Greatest quarterback you have seen?

[Runscott]

Last year the talking heads were suggesting it would be Manning if he could win the Super Bowl. This year the same is being said about Brady.

I've seen all of these guys play, and every other quarterback since 1966. To me, it's easily Joe Montana. That might be because when he got behind and my team was on the other end, I was pretty certain we were screwed. Then there was the Super Bowl where he dismantled the Bengals Staubach was also great, but Montana could be perfect at times, especially when he needed to be. I also believe that if Montana had not existed, people might consider Steve Young to be the best ever, but being Montana's understudy didn't help. Aaron Rodgers, on the other hand, I think is better than Favre.

Who do you think is the greatest quarterback out of the ones you've seen? I won't ask why it isn't Montana, as some of you have only seen him on highlight films.

[vintagetoppsguy]

For me, it's Manning.

All-time TD pass leader
Single season TD pass leader
Next year: all-time passing yards leader (I think he needs less than 4,000 to pass Favre)

[brookdodger55]

Johnny U for me

[steve B]

Just like baseball, I think it's hard to compare players from one period of time to another especially as the game has changed since I started watching in 72-3. There were a lots of great QBs who won't have the numbers of todays guys because of some changes. Guys that played in the 70's didn't have the protection they have today, and the recievers get more protection too. Teams also were more focused on the running game so some situations where todays teams pass were almost always a run.

From the 70's guys
Staubach, Tarkenton, Bradshaw, Kilmer. (A pretty mobile guy for the time, and took a lot of hits since the sliding thing wasn't part of the game. )

80's- 90's

Elway, Farve, Marino, Montana.

00's

There's so many really great quarterbacks now. I think we down play that aspect of it since it's current.

Manning, Rodgers, Brady, Romo, Rivers, ........There were 11 with 4000yards + and Flacco was just under.

For perspective, Tarkenton was only over 3000 twice, Montana was over 3000 8 times, but only came near 4000 once. Staubach twice, his last two years. Bradshaw twice........Now there's so many over 3000 yards it's almost a requirement.

For best I've seen?
Probably Montana, He was pretty amazing and always seemed to make the right play. I'd have to put Elway a close second. Just so many times pulling the game out when it would seem lost.

More modern? Tough to say, most of todays greats are more products of a system than individually great. Manning would be up there, but had trouble in big games. Brady was amazing when given a fantastic group of recievers, and is still great, but his success is more a result of the teams system where they use a lot of hard to defend passes and a crowd of good but not necessarily great recievers (Montana mostly passed to Rice, Brady had three recievers over 900 yards this year. ) I'm hard pressed to think of a QB now that plays for a team that's ambivalent about a great passing game and puts up good numbers on talent alone. Not that todays guys don't have talent, just that it's used much better by nearly every team.

Steve B

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by steve B

Just like baseball, I think it's hard to compare players from one period of time to another especially as the game has changed since I started watching in 72-3.

Odd, it wasn't hard for me. I based my opinion on what I saw, which is all I was asking. When you see a quarterback dodging defenders and making a throw, it looks pretty much today the way it did in 1972.

[nolemmings]

Unitas.

[bigtrain]

I have been watching NFL (and AFL) football for over 50 years. For me the discussion begins and ends with Joe Montana.

[Runscott]

Anyone know how to obtain dvd's of old games? Thinking I need to re-live me some Unitas

[bbcard1]

I am clearly not so out of touch as to represent him as one of the greatest of all time, but had it not been for injuries he might have been. Chad Pennington had a pop-gun arm but a head for the game like very few others. I watched him from the time he was a skinny freshman who was forced into duty when three quarterbacks in front of him were injured. As a pro, I think him taking the Dolphins to the playoffs after the Jets unceremoniously dumped him for Farve was one of the better FUs in pro football history. Have met him on numerous occasions and he is a thoroughly admirable human being.

[D.P.Johnson]

Montana hands-down...The way he would walk up to the line of scrimmage while analyzing the defense and then call an audible was absolute genius...

[D. Bergin]

No, he never won a Super Bowl, but the best pure QB I ever saw was Marino. Never had a ton to work with, never paired with an elite level RB or running game that I can recall and his best receivers were tiny men. Despite this, he put up some mind boggling numbers in an era when the defensive rules were much different then they are now.

All respect to anybody who says Montana, Brady, Manning, Unitas, Steve Young.........as I can see those arguments to.

