PDA

View Full Version : Aaron Rodgers is not a Clutch QB



TheSheriff
09-23-2013, 03:23 PM
Interesting Football Outsiders' Article from ESPN Insider:

Aaron Rodgers' hidden weakness

Recurring fourth-quarter failures prevent him from being NFL's top QB
Trailing 34-30 with 3:47 remaining on Sunday, Aaron Rodgers had a chance to lead a game-winning touchdown drive to help the Green Bay Packers escape with a victory in Cincinnati. With the stage set for a classic finish after a wild game, this should have been a legacy-growing moment for the player many believe is the best quarterback in the NFL, right?

Not so fast. The Packers are just 5-24 (.172) in games when Rodgers had the ball in the fourth quarter, trailing by 1-8 points. Five comebacks in 29 tries? Tony Romo, considered by some to be a choker, led five comeback wins in the 2012 season alone. Among active starters, only Cam Newton (2-16) has a worse record than Rodgers.

He has numerous passing records, both a regular-season and Super Bowl MVP, but this is the one area on the résumé that continues to be a sore spot for Rodgers. Sunday was one of his worst finishes yet.

This time, while the drive was long in plays (13), it ended at the Cincinnati 20 after Rodgers' pass was tipped on fourth-and-5. That was the third tipped ball of the drive, as the Packers' offense ended the game with two interceptions, a fumble returned for the go-ahead score, and this turnover on downs.

These close-game failures have been the hush-hush hallmark of coach Mike McCarthy's otherwise successful tenure as Packers head coach. While the blame should be distributed everywhere, why are we not looking at the quarterback more?

Rodgers arguably had one of the worst games of his career on Sunday, but like with past greats, that would have been forgiven with one game-winning drive at the end. One great drive and the Packers could be 2-1. Instead, they have started 1-2 for the second straight season.

It's always the same story for Green Bay: win big or lose close. When you think of Rodgers at his best, you think of the six touchdowns in Houston last year or the demolition of Atlanta in the 2010 playoffs. You don't think of late-game heroics, because they simply do not exist in great supply. Sunday was a perfect opportunity, but it was the latest in a long line of failures for the league's best front-running quarterback and team.

Historically, clutch wins have been the ultimate "cream rises to the top" stat for quarterbacks. Since 1950, 10 quarterbacks have held at least a share of the record for most fourth-quarter comeback wins. The first nine are in the Hall of Fame, while the current record holder, Peyton Manning (38), will soon join them.

There is some historical data to show the crunch-time disconnect in Green Bay. The following table lists two different career records (playoffs included) for 24 notable quarterbacks. The first mark is for fourth quarter comeback opportunities (4QC), which are defined as the team having the ball in the fourth quarter with a one-score deficit. The second record is for all game-winning drive opportunities (GWD), which include games where it was tied in the fourth quarter or overtime, in addition to games with a one-score deficit. The rankings fall according to the game-winning drive performance. Pay attention to where Rodgers ranks among some of the all-time greats.

Among the top eight, you'll see some of the names in the conversation for greatest QB of all time, including Brady, Montana, Peyton Manning, Marino, Elway and Staubach. Meanwhile, the bottom group is not nearly of the same caliber. That includes Rodgers' predecessor, Brett Favre, who had many late-game meltdowns but enough opportunities to shine, as well.

Rodgers' 5-24 record in comeback efforts includes an 0-18 mark against teams that finished the season .500 or better. That could grow to 0-20 depending on what the 49ers and Bengals do this season.

Green Bay's dominance does come into play. The Packers' historic 19-game winning streak without trailing in the fourth quarter (during the 2010 and 2011 seasons) limited the need for late-game heroics, and in fact, the 2010 Packers are one of just three Super Bowl winners to not have a single fourth-quarter comeback win. But even accounting for that great streak, Rodgers has had plenty of opportunities to rack up comebacks (29) and game-winning drives (35).

Instead, Rodgers is two standard deviations below the average overall winning percentage for this set of quarterbacks. His record in these situations is one of the worst in NFL history, which is shocking given his overall caliber of play and success. It is hard to fathom how a team capable of winning so many games in impressive fashion cannot finish in crunch time with a prolific, record-setting quarterback and a ball-hawking defense.

Rodgers is 9-26 (.257) when he has to score the winning points in the fourth quarter or overtime, but 49-5 (.907) in all other games, meaning the Packers are often on the winning end of blowouts. That .650 difference in winning percentage is the largest I have found in a sample of 67 quarterbacks.

That's more proof that Rodgers and the Packers are the greatest front-runners the NFL has ever seen, but why does this keep happening each season?

There is a tendency for Rodgers to hold onto the ball too long as he tries to push it down the field. Sometimes, when you need just a field goal, it's best to take what the defense gives you and get the ball out quickly. Avoiding negative plays is pivotal when field position is so important. Yet Rodgers has been sacked on 10.4 percent of his drop-backs in the fourth quarter and overtime in his 26 failed game-winning drives. That's simply too high. It's probably not a coincidence that Rodgers is the only quarterback in NFL history to lose five consecutive overtime games with the same team.

Of course, some of the 26 losses speak well for him. He has put Green Bay ahead seven times in the fourth quarter when trailing, only for the team to go on to lose the game. The defense is certainly deserving of blame for this.

Green Bay has allowed 20 game-winning drives since 2008, which is third-most in the league over that span. Last season, there was the Hail Mary to Seattle's Golden Tate on that game's final play. In Week 1 this year, Aaron Rodgers led the Packers to a 28-24 lead, only to watch Colin Kaepernick and the Niners score the game's last 10 points for a San Francisco win.

While it's been a team problem, all quarterbacks have close losses in which the defense failed them. The difference -- in comparison to Rodgers -- is that they always seem to have more wins, too.

Ultimately, these games are not just about the go-ahead drive, either. On Sunday, Rodgers threw a bad interception in the fourth quarter when Green Bay led 30-21 and had the ball at Cincinnati's 27. That likely cost him a bigger lead. On the next drive, he took a sack that lost 6 yards, setting up a third-and-12 that would eventually lead to the fourth-down fumble-recovery TD that put Green Bay behind.

The Packers have a lot of issues in games that are late and close. How much of the problem is tied to Rodgers is a debate that will only intensify if this pattern persists. But based on NFL history, I know this: If a team is in the fourth quarter of a close game, and there's so little hope the QB will find a way to win, then that team probably doesn't have the best quarterback in the league. For Rodgers to earn the status as one of the true greats at the position, he needs to show more in these moments.

Sunday was another opportunity wasted.

