[the 'stache]

Come on, Peter. That's kind of a dismissive statement, don't you think?

I have watched the games. Many of them. Every Super Bowl. A great number of the playoff games. I've not only watched them live, I've taped several of them, and watched them a second time. And, I've watched a plethora of key plays on Youtube more times than I can count. I allow for "the human factor" in my analysis; I have to. Not everything translates, statistically. You can't quantify the pressure of the moment. A receiver (or a safety) falling down. A tipped pass. I would never make a statement about Tom Brady, or any other player, simply off of statistical data.

I remember the 2001 AFC Divisional playoff game against the Raiders where Charles Woodson caused Brady to fumble. Brady should have never even gotten to that first Super Bowl, because the Raiders recovered, and the game should have been over with a Raiders victory. The "tuck rule" is complete BS. He wasn't in the process of throwing a pass. He started to, but brought the ball back down to his body, and then the ball got stripped. Part of his "legacy", his five rings, is a joke.

And I don't care what anybody else says. Having an elite defense in every one of those years he's won it all makes his job a hell of a lot easier. No matter who he has on the offensive side of the ball with him, if he screws up, he's got the security that his defense is going to bail him out a great deal of the time. It's much easier to win playoff games when the defense is incredible because you can push the ball downfield. You don't have to be perfect. No mistake? You score, and your chance of winning greatly increases. Screw it up? Your defense is not likely to allow the other team to score. Don't you think there's infinitely more pressure to perform on the shoulders of a guy like Aaron Rodgers? If he doesn't make a play, his team likely loses. More on that in a bit.

He should have lost the Super Bowl to Seattle. A brain fart call cost them a second title, and gave Brady another ring.

Again, I'm not saying Brady's not an incredible quarterback. He's clearly one of the best of all-time. But it's not a walk off (to use a baseball term in a football discussion) that he's the best to ever play the position. Look past the rings. Too often, we get distracted by shiny things. You have to look deeper at the individual's play within the success.

He's only ranked 13th in postseason passer rating. If he were the greatest ever, wouldn't he be higher? This whole discussion is based on what he's done in the post season. Well, I'm sorry, but a 90.1 QB rating is very good, but not outstanding. Bart Starr put up a 104.8 career passer rating in the post season. He went 9-1 in the playoffs. A .900 winning percentage. Both of those destroy Brady, and Starr played in an era where passing the ball was infinitely more difficult. He won five World Championships in seven years, and his one loss was in the 1960 NFL Championship against the Eagles.

Starr played in an era where the quarterback and receiver didn't get the ridiculous amount of protection they do now. They could, you know, actually get hit. If the ball came out when Starr got tackled, it was a fumble. No zebras were on the sidelines helping him out.

You know how many times the Patriots, in 36 post season games with Tom Brady at QB, have allowed more than 30 points to an opponent? 3 times. 1 time in every 12 starts, or 8.3% of the time Brady takes the field. They've never given up 40.

Compare that to the Packers with Aaron Rodgers. In 16 games with Rodgers at the helm, the Packers have surrendered 30 or more points 5 times. 1 time in every 3.2 starts, or 31% of the time Rodgers takes the field. And in 3 of those 5 games, the Packer D surrendered over 40 points, something the Patriots have never done under Brady. So much is made about Rodgers' legacy of "failure" in the post season. "He's only won one ring." In his first playoff start, Rodgers threw for 423 yards and 4 TD, and ran another in. The Packers put up 45 points--and lost 51-45 because the defense imploded. And the final play of the game, a fumble by Rodgers returned by the Cardinals for a score, should have been overturned. The Cardinal defender grabbed Rodgers facemask, and pulled his helmet down over his face. Had that been Brady, you know the play would have been overruled by the officials. By the way, in 36 career post season starts, Brady has thrown for more than 423 yards once, and more than 4 TD passes once. Rodgers did it in his first post season start. And lost. Was it Rodgers fault the defense gave up 45 points? How about when the Packers lost 31-45 to the 49ers in 2012? Is it Rodgers' fault that Collin Kaepernick, who can't even get a job in the NFL five years later, passed for 262 yards, and ran for 184? Is it Rodgers fault that the Packer D and special teams imploded in Seattle in the NFC Championship Game? Or, that the Packer D gave up 44 to the Falcons in the NFC Championship Game last year? Rodgers played without his #2 receiver, Davante Adams. His #1 receiver Jordy Nelson had missed the Cowboys game the week before, and could barely walk because of a broken rib. Both his starting halfbacks, Eddie Lacy and James Starks, were out for the season, so his wide receiver Ty Montgomery had to start at running back. But it's Rodgers "failure" as a quarterback. Tom Brady would have won, right?

Now, Brady has played slightly over twice as many games as Rodgers, but there's enough of a sample size to make these comparisons.

Brady has a career 90.1 passer rating in the post season.
Rodgers has a 99.4.

The Patriots have scored 969 points in 36 playoff games under Brady, or 26.9 ppg.
The Packers have scored 457 points in 16 playoff games under Rodgers, or 28.6 ppg.

So, under Rodgers, the Packers have outperformed the Brady Patriots by 1.7 ppg. Not a huge difference, about a safety. But it's still clear that Rodgers and the Packer offense have been better than Brady and the Patriot offense in the playoffs.

But here is the difference.

The Patriots have allowed 722 points in 36 playoff games with Brady, or 20.1 ppg.
The Packers have allowed 423 points in 16 playoff games with Rodgers, or 26.4 ppg.
The Patriots defense have surrendered nearly a full touchdown, per game, less than the Packers. 6.3 ppg. At least two field goals. And that is why Brady has five rings, and Rodgers only one. It's not because Brady has performed better. It's because the Patriots have had a terrific scoring defense. The Packers have not, outside of the season they won the Super Bowl (they were #2 in scoring allowed).

Look at the point differential.

The Pats have scored 247 more points in the playoffs than they have allowed, in 36 games.
The Packers have scored 34 more points in the playoffs than they have allowed, in 16 games.
The Pats have an average margin of 6.86 points per game. Nearly a touchdown.
The Packers have an average margin of 2.12 points per game.

And that's post season. Look at how the two teams have fared in scoring defense in the regular season.



In 17 seasons with Brady, the Patriots defense has finished outside the top 10 in scoring defense only 3 times! And every season they've won the Super Bowl, they've been top 10: 6th, 1st, 2nd, 8th and 1st.

In 10 years with Rodgers, the Packer defense has finished in the top 10 in scoring defense only 2 times! Look where the Packer D has ended up each season in points allowed. The last seven seasons, since winning the Super Bowl, the Packers have finished, on average, 18th in the league. The last 5, 19th in the league, out of 32 teams. Put another way, the Packers have finished in the bottom half in the NFL in points allowed four of the last seven seasons. The Patriots? They've done that twice in 17 seasons. Average finish in the NFL in scoring for their careers? The Patriots have finished 8th (7.52) in the NFL in scoring defense, on average, for Brady's career. Top 1/4 of the league for the entirety of the time he's been in the NFL. The Packers? 16th, on average (15.7). Middle of the NFL.

And that's just the defense.

Anybody saying that Tom Brady is simply "the greatest" because of his rings really needs to look deeper.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Bill you should watch the games, not just read the stat sheet. After all these years, and titles, and comeback victories, with innumerable different receivers, with or without decent running backs, with Gronk playing or not playing, it doesn't seem to matter, there is no question in my mind he is the greatest QB ever. The more interesting discussion is about the rest of the top 5, or 10.