Kind of OT - Aaron Rodgers

[kalibane]

Okay this is has been something I've been mulling over in my mind for a while now (really since the 2012 playoffs) and I'm just curious to see what other people's thoughts are.

So the prevailing attitude around the NFL is that Aaron Rodgers is hands down the best player in the NFL, when healthy. And I've heard a couple people saying that he'll go down as the best of all time. My question is how true is this really? Now don't get me wrong my point isn't to say he's not a great player because he is. But I guess I don't understand why you can say, Rodgers will be the best ever, and no one really bats an eyelash, like it's the logical conclusion. And I wonder how much of his "king" of the NFL status is based on almost needing a successor to Manning and Brady.

Now like I said, the first time I really started thinking about it was last year's playoffs. The talk going into the game against San Francisco was how Aaron Rodgers was going to be pumped up for the game and itching to get some measure of payback on San Francisco because it was his favorite childhood team and they passed on him. The problem was there was no point when Aaron Rodgers imposed his will on the outcome of the game. He had a crushing interception. San Francisco controlled the game basically from halfway through the 1st quarter on and without a punt return TD from Randall Cobb it would have been a complete blowout.

Now obviously that was the game that put Kaep on the map and Green Bay's defense looked like the Keystone Cops trying to stop him, but that doesn't explain Aaron Rodger's inability to put up points. His stat line looks nice but most of those yards came trying to get back in the game down the stretch. Then in two games in 2013 Rodgers failed to exact any measure of revenge against the Niners.

I suppose maybe you could chalk this up as the Niners just having the answer to Rodgers or something but you know he lost to an inferior Giants team at home in the 2011 playoffs after going 15-1. And yet Rodgers has absolutely no stink on him for losing these games.

This is all very anecdotal I grant you, it's really based on just a gut feeling I have when people rave about him that doesn't sit right with me, and I don't have anything against the guy or reason to drag him down. I certainly like him more than Manning or Brady but I've had less of a problem with people acting like they were the best thing since sliced bread. I do have one last piece of statistical evidence to throw out there.

Rodgers has been in the league for 9 seasons and a starting QB for 6. In that time frame Rodgers has been credited with 6 4th Quarter comebacks and 10 game winning drives. Compare this to Andrew Luck and Russell Wilson. In two seasons both Luck and Wilson have 8 4th quarter comebacks and 10 (11 for Luck) game winning drives. And this seems to match up with my gut feeling that Rodgers isn't the ice cold killer in the clutch that people make him out to be.

So what's your take?

[RiverDog]

In the Prisco thread, I made the statement that I thought Russell Wilson was a top 3 quarterback then started to think which quarterback(s) I'd rate over him, and the first one I thought of was Rodgers. Gotta take Manning out of the top 3 after the thrashing we gave him in the SB, so my top three would be Rodgers, Brady, and Wilson.

I do think that Rodgers is the best QB in the league at the current moment. He did miss a good chunk of the season due to injury, so it's not real fair to use this past season's performance as a yard stick. We can't rationalize away his multiple MVP and SB MVP performances. I'm not going to go so far to say that he's "hands down" the best player in the league, but next to Manning and Brady, he's unarguably the most accomplished of all the active QB's in the league.

[NorthHawk]

I think Rodgers benefited from very good WR's in the past, but they along with their OL seem to have slipped last year. If they had played last year with the same WRs as 2 years ago when they were in their prime and Nelson was breaking out, it might have at least been a better game.

To me, Rodgers is better than Manning and a step below Brady in that Brady has had to develop a rapport with key players more than Rodgers. Rodgers has all the physical tools, has a good pocket presence, but also has the ability to move well.

That's just my opinion, but I am willing to be convinced otherwise.

[kalibane]

That's the thing Riv. He has one MVP season and Super Bowl MVP not multiple (actually only has one more Pro Bowl than Wilson). That year he absolutely was the best QB. It's not based at all on this season's body of work. More his pattern in the playoffs since his Super Bowl win which frankly hasn't been all that impressive.

[Zorn76]

I'm guessing here - but I'd think Rodgers has had fewer 4th quarter comeback opportunities, seeing how the Packers have been good enough in recent years to have a lead going into the final Qt. That's just a hunch, though, and not from looking anything up.

