Ranking the NFL QBs

[Sunshinepacker]

If we follow this to the logical conclusion, there shouldn't be any top 10 list except, perhaps, for teams (have to consider eras, competition, et. al.). No top 10 linemen, because of who was playing beside or behind them? No top 10 running back because of their OLine? As with most things sports, definitions are important. If one demands championships as a criterion for elite QBs, so be it. If someone else doesn't, fine, but it's not the same discussion any more.

That is not a logical conclusion. The logical conclusion is that a player's entire body of work should be considered, not the W-L record of postseason. The NFL isn't the NBA, while the QB has the largest impact on the team that impact is not greater than the impact of the rest of the players on the field.

And yes, when you look at running backs the oline SHOULD be considered. I don't rate Emmitt Smith as highly as I do Barry Sanders because Sanders was the main guy in Detroit most years while the Cowboys fielded multiple threats on offense.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

You really think those are the only determining factors? You think those coaches would have won all the Superbowls they did without Montana or Brady, I can unequivocally say not a chance. It goes both ways. McCarthy would be an after thought as a coach without Rodgers.

And why is that Packer fans want to always ignore the accomplishments of other QB's by saying things like you said? Just to make our guys look better? Our guys need to do better if they want to look better. I have said it many times and I will say it again, it is absolutely ridiculous that Rodgers and McCarthy have only been in one SB, until they get to another they are just another combination in a long line of one time Super Bowl Winners.

My apologies but it appears you misunderstood my post or perhaps read further into it than I intended. I didn't even think for a second about Packer's QBs when I posted that and I never said that those coaches would have won all those titles with subpar QBs. Actually, the example I gave was swapping out two all-time great QBs so I think it's a perfectly valid question to ask if Manning and Belichik could have won 4 titles. TEAMS matter in the NFL.

 

[Half Empty]

That is not a logical conclusion. The logical conclusion is that a player's entire body of work should be considered, not the W-L record of postseason. The NFL isn't the NBA, while the QB has the largest impact on the team that impact is not greater than the impact of the rest of the players on the field.

And yes, when you look at running backs the oline SHOULD be considered. I don't rate Emmitt Smith as highly as I do Barry Sanders because Sanders was the main guy in Detroit most years while the Cowboys fielded multiple threats on offense.

I guess I just don't understand why QBs get all the credit while, in Brady and Montana's examples, the fact that they were on teams with the best coaches of their era doesn't factor into it nor does the overall strength of the team.

Still don't understand how this translates to "whole body of work" as opposed to "it's a team game, so we can't rank individuals". However, you obviously do, so carry one.

 

[Ogsponge]

Consider yesterday’s jsonline article regarding Rodgers vs. Brees:

■ Rodgers' career passer rating of 106.0 is No. 1 in NFL history for players with at least 1,500 passing attempts. Rodgers' rating is more than eight points ahead of second-place Tony Romo of Dallas (97.6).
■ Rodgers is the only quarterback in NFL history to record a 100-plus passer rating in six consecutive seasons (2009-'14). In fact, no other quarterback has accomplished that in more than four straight seasons.
■ Rodgers ranks No. 1 in NFL history in career interception percentage (1.64). He's also first in touchdown-to-interception ratio (226-to-57, 3.96%).
■ Rodgers ranks No. 3 all-time in completion percentage (65.8) and yards per attempt (8.22).
■ Rodgers is one of only three quarterbacks in NFL history to register two seasons with a 110-plus passer rating (2011, 2014). The other two are Peyton Manning (2007, 2013) and Tom Brady (2007, 2010).
■ Rodgers is the only quarterback in NFL history to register three seasons with 500-plus attempts and seven or fewer interceptions (2009, 2011, 2014). No other quarterback has done it more than once. Rodgers is also the only 4,000-yard passer in league history to throw six or fewer interceptions, having done it twice (2011, 2014).
■ At the end of the 2014 season, Rodgers had streaks of 418 consecutive passing attempts and 36 consecutive touchdown passes at home without an interception. Both are NFL records.
■ Rodgers has posted the top three single-season passer-rating marks at home in NFL history (minimum 100 attempts), highlighted by his NFL-record 133.2 rating in 2014. Rodgers also posted a 128.5 rating in 2011 and a 126.4 in 2013.
■ Rodgers has helped the Packers average 28.5 points per game in his 103 career regular-season starts. That's No. 1 among quarterbacks since 1950 (minimum 100 starts).
http://www.jsonline.com/sports/pack...s-is-championships-b99539627z1-318073121.html

I left out his Packers records.

They are beautiful numbers. Of course it reminds me of white men can't jump. Sometimes I think Rodgers would rather lose and look good doing it than win and look bad doing so. The guy rarely if ever takes a chance to win a football game. For the record I don't really believe that reference but I do believe he and the coaching staff need to learn to be more aggressive when the game is on the line. The NFCCG this past year being a prime example of that.