TheSheriff
09-23-2013, 03:24 PM
Quarterback 4QC Record Pct GWD Record Pct
Tom Brady
27-23 .540 39-25 .609
Matt Ryan
16-16 .500 23-16 .590
Joe Montana
31-29 .517 34-31 .523
Jay Cutler
15-17 .469 19-18 .514
Peyton Manning
38-44 .463 50-49 .505
Dan Marino
36-46 .439 51-50 .505
John Elway
34-46-1 .426 49-51-1 .490
Roger Staubach 15-23 .395 23-24 .489
Eli Manning
24-28 .462 28-30 .483
Ben Roethlisberger
22-30 .423 30-35 .462
Joe Flacco
10-17 .370 15-20 .429
Drew Brees
21-37 .362 32-43 .427
Jim Kelly
22-37 .373 29-40 .420
Steve Young
14-23 .378 18-26 .409
Tony Romo
18-26 .409 19-28 .404
Warren Moon
26-51 .338 37-55 .402
Randall Cunningham
21-36 .368 26-40-1 .396
Brett Favre
30-72 .294 46-75 .380
Troy Aikman
16-34 .320 21-35 .375
Steve McNair
17-38 .309 24-41 .369
Drew Bledsoe
24-61 .282 31-66 .320
Kurt Warner
9-30 .231 14-30 .318
Philip Rivers
14-35 .286 17-38 .309
Aaron Rodgers
5-24 .172 9-26 .257

TheSheriff
09-23-2013, 03:26 PM
I find it interesting that someone actually wrote an article not praising Rodgers. Everyone (ESPN, NFL Network, all the analysts/sports writers) seems to love to push it down our throat that he's perfect, but Rodgers so far has shown not to have that clutch gene. He's an excellent front runner, perhaps the best ever, but when you're in a close game and losing, there's not a good chance that you're winning with Rodgers as your qb.

And for the record, I'm not saying Rodgers isn't one of the best qbs right now (Nor do I think the writer is saying that either). But it's hard to argue that he's clutch when he's significantly worse in 4th quarter comeback situations than professional choker Philip Rivers.

JohnShaft
09-23-2013, 04:01 PM
This year is such a chance for Jay to lead his team to a Division win, and send the Packers, and Rodgers, back to 2nd (or worst). Cutler incidentally is also 4th all time on that list.

Honestly I've always thought Rodgers was overrated, and the league is on his jock. His lines are bad, sure, but part of that is that he's always held on to the ball too long. His lines have not been worse than the Bears lines...

Also he's had crazy receiving talent, way more than Brady has ever had.
Jennings, Driver, Nelson, James Jones, Finley.

GridironChamp
09-23-2013, 08:34 PM
Always been overrated, IMO.



Once again Brady showing he is underrated, even as good as he is. Dude has a legit claim to the best QB of all time.

HUMCALC
09-23-2013, 08:48 PM
I always said that a lot of talent that won the SB, were on there when Favre was

CanDB
09-23-2013, 08:52 PM
Sorry, but I still think he's one of the best.

roushmartin6
09-23-2013, 09:34 PM
He killed my fantasy team this week. When Peyton played bad in his 2nd game with us, he still almost lead us back to a win

fallforward3y+
09-23-2013, 11:05 PM
Nice thread. I've actually noticed this for a very long time. There have been several times when the Packers had a shot at a GW drive, and were unsuccessful. 2008-2010 I believe he had actually committed more turnovers on GW drive attempts than successfully lead ones.

I've mentioned it in the past, usually with responses claiming I just hate the Packers, or something about how Rodgers has been very clutch without much supporting evidence.

Rodgers has very few weaknesses, but his performance in game winning drives seems to be one of them.

fallforward3y+
09-23-2013, 11:13 PM
Always been overrated, IMO.



Once again Brady showing he is underrated, even as good as he is. Dude has a legit claim to the best QB of all time.

Brady is not underrated, don't exaggerate. Everyone knows he's good at leading game winning drives. He may even be overrated just due to the fact that many think he is the clear best today, when such is not true for any NFL QB.

fallforward3y+
09-23-2013, 11:31 PM
This year is such a chance for Jay to lead his team to a Division win, and send the Packers, and Rodgers, back to 2nd (or worst). Cutler incidentally is also 4th all time on that list.

Honestly I've always thought Rodgers was overrated, and the league is on his jock. His lines are bad, sure, but part of that is that he's always held on to the ball too long. His lines have not been worse than the Bears lines...

Also he's had crazy receiving talent, way more than Brady has ever had.
Jennings, Driver, Nelson, James Jones, Finley.

I've thought so too, not because he isn't a top level QB, but because how good is he is exaggerated. The great receivers point is a good one. People often claim he does it with average at best receivers, when the reality is that he has so many good ones that McCarthy wants to use them all, and none of them have top notch stats.

McCarthy is an offensive genius, and knows how to use receivers well. QBs who spread it around always get overrated because people don't realize several good receivers make for a good core. Each receiver is used for what they are good at, and makes an effective weapon in those situations. With several of them, you have several effective weapons and don't need a stat monster.

I disagree about Brady though, he's had several good receivers, and many great ones. Moss and Welker, along with some pretty good Tight Ends, and receivers at a different points in time like Lloyd, Stallworth, Branch, Edelman who have helped in specific roles.

JohnShaft
09-23-2013, 11:43 PM
I always said that a lot of talent that won the SB, were on there when Favre was
Except it's not really true is it?

Favre's last year in GB was 2007.
Jennings was a rookie in 06. James Jones was a rookie in 07. Nelson and Finley were drafted in 08. Cobb in 11.

So Favre basically had Driver, and Jennings second year, given receivers aren't usually much use as rookies.

Outside of that you more or less have to go back to Sterling Sharpe, and Favre only had three years with him before he retired.
Favre had nowhere near the receiving talent to throw to that Rodgers has had...

If he'd been throwing to the bums that Cutler did in his first three years in Chicago he'd be just another starting Quarterback.

Frankenpost
09-24-2013, 02:11 AM
If he'd been throwing to the bums that Cutler did in his first three years in Chicago he'd be just another starting Quarterback.

Not to mention the 0-Line Cuttles had, now those were some bums. Real vagabond's.

Speaking of..Let's not forget Sharon Rodgers epic fail against the Cardinals in the playoffs.

Fumbled it away i recall. Against the..."Cardinals" of all teams. Very "Clutch"

Spice 1
09-24-2013, 08:13 AM
Except it's not really true is it?

Favre's last year in GB was 2007.
Jennings was a rookie in 06. James Jones was a rookie in 07. Nelson and Finley were drafted in 08. Cobb in 11.

So Favre basically had Driver, and Jennings second year, given receivers aren't usually much use as rookies.

