is 6.2 pts higher. That’s a tanglible number that points to him being a more effective QB

Brady’s already considered the GOAT and rightfully so, but that’s largely due to where he was drafted. Does he win 5 Super Bowls if he’s drafted in Cleveland? In Green Bay? No, because there’s a guy playing there who’s better in every measurable way that’s only won one
 
You actually didn’t point to anything and just stated that Brady is the GOAT, I assumed that your reasoning is Super Bowls because that’s the default argument. I actually don’t disagree, he’s the greatest when you take into account his body of work, but his biggest achievements and what separates him are team accomplishments

Of course he has more production, he’s played forever, but literally every statististic you can find favors Rodgers - his QBR is 6.2 pts higher. That’s a tanglible number that points to him being a more effective QB

Brady’s already considered the GOAT and rightfully so, but that’s largely due to where he was drafted. Does he win 5 Super Bowls if he’s drafted in Cleveland? In Green Bay? No, because there’s a guy playing there who’s better in every measurable way that’s only won one
Nah. You just cant make that assumption based on numbers. Tom had a better work ethic and that has an effect on your teammates. His team plays harder because they see him giving it his all, and you cant measure that. I can say he would have one more sb’s in greenbay. Him and aaron have had similarly talented teams. Look at pro bowls, top 100 lists and its not full of patriots as some would have you believe. People point to the unstoppable gronk, tom has won four of five of his rings without gronk in there. Simple truth is brady may not be the most physically gifted guy out there, but he gets the job done, which is win. That is why he is the goat, and rodgers isnt.
 
You actually didn’t point to anything and just stated that Brady is the GOAT, I assumed that your reasoning is Super Bowls because that’s the default argument. I actually don’t disagree, he’s the greatest when you take into account his body of work, but his biggest achievements and what separates him are team accomplishments
I alluded to a post made on the previous page. Your assumption is your error, and my posts specifically highlighted those team achievements precisely because they are where Brady most acutely eclipses Rodgers, and also because they reflect the most important measuring stick in the sport.
Of course he has more production, he’s played forever, but literally every statististic you can find favors Rodgers - his QBR is 6.2 pts higher. That’s a tanglible number that points to him being a more effective QB
No, they don't. This must be that Millennial usage of "literally" I hear so much about.

First, Brady's career runs from 2000-2018. Rodgers's runs from 2005-2018; not as lopsided as everyone seems to believe. Second, QBR is still poor compared to QBPR, and these are those advanced metrics I referenced with the analogy of Lebron/Kareem to Jordan. But apart from any already mentioned in that post from the previous page, there are all sorts of other significant production metrics where Brady wins.

For example, he has led the league in passing yards 3 times (same as Peyton). Brees has done it 7 times. Know how many times Rodgers has done it? Zero.
Passing TDs? Brady has led 4 times. Rodgers? Once.
Game-winning drives? Brady has led twice. Rodgers? Never.
Brady averages more passing yards per game for their careers.
He has better overall Red Zone conversion proficiency.

None of those are instances of Brady winning by old age, and all are really important raw production or playmaking stats.
Brady’s already considered the GOAT and rightfully so, but that’s largely due to where he was drafted. Does he win 5 Super Bowls if he’s drafted in Cleveland? In Green Bay? No, because there’s a guy playing there who’s better in every measurable way that’s only won one
More speculation.

They aren't measurably better at winning. Not speculation.
 
I’ve never even heard of QBPR and it’s apparently so obscure that Google hasn’t either. You also seem to be confusing records with statistics because most of your list are records (most in a season)

Stats show that per attempt Rodgers throws for more yards, more TD’s, and fewer interceptions - that is an undeniable fact. So any of the season records you listed are a result of more passes thrown and/or an outlier that resulted in one season from Brady veering away from his statistical mean
 
First, Brady's career runs from 2000-2018. Rodgers's runs from 2005-2018; not as lopsided as everyone seems to believe.

I’m not going to get in a wall of text debate with you but this caught my attention. Brady’s started 261 games and Rodgers has started 152(drafted later and didn’t start for 3 seasons). That’s almost 7 seasons worth of football so I’d say that it’s pretty lopsided.
 
I’ve never even heard of QBPR and it’s apparently so obscure that Google hasn’t either. You also seem to be confusing records with statistics because most of your list are records (most in a season)

Stats show that per attempt Rodgers throws for more yards, more TD’s, and fewer interceptions - that is an undeniable fact. So any of the season records you listed are a result of more passes thrown and/or an outlier that resulted in one season from Brady veering away from his statistical mean
Rodgers also never had these two targets:

 
Back
Top