Beyond that, yeah, he's an excellent QB. Maybe the best. You can certainly make a good case for him, IMO. Brady, if for no other reason than father time, isn't what he used to be, nor does he have the talent around him. Manning - HOF'er, obviously, but his playoff legacy (or lackthereof) takes him out of best ever discussion for me.

I like Drew Brees.

Right now, I give the edge to Rodgers over Wilson, but would take our own RW over Brady, Manning, and Brees, for as good as those guys are.

1.A.R.
2.R.W
3. Brees

Naturally, I'm biased, lol. But in the long run, I think Wilson has the opportunity to be, perhaps, the MOST CLUTCH quarterback in NFL history. That's different than stats, folks.

But in terms of playoff winning percentage, winning conference championship games - and Super Bowls (yes, I think we win at least TWO more with RW) - #3 will go down as one of the best in that regard. We may just well have a HOF QB on our team right now.

[kalibane]

Just to clarify. I'm not trying to make a case of Wilson vs. Rodgers. It's way too early to put Wilson in that category. My point is that people have hammered Manning for not being there in the clutch but look at these comparisons. This is the number of 4th Quarter comebacks for elite QBs in their first 6 years as starters.

Manning: 24
Brady: 25
Brees: 12

I don't think this disparity can be explained away by rationalizing that Rodgers just hasn't had to come back. Neither his teams (nor he himself) were that much better than these other guys.

[PasadenaHawk]

Rating QBs by stats or by accomplishments is a tough thing to do. Stats are what they are, and who cares anyway? Its winning that counts. And more than anything, its winning in the playoffs that counts. But QBs don't do it by themselves so I think it comes down to a mix of objectivity and subjectivity.

going by stats - Romo and Rivers would be up there - but they choke in the regular season and in the playoffs.
going by wins, P Manning is up there - he doesn't choke until the playoffs. And his most recent choke I think drops him out of 'best all time' contention unless he wins another ring or two.
going by accomplishments - playoff wins, Rapeburger has 3rd most of current QBs - wouldn't put him in top 10 of current QBs though. He also has 2 SB Rings (although one was a gift). Conversely, Rodgers has 5 playoff wins - tied with our former QB Matt and only 1 more than Wilson or Kapersnapper.
SB wins - Brady with 3 seems to support the idea but then you look at E Manning with 2 and again Rapeburger also with 2.

Side note: I just realized the next guy to notch his 10th playoff win gets him in the top 10 list of all time in terms of playoff wins.

It is startling to see both Wilson and Kapersnapper with 4 playoff wins this early in their careers! A lot of guys have been playing one heck of a lot longer and even retired w/o notching that many!

[Hawktawk]

Rodgers has the physical tools and the intelligence to be sure. Its a toss up between he and Russell who throws better on the run. But looking at his body of work he's choked away some really big games. He lost at home with perfect Green Bay weather to a warm weather team in the postseason but lets don't forget that it was a miraculous late game heave on 4th down vs the Bears that even got them that far.

The biggest problem I have with Rodgers is his snide prissy I'm too cool attitude. Much like Manning and RG3 he will never take the blame for a loss.There are whispers that a lot of his teammates don't much like it either. So as a physical specimen with all the tools hes as good as it gets but as a leader of men he isn't exceptional. I would not trade Wilson for him.

[HumanCockroach]

Been pretty alone on my Favre was over rated as a QB island, so welcome to your island for the Rodgers questions. I like Rodgers a lot as a QB at least he more regularly avoids the absolutely idiotic decisions and throws Favre did in his prime, that said, Fantasy football at this point trumps all, Rodgers had big fantasy games, ie he is "the greatest ever" it won't be long before some other QB is trumpeted for the same reasons....

A LOT of people get tied up in certain stats, whether it be yards, or TD's and devalue what they see ( because they honestly don't watch a lot of football games, rather they watch highlights of them and form conclusions that aren't really an accurate portrayal of what a player actually is, but simply what he can do) if watching a complete game.

Rodgers does a lot more right than wrong, the media loves him, fantasy owners love him= he's the best.

[RiverDog]

That's the thing Riv. He has one MVP season and Super Bowl MVP not multiple (actally only has one more Pro Bowl than Wilson). That year he absolutely was the best QB. It's not based at all on this season's body of work. More his pattern in the playoffs since his Super Bowl win which frankly hasn't been all that impressive.

As many times has he's mimicked putting on that belt, I certainly got the impression he'd won MVP multiple times.