Outside of that you more or less have to go back to Sterling Sharpe, and Favre only had three years with him before he retired.
Favre had nowhere near the receiving talent to throw to that Rodgers has had...

If he'd been throwing to the bums that Cutler did in his first three years in Chicago he'd be just another starting Quarterback.

Dude, wht? Robert Brooks, Antonio Freeman, Andre Rison, Desmond Howard, Mark Chmura,Javon Walker?

ERoyal248
09-24-2013, 09:38 AM
Oh lord.

The Rodgers hate thread, the non clutch argument i suppose is true but he's still in the elite of the elite.

Along with PManning, Brees and Brady as well.

He may hold onto the ball for a little too long but make no mistake about it, it's not a very good line.

JohnShaft
09-24-2013, 12:51 PM
Dude, wht? Robert Brooks, Antonio Freeman, Andre Rison, Desmond Howard, Mark Chmura,Javon Walker?
Dude, cmon!

Freeman I'll give you. Even he only had three 1,000 yards seasons.

Brooks had a couple 1,000 yard years, but got nowhere near that in his other five.

Walker was a one year wonder. He only really started there his 3rd year. His second best year was 716.
Chmura never had 700 yards in a season. Only got over 560 once.
Andre Rison has one year with the Packers he had 135 yards receiving!
Desmond Howard was a kick returner. He had one year with the Packers, and 95 yards receiving!

At least check your **** before you call me on it.

And Favre had 15 years as the starter in GB. Rodgers has only had 5.

He's spent a third of the time there, and had like 5 times the receiving talent...

HUMCALC
09-24-2013, 01:05 PM
Favre is > Rodgers by far, in every way possible

Chillez
09-24-2013, 01:17 PM
Rodgers is elite QB and one best in NFL bar none. But he is way way overrated in clutch situations their about 15 QB's in NFL history I would pick over him when the game is on the line. He does not deliver when game gets close like others have said he is front runner kinda like LBJ is. I think when its all said and done Rodgers will be top 6 to 7 range of greatest QB ever, I dont think he end up in top five though. I'd pick Rodgers over Favre who is most overrated QB in NFL history.

broncoFan!
09-24-2013, 01:19 PM
Lol, lot of hate for Aaron Rodgers in this thread. Some of you seem to forget that he took the Packers to a Super Bowl when like half of his roster was injured.

In my opinion the real problem is Mike McCarthy. He is way too conservative and puts the Packers in situations that are not supportive. I've seen him make some very strange calls on 2nd and long or 3rd and long which definitely doesn't help the Packers.

HUMCALC
09-24-2013, 01:38 PM
Rodgers is elite QB and one best in NFL bar none. But he is way way overrated in clutch situations their about 15 QB's in NFL history I would pick over him when the game is on the line. He does not deliver when game gets close like others have said he is front runner kinda like LBJ is. I think when its all said and done Rodgers will be top 6 to 7 range of greatest QB ever, I dont think he end up in top five though. I'd pick Rodgers over Favre who is most overrated QB in NFL history.

How is Favre overrated? He owns every NFL record, and he did it on crap teams

fallforward3y+
09-24-2013, 01:47 PM
Lol, lot of hate for Aaron Rodgers in this thread. Some of you seem to forget that he took the Packers to a Super Bowl when like half of his roster was injured.

In my opinion the real problem is Mike McCarthy. He is way too conservative and puts the Packers in situations that are not supportive. I've seen him make some very strange calls on 2nd and long or 3rd and long which definitely doesn't help the Packers. How is McCarthy conservative? Every coach has made some bad calls in the past, they are a very aggressive offense. In GW drive attempts, they call passes like everything else. McCarthy is a great play caller, and very good for that offense.

Your exactly what I meant when I said he's overrated, not because he's not great, but because any criticism for him is seen as 'hate' or blasphemy. There is no hate for him in this thread, and that roster was still pretty good when they went to the Super Bowl. They had one of the top defenses in the league, and still a pretty good receiving core.

fallforward3y+
09-24-2013, 01:53 PM
Oh lord.

The Rodgers hate thread, the non clutch argument i suppose is true but he's still in the elite of the elite.

Along with PManning, Brees and Brady as well.

He may hold onto the ball for a little too long but make no mistake about it, it's not a very good line.

No one is saying he's not elite, but it's just recognizing a flaw in him. Criticize most players, and people will just argue points, but if you ever do so for Rodgers or Brady, you get jumped all over by people who behave as though they are in love with them. Threads like this get started because they are tired of all the jock riding I guess.

broncoFan!
09-24-2013, 02:19 PM
How is McCarthy conservative? Every coach has made some bad calls in the past, they are a very aggressive offense. In GW drive attempts, they call passes like everything else. McCarthy is a great play caller, and very good for that offense.

Your exactly what I meant when I said he's overrated, not because he's not great, but because any criticism for him is seen as 'hate' or blasphemy. There is no hate for him in this thread, and that roster was still pretty good when they went to the Super Bowl. They had one of the top defenses in the league, and still a pretty good receiving core.

I'm not saying Mike McCarthy is the worst coach in the league by any means but he has definitely made some strange calls. He has a hard time starting fast out of the gate at times and when Green Bay falls behind he has a hard time adjusting.

Go re-watch last year's games vrs. Seattle and San Francisco, those were some of McCarthy's worst coached games imo.

You have to recognize also though that even though GB did have a good defense at that time they had very little options at running back. If I remember right they were down to their third or fourth string running back which was far from optimal for any starting QB in the NFL.

Chillez
09-24-2013, 02:26 PM
How is Favre overrated? He owns every NFL record, and he did it on crap teams

One single SB win and countless playoff games where he throw INT that lost the game. The two playoff losses that stick out in my mind were the Giants and the other against Saints both those teams ended up winning the SB. Favre was the majority of the blame for those two playoff failures. Favre was gunslinger that would throw in double and triple coverage and made questionable decisions that leaded to many mistakes where he was better off throwing it away or checking it down instead of trying to play hero ball. He was exciting as hell to watch no doubt about that, but at same time you scratch your head and be like what the heck was that. The best way to describe Favre was you live by the sword, die by the sword. He was a blessing and curse at same time on your team. Here are some great/HOF players Favre was blessed to play with.

Desmond Howard
Sterling Sharpe
Antonio Freeman
Donald Driver
Greg Jennings
Ahman Green
Adrian Peterson
Reggie White
Darren Sharper

And those are just players on top of my head Favre played with. I respect Favre for his iron man toughness, legendary arm strength and velocity, he had cannon of an arm. Also the longevity, and crazy durability, but yes he was overrated compared to all-time greats like Montana, Elway, Marino, Rodgers, Brady, Manning, etc. They were munch better QB's no offense to Favre.