[Runscott]

Marino in his prime was about as good as anyone.

My favorites to watch were Staubach and Tarkenton. Montana and Marino were almost too perfect to be enjoyable.

[HRBAKER]

No such beast, very dependent on era/rules.
Baugh, Graham, Unitas, Montana, Manning, Brady all in a big group with some others.

There's also a very big championship winner vs. stat accumulator component as well.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by HRBAKER

No such beast, very dependent on era/rules.
Baugh, Graham, Unitas, Montana, Manning, Brady all in a big group with some others.

There's also a very big championship winner vs. stat accumulator component as well.

Agreed that it's impossible to determine who the greatest ever was, because of the reasons you and Steve have pointed out, but I didn't ask that - I asked:

Originally Posted by Runscott

Who do you think is the greatest quarterback out of the ones you've seen?

[HRBAKER]

Don't think I can answer that either. Certainly I think Montana is better than Manning and possibly Brady. I think that Staubach was probably the best of the 70's which is when I really began to watch football and I would give Montana the nod over him as well.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by HRBAKER

Don't think I can answer that either. Certainly I think Montana is better than Manning and possibly Brady. I think that Staubach was probably the best of the 70's which is when I really began to watch football and I would give Montana the nod over him as well.

When I see the size and speed of today's players, I do wonder if you can make comparisons. Linebackers would be impossible. Quarterback might be one where you actually can - it's one position (other than kickers) where physical size has changed the least, for drop-back qb's anyway. Today's qb's have faster, stronger, larger pass rushers to deal with, but they also have much bigger offensive lines in front of them. I think Montana and Staubach would compare favorably or better than today's great drop-back passers.

[freakhappy]

Good question...I'd probably have to go Montana, but Manning is a real close 2nd. I missed the first half of Montana's career, so it's impossible for me, with my own eyes, to understand how great he really was. On the other hand, I've been able to see every other qb since the 90's. A lot of tough and talented players, but these are the top two for me.

I also think it's hard to go off of stats because every team is different and some are pass happy and others like balance...what makes a great qb is precision, consistency and calmness imo.

[HRBAKER]

Something about Manning's average success in the postseason makes me very hesitant to rank him close to the top even though I would agree he has certainly been a great QB. He just lacks the cache to me of some of the ones that were able to figure a way to get the ball over the line with regularity. You just never doubted that Montana would find a way and you really never can say that about Manning. Certainly way way upper echelon, close to greatest - eh, dunno.

[CMIZ5290]

Originally Posted by D.P.Johnson

Montana hands-down...The way he would walk up to the line of scrimmage while analyzing the defense and then call an audible was absolute genius...

Plus 1 big time. 4 for 4 in Super Bowls, I'll take this guy...

[CMIZ5290]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

No, he never won a Super Bowl, but the best pure QB I ever saw was Marino. Never had a ton to work with, never paired with an elite level RB or running game that I can recall and his best receivers were tiny men. Despite this, he put up some mind boggling numbers in an era when the defensive rules were much different then they are now.

All respect to anybody who says Montana, Brady, Manning, Unitas, Steve Young.........as I can see those arguments to.

This too is a great point by Dave. As far as a pure passer, hard to go against Marino....

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by CMIZ5290

This too is a great point by Dave. As far as a pure passer, hard to go against Marino....

I can remember watching Marino and being positive that the other team didn't have a chance - when he was on, he was perfect. The Superbowl ring means nothing to me in terms of evaluating an individual's greatness - it certainly doesn't mean Marino was a choker, and it also doesn't mean that he couldn't have taken his team all the way if he had the kind of defense to go with his offense.

Remember, people were saying the same things about Elway, then he won two when he was near retirement, and he all of a sudden was one of the greatest ever. He arguably wasn't even in his prime when he won the Superbowls.

[Tabe]

For me, right now the best I've ever seen is Steve Young. Super-accurate, strong arm arm, and could run. Much more of a complete package than Montana or Marino.

After that, probably Brady/Montana (tie).

When it's all said and done, though, the best might be Aaron Rodgers. More of a complete package than Brady/Montana/Marino (since he can run) and already a long string of dazzling seasons.

[tedzan]

Besides being a HOF Quarterback (with many records), he was a defensive back, who would often play a dual role of throwing touchdown passes
while also pulling off interceptions in the same game. Plus he was a fine punter.

2nd best is Sonny Jurgensen.