And as I said earlier if he continues doing what he has done above he will easily vault towards the top of the list but without more championships it means squat. Trent Dilfer is a champion as is Joe Flacco as is Mark Rypien, Jim McMahon, Russel Wilson, Brad Johnson, Jeff Hostetler, Doug Williams and Joe Namath. Now do something to show me you are better than a bunch of nobodies other than being sure to not throw an interception even when playing it safe causes you to lose.

 

[vince]

Trent Dilfer is a champion as is Joe Flacco as is Mark Rypien, Jim McMahon, Russel Wilson, Brad Johnson, Jeff Hostetler, Doug Williams and Joe Namath. Now do something to show me you are better than a bunch of nobodies other than being sure to not throw an interception even when playing it safe causes you to lose.

I think you may have gotten carried away there Ogs. Surely you're not suggesting that you think Rodgers is no better than that list of QB's there...? Maybe double check Rodgers' career record before asserting that his playing style causes losses...

 

[Ogsponge]

I think you may have gotten carried away there Ogs. Surely you're not suggesting that you think Rodgers is no better than that list of QB's there...? Maybe double check Rodgers' career record before asserting that his playing style causes losses...

Rodgers and the Packers have a pattern of not playing the best when it matters the most. I don't know how any Packer fan could possibly deny that? Yes they have won a Super Bowl. Great, so have all those guys I listed. Anyone with a brain knows he is better than those listed but if he and the Pack are so darn great having only Superbowl to show for it would be a travesty. The Packers need to start playing to win in the big moments instead of playing to not lose is all I am saying.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Trent Dilfer has the same number of SB rings as Favre and Peyton Manning. Don't get me wrong "TD" is not even close to being in their class, just sayin.

Sayin' what exactly?

 

[TJV]

Now do something to show me you are better than a bunch of nobodies other than being sure to not throw an interception even when playing it safe causes you to lose.

I think this looks a little like pining for a certain QB who threw caution to the wind so often he tied the record for most INTs thrown in a playoff game (6) and had 4 INTs in another playoff loss. Not throwing INTs is a huge attribute - and it's not like Rodgers is a system QB throwing a lot of screens and check-downs. I think you’re wrong about Rodgers for a few reasons:

You’re back to your (admittedly outdated) impression of Rodgers which you posted earlier in this thread: You posted, “And to many Packer fans like to ignore that the Packers and Rodgers do not win games when it matters the most, and if we are losing going into the 4th quarter? there is a 80% chance we will lose the game. This team is absolutely horrible at winning close games.” captainWIMM corrected you: “The Packers are tied for 4th in the NFL in winning percentage when trailing after three quarters at 25% since Rodgers became the starter. They have a record over .500 in one score games since 2008 as well.” When I asked you where you got the 80% number you replied, “I am probably a bit outdated to be honest.”

You are at the very least downplaying the importance of the rest of the team, particularly the defense in Rodgers’ case. IMO very, very rarely has Rodgers been the reason for a loss, late-game, playoffs or otherwise. How much has been written about defensive problems and lapses on this board?

Perhaps Rodgers’ incredible accuracy is at times perceived as not taking a risk. A great example of that happened in Super Bowl XLV. One of the crucial plays in the game occurred when the Packers had third and ten at their own 25 with 6 minutes left. The Steelers had captured the momentum of the game and the Packers early big league had shrunk to 3. I don't like the Packers' title chances if they would have had to punt the ball back to the Steelers at that point. Rodgers zips the ball about 30-yards in the air to Jennings with CB Ike Taylor getting a fingertip on it. Inches either way and it could have been intercepted. That was not a play it safe, don’t throw an INT pass at a huge moment in a huge game. It just happened to be nearly perfectly placed.

BTW, regarding the most recent NFCCG, IMO it’s safe to say McCarthy was the one playing it safe, not Rodgers.

 

[vince]

Ogs, the facts are that in the last six years, Rodgers has led the team to a .728 winning %, six straight playoff appearances, and a Super Bowl title (resulting in 5 playoff losses). In that same period, Brady has led the Pats to a .760 winning %, also six straight playoff appearances and a Super Bowl title (also 5 playoff losses). Seattle has had a far lower .572 winning %, four playoff appearances and a Super Bowl title (only 3 playoff losses). None of the other 29 teams in the league are even in the discussion. Rodgers and Brady have won more big games in that time than any other QB/team in the league by far, but when you make the playoffs every year you're virtually guaranteed to have more "big" losses too.