There are good, logical arguments for about 3 or 4 quarterbacks as best current, and I do think Russell is right up there with all of them, at least for how he fits with his team. I like to think of them in tiers, with the ones we've all mentioned (Rodgers, Brady, Brees, Wilson) being top tier, P. Manning, Ryan, Stafford, Romo, Phillips, Newton being second tier, E. Manning, Cutler, Kaepernick, Dalton, being third tier, and so on.

[monkey]

He has elite arm strength, elite accuracy, elite mobility in the pocket and elite accuracy outside the pocket on the run. He has the ability to throw balls into extremely tight windows, and can do so on the run, without using perfect mechanics, off balance. His scrambling ability is vastly underrated.

Altogether, I see only a handful of active QB's who are physically even close to being able to do the same things that Aaron Rodgers can do. Luck, Wilson, Kaepernick, Cam Newton, RG3...they all have the physical tools to at least come close to doing physically what Rodgers does.
I see only maybe two QB's playing at the level mentally that Rodgers is playing at. Peyton Manning and Drew Brees. Neither of them do what Rodgers can do physically though. Brees isn't exactly a statue either, and he has terrific in the pocket footwork, (even better than Rodgers IMO), but even so his scrambling ability isn't even in the same ballpark. Manning is a statue, so...nuff said there, though it's a pretty safe argument that no QB EVER has played at the mental level Manning plays at.

Of all those QB's I named, the ones who are physically at least close to as gifted as Rodgers, and the ones who are as mentally competent as Rodgers, I really only see three or four that have even an outside chance of putting it all together, both physically and mentally, and playing at the level that Rodgers is.
Luck, Wilson, and possibly Kaepernick, and Newton if those latter two grow between the ears a WHOLE lot.
Out of those, I think Luck and Wilson have the best chance to get to Rodgers level; Luck because he has the prototypical QB build, the arm strength, the mobility, the accuracy, and ability to throw on the run, required to get there. Wilson, because outside of size, he has all the other necessary tools, PLUS he's an outstanding leader, and has a work ethic rivaled by none.

Both have a long way to go though.

Rodgers has played most of his career behind a line not much better than ours was last year, and sometimes even worse. Granted he's had amazing receivers, but those receivers also benefited greatly from the system, as well as having Rodgers throwing them the ball, much the same as Manning's receivers always look better than they really are.

Rodgers is, in my opinion, Brett Favre in his prime, but without the stupid interceptions, and with even more mobility.
He's THAT good.
So yeah, I'd say that he's easily the best QB in the NFL today.

[kalibane]

Yeah I figured I'd kind of be on this Island along HC. Still it's been nagging me so figured I'd throw it out there. It just amazes me that nothing was ever really said about how he had a 15-1 team at home during the playoffs and lost to the Giants. That playoff game in San Fran in 2012 is also really stuck in my craw. It really seemed like he mailed it in after Kaep broke off a couple huge runs. And that was in his home town against a team he had been very vocal about making them pay for passing on him in the draft.

I suppose we'll see. But I see people bang Kaepernick for not being there in the clutch and he only has 1 less 4th quarter comeback in a year and a half than Rodgers has in his career. It just doesn't seem right for the "best" QB in the league to be so deficient in that area.

[RiverDog]

Been pretty alone on my Favre was over rated as a QB island, so welcome to your island for the Rodgers questions. I like Rodgers a lot as a QB at least he more regularly avoids the absolutely idiotic decisions and throws Favre did in his prime, that said, Fantasy football at this point trumps all, Rodgers had big fantasy games, ie he is "the greatest ever" it won't be long before some other QB is trumpeted for the same reasons....

A LOT of people get tied up in certain stats, whether it be yards, or TD's and devalue what they see ( because they honestly don't watch a lot of football games, rather they watch highlights of them and form conclusions that aren't really an accurate portrayal of what a player actually is, but simply what he can do) if watching a complete game.

Rodgers does a lot more right than wrong, the media loves him, fantasy owners love him= he's the best.

Who said you were on an island? I've always felt that Favre was over rated as a quarterback. He's gotten away with more sloppy chit than any quarterback I've ever seen. His elephant gun arm has bailed him out of countless bad decisions. Plus he's almost as stupid as Terry Bradshaw.