My 3rd best is Johnny Unitas.


TED Z
.

[mrmantlecollector]

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Besides being a HOF Quarterback (with many records), he was a defensive back, who would often play a dual role of throwing touchdown passes
while also pulling off interceptions in the same game. Plus he was a fine punter.

2nd best is Sonny Jurgensen.

My 3rd best is Johnny Unitas.


TED Z
.

Never saw Baugh, but I loved watching Jurgensen throw long - straight overhead. I guess I remember him better than Unitas because he was in the same division as Dallas. Seemed like every time we played Baltimore they were down to Earl Morrall again.

[Orioles1954]

Best all-around quarterback? Steve Young.

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by Orioles1954

Best all-around quarterback? Steve Young.

Young was great but I'll have to include Elway on the same level.

Most dominant in his time has to be Otto Graham.

1960s: Starr, Unitas, Jurgenson, Trakenton

Modern only-
Including post-season: Montana, Bradshaw, Brady, Aikman, Young, Elway, Flacco

Excluding post-season: Manning, Marino, Rogers, Brees, Moon, Farve, Fouts

The bigger discussion is which one had the best team behind him and which one improved his team consistently by his own contribution.

[the 'stache]

This is going to be a very difficult discussion, because there is, for me at least, no obvious answer. This will be a long post, for sure, so buckle up, everybody.

For the longest time, I thought Joe Montana was the greatest quarterback ever. He won, and when he won, he played at such a high level, so for somebody to match him on the all-time rankings, I thought they would have to achieve the same level of greatness. But I've really gone back and thought about this a lot within the last year, and I've changed my thinking. It is so important to remember that football is a team game, and now more than ever, I hate people who use championships as one of the first few points of consideration in this kind of discussion. I've heard "Eli Manning is a Hall of Famer because he won two Super Bowls" more times than I care to count in the last few years. Actually, the words "Eli Manning" and "should be in the Hall of Fame" don't belong in the same sentence. But that is another discussion.

Montana will always be one of the guys I have at the very top of the list, because in any possible way you could measure a quarterback, he was great. But we also need to remember the level of talent around him was spectacular. He had a Head Coach in Bill Walsh that revolutionized the game of football with his offensive schemes. He had one of the best two receivers in NFL history in Jerry Rice for most of, but not all his career (and the "not all" his career point is important, and something I'll come back to. It strengthens Montana's standing). And he had all kinds of great players in the locker room with him, year after year, season after season.

Montana really became the full-time starter in 1981. That was the first year he started 16 games, and he won 13 of them. Oh yeah, and the Super Bowl. Not a bad start, huh? He started and played in some other games before 1981, throwing 189 passes between 1979 and 1980. But 1981 is when Joe Montana started down the road to immortality. And, again, he won those 13 games without Jerry Rice. It should be pointed out that the Niner defense was second in the NFL in yards allowed, and points allowed. That's why it's always important to look at the big picture. Yes, Montana was great, completing 63.7% of his passes for 3,565 yards, 19 TD and 12 INT. 19 TD passes doesn't seem like a lot today, but to compare, his 17 TD passes the next season led the NFL. 12 INT in 488 pass attempts is pretty good. Montana never threw a lot of interceptions. He threw 16 in 1990 when he was 14-1 as the starter, also tossing 26 TD passes.

In 1982, Joe was 3-6 as the starter. Bad year for him? No. He had an 88.4 QB rating in 1981. He had an 88.0 QB rating in 1982. The defense fell apart, going from #2 and #2 to #23 in points allowed, and #21 in yards allowed.

Keep that in mind, guys. A quarterback can still have a good year, and the team can still suck.

So, anyway, we all know what Montana did. Perfect in the Super Bowl. He had a 127.8 QB rating in four Super Bowl wins. 11 TD passes, no interceptions. And that is a big part of his reputation. In the biggest games, he played big. Now, here's where it gets interesting. Troy Aikman, generally looked at as being a really good quarterback, had a 111.9 QB rating in his three Super Bowls. He threw 5 TD passes and only 1 pick. And, like Joe, Troy won all his games. The two men combined for 7 Super Bowl wins in 7 games played.

Yet, Montana is viewed as an all-time great, and Aikman, while a Hall of Famer, is a tier below. But why?

Montana had a career interception rate of 2.6%. Aikman's was 3.0%. Not a big difference. But, Montana threw more touchdown passes by far, 5.1% of his passes being touchdowns to 3.5% for Aikman.