Given these facts, here's what your statement amounts to...
"Rodgers and the Packers have a pattern of not playing the best when it matters the most they lose. I don't know how any Packer fan could possibly deny that? [Me either.] Yes they have won a Super Bowl. Great, so have all those guys I listed. Anyone with a brain knows he is better than those listed but if he and the Pack are so darn great having only Superbowl [like only a handful of other QB's who haven't been nearly as productive during that time] to show for it would be a travesty. The Packers need to start playing to win in the big moments games they lose instead of playing to not lose is all I am saying."

Last year was a huge opportunity lost, as have been the other years the team has fallen short in the playoffs. If he doesn't lead the Packers to more championships it will be a disappointment, but he's won a bunch of big games - and he's far from done. Brady's had 14 years as a starter. Super Bowls are really tough to win every year in today's game but let's at least give him equal chance and make a fair comparison if you want to frame the argument from a career perspective.

The facts are that nobody's been better than Rodgers since he's entered the league, and particularly since 2010 in terms of winning and contributing significantly toward said wins. Maybe Brady's in the same tier with a slightly better team win % though not as productive, but there's no way he's been better in that same time frame.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Still don't understand how this translates to "whole body of work" as opposed to "it's a team game, so we can't rank individuals". However, you obviously do, so carry one.

Because there are gradients in any discussion. Just because you look at the talent/coaching around the QB doesn't mean you can no longer look a the QB.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Rodgers and the Packers have a pattern of not playing the best when it matters the most. I don't know how any Packer fan could possibly deny that? Yes they have won a Super Bowl. Great, so have all those guys I listed. Anyone with a brain knows he is better than those listed but if he and the Pack are so darn great having only Superbowl to show for it would be a travesty. The Packers need to start playing to win in the big moments instead of playing to not lose is all I am saying.

It's REALLY, REALLY hard to win a Super Bowl. The fact that the Pats have won 4 with Brady/Belichick speaks to how good Brady is but, and I think this gets overlooked A LOT, also shows just how great a coach Belichick really is. I like McCarthy, he's one of the best coaches in the NFL, but I think (and this is my opinion) that if he was the coach for the packers against the Seahawks then the Packers would have won. That's not denigrating McCarthy, it's simply saying that Belichick is one of the best coaches of all time.

Your point speaks to the impact the rest of the team and coach have on the game; despite the media's love of the QB, NFL games are still decided by 11 guys on offense, defense and special teams.

 

[Raptorman]

The fact that Starr's playoff QB rating is still one of the highest in nfl history is remarkable and speaks to his place in history

I think Starr's playoff rating is more about his yards per attempt and TD's than anything else. He only averaged 21 pass attempts per playoff game. It's the 8.23 YPA that really made that number go up, well that and his 7% TD percentage. There's an easy reason to see why he was 8-1 in playoff games.

 

[Ogsponge]

I think this looks a little like pining for a certain QB who threw caution to the wind so often he tied the record for most INTs thrown in a playoff game (6) and had 4 INTs in another playoff loss.

Just once I would like to not have Favre mentioned when talking about something like this. Did you notice when I threw out a list of the top 15 QB's of all time, I did not even list Favre until outside of the top 10 in a group of 5 that included Rodgers even though he has played less than half the time of Favre? This is not about Favre at all. However QB's that take chances often win in "clutch moments". Can we please in the name of all that is holy leave Favre out of this discussion? I am not a child, if I want to discuss Favre and/or compare Rodgers to Favre, I will do so with unabashed enthusiasm.

Not throwing INTs is a huge attribute - and it's not like Rodgers is a system QB throwing a lot of screens and check-downs.

Agreed 100%, I never said it wasn't except for when the game is on the line. Rodgers and the Packers play football like they have the 85 Bears defense. The problem, is they don't, they have the Packers defense of the last few years that while they showed improvement overall last year, was still the same old defense choking in the most spectacular fashion on the biggest stage. For the record, I do not blame the defense entirely for this past season. That game was a monumental failure by all aspects of the team (offense, defense, special teams) throughout the entire game.


Look, I don't want Rodgers to throw more interceptions, I want Rodgers and the Packers coaching staff to take off the damn kids gloves and start playing football to win some flocking important games and there is one sure fire way to do that when you have a suspect defense, score points and then score some more. They need to stop relying on the defense to do anything (until the defense proves they can do otherwise) and simply score points and never stop. The Packers got scared offensively and played it safe in the NFCCG and it is a huge part of why they lost. Do you disagree? When you answer just stop focusing on the spectacular failures of the defense and special teams for just moment and realize how spectacular of a failure the 2 goal line FG's and the 3 and outs at the end of the game were. [/QUOTE]

I think you’re wrong about Rodgers for a few reasons:


You’re back to your (admittedly outdated) impression of Rodgers which you posted earlier in this thread: You posted, “And to many Packer fans like to ignore that the Packers and Rodgers do not win games when it matters the most, and if we are losing going into the 4th quarter? there is a 80% chance we will lose the game. This team is absolutely horrible at winning close games.” captainWIMM corrected you: “The Packers are tied for 4th in the NFL in winning percentage when trailing after three quarters at 25% since Rodgers became the starter. They have a record over .500 in one score games since 2008 as well.” When I asked you where you got the 80% number you replied, “I am probably a bit outdated to be honest.”