HUMCALC
09-24-2013, 03:20 PM
One single SB win and countless playoff games where he throw INT that lost the game. The two playoff losses that stick out in my mind were the Giants and the other against Saints both those teams ended up winning the SB. Favre was the majority of the blame for those two playoff failures. Favre was gunslinger that would throw in double and triple coverage and made questionable decisions that leaded to many mistakes where he was better off throwing it away or checking it down instead of trying to play hero ball. He was exciting as hell to watch no doubt about that, but at same time you scratch your head and be like what the heck was that. The best way to describe Favre was you live by the sword, die by the sword. He was a blessing and curse at same time on your team. Here are some great/HOF players Favre was blessed to play with.

Desmond Howard
Sterling Sharpe
Antonio Freeman
Donald Driver
Greg Jennings
Ahman Green
Adrian Peterson
Reggie White
Darren Sharper

And those are just players on top of my head Favre played with. I respect Favre for his iron man toughness, legendary arm strength and velocity, he had cannon of an arm. Also the longevity, and crazy durability, but yes he was overrated compared to all-time greats like Montana, Elway, Marino, Rodgers, Brady, Manning, etc. They were munch better QB's no offense to Favre.

The New Orleans game was everybody's fault including the refs.

Desmond Howard=sucked as a WR
Sterling Sharpe was great, but gone too soon
Freeman and Driver are good, but not great WRs
He didn't play with Jennings long
Ahman Green=sucked, Favre elevated him
AD=Has never gotten as far as he did as he did when he had Favre
Reggie White=ABSOLUTE BEAST, but unfortunately he was on DEFENSE
Darren Sharper=good/great, but once again played D

Chillez
09-24-2013, 04:13 PM
The New Orleans game was everybody's fault including the refs.

Desmond Howard=sucked as a WR
Sterling Sharpe was great, but gone too soon
Freeman and Driver are good, but not great WRs
He didn't play with Jennings long
Ahman Green=sucked, Favre elevated him
AD=Has never gotten as far as he did as he did when he had Favre
Reggie White=ABSOLUTE BEAST, but unfortunately he was on DEFENSE
Darren Sharper=good/great, but once again played D

No that was Favre fault if he would of ran the ball himself for at least 5-10 yards or thrown it away it would of gave their kicker a chance to win the game winning field goal. This video shows it perfectly. This was major choke job by Favre.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smhiIIekc8g

Chillez
09-24-2013, 04:15 PM
Lol. Even Favre himself says it.

Favre admitted he “choked” during 2009 NFC title game


Posted by Mike Florio on August 8, 2013, 12:25 AM EDT
NFC Championship: Minnesota Vikings v New Orleans Saints
Getty Images
Vikings play-by-play announcer Paul Allen knew it instantly. So did Brett Favre.

Coach Brad Childress had outsmarted himself following a timeout by sending 12 men to the huddle, but Favre still had the offense in position for a long game-winning field goal try at the end of the 2009 NFC title game. Favre rolled right, opted not to run or throw the ball away, and foolishly threw across his body.

Tracy Porter intercepted the ball, forcing overtime. And Allen exclaimed, “This is not Detroit, man, this is the Super Bowl!“

Favre was more concise.

“I choked,” Favre told former teammate Sage Rosenfels after the Saints won the toss to start an overtime period that would end without the Vikings touching the ball, other than to kick it off.

That’s the takeaway from a lengthy, detailed explanation of the game by Rosenfels, posted at Peter King’s TheMMQB.com. And while it’s a story that if it were a human would be old enough to walk and talk and most of the time crap in a toilet, it’s a bit jarring to see that Favre summarized his performance that bluntly.

What isn’t mentioned is whether Rosenfels has shared Favre’s candor with Favre’s blessing or even his knowledge. Later in the story, Rosenfels explains he was “pissed . . . off” when the “[t]alking heads” on SportsCenter accused Favre of choking.

If Rosenfels didn’t get clearance from Favre to share that Favre used that same term on himself in the heat of the moment and within the confines of an NFL sideline, Favre could now be the one who’s pissed off.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/08/08/favre-admitted-he-choked-during-2009-nfc-title-game/

JohnShaft
09-24-2013, 04:19 PM
So, even accepting your premise, Favre choked once in a 20 year career. News flash.

Rodgers choked on Sunday...

Chillez
09-24-2013, 04:23 PM
So, even accepting your premise, Favre choked once in a 20 year career. News flash.

Rodgers choked on Sunday...

Favre chocked way way more times than just once. He did it multiple times over and over again. Especially in the post season when it matters the most.

HUMCALC
09-24-2013, 04:23 PM
Lol. Even Favre himself says it.

Favre admitted he “choked” during 2009 NFC title game



http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/08/08/favre-admitted-he-choked-during-2009-nfc-title-game/

How many times did AD fumble in that game? Don't forget that the refs missed a roughing call, that they acknowledged, that would have let MINN get into scoring position

samparnell
09-24-2013, 04:53 PM
Not clutch? Automatic? :confused: :D

Spice 1
09-25-2013, 06:57 AM
Dude, cmon!

Freeman I'll give you. Even he only had three 1,000 yards seasons.

Brooks had a couple 1,000 yard years, but got nowhere near that in his other five.

Walker was a one year wonder. He only really started there his 3rd year. His second best year was 716.
Chmura never had 700 yards in a season. Only got over 560 once.
Andre Rison has one year with the Packers he had 135 yards receiving!
Desmond Howard was a kick returner. He had one year with the Packers, and 95 yards receiving!

At least check your **** before you call me on it.

And Favre had 15 years as the starter in GB. Rodgers has only had 5.

He's spent a third of the time there, and had like 5 times the receiving talent...


Why don't you take some of your own advice? Jordy Nelson has one 1,000yd season, and he's GB's #1 receiver right now. Crabtree, Lee, and Quarless replaced FInley the year they won the SB, and combined for 372yds. Chmura had that many by himself in 96. Driver didn't even have 600yds that year. Not that your arbitrary receiving yardage comparison is applicable anyway.
You've already made it perfectly clear that you're a Jay Cutler fan boy, so it was probably pointless for me to respond in the first place. In your illusory world Aaron Rodgers will never be as good as Jay Cutler, despite evidence to prove otherwise.

I admit that Howard and possibly (at that stage in his career) Rison were not viable receiving options, but this:


Favre had nowhere near the receiving talent to throw to that Rodgers had...

is still BS. Which was my point.