But as good as some of Joe's running back's were (Wendell Tyler and Roger Craig were a hell of a 1-2 punch), they weren't Emmitt Smith.

The Cowboys finished drives running. The Niners finished them passing. Craig never had ten rushing touchdowns in any season, even when he ran for 1,500 yards in 1988.

Montana is remembered as this post season assassin. But, while he did win those Super Bowls, he also had some pretty awful games. In 1984, against the Bears in the NFC Championship Game, he had a 60.0 QB Rating. Granted, the Bears were the best defense in the NFL. But Montana struggled. Then he went off in the Super Bowl. The next three games in the post season? 1985, 1986 and 1987, he lost all three. His QB ratings? 65.6 against the Giants in 1985, 34.2 against the Giants in 1986, and 42.0 against the Vikings in 1987.

Montana was human. Or was he? Rice was huge in 1986 and 1987. But they got on the page in the 1988 playoffs. Montana's next 8 playoff starts saw him having QB ratings of 100.0 +.

The point to all this is that it's too easy just to look at a player's stat line, or their career record, and make an argument for or against the player in question. It is always more complex than that.

I think right now, Aaron Rodgers is playing the quarterback position at as level as high as I've ever seen it played. Yet, he's only 6-5 in the playoffs, with one Super Bowl win. As we've already discussed, his defense has been deplorable in each year but 2010. In 2009, his D gave up 51 to Kurt Warner and the Cardinals. In 2011, the Giants put up 37 on the Packer D. In 2012, Colin Kaepernick ran for more yards as a quarterback than any quarterback had in any game in NFL history. The Niners put up 500 + yards on Dom Capers' unit, and scored 45 points. Rodgers and the Packers put up 31 points. If you score 31 points in a playoff game, you expect to win 2 out of 3 games played, if not more. Against a pretty damned good Niners defense, Rodgers completed 67% of his passes for 257 yards, throwing 2 TD and 1 INT. In 2013, the defense held the Niners in check, as did the Niner D against Rodgers. Yet the Niners won 23-20. This year, Rodgers, playing hurt, put his team up by 12 with under 4 minutes to go, and the defense blew it again. After not giving up a single point for 56 minutes, they gave up 21 in the final 4 minutes plus one overtime possession. Yet again, Rodgers did enough hurt, on the road, against one of the best defensive units in NFL history. And when he got the ball back after losing the lead, he led his offense down the field, and got Mason Crosby into field goal range to tie it, and put it into overtime. He never saw the ball again.

Did he have his best game ever? No. He threw two picks, though one of which was a forced throw he never makes if he's healthy. I've watched every game he's ever played, and he doesn't throw the ball like that healthy, usually because he's running around making something happen.

Yet with a 6-5 record in the playoffs, basically a .500 record, he's 3 points behind Bart Starr for the highest QB rating in NFL post season history. He's the highest rated QB in NFL history, a Super Bowl MVP, and about to be a two time NFL MVP.

So, if Joe Montana is not the best QB in NFL history, Rodgers could be, right?

Well, no. I loved Rodgers. He does things I've never seen any other quarterback do. And I'm not the only one saying that. I watch ESPN, and NFL Network, and the former NFL quarterbacks they both have as analysts, Ron Jaworski, Steve Young and others, they gush about Rodgers. His accuracy in the pocket and out. The throws he makes 50 yards down field while running. Multiple times, I have heard these men say Rodgers has reached a level that's never been seen before. Jaworski said that Rodgers has all the throws, and he's so smart, and makes his reads so fast, that he doesn't make mistakes. And he's careful to point out that the low interception rate is not because he's making safe dump off passes. In 2011 and in 2014, Rodgers led the NFL in adjusted net yards per pass attempt, and he's #1 all-time in that metric, too. 7.75 yards every time he throws the ball, best all-time. Rodgers pushes the ball down field more than any other quarterback in the game. Jordy Nelson by himself, since week 1 of the 2011 NFL season, has more 60 yard catches than anybody else in the NFL. Twelve catches of 60 or more yards, 9 of which have gone for scores. Victor Cruz is the only other receiver with ten, and DeSean Jackson, with eight, is the only other receiver with more than six. Rodgers has 20 passes of 60 or more yards, besting Eli Manning (16), Tony Romo (12) and Drew Brees (11) for most in the last four years.