So I decided to look this up myself, these are all the games Rodgers was trailing by 1 core or less going into the 4th. PFF list Rodgers with 8 career 4th Quarter comebacks. So they must use the criteria if the team was down by less than a score at any point in the 4th quarter, that 5-24 record I posted must do the same. I frankly don't have enough time or energy to do look that all up, game by game, play by play. So my list is only games where they 4th quarter started with us trailing by a score or less.


1. 2008 Week 4 Bucs, trailing by 7 - loss 0-1
2. 2008 Week 5 Falcons, trailing by 7 - loss 0-2
3. 2008 Week 9 Titans, trailing by 3 - loss 0-3
4. 2008 Week 14 Texans, trailing by 6 - loss 0-4
5. 2009 Week 1 Bears, trailing by 2 - win 1-4
6. 2009 Week 2 Bengals, trailing by 7 loss - 1-5
7. 2009 Week 7 Viking, trailing by 4 loss - 1-6
8. 2009 Week 14 Bears, trailing by 1 - win 2-6
9. 2010 Week 6 Dolphins, trailing by 3 - loss, 2-7
10. 2011 Week 15 Chiefs, trailing by 2 - loss, 2-8
11. 2011 week 17 special note, pack one trailing by 3 but Rodgers was not the QB, still 2-8
12. 2012 week 3 Seahawks (ugh...), trailing by 1, loss 2-9
13. 2012 week 4 Saints, trailing by 3 - win 3-9
14. 2012 Week 17 vikings, trailing by 4 - loss, 3-10
15. 2012 Playoffs 49ers, trailing by 7 - loss 3-11
16. 2013 Week 9 bears, trailing by 4 loss, 3-12
17. 2013 Week 17 bears, trailing by 1, win 4-12
18. 2013 Playoffs, 49ers, trailing by 3, loss 4-13
19. 2014 Week 3 Lions, trailing by 5, loss 4-14
20. 2014 Week 15 bills, trailing by 6, loss 4-15
21. 2014 Playoofs Cowboys trailing by 1, win 5-15


So there that is, they win 25% of the time when losing in the 4th quarter, they lose 75% of the time. I stand by my assertion that if the Packers are losing in the 4th quarter even if they are within 1 score, they lose. I do believe I saw one game where they were losing by more than a score and won, I did not included that as I did not have to include the other 10 or so losses that would have been added. So anyways, yes 25% is right, not 20% and that is simply splitting hairs.


Also I am not sure where Captain is getting his numbers from but would love to see them. Here is PFF's career leaders if you look at that list there are 24 current NFL QB's ahead of Rodgers on the all time list, I find it hard to believe looking at that he is what 5th among current QB's, that makes no sense at all.

You are at the very least downplaying the importance of the rest of the team, particularly the defense in Rodgers’ case. IMO very, very rarely has Rodgers been the reason for a loss, late-game, playoffs or otherwise. How much has been written about defensive problems and lapses on this board?

I am not trying to, it has been equally important, I have also hear multiple posters blame games on the offense many times and not the defense but the majority of people like to blame the defense because that allows them to not ever have to say anything negative about Rodgers record in these situations and/or McCarthy's conservative gameplan in these situation.

Perhaps Rodgers’ incredible accuracy is at times perceived as not taking a risk. A great example of that happened in Super Bowl XLV. One of the crucial plays in the game occurred when the Packers had third and ten at their own 25 with 6 minutes left. The Steelers had captured the momentum of the game and the Packers early big league had shrunk to 3. I don't like the Packers' title chances if they would have had to punt the ball back to the Steelers at that point. Rodgers zips the ball about 30-yards in the air to Jennings with CB Ike Taylor getting a fingertip on it. Inches either way and it could have been intercepted. That was not a play it safe, don’t throw an INT pass at a huge moment in a huge game. It just happened to be nearly perfectly placed.

Okay, yes, thank you for proving my point, when you take chances, you win Super Bowls apparently.

BTW, regarding the most recent NFCCG, IMO it’s safe to say McCarthy was the one playing it safe, not Rodgers.

I don't disagree with that but Rodgers was also agreeing to play it safe. There is no way anyone could convince me that if the most accurate, no interception throwing machine in the history of the league said "Hey Mike we need to put this game away and score a touchdown" that Mike would not at times say, do it.