CanDB
09-25-2013, 07:47 AM
At the end of the day, Rodgers is one of the best QBs to ever play the game, and once his career is over, he'll be a Hall Of Famer. Folks keep looking for weaknesses, and yes, maybe he should be more "clutch", but imagine if he was? He'd be so good he might need to be tested for non-human qualities! His career Passer Rating is much better than Brady, Manning or Brees. Sure, the rating is not an absolute measurement, but it's a pretty decent tool. He did win a SB, and was selected for SB MVP, Player of the Year and MVP (among others). Not bad. And in my books, hasn't had the best of Olines or RBs along the way.

And I am not sure how he can be blamed for a rookie fumbling a ball on 4th down (this past week), after a very tight measurement on 3rd down. If they make that yard, GB likely wins.

As for clutch, how about that last Q drive he made in the SB win, to ensure the victory. Probably one of the most clutch passes you'll ever see.....on a big 3rd and 10.

OK.....not Mr. Clutch.....but more aptly, Mr. Big Lead!

Peerless
09-25-2013, 08:10 AM
So.... All I'm getting from this thread is Aaron Rodgers is not very clutch; but he's still one HELL of a good quarterback.

I could live with that (if we didn't have Manning).

Yakka27
09-25-2013, 08:20 AM
We all knew Rodgers was overrated (Yet still very talented)

But he's not 3 Consecutive MVP Brett Favre good.

AC1
09-25-2013, 10:18 AM
At the end of the day, Rodgers is one of the best QBs to ever play the game, and once his career is over, he'll be a Hall Of Famer. Folks keep looking for weaknesses, and yes, maybe he should be more "clutch", but imagine if he was? He'd be so good he might need to be tested for non-human qualities! His career Passer Rating is much better than Brady, Manning or Brees. Sure, the rating is not an absolute measurement, but it's a pretty decent tool. He did win a SB, and was selected for SB MVP, Player of the Year and MVP (among others). Not bad. And in my books, hasn't had the best of Olines or RBs along the way.

And I am not sure how he can be blamed for a rookie fumbling a ball on 4th down (this past week), after a very tight measurement on 3rd down. If they make that yard, GB likely wins.

As for clutch, how about that last Q drive he made in the SB win, to ensure the victory. Probably one of the most clutch passes you'll ever see.....on a big 3rd and 10.

OK.....not Mr. Clutch.....but more aptly, Mr. Big Lead!

It's not about looking for weaknesses. It's about pointing out a factual counter to the claim from the media that because Rodgers does a lot of things well, that it automatically means he does EVERYTHING well.

The evidence against his clutch play is overwhelming. You're acting as if the article uses one game to make its case whereas they have statistics (5-24 in comeback situations! 0-18 in comeback situations against teams with a winning record!) There really is little evidence that is not anecdotal to say Rodgers is clutch.

Now, once we agree that Rodgers is largely a front-runner and not a come-from-behind guy, the argument becomes how important is clutch play. To that I say, it depends. If you're on a team like the Packers, maybe not so much. There is a ton of talent on that roster and you won't find yourself in those situations often. In fact, it could be argued that a guy like Rodgers (or Rivers, another front-runner who disappears in clutch situations) is better suited to talent-rich teams like Green Bay (or the Chargers until a couple of seasons ago). Both Rodgers and Rivers are highly efficient QBs that produce gaudy statistics and help their teams win more regular season games than a more clutch QB (Eli Manning and Ben Rothlisberger are the archetypes of a clutch QB for me) might. However, the playoffs are when these types of QBs have trouble.

If you look at Rodgers and Rivers, while they've both been in the post-season many times, they haven't won as many games as their stats indicate they should. Now, Rodgers is a far superior QB than Rivers (and as you said, will likely end up in the hall of fame) when things are going well and is not as big of a choker. But the only time they've both gone deep in the postseason is when their defenses were extremely opportunistic. Keep in mind, both the Packers and Chargers are built around their QBs, these are not defense-first teams like the Steelers or the Bears. Rivers stayed in the same offensive scheme for 8 years with two different head coaches (because the second head coach was hired with offensive stability in mind). When the Packers won the Superbowl, their defense was #1 or #2 in the league. When they have had early exits (or lucked into playing the Vikings), the defense hasn't been great. Ditto for the Chargers under Rivers. Their deepest playoff run was in 2007, when they lost in the AFC Championship Game. Their defense was averaging 3 turnovers a game (which is really what you want from your defense if you're an offense-centered team). The Chargers defense held the Patriots to 21 points, but Rivers couldn't come up with that many. He probably would have if he was healthy and maybe even had a ring to show for it (and his career would have looked a lot like a poor man's Rodgers).

IMO, this is what really separated Manning and Brady from the other extremely good QBs we see today. Manning and Brady are great when they're ahead and great when they're behind. Maybe they're not as clutch as ELi or Big Ben in pure comeback scenarios and maybe they can't put up the gaudy numbers that a Rodgers or a Brees puts up, but they are great in every situation.

For my money, the list of top QBs starts with Manning and Brady and then everyone else. If you're talking about a regular season game, Rodgers is 3. If you're talking playoffs, my number 3 would be Eli. Clutch matters, even if the media don't want to talk about it in the context of Aaron Rodgers.

AC1
09-25-2013, 10:22 AM
So.... All I'm getting from this thread is Aaron Rodgers is not very clutch; but he's still one HELL of a good quarterback.

I could live with that (if we didn't have Manning).

I agree with the first part. He's almost certainly going to the HoF (it might have been close if the media wasn't already on his jock, but since it is there's no chance he won't go in).

For the second part, if we didn't have Manning (who I said even last season I would take over any other QB in the league), I'd want Brady and then Eli Manning in that order. I think a 13-3 team with Rodgers is maybe an 11-5 team with Eli, but once Eli gets into the playoffs, your chances of winning are as good as anyone else's. I'd rely on my GM to build a strong enough roster to get Eli there.

CanDB
09-25-2013, 11:22 AM
AC........I am not going to quote you, but I see Rodgers as one of the best QBs in the game, and some stats like this aren't going to change that. He makes plays. He throws to tight windows. He runs when necessary. He has outstanding stats to support his game. He has won the big one, and in so doing, did so on the road in those playoffs. He has had a really good D, but not since. And as mentioned, he has not had the best of Olines and RBs.

It's all in the way you see it.

How quick folks want to take down a star.

bronx_2003
09-25-2013, 01:03 PM
For my money, the list of top QBs starts with Manning and Brady and then everyone else

This.

These 2 are on a different level and have played brilliantly for years.

Manning is playing some incredible football right now and the way he reads D's is amazing

JohnShaft
09-25-2013, 01:04 PM
Jordy Nelson has one 1,000yd season, and he's GB's #1 receiver right now. Etc
There's a big difference: Jordy Nelson, James Jones, Cobb, et al are at the beginning of their careers. If ALL their careers end up falling off a cliff then you'll have a point. But that's unlikely, so you probably won't.