But again, Rodgers is not the best all-time, either. Talk to me when his career is done. He's certainly on his way to Canton, but he has a long way to go yet.

Montana was Iceman in the Super Bowl. Rodgers makes all the plays, and has the highest rating ever.

Neither are the best ever.

Steve Young? After all, before Peyton Manning came along, Young's 96.8 QB rating was #1 all-time.

Nope.

What about Manning? He's put up video game numbers in the regular season. But in the post season? He's been hit and miss. He has a 97.5 QB rating in the regular season, but an 88.5 in the post season. In 2006, when he won the Super Bowl, the Colts won 4 games though Manning didn't have a single game with a 100 + QB rating. In fact, he threw 3 TD passes, and 7 INT in those four games. The Colts won in spite of him. But the Colts wouldn't have gotten to the Super Bowl without him. The Broncos wouldn't have made it there without him last year. Manning is 1-2 in the Super Bowl with an 81.0 rating. 2 TD passes, 3 INT.

Post season aside, is he the best ever? Nope.

Everything considered, it's my opinion that Dan Marino is the greatest quarterback to ever play the game. And my opinion might change in a few months once I've considered this question more. It might be John Elway. That's kind of what I'm trying to say more than anything. I don't know if you can really ever say definitively that one quarterback is the best of all-time.

Do we overlook Bart Starr? "You're kidding, right? Bart Starr?" Well, the guy lost the first NFL Championship Game he ever played in against the Eagles. He fell about 15 yards short of the end zone as he was driving down the field for what would have been the winning score. He just ran out of time. Then, he never lost another post season game again. He was 9-1 in post season, winning 5 NFL Championships. His 104 QB Rating in the post season is the best in NFL history, against the toughest defenses of his day. When he retired, his 57.4% completion percentage was the best by any QB in NFL history. His 81.0 QB Rating at retirement was second all-time to only Otto Graham.

When he retired, he was the best there was. Best completion percentage in an era when football was played by men with blood streaming down their faces. You didn't come out with a broken nose, or a pulled muscle. You played. There were no roughing the passer penalties like today. And Starr retired with a .900 post season winning percentage, and 5 NFL Championships.

He's not the best ever, though he could be in the conversation. Probably in the second tier with guys like Roger Staubach, Joe Namath, Dan Fouts, Kurt Warner, Brian Griese, Ken Stabler, Joe Theisman, Jim Kelly, Terry Bradshaw, and Otto Graham. I put Aaron Rodgers here with Drew Brees. Brees has the numbers, but I think he's padded his stats a lot. Rodgers has the numbers, but needs to play longer yet.

Too many of these guys can legitimately be in the conversation for best of all-time: Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, Johnny Unitas, Joe Montana, Dan Marino, Fran Tarkenton, Steve Young, John Elway, Brett Favre.

Too many quarterbacks that I do not know enough about, even with all the reading I have done, are going to unfairly be excluded from consideration because of my age: Y.A. Tittle, Bobby Layne, Sid Luckman, Sammy Baugh, Tobin Rote, Norm Van Brocklin, Darryl Lamonica

Wait a minute, Favre holds like most of the records, right? Well, for now. Isn't he the best all-time?

No. I loved Favre, still do. And he won 3 NFL MVPs. Peyton has 5 now. But as great as Favre could be, he could also make the game killing mistake. He had one of the strongest arms ever. But, unfortunately, he had one of the biggest egos ever, too. In the NFL, that's called the "gunslinger mentality". It's romanticized. I call it careless. Favre would try to force throws instead of throwing it away. He's one of the best ever, but he didn't have the discipline to be the best ever. He was a tough sob, and played every week. His knee could be floating by his ankle, and he's still play. And, with the toughness came the enthusiasm that endeared him to every person in Wisconsin, and a lot of people outside the cheesehead state. When he made a great throw, or won a game, he'd race downfield, headbutt his receiver, pick him up, throw him over his shoulder, and carry him off the field. When his wife was diagnosed with cancer, when his father died, he came out, played as a tribute to them, and he destroyed his opponents. The Raiders game after Big Irv died is now a thing of legend.

But, unfortunately, so is the meltdown playoff game against the Rams when he threw five interceptions. Or was it six?

This is a great discussion, Scott, because it seems like a simple question. But it's really like asking an Irish Catholic man in Boston "which of your eight sons is your favorite."

I think Marino did more with less than any great quarterback. He had Mark Duper and Mark Clayton, and not much else.