 

[Joe Nor Cal Packer]

While the QB is the most important position in football it´s a team game and Bradshaw (who won four Super Bowl) hugely benefitted from having a top 5 scoring defense (first once and second twice) every single time the Steelers won the Lombardi Trophy. Dilfer won the Super Bowl in 2000 because the defense, which still holds the record for fewest points allowed in a 16-game season, carried the team.

The total number of rings isn´t a great way to rank QBs.



The 2011 Colts finished 2-14 when Peyton was out for the season. Most teams struggle to play .500 football while missing their franchise QB, the 2008 Patriots were an anomaly.

With all respect, and given the importance of the QB role, it is absolutely correct to consider the number of championships when rating the best. Yes it is a team game and yes elite Ds can make an average QB look good (Trent Dilfer), but I'd take Eli over Peyton because Eli knows how to win. ARod has probably punched his ticket to the SB. He'll need at least one more ring though to be included in a discussion of "greatest QBs of all time". It's all about winning. At the end of every season there is one winning QB (and team), and 31 losers. P

 

[Joe Nor Cal Packer]

With all respect, and given the importance of the QB role, it is absolutely correct to consider the number of championships when rating the best. Yes it is a team game and yes elite Ds can make an average QB look good (Trent Dilfer), but I'd take Eli over Peyton because Eli knows how to win. ARod has probably punched his ticket to the SB. He'll need at least one more ring though to be included in a discussion of "greatest QBs of all time". It's all about winning. At the end of every season there is one winning QB (and team), and 31 losers. P

Oops, ARod has probably punched his ticket to the HOF is what I meant to write....

 

[TJV]

Just once I would like to not have Favre mentioned when talking about something like this.

It’s been my experience that Favre fans are more likely to hate Thompson and more likely to downplay Rodgers’ accomplishments. It looks to me like you’re doing the latter and the reason I posted, “I think this looks a little like…” is because that’s the truth: I don’t know for certain if your love (or choose another word) for Favre is spilling over to this discussion, or if it just looks that way. But that certainly could lead someone to post something I think is foolish like “… Rodgers would rather lose and look good doing it than win and look bad doing so. The guy rarely if ever takes a chance to win a football game.” But you don’t really believe that so you posted it because… why? And “Now do something to show me you are better than a bunch of nobodies other than being sure to not throw an interception even when playing it safe causes you to lose.” IMO that makes it look like you did believe the earlier quote. The “Show me you are better than a bunch of nobodies” looks particularly foolish - again IMO - in light of the 9 bullet points I quoted from the jsonline article. But I do understand why you might not want this pointed out to you.

You agree 100% that not throwing INTs is a huge attribute and add “… I never said it wasn't except for when the game is on the line.” That has to sound worse than you intended since not throwing INTs is particularly important when the game is on the line. Before coming back to the board I was reading Wilde’s 'most important Packers' and in the article about TE Rodgers, he wrote: “Perhaps Rodgers most impressive catch came in the Packers’ NFC Divisional Playoff victory over Dallas, when he snared a 13-yard touchdown that miraculously whistled between Cowboys defenders Sterling Moore and J.J. Wilcox.” http://www.espnwisconsin.com/common/more.php?m=49&action=blog&r=40&post_id=53841
So there’s another example of Rodgers not playing it safe in a big game.

Regarding the NFCCG, I have posted: “Don’t you just love it when all three phases do their part?In this case obviously not.” And finished that post by calling it a perfect **** storm.

So I decided to look this up myself, these are all the games Rodgers was trailing by 1 core or less going into the 4th.

PFF and others cite stats for QB comebacks but what they report and what you looked up were not all the games Rodgers was trailing – it was all the games Rodgers was the starting QB for the Packers who were trailing… That may be just semantics to some but it “has the added benefit of being true”.

There is no way anyone could convince me that if the most accurate, no interception throwing machine in the history of the league said "Hey Mike we need to put this game away and score a touchdown" that Mike would not at times say, do it.

“There is no way anyone could convince me…” is the statement of someone with a closed mind so you will no doubt continue to confuse the responsibilities of the HC and/or play caller with those of the QB. And post things like this that can't be proved.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

With all respect, and given the importance of the QB role, it is absolutely correct to consider the number of championships when rating the best. Yes it is a team game and yes elite Ds can make an average QB look good (Trent Dilfer), but I'd take Eli over Peyton because Eli knows how to win. ARod has probably punched his ticket to the SB. He'll need at least one more ring though to be included in a discussion of "greatest QBs of all time". It's all about winning. At the end of every season there is one winning QB (and team), and 31 losers. P

So you'd also take Eli over Rodgers, right? Because if it's all about winning then Eli has more Super Bowls so he's obviously the better QB. Russell Wilson is also a better QB because he's won just as many but been to another.