And once more you are trying to compare the receivers Favre had in 15 years as a Packer with those Rodgers has had in FIVE years.
Stacking the deck much?

(FWIW this has nothing to do with Cutler. I still think Rodgers is the better QB. Nice strawman though.)

For those who want to blame McCarthy, the line, or say "Rodgers makes (silk purses out of sows ears with) his receivers" I leave you with two words:
Matt Flynn.

A guy, who in the last game of the 2011 season, and his second ever start, went 31/44 for 480 yards and 6 TD's (both all-time Packer records). Rodgers, or any other Packer QB, had never thrown for that much in five seasons until Sunday.

How's that future HOF'er Flynn doing now? He's been anointed as the starter on two teams in two years. And been beaten out by effectively rookies both times...

CanDB
09-25-2013, 01:20 PM
There's a big difference: Jordy Nelson, James Jones, Cobb, et al are at the beginning of their careers. If ALL their careers end up falling off a cliff then you'll have a point. But that's unlikely, so you probably won't.

And once more you are trying to compare the receivers Favre had in 15 years as a Packer with those Rodgers has had in FIVE years.
Stacking the deck much?

(FWIW this has nothing to do with Cutler. I still think Rodgers is the better QB. Nice strawman though.)

For those who want to blame McCarthy, the line, or say "Rodgers makes (silk purses out of sows ears with) his receivers" I leave you with two words:
Matt Flynn.

A guy, who in the last game of the 2011 season, and his second ever start, went 31/44 for 480 yards and 6 TD's (both all-time Packer records). Rodgers, or any other Packer QB, had never thrown for that much in five seasons until Sunday.

How's that future HOF'er Flynn doing now? He's been anointed as the starter on two teams in two years. And been beaten out by effectively rookies both times...

Couple of things......you are seriously going to use the Flynn one hit wonder reference. You are kidding!

As for the Cutler, you are really taking a leap of faith (yah right:rolleyes:) to proclaim that Rodgers is still a better QB than Cutler. My wife could make that assessment, and she is not a football fan. In fact, if you hear a dog bark, or a cow moo, ask them and they will also confirm that Rodgers is better. It's pretty simple stuff.

JohnShaft
09-25-2013, 01:27 PM
Couple of things......you are seriously going to use the Flynn one hit wonder reference. You are kidding!
Yeah because every QB throws for nearly 500 yards and 6 TD's, setting 90-year-old records, in their second ever start.

Rodgers jock riders just love throwing that out because they have no answer for it. That's why Flynn was so sought after, because people figured he must have had all kinds of talent.

No, he just had crazy talent at OC and WR.

Which is why he's a backup again, twice over.

Spice 1
09-25-2013, 02:14 PM
And once more you are trying to compare the receivers Favre had in 15 years as a Packer with those Rodgers has had in FIVE years.
Stacking the deck much?

(FWIW this has nothing to do with Cutler. I still think Rodgers is the better QB. Nice strawman though.)


Except it's not really true is it?

Favre's last year in GB was 2007.
Jennings was a rookie in 06. James Jones was a rookie in 07. Nelson and Finley were drafted in 08. Cobb in 11.

So Favre basically had Driver, and Jennings second year, given receivers aren't usually much use as rookies.

Outside of that you more or less have to go back to Sterling Sharpe, and Favre only had three years with him before he retired.
Favre had nowhere near the receiving talent to throw to that Rodgers has had...

If he'd been throwing to the bums that Cutler did in his first three years in Chicago he'd be just another starting Quarterback.

(10 characters)

JohnShaft
09-25-2013, 02:41 PM
(10 characters)
If you can't parse the multiple definitions of the word compare that's on you.

Compare
1. To consider or describe as similar, equal, or analogous; liken.
2. To examine in order to note the similarities or differences of.

You can compare the Receivers Favre had to Rodgers but they do not compare.

GridironChamp
09-25-2013, 03:17 PM
I've thought so too, not because he isn't a top level QB, but because how good is he is exaggerated. The great receivers point is a good one. People often claim he does it with average at best receivers, when the reality is that he has so many good ones that McCarthy wants to use them all, and none of them have top notch stats.

McCarthy is an offensive genius, and knows how to use receivers well. QBs who spread it around always get overrated because people don't realize several good receivers make for a good core. Each receiver is used for what they are good at, and makes an effective weapon in those situations. With several of them, you have several effective weapons and don't need a stat monster.

I disagree about Brady though, he's had several good receivers, and many great ones. Moss and Welker, along with some pretty good Tight Ends, and receivers at a different points in time like Lloyd, Stallworth, Branch, Edelman who have helped in specific roles.

Brady's only great receiver was Moss. (And even he was on the downside of his career) Every one else literally just played specific roles like you just said. As good as Welker was with NE, he still just played a role. The slot receiver wasn't near as huge as it was before NE put him there and turned him into something while redefining a position.

Brady has had by far the least talent when considering all receiving options, which is why I'd call him underrated. Given Favre's, Rodgers, Brees, Manning's options his numbers would be even better IMO.


And more on topic, once their careers are over I expect Favre's to be more accomplished but Rodgers to have the better peak (as he has been better these last few years than Favre ever was).

CanDB
09-25-2013, 04:49 PM
Yeah because every QB throws for nearly 500 yards and 6 TD's, setting 90-year-old records, in their second ever start.

Rodgers jock riders just love throwing that out because they have no answer for it. That's why Flynn was so sought after, because people figured he must have had all kinds of talent.

No, he just had crazy talent at OC and WR.

Which is why he's a backup again, twice over.

You can think what you want, but that was a freak of nature game. Anyone in the know will tell you Aaron Rodgers is a "great" QB, whether Flynn had a field day or not. It appears I have a bias for him, because he's earned his stripes, and exceeded expectations, whereas it doesn't appear that you are a fan.

I agree that GB is a good team, but over the last two years, they've been short in some key areas.

Lets just put it this way, Flynn hit gold (and green) for one week's work. Apparently no one showed up to play D that day, and the result was an overrated QB. Lucky for him. But putting it out there like anyone can do it is illogical. Buy into it if it makes your argument better.

HUMCALC
09-25-2013, 05:22 PM
Brady's only great receiver was Moss. (And even he was on the downside of his career) Every one else literally just played specific roles like you just said. As good as Welker was with NE, he still just played a role. The slot receiver wasn't near as huge as it was before NE put him there and turned him into something while redefining a position.

Brady has had by far the least talent when considering all receiving options, which is why I'd call him underrated. Given Favre's, Rodgers, Brees, Manning's options his numbers would be even better IMO.