[monkey]

Yeah I figured I'd kind of be on this Island along HC. Still it's been nagging me so figured I'd throw it out there. It just amazes me that nothing was ever really said about how he had a 15-1 team at home during the playoffs and lost to the Giants. That playoff game in San Fran in 2012 is also really stuck in my craw. It really seemed like he mailed it in after Kaep broke off a couple huge runs. And that was in his home town against a team he had been very vocal about making them pay for passing on him in the draft.

I suppose we'll see. But I see people bang Kaepernick for not being there in the clutch and he only has 1 less 4th quarter comeback in a year and a half than Rodgers has in his career. It just doesn't seem right for the "best" QB in the league to be so deficient in that area.

You raise excellent points.
I agree that people/the media will criticize one QB for one thing, then excuse or even dismiss completely, the same exact thing in a different QB, and it seems almost random at times. Rodgers does seem to have the media in his pocket, or at least, mostly on his side.
I also have no doubt at all that much of the love for Rodgers has to do with fantasy football, and or the current obsession with big passing statistics such as passing yards.

[Eaglehawk]

Man, I think OP has the top three just about right from what I can tell. I would put Manning and Rivers in the top 3

Brady Rodgers and Wilson.

[RiverDog]

Man, I think OP has the top three just about right from what I can tell. I would put Manning and Rivers in the top 3

Brady Rodgers and Wilson.

After SB 48, I'm demoting Manning to second tier. His arm is a lot weaker than I had thought. He's surviving on his intellect and accuracy, which is a testimony to arm strength not being a top consideration when predicting quarterbacking success in the NFL, but even so, it's enough of an issue to knock him down a level IMO.

[Eaglehawk]

Man, I think OP has the top three just about right from what I can tell. I would put Manning and Rivers in the top 3

Brady Rodgers and Wilson.

After SB 48, I'm demoting Manning to second tier. His arm is a lot weaker than I had thought. He's surviving on his intellect and accuracy, which is a testimony to arm strength not being a top consideration when predicting quarterbacking success in the NFL, but even so, it's enough of an issue to knock him down a level IMO.

I made a mistake. I meant to say I would put Manning and Rivers in the top 5, not top 3.
Agreed Riv.
Manning showed me nothing during the SB. Absolutely nothing. He only scored in garbage time when the hawks allowed him to dink and dunk his way to a TD.

[NorthHawk]

For me, when you look at a QB's career, you have to factor in the receivers and others he has to work with.
Of course, the success requires contributions from both QB and WR, but P. Manning has had some very good WRs and TEs to throw to while in Indy and now in Denver.
If he didn't have Wayne or Harrison, his success could arguably be much less.
He also had a good run game early in his career that took some of the pressure off him.
This isn't to say he's just an average QB, he's much better than that, but he has been in the right situation most of his career, too. Some QBs never get that chance.

[kalibane]

Now I was one of the first people on the Manning is overrated train and I do think he is, but some people might be taking it too far now.

Largly I think the whole "he had great WRs" thing is a straw man. I only think that argument applies with guys like Calvin Johnson or Randy Moss, where they are so physically imposing that you don't have to have timing or accuracy to complete passes. In Manning's case I actually think if anything the opposite is true. I don't think Marvin Harrison has anywhere near the career he had if he doesn't have Peyton Manning orchestrating that offense, getting him into favorable matchups and delivering the ball with exceptional timing and accuracy.

Marvin Harrison became an exceptional route runner but I don't think he was a dominant WR regardless of his guady stats. In Harrison's first three years with the Colts the best receiving threat on the team was Marshall Faulk and Harrison's production was nothing special (under 900 yards all three years) . Then when Manning exploded in his 2nd year (and Faulk was on the Rams, making Harrison #1 by default) Harrison's production exploded along with it. Without that hurry up, pass heavy, precision based timing offense that capitalized fully on Harrison's route running, volume passing and Peyton Manning manning's hyper accuracy, I don't think anyone really cares about Harrison today.

Every single player who was Manning's #1 targeted receiver in a respective season has gone to the pro-bowl. Faulk in Manning's rookie year, Harrison starting in Manning's 2nd year, transitioning to Reggie Wayne (who I personally think is the better WR between he and Harrison, just Harrison got to be the #1 target in Manning's prime), and now Demaryius Thomas.

Manning has been blessed with some good recievers no doubt, but I don't think they are as good as you are making them out to be. People always want to argue who was better, Harrison, Moss or TO during that stretch. I think if you put TO or Moss with Manning in place of Harrison they completely destroy the record books.

