Rodgers, Brady, Brees? *Clickbait Post*

[rmontro]

The Bills beat the Vikes….

The Vikings probably overlooked the Bills. Due to our rivalry, they would be unlikely to overlook us.

 

[red4tribe]

I don't completely understand why Super Bowls are so critical to a QB's legacy. Yes, they should be relevant, but other factors are at play too. No one would say that Ted Williams wasn't a top 5 hitter of all time, or that he was inferior to Tino Martinez, just because he didn't win the World Series.

 

[Starr To Dowler]

It's pretty hard to argue with 5 rings, 27-10 in the postseason, and 98.0 QB rating in Super Bowls. That's a winner. I'll take Brady as my GOAT any day.

Rodgers vs. Brees? Hard to call. Rodgers obviously has more talent and ability, but IMO Brees does more with what he has to work with. Rodgers is someone who could literally be as good as he wanted to be, but for various reasons appears to have topped out short of his potential. I could maybe rank him #2 among those three, on the strength of his talent and skill. Going into the playoffs, I'd take Brady as my QB every time, followed by Brees, then Rodgers.

If we quit being narrow minded and actually compare the skill sets of these quarterbacks, it's not even close. Rodgers and Brees are both clearly supremely talented to that of Brady.

But this isn't Punt, Pass, and Kick, or Madden Football. Bottom line is - year in, year out, Brady takes the talent he's given and the system he's given, and he wins Super Bowls while Rodgers and Brees are watching on television. The guy takes what he has to work with and he wins championships, year after year. Who cares which quarterback is more talented in terms of stats, especially when the gap between them is so narrow? The argument about who is the best quarterback should come down primarily to who plays the position better, game in and game out, year in and year out. And that player is Brady, by any any significant measure.

Drop both quarterbacks in an exactly similar situation, and Rodgers comes out on topt, year in and year out.

No, I think it depends on how each quarterback chooses to play with the system he has and the talent he has to work with. One thing that I feel is apparent over the many years I've been watching both Brady and Rodgers is that Brady is far more efficient at doing what he needs to do with the system he has to work with. If the D is giving him the quick routes, he's hitting the quick routes. He's about moving the ball, not holding it in case someone gets open farther downfield later on. He's just a smarter quarterback.

I don't completely understand why Super Bowls are so critical to a QB's legacy. Yes, they should be relevant, but other factors are at play too. No one would say that Ted Williams wasn't a top 5 hitter of all time, or that he was inferior to Tino Martinez, just because he didn't win the World Series.

True, but different sports are judged differently. Would Muhammad Ali be considered one of the greatest boxers of all time if he'd never won a title?

 

[Packer96]

Brady gets that first downs are more important than the big chunk plays. Arod seems to always be looking for the chunk play rather than be content to get a first down. Time of possession, keep your D off the field. Mentally, Brady is on top. He wins with what ever cast he has, he plays for legacy. He also doesn't play for a coach who has to tell people he is highly successful. A coach who wins with what ever cast AND QB he plays.

 

[Mavster]

I forgot the QB plays all the positions on the field. I could've sworn the Patriots kicker won them 3 Super Bowls alone off his clutch kicking. Tom also had that clutch interception against the Seahawks to seal that SB victory as well. It's all about the QB obviously

 

[Packer96]

he was down 28-3 against the Falcons, how'd that one end up? And who did the Falcons play before that SB?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Now we are in a rough place with a team who without Rodgers would be roughly the Bills.

Unfortunatley the Packers have lacked overall talent on the roster for most of the past seven seasons having to rely on an elite quarterback to carry them.

Even with Rodgers, at this point in time, unfortunately, we aren't much better than the Bills.

The Packers beat the Bills 22-0 with an injured Rodgers only two weeks ago. It's obvious they're a significantly better team than Buffalo.

Rodgers is someone who could literally be as good as he wanted to be, but for various reasons appears to have topped out short of his potential.

True, but different sports are judged differently. Would Muhammad Ali be considered one of the greatest boxers of all time if he'd never won a title?

Rodgers is the most efficient quarterback in NFL history by a decent margin. In my opinion it's weird to suggest he has topped out short of his potential.

There's absolutely no point in comparing team success in football when talking about a player to an individual sport like boxing.