And Dan Marino is probably not HoF worthy, they really screwed that one up.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

The Packers got scared offensively and played it safe in the NFCCG and it is a huge part of why they lost. Do you disagree? When you answer just stop focusing on the spectacular failures of the defense and special teams for just moment and realize how spectacular of a failure the 2 goal line FG's and the 3 and outs at the end of the game were.

I absolutely agree that the Packers offense should have played way more aggressive during the two three-and-outs late in the first quarter. But as some have already mentioned that is on McCarthy and not Rodgers.

So I decided to look this up myself, these are all the games Rodgers was trailing by 1 core or less going into the 4th. PFF list Rodgers with 8 career 4th Quarter comebacks. So they must use the criteria if the team was down by less than a score at any point in the 4th quarter, that 5-24 record I posted must do the same. I frankly don't have enough time or energy to do look that all up, game by game, play by play. So my list is only games where they 4th quarter started with us trailing by a score or less.

1. 2008 Week 4 Bucs, trailing by 7 - loss 0-1
2. 2008 Week 5 Falcons, trailing by 7 - loss 0-2
3. 2008 Week 9 Titans, trailing by 3 - loss 0-3
4. 2008 Week 14 Texans, trailing by 6 - loss 0-4
5. 2009 Week 1 Bears, trailing by 2 - win 1-4
6. 2009 Week 2 Bengals, trailing by 7 loss - 1-5
7. 2009 Week 7 Viking, trailing by 4 loss - 1-6
8. 2009 Week 14 Bears, trailing by 1 - win 2-6
9. 2010 Week 6 Dolphins, trailing by 3 - loss, 2-7
10. 2011 Week 15 Chiefs, trailing by 2 - loss, 2-8
11. 2011 week 17 special note, pack one trailing by 3 but Rodgers was not the QB, still 2-8
12. 2012 week 3 Seahawks (ugh...), trailing by 1, loss 2-9
13. 2012 week 4 Saints, trailing by 3 - win 3-9
14. 2012 Week 17 vikings, trailing by 4 - loss, 3-10
15. 2012 Playoffs 49ers, trailing by 7 - loss 3-11
16. 2013 Week 9 bears, trailing by 4 loss, 3-12
17. 2013 Week 17 bears, trailing by 1, win 4-12
18. 2013 Playoffs, 49ers, trailing by 3, loss 4-13
19. 2014 Week 3 Lions, trailing by 5, loss 4-14
20. 2014 Week 15 bills, trailing by 6, loss 4-15
21. 2014 Playoofs Cowboys trailing by 1, win 5-15

So there that is, they win 25% of the time when losing in the 4th quarter, they lose 75% of the time. I stand by my assertion that if the Packers are losing in the 4th quarter even if they are within 1 score, they lose. I do believe I saw one game where they were losing by more than a score and won, I did not included that as I did not have to include the other 10 or so losses that would have been added. So anyways, yes 25% is right, not 20% and that is simply splitting hairs.

You forgot to list the 2011 playoff loss to the Giants (trailed by 7) and the Packers win in week 11 of the 2012 season at Detroit (trailed by 3). In addition it doesn´t make any sense to include the loss to the Bears during the 2013 season as Rodgers left that game after the first series because of a broken collarbone.

So, Rodgers combined record in those games is 6-15 which results in a winning percentage of 28.6%. Another thing to consider is that the Packers took the lead in the fourth quarter in four of the losses (twice tying the score at a different point in the fourth quarter as well) and tied the game in another four games (two times twice) just for the defense to screw it up.

In addition the Packers only trailed 26 times with Rodgers still in the game entering the fourth quarter since 2008, only eight times by more than one score with four of them occurring in 2008 and ´09.

Also I am not sure where Captain is getting his numbers from but would love to see them.

I posted a link to the stats in post #38 of this thread. The numbers include all Packers games since 2008 though.

With all respect, and given the importance of the QB role, it is absolutely correct to consider the number of championships when rating the best. Yes it is a team game and yes elite Ds can make an average QB look good (Trent Dilfer), but I'd take Eli over Peyton because Eli knows how to win.

It was only weeks ago when you tried to convince me defense wins championships. IMO it´s ridiculous to even consider taking Eli over Peyton.