In 1983, Marino's first year in the NFL, the Dolphins had the #1 scoring defense in the league. He was 7-2, David Woodley and Don Strock combined to go 5-2. Marino had a 96 QB Rating and was a Pro Bowler. 1984 was his monster season, 5,084 yards passing, 48 TD passes. Miami had the #7 scoring defense, and the Dolphins lost the Super Bowl to Joe Montana and the 49ers. After that season, the defense started to falter. The next five seasons, the Dolphins scoring defense was 12th, 26th, 16th, 24th, 22nd in the NFL. In 1990, they were 4th before falling back to 24th, 11th, 24th and 17th the next four years. And they had no running game to speak of. Marino played between 1983 and 1999, and Miami had a single 1,000 yard running back in all those seasons: Karim Abdul-Jabbar, who had 1,116 yards in 1996. But he had to carry 307 times to get those yards, a meager 3.6 yards per carry. The next year, he had 892 yards, and his per carry average dropped to an anemic 3.2 yards. With a wildly inconsistent, bad most of the time defense, and no running game, Marino was a one man show. He had Mark Clayton and Mark Duper, and that was really it. They combined for 140 TD passes from #13, and 9 1,000 yard seasons. Duper made 3 Pro Bowls, Clayton 5. So, while Marino never won the Super Bowl, his 147-93 record as a starting quarterback is pretty remarkable, as are his 420 TD passes and 61,361 yards passing. With no running game at all, defenses knew Marino was going to pass. He managed six 4,000 yard passing seasons, and two others with 3,970 and 3,997. He had four 30 TD seasons, and thirteen seasons of 20 or more.

Imagine if Marino had played in San Francisco. Or, imagine if he'd had the Cowboys offensive line and Emmitt Smith to keep defenses honest. He'd have scored 40 points a game, then they wouldn't have needed a defense.

So, with that, I will enjoy what everybody else thinks, and maybe some of you will be able to convince me that your choice for best of all-time deserves consideration above Marino.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

Excluding post-season: Manning, Marino, Rogers, Brees, Moon, Farve, Fouts

Just curious why you would pick Rodgers in the regular season only. He may only be 6-5 as a starter, but in the 5 games he lost, his defense surrendered 184 points, or 37 points a game.

Rodgers numbers in the post season? 253-387 (65.37%), 2,983 yards, 23 TD, 7 INT. 101 QB rating. 35 carries, 192 yards, 3 TD.

The all-time post season QB ratings:

104.8 Bart Starr
102.8 Kurt Warner
101.0 Aaron Rodgers
100.7 Drew Brees

Those are the only four guys with 100 + QB ratings in post season history.

And in the last game against Seattle, the one he lost, where the defense blew a 12 point lead with 3:53 to play, when Seattle went ahead, and Green Bay got the ball at their own 22 with 1 time out and 1:19 left, Rodgers moved them 42 yards in 3 plays, and then set up Crosby with a 6 yard completion to Nelson for the game tying field goal.

Isn't that EXACTLY what Tom Brady did to win his first two Super Bowls? Take the ball, move his team into field goal range, and win it? Rodgers faced the same pressure, if not more. His team, which looked to be going to Arizona for the Super Bowl, had just watched his defense and special teams choke giving away a touchdown, and onside kick, another touchdown, and a 2 point conversion. What does he do then? 15 yard pass completion to Jordy Nelson. Next play, 15 yard pass completion to Randall Cobb. Next play, hurt, he runs for 12 yards. In 36 seconds, against the best defense in the NFL two years running, in Seattle, he moves the ball 42 yards with the crowd going nuts, and the defense playing on adrenaline.

If that's not clutch, and performing great with the game on the line, I don't know what is. The week before, against Dallas, Rodgers, playing hurt, completed all 10 of his passes in the 4th quarter.

The man threw for 423 yards and 4 TD passes, and ran another score in, in his first ever playoff start against Arizona. Is it his fault the defense gave up 51 points? Is it his fault the refs blew a roughing the passer call on the last play of the game when the Cardinal defender speared him under his freaking face mask, causing him to fumble to ball away?