[NorthHawk]

True, but Manning was put in the position with a team that could develop his talents.
Harrison might just make it to the HoF - he was talked about last year, and Wayne might be there, too.
What would Manning's career be like if he was in the same position as David Carr in Texas was or on another perennially bad team?
I somehow doubt he would have achieved the level in his career he has given that situation.
That's basically my point. A QB's success is dependent upon the talent and coaching around him.
We can say that for all players, but it's true more often than not, and especially at QB.

[kalibane]

Harrison will get into the HoF. His resume on paper is undeniable. But of the WRs that I've watched (and it's my favorite position fyi) since back to the late 70's Michael Irvin is the only one who's induction built on style more than Harrison instead of substance. A little different because Irvin's candidacy is built on championships where Harrison's is built on inflated numbers.

BTW ... the Colts were the joke of a team that the Texans were when they drafted David Carr. I don't see the situation as being any different. Also David Carr had Andre Johnson who is better than Harrison and Wayne... still couldn't do anything.

Here's the litmus test. If Harrison had Carr and Schaub at QB during his entire run do you think he would have turned in a HoF worthy career the way Andre Johnson has? I sure as hell don't.

[RiverDog]

True, but Manning was put in the position with a team that could develop his talents.
Harrison might just make it to the HoF - he was talked about last year, and Wayne might be there, too.
What would Manning's career be like if he was in the same position as David Carr in Texas was or on another perennially bad team?
I somehow doubt he would have achieved the level in his career he has given that situation.
That's basically my point. A QB's success is dependent upon the talent and coaching around him.
We can say that for all players, but it's true more often than not, and especially at QB.

The Colts had a 3-13 record in both the season prior to drafting Manning and in Manning's rookie year. It's not like he fell into a dynasty like Steve Young did. Peyton Manning was the one constant of a team that after his arrival became a perennial SB contender for over a decade.

[NorthHawk]

Keep in mind I'm not saying Manning is just an AVERAGE QB. He's clearly not.

What I am saying is I doubt he would have had reached the same level of success if they hadn't built a team around him - like the Texans didn't with Carr.
Manning has even had the luck of having the same Offense and basic plays throughout his career. Growing with the Offense and consequently understanding it inside and out makes a huge difference to a QB as opposed to the situation like Smith in SF where he had something like 7 different OCs and systems in 8 years.
That's what I mean about being in the right position to take advantage of the opportunity.

[kalibane]

That's in large part due to Manning's work ethic and exceptional understanding of the game to the point that he is almost an assistant offensive coordinator. I would again predict that the same sort of thing would have happened in Houston. There would have been no need to change the offense on Manning because he would have been successful in the first one.

I mean it's not as if Tom Moore was some offensive genius who had massive success before and/or after Manning. It was Manning picking up the offense quickly and then working with the offensive coordinator to help it grow. David Carr's number of offensive coordinators was in large part due to the fact that he just wasn't able to get the job done which led to lack of team success which led to coaching changes.

Now in fairness to Carr he was getting destroyed behind that offensive line and I think it's tough to project how he would have fared on a different team. The thing is the Colts O-Line was terrible too but Manning was able to compensate by his ability to pick up the game and get the ball out quickly (avoiding hits) where as Carr held the ball too long because he was thinking through the game still and getting drilled.

I think you're just kind of wrong on this front (like I just may be proven wrong about Aaron Rodgers not being as good as his press), but I think the comparison you are trying to draw with Houston is ultimately negated by the fact that Carr had Andre Johnson and still was terrible, thus proving that having a great WR doesn't make you.

[NorthHawk]

It's my opinion.
I don't think he would have done as well in SF or Houston with the dysfunction that was around those teams.
The thing is they might not have achieved as much the first few years and the coaching changes would have happened - much like what happened to Archie in N.O.
It's why I rate Brady above Manning as he has had less consistency around him and ultimately accomplished more.

[kalibane]

You're welcome to your opinion for sure but I think you need to go look at the Indy Team that Peyton took over. They were coming off back to back 3 - 13 seasons. The believe that they were some kind of stable organization is just not true. Peyton Manning helped build the stability that they had going forward. That franchise was a mess before him and Polian.

[NorthHawk]

Yah, but the Indy Front Office built a team around Manning, they didn't in Houston.
That's the difference.