And more on topic, once their careers are over I expect Favre's to be more accomplished but Rodgers to have the better peak (as he has been better these last few years than Favre ever was).

Moss and Gronkowski are better than any GB WR in the last 30 years

GridironChamp
09-25-2013, 06:18 PM
Moss and Gronkowski are better than any GB WR in the last 30 years

Moss as a whole? Sure. Moss in NE, was in his 10th year and made the majority of his noise by just running fast and having Brady hit him with perfect passes. I think Moss is also very underrated, but his record setting year is overrated.

Gronk has been made by Brady, he would be very good anywhere else but not 17 TDs worth or even 10.


The combinations that Rodgers has had and that Favre had in his best years is definitely better than an aging Moss and a young kid from Arizona.

fallforward3y+
09-25-2013, 11:11 PM
Yeah because every QB throws for nearly 500 yards and 6 TD's, setting 90-year-old records, in their second ever start.

Rodgers jock riders just love throwing that out because they have no answer for it. That's why Flynn was so sought after, because people figured he must have had all kinds of talent.

No, he just had crazy talent at OC and WR.

Which is why he's a backup again, twice over.

A lot like Matt Cassell, where it was shown what he was when he didn't play with Moss, Welker and BB. If you have that kind of supporting cast, the passing game will be good as long as the QB is decent.

Your basically right, people will just ridicule the Flynn point with no supporting reason because they don't have one.

Rodgers is a great QB, but perhaps even more amazing is that fans are still able to overrate a player as good as he is. You'll see it a lot of the time, players who actually are great get overrated because their jock is ridden so hard by fan boys.

People will often throw a hissy fit just for someone saying he's a great QB, but has a weakness people don't often realize(when that weakness is supported by evidence).

fallforward3y+
09-25-2013, 11:23 PM
Brady's only great receiver was Moss. (And even he was on the downside of his career) Every one else literally just played specific roles like you just said. As good as Welker was with NE, he still just played a role. The slot receiver wasn't near as huge as it was before NE put him there and turned him into something while redefining a position.

Brady has had by far the least talent when considering all receiving options, which is why I'd call him underrated. Given Favre's, Rodgers, Brees, Manning's options his numbers would be even better IMO.


And more on topic, once their careers are over I expect Favre's to be more accomplished but Rodgers to have the better peak (as he has been better these last few years than Favre ever was).

Perhaps I shouldn't have said many great ones, but if we're speaking about true elite receivers, there are only so many of those in the league. If you have one as a QB, your lucky, it isn't a sign your working with little.

As for specific roles, like I said before players like that can be very effective if used well(and in NE they are used well), so they often are working with a very good supporting cast. If Welker is just a specific role player, that should tell you something. There's a reason there was talk of greatest offense every when Denver signed Welker.

fallforward3y+
09-25-2013, 11:43 PM
Moss as a whole? Sure. Moss in NE, was in his 10th year and made the majority of his noise by just running fast and having Brady hit him with perfect passes. I think Moss is also very underrated, but his record setting year is overrated.

Gronk has been made by Brady, he would be very good anywhere else but not 17 TDs worth or even 10.


The combinations that Rodgers has had and that Favre had in his best years is definitely better than an aging Moss and a young kid from Arizona.

Moss may have been in his 10th year, but he was still great. That year, he did rely mostly on the deep ball, but it made him the league's most productive receiver. If your so great at the deep ball that your able to just run by defenders and get wide open, your a great weapon.

As for Gronk, I find that TEs produce well without a great QB. They are safety valves that don't need a great passer to get the ball on the type of routes they run. Alge Crumpler did pretty well with Vick, Witten was good before Romo. Vernon Davis produced well before Kap, and Smith getting better. Tony Gonzalez had 2 great years from 07-08 even, in an atrocious mess of QBs, as a few examples. QBs don't make TEs, your basically just pointing to every weapon Brady has and saying he was made by him.

In short, Brady is a great QB, but like any successful passing game he's had good weapons.

Spice 1
09-26-2013, 07:04 AM
If you can't parse the multiple definitions of the word compare that's on you.

Compare
1. To consider or describe as similar, equal, or analogous; liken.
2. To examine in order to note the similarities or differences of.

You can compare the Receivers Favre had to Rodgers but they do not compare.

Semantics aside, you're basically saying that Randall Cobb, Jordy Nelson, and James Jones are incomparably better than the likes of Antonio Freeman, Robert Brooks, and Javon Walker. I call BS, but you're entitled to your opinion, I guess.

Just do yourself a favor and look at that 96 Green Bay Packers roster. That's arguably one of the ten best teams of the SuperBowl era. If you don't believe, look at their average margin of victory that year. Regular and post season. I don't know why people act like Favre did it all by himself, and Rodgers is surrounded by the 85 Bears. It makes me cringe every time I see it, and it looks an awful lot like people are just hating.

AC1
09-26-2013, 09:08 AM
AC........I am not going to quote you, but I see Rodgers as one of the best QBs in the game, and some stats like this aren't going to change that. He makes plays. He throws to tight windows. He runs when necessary. He has outstanding stats to support his game. He has won the big one, and in so doing, did so on the road in those playoffs. He has had a really good D, but not since. And as mentioned, he has not had the best of Olines and RBs.

It's all in the way you see it.

How quick folks want to take down a star.

I don't know why you are responding by saying he is one of the best QBs in the game, when no one is saying otherwise. Quoting the OP -


And for the record, I'm not saying Rodgers isn't one of the best qbs right now

The point of this thread is - is he clutch? The answer, backed up by overwhelming evidence, is no.

It's not about taking down a star (for the record, your gratuitous shot at Cutler would be more apt to be described as "wanting to take down" someone). It's about pointing out that the most skilled QBs might not automatically be the most clutch.

AC1
09-26-2013, 09:21 AM
A lot like Matt Cassell, where it was shown what he was when he didn't play with Moss, Welker and BB. If you have that kind of supporting cast, the passing game will be good as long as the QB is decent.

Your basically right, people will just ridicule the Flynn point with no supporting reason because they don't have one.

Rodgers is a great QB, but perhaps even more amazing is that fans are still able to overrate a player as good as he is. You'll see it a lot of the time, players who actually are great get overrated because their jock is ridden so hard by fan boys.

People will often throw a hissy fit just for someone saying he's a great QB, but has a weakness people don't often realize(when that weakness is supported by evidence).

Great post and very well-written (especially the last line that summarizes the issue perfectly)!

I don't know how the data points presented by Cassel and Flynn are so stubbornly ignored. When you have guys like Cassel and Flynn do well on good teams and then struggle on bad teams, I don't know why it's not obvious that the supporting cast, coaching, scheme-continuity etc. makes a huge difference.