 

[Ogsponge]

It’s been my experience that Favre fans are more likely to hate Thompson and more likely to downplay Rodgers’ accomplishments. It looks to me like you’re doing the latter and the reason I posted, “I think this looks a little like…” is because that’s the truth: I don’t know for certain if your love (or choose another word) for Favre is spilling over to this discussion, or if it just looks that way. But that certainly could lead someone to post something I think is foolish like “… Rodgers would rather lose and look good doing it than win and look bad doing so. The guy rarely if ever takes a chance to win a football game.” But you don’t really believe that so you posted it because… why? And “Now do something to show me you are better than a bunch of nobodies other than being sure to not throw an interception even when playing it safe causes you to lose.” IMO that makes it look like you did believe the earlier quote. The “Show me you are better than a bunch of nobodies” looks particularly foolish - again IMO - in light of the 9 bullet points I quoted from the jsonline article. But I do understand why you might not want this pointed out to you.

It has nothing to do with Favre, period. You know the only place in the entire world I get strong opposition when I say things like this? This forum board. Why is that? Anyone else I ever talked to about this will at least have open debate about it with me. They don't blindly rail against what I am saying and the actual stats to prove what I am saying. Everyone else sees that Rodgers plays it safe which is why there are currently 21 NFL QB's with more 4th quarter comebacks than Rodgers, the numbers don't lie Jack. I see I forgot to put the actual link in so here it is.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/leaders/comebacks_career.htm

Look at that list of awesome QB's who are better than Rodgers in the comeback category: Cam Newton, Andy Dalton, Russell Wilson, Mark Sanchez, Matt Schaub, Michael Vick, Matt Hasselbeck, Jay Cutler and on and on, that is to say nothing of the many retired nobody QB's who were better

You agree 100% that not throwing INTs is a huge attribute and add “… I never said it wasn't except for when the game is on the line.” That has to sound worse than you intended since not throwing INTs is particularly important when the game is on the line. Before coming back to the board I was reading Wilde’s 'most important Packers' and in the article about TE Rodgers, he wrote: “Perhaps Rodgers most impressive catch came in the Packers’ NFC Divisional Playoff victory over Dallas, when he snared a 13-yard touchdown that miraculously whistled between Cowboys defenders Sterling Moore and J.J. Wilcox.” http://www.espnwisconsin.com/common/more.php?m=49&action=blog&r=40&post_id=53841

So there’s another example of Rodgers not playing it safe in a big game.

Jack, you keep proving my point for me, when the most accurate, non interception throwing QB in the history of the game takes chances, good things happen. The last post you mentioned the SB and this one this game, both of which we WON! I am starting to see a pattern here, when Rodgers by your own estimation does not play it safe, they win! Imagine that!

Regarding the NFCCG, I have posted: “Don’t you just love it when all three phases do their part?In this case obviously not.” And finished that post by calling it a perfect **** storm. PFF and others cite stats for QB comebacks but what they report and what you looked up were not all the games Rodgers was trailing – it was all the games Rodgers was the starting QB for the Packers who were trailing… That may be just semantics to some but it “has the added benefit of being true”. “There is no way anyone could convince me…” is the statement of someone with a closed mind so you will no doubt continue to confuse the responsibilities of the HC and/or play caller with those of the QB. And post things like this that can't be proved.

I would say if you honestly believe that Aaron Rodgers does not have any say in plays that are run, you are close minded and do not understand the symbiotic relationship of a head coach and his QB, especially when you are talking about QB's like Montana, Rodgers, Brady, Manning, Marino, Elway, etc... It is not a dictatorship where the coach says "I am the boss now shut up and do what I say". It is similar to the people that believe Ted Thompson hires McCarthy's coaching staff for him which is flat out laughable. You are right and I can't prove what I am saying other than to mention one of Holmgren's stories at Favre's ceremony where he is explaining that he gave Favre two plays to run and told him to pick one. It is a prime example of what I am referring to when I talk about the QB/Coach relationship. The two entities do not live in a vacuum where one does what they do and they other does the same.

Like it or not, great QB's will always be attached to great coaches, their legacy will always be tied together and that is not because I am confused about who calls the plays, it is because the two of them work together and the QB has a lot more clout and say in play calling than you believe.

Anyway Jack, me talking about this is not to say I miss Favre, it is not to say that Rodgers is a bad QB. It is simply stating simple and actual facts, Rodgers and the Packer play it entirely to safe when they are losing, they have entirely to much faith in a fragile defense that crumbles over and over again in the clutch. It is to say that if Rodgers/the coach/the offense, would stop being so damn conservative in close games they are losing, I would be willing to bet they would win more close games. If you don't take chances, you are not going to win most of the time.

 

[Ogsponge]

I absolutely agree that the Packers offense should have played way more aggressive during the two three-and-outs late in the first quarter. But as some have already mentioned that is on McCarthy and not Rodgers.



You forgot to list the 2011 playoff loss to the Giants (trailed by 7) and the Packers win in week 11 of the 2012 season at Detroit (trailed by 3). In addition it doesn´t make any sense to include the loss to the Bears during the 2013 season as Rodgers left that game after the first series because of a broken collarbone.