When he won the Super Bowl in 2010, his team had been completely obliterated by injuries in the regular season. He lost Ryan Grant, his #1 running back who ran for 1,253 yards and 11 TD the season before, in week 1 for the season. He lost Jermichael Finley, his #1 tight end who had 676 yards and 5 TD the year before, in week 3 for the season. Mark Tauscher, his right tackle, missed the last 12 games of the season. Grant's backup, James Starks, missed all but three games in the regular season. And as bad as those losses were on offense, they were nothing compared to the MASH unit the Packers had on defense. It caused them to go 10-6 on the season. Buy they won on the road in Philadelphia, Atlanta and Chicago to get to the Super Bowl, then they beat the #1 defense in the NFL in Pittsburgh to win Super Bowl XLV.

Rodgers is a very, very good post season quarterback. He's only had two poor post season starts, the 2010 NFC Championship Game at Chicago where it was freezing cold (20 degrees, 20 mph wind gusts), and the game against Seattle where he was hurt. Both teams had incredible defenses. The Bears had the #4 scoring defense in the NFL, and Seattle was #1.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Never saw Baugh, but I loved watching Jurgensen throw long - straight overhead. I guess I remember him better than Unitas because he was in the same division as Dallas. Seemed like every time we played Baltimore they were down to Earl Morrall again.

I forgot about Sonny. Funny, as I just watched the Lombardi HBO documentary a few nights ago, and it talked about how happy he was to get Vince in Washington. They referred to him as Washington's own Bart Starr.

Hell, Sam Huff, who had retired, came out of retirement to coach the linebackers, and play it. He had 3 picks, including a TD. If Lombardi hadn't gotten sick, I wonder if the Steelers would have been the team of the 70s. Look what he did with the Redskins in one season. From 5-9 to 7-5-2, the same record (well, 7-5) he had in his first season in Green Bay.

The Steelers won it all in 1974 and 1975. Lombardi would have been, what, 60, or maybe 61 in 1974? With three more years to coach that team, with Jurgensen at 36 after the 1969 season, I wonder if Lombardi doesn't draft a young quarterback to succeed him. Remember, he was the Head Coach and GM. Might he have taken Terry Bradshaw in 1970?

[Runscott]

That's all interesting - the stats and all - but for me this was one of the simplest questions I've ever personally tried to answer, mainly because it didn't require looking at stats - just remembering what I saw with my own two eyes.

Looks like I need to start a separate thread asking who the greatest quarterback ever was. I think baseball card collectors have to answer everything based on stats - it goes with the territory.

What's your favorite color? Well, blue reflects x amount of light, while yellow...but green has historically been the most natural color, but purple has been the most successful this is tough. There are probably more brown things, but there is more blue space...I guess it's an impossible question.

[the 'stache]

It's not difficult because of the stats. It's difficult because the game that Joe Montana and Dan Marino played share only a passing resemblance to the game Drew Brees and Aaron Rodgers play now. And the game that Drew Brees plays now is the same game Johnny Unitas played in name only.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

It's not difficult because of the stats. It's difficult because the game that Joe Montana and Dan Marino played share only a passing resemblance to the game Drew Brees and Aaron Rodgers play now. And the game that Drew Brees plays now is the same game Johnny Unitas played in name only.

Bill, I completely disagree with you. I can watch a quarterback playing football and tell if he's 'great', and compare him across eras to other quarterbacks, regardless of how the game has changed, and other people can as well - I know, because I've discussed it with other people in "real life". Some people get so hung up on things like stats, that they miss other parts of the picture - I meet such people all the time, both on the internet and in "real life". Perhaps it's right brain vs left brain usage.

[Tabe]

I've seen lots of people slag the Dolphins' running game during Marino's tenure and they ignore Marino's part in its failures. Even in his youth, Marino was incredibly slow afoot. His technique in all facets of the running game was awful, amplified by his lack of quickness. He did nothing to hide the football in any way on running plays. His slowness limited where his running backs could go and what they could do. And not hiding the ball telegraphed plays.

Did Dan have HOFers back there to run the ball? No. But if you rotate every part of a car except one - in this case Marino - and it still fails, maybe the problem is really the one part you didn't change.

That said, nobody could fling the ball like Marino. He was amazing, that's for sure.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Did Dan have HOFers back there to run the ball? No. But if you rotate every part of a car except one - in this case Marino - and it still fails, maybe the problem is really the one part you didn't change.

So the offense during Marino's years was failing? I didn't realize that - I thought they scored a lot of points.