Then take the example of Brett Favre, who went to the NFC Championship Game on a good team with the Packers, went to a Jets team and struggled with a weak supporting cast, and finally went to the Vikings with a great offensive supporting cast and went back to the NFC Championship Game.

For me, the obvious corollary is this - guys who started playing in great situations and have had the chance to spend many years in the same offensive scheme rarely get the chance to show us how badly they can play when they go to a poor team.

We seem to over-rate the good players and under-rate the bad ones, in part because of this. The other side IMO is just the cult of personality.

ERoyal248
09-26-2013, 10:49 AM
Moss as a whole? Sure. Moss in NE, was in his 10th year and made the majority of his noise by just running fast and having Brady hit him with perfect passes. I think Moss is also very underrated, but his record setting year is overrated.

Gronk has been made by Brady, he would be very good anywhere else but not 17 TDs worth or even 10.


The combinations that Rodgers has had and that Favre had in his best years is definitely better than an aging Moss and a young kid from Arizona.

Brady has had better tight ends for their careers.

Watson, Graham, Gronk, Hernandez among many others.

While PM had Clark, Tamme, and ???

And Brady for most of their careers has had much superior teams.

RandomVariable
09-26-2013, 03:09 PM
It's not about looking for weaknesses. It's about pointing out a factual counter to the claim from the media that because Rodgers does a lot of things well, that it automatically means he does EVERYTHING well.

The evidence against his clutch play is overwhelming. You're acting as if the article uses one game to make its case whereas they have statistics (5-24 in comeback situations! 0-18 in comeback situations against teams with a winning record!) There really is little evidence that is not anecdotal to say Rodgers is clutch.

Now, once we agree that Rodgers is largely a front-runner and not a come-from-behind guy, the argument becomes how important is clutch play. To that I say, it depends. If you're on a team like the Packers, maybe not so much. There is a ton of talent on that roster and you won't find yourself in those situations often. In fact, it could be argued that a guy like Rodgers (or Rivers, another front-runner who disappears in clutch situations) is better suited to talent-rich teams like Green Bay (or the Chargers until a couple of seasons ago). Both Rodgers and Rivers are highly efficient QBs that produce gaudy statistics and help their teams win more regular season games than a more clutch QB (Eli Manning and Ben Rothlisberger are the archetypes of a clutch QB for me) might. However, the playoffs are when these types of QBs have trouble.

If you look at Rodgers and Rivers, while they've both been in the post-season many times, they haven't won as many games as their stats indicate they should. Now, Rodgers is a far superior QB than Rivers (and as you said, will likely end up in the hall of fame) when things are going well and is not as big of a choker. But the only time they've both gone deep in the postseason is when their defenses were extremely opportunistic. Keep in mind, both the Packers and Chargers are built around their QBs, these are not defense-first teams like the Steelers or the Bears. Rivers stayed in the same offensive scheme for 8 years with two different head coaches (because the second head coach was hired with offensive stability in mind). When the Packers won the Superbowl, their defense was #1 or #2 in the league. When they have had early exits (or lucked into playing the Vikings), the defense hasn't been great. Ditto for the Chargers under Rivers. Their deepest playoff run was in 2007, when they lost in the AFC Championship Game. Their defense was averaging 3 turnovers a game (which is really what you want from your defense if you're an offense-centered team). The Chargers defense held the Patriots to 21 points, but Rivers couldn't come up with that many. He probably would have if he was healthy and maybe even had a ring to show for it (and his career would have looked a lot like a poor man's Rodgers).

IMO, this is what really separated Manning and Brady from the other extremely good QBs we see today. Manning and Brady are great when they're ahead and great when they're behind. Maybe they're not as clutch as ELi or Big Ben in pure comeback scenarios and maybe they can't put up the gaudy numbers that a Rodgers or a Brees puts up, but they are great in every situation.

For my money, the list of top QBs starts with Manning and Brady and then everyone else. If you're talking about a regular season game, Rodgers is 3. If you're talking playoffs, my number 3 would be Eli. Clutch matters, even if the media don't want to talk about it in the context of Aaron Rodgers.

Why would Peyton even be in the top 5 if you're talking about playoff QBs? That's crazy talk.

RandomVariable
09-26-2013, 03:11 PM
Brady has had better tight ends for their careers.

Watson, Graham, Gronk, Hernandez among many others.

While PM had Clark, Tamme, and ???

And Brady for most of their careers has had much superior teams.

They were superior in large part due to Brady elevating the play of his offensive weapons. Brady may have had superior D but Peyton has played with more talented offensive players.

CanDB
09-26-2013, 08:57 PM
I don't know why you are responding by saying he is one of the best QBs in the game, when no one is saying otherwise. Quoting the OP -



The point of this thread is - is he clutch? The answer, backed up by overwhelming evidence, is no.

It's not about taking down a star (for the record, your gratuitous shot at Cutler would be more apt to be described as "wanting to take down" someone). It's about pointing out that the most skilled QBs might not automatically be the most clutch.

I realize I have made a mistake. I said something about it being good to see you back, but we're quickly sliding into the same old stuff we talked about before. I'm not going to even debate any of this. I could, but this old dog does not want to spend my time that way.

You can have this round.

ERoyal248
09-26-2013, 09:11 PM
They were superior in large part due to Brady elevating the play of his offensive weapons. Brady may have had superior D but Peyton has played with more talented offensive players.

Not really.

Only at WR which was washed out after 07.

Better tight ends, much better running backs, much better offensive lines by far, defenses weren't close.

If Peyton didn't put up near 24+ or more, they lost,

Take Peyton off, they win 2 games, take Brady off, they won 11 games, hmm.

fallforward3y+
09-27-2013, 04:00 PM
They were superior in large part due to Brady elevating the play of his offensive weapons. Brady may have had superior D but Peyton has played with more talented offensive players.

Where is the evidence that Brady actually elevated the play of his offensive weapons? Every receiver can look slightly better with an elite QB, because of certain throws they can make. However, the receiver still has to be good to make those catches, it's more of a QB allowing a receiver to be effective in all the ways they can, rather than actually making them better.

Look at Moss and Welker, who both had 1,000 yard seasons in 2008 when Brady was hurt, Welker who was supposedly made by Brady really didn't even have a drop in production that year at all.

If anyone makes it easier on offensive players in NE, it's Billicheck. He sees what a receiver does well, and figures out how to use it. Brady is among the group that Billicheck greatly helps.

Brady is just like Rodgers in what I said before, he's great but his greatness is exaggerated. This is a great example, because the points I made are often just seen as Brady hating, even though I acknowledge that he is great, just not to the exaggerated extent people often claim, because really no QB has ever been great to that extent.