So, Rodgers combined record in those games is 6-15 which results in a winning percentage of 28.6%. Another thing to consider is that the Packers took the lead in the fourth quarter in four of the losses (twice tying the score at a different point in the fourth quarter as well) and tied the game in another four games (two times twice) just for the defense to screw it up.

In addition the Packers only trailed 26 times with Rodgers still in the game entering the fourth quarter since 2008, only eight times by more than one score with four of them occurring in 2008 and ´09.



I posted a link to the stats in post #38 of this thread. The numbers include all Packers games since 2008 though.



It was only weeks ago when you tried to convince me defense wins championships. IMO it´s ridiculous to even consider taking Eli over Peyton.

I was worried I might have missed something as I was trying to put that all together rather quickly on my lunch break. Concerning about Rodgers/McCarthy, it is a bit mind boggling to me that people actually believe that Rodgers does not have anything to do with playing it safe, McCarthy calls plenty of pass plays in these situations and Rodgers will throw ball away before he takes a chance with a tight pass more often than not. Which I don't understand because the guy is as accurate as any QB in the history of the NFL.

Rodgers has as much to do with the conservative style as McCarthy does. Who knows, maybe this year I will be proven wrong which a new playcaller, although I doubt it.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I was worried I might have missed something as I was trying to put that all together rather quickly on my lunch break. Concerning about Rodgers/McCarthy, it is a bit mind boggling to me that people actually believe that Rodgers does not have anything to do with playing it safe, McCarthy calls plenty of pass plays in these situations and Rodgers will throw ball away before he takes a chance with a tight pass more often than not. Which I don't understand because the guy is as accurate as any QB in the history of the NFL.

Rodgers has as much to do with the conservative style as McCarthy does. Who knows, maybe this year I will be proven wrong which a new playcaller, although I doubt it.

Rodgers isn´t the one being repsonsible for playing it safe and more or less criticized McCarthy for not being more aggressive at the end of the NFCCG. It´s mind boggling to me that someone would bring up Rodgers not taking enough chances and throwing the ball away too much. Taking a look at last season Rodgers threw the ball away once every 27.4 attempts. In comparison Wilson did it once every 11.6 attempts.

BTW it seems to me you ignored a ton of information I posted above which didn´t fit your assumption in your reply.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Everyone else sees that Rodgers plays it safe which is why there are currently 21 NFL QB's with more 4th quarter comebacks than Rodgers, the numbers don't lie Jack. I see I forgot to put the actual link in so here it is.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/leaders/comebacks_career.htm

Look at that list of awesome QB's who are better than Rodgers in the comeback category: Cam Newton, Andy Dalton, Russell Wilson, Mark Sanchez, Matt Schaub, Michael Vick, Matt Hasselbeck, Jay Cutler and on and on, that is to say nothing of the many retired nobody QB's who were better.

I would really like people to stop with the nonsense of measuring QBs based on fourth quarter comebacks. It´s a terrible way to evaluate players at the position. Take a look back at some of the posts in this thread and you´ll find several facts as to why Rodgers total number is that low that are completely out of his reach.

 

[TJV]

Anyway Jack, me talking about this is not to say I miss Favre, it is not to say that Rodgers is a bad QB.

Not sure who you are addressing this to since my name isn't "Jack". But it is you who are ignoring stats: You made one positive comment about Rodgers' stats I quoted in the jsonline article and the rest has been negative. And as captainWIMM and I have been saying, you're complaints go to the team, not just Rodgers. Anyway I do agree with you when you posted you're a bit outdated. And I'd add, biased.

 

[Ogsponge]

Not sure who you are addressing this to since my name isn't "Jack". But it is you who are ignoring stats: You made one positive comment about Rodgers' stats I quoted in the jsonline article and the rest has been negative. And as captainWIMM and I have been saying, you're complaints go to the team, not just Rodgers. Anyway I do agree with you when you posted you're a bit outdated. And I'd add, biased.

I just pick Jack out of your username...

Anyway, I am done, as usual, this board believes you are not allowed to criticize TT, MM or A-Rod for anything.

In closing, I think all three of them are awesome, I would not trade them for anything, I just refuse to sit here with rose colored glasses when Rodgers and this team are failing to get back to the Super Bowl. There are obviously reason for it and all 3 of them deserve their fair share of criticism, which I admit is very, very little but there none the less, they have not been perfect.

There is not such thing as good enough in sports, either you win the championship or you were not good enough. Period. And there is nothing wrong with not being good enough every single year, it is not achievable, but you can certainly fine ways to improve.

I stand by the fact that as long as our defense is pathetic, the offense needs to be more aggressive and that includes A-Rod

 

[TJV]

...this board believes you are not allowed to criticize TT, MM or A-Rod for anything.

Another ridiculous statement.