[Runscott]

I just checked the Dolphin's stats during the Marino years. The offense was the highest scoring in their division 8 times and 2nd 6 times. Yet they finished first in their division only 5 times and 2nd 4 times. The offense was ranked at least as high in their division in point scoring, as they finished, all but 3 years - in one of those they still won the division. The other 2 took place in 1997 and 1998 at the end of his career.

Sounds like a defensive problem, which is how most people viewed it at the time.

You can change all the cogs in the offense you want, but Marino was able to score with any of them. Unfortunately, the other teams continued to score against his defense. Perhaps Marino scored too fast, leaving his defense on the team too much?

[steve B]

Ok, Ok, I'll keep it simple and pick just one......

Julian Edelman.

Can't get much better than perfect right?

Steve B

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by steve B

Ok, Ok, I'll keep it simple and pick just one......

Julian Edelman.

Can't get much better than perfect right?

Steve B

...and I'll go with Jon Ryan

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Runscott

So the offense during Marino's years was failing? I didn't realize that - I thought they scored a lot of points.

I was referring to the running game, not the offense in general. Apologies if I wasn't clear.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Bill, I completely disagree with you. I can watch a quarterback playing football and tell if he's 'great', and compare him across eras to other quarterbacks, regardless of how the game has changed, and other people can as well - I know, because I've discussed it with other people in "real life". Some people get so hung up on things like stats, that they miss other parts of the picture - I meet such people all the time, both on the internet and in "real life". Perhaps it's right brain vs left brain usage.

Scott, I understand that this should be a pretty easy answer, and I promise you I don't go out of my way to complicate things. But it's just not an easy question to me.

If you're removing statistical analysis from the picture, how, then, are you going to consider any quarterbacks that played the game before you were alive? You're asking an all-encompassing question here. "Who is the greatest quarterback ever." Not the greatest quarterback from the last twenty years, or your lifetime. Who, in the history of the NFL, is the best to ever play the position.

I'm sorry, but the answer just isn't something I can just blurt out based on personal experience. I am far more analytical than that. I realize that there were far too many greats that I never got to see play, so I have to utilize the tools available to include them in my consideration, and even that is an imperfect way of doing it. You don't have to think like that. But you also don't have to dis me the way that you did because you don't place as much thought into it as I do.

Joe Montana was a great, great quarterback. But it's not just enough for me to say he's the best to ever play the game, because I simply can't say that. Was he the best ever? Or, was he just a really, really good quarterback that was put into a perfect situation? The Niners don't get past the Cowboys without "The Catch", and as great a throw as Montana made on the roll out, it's just another incompletion unless Dwight Clark goes up and makes a sensational catch in the endzone. How many other outstanding quarterbacks will not make your consideration because they didn't have the supporting cast around them that Montana did? Brett Favre is one of the greatest quarterbacks to ever play the game. I think most people will agree with that. But if he hadn't been rescued off the scrap heap in Atlanta, he may have never been a starter. If Don Majkowski doesn't get hurt, maybe he's in this discussion now instead of him. After all, in 1989, he was the NFL MVP runner up. Majkowski had one guy on his entire offense worth a darn in Sterling Sharpe. He lost out to Montana. But was Montana better than Majkowski? Or did he simply have a better line, and better receivers who could catch better, and gain better separation from the men covering them?

We have guys completing 70% of their passes now. 70%! But, is it that Drew Brees is better than Bart Starr was in Green Bay? Starr retired the all-time leader in NFL history for completion percentage, and he was under 58%. How can you look at two men playing the same position from different eras, and just say one was better than the other? Well, again, why? Was Montana just smarter? Was he more careful with the football? Was he on a more talented team? How would Montana have done playing back in the 60s, when the rules were even tougher?

You want my simple, don't over-think it answer then? Ok, fine. Aaron Rodgers is the best quarterback I have ever seen. He doesn't have the rings Montana did, but he is a better passer. He combines the arm strength of Elway, and Marino, and Favre with the accuracy of Steve Young, with the cool under pressure of Joe Montana. He makes impossible throws look routine, and if he played twenty years ago, or fifty years ago, he'd still be the best. Regardless of what else he accomplishes, he is the best I have ever seen play the game.

There's your simple answer.

[billyb]

Best I ever saw play, it is two and hard to choose between them both. Bart Starr and Johnny Unitas.
These guys were field generals. And right behind them was Y. A. Tittle.

[jimm]

Joe Cool

[familytoad]

Ok, so to simplify the answer I am going to give...Dan Marino is the greatest QB to ever play in the years I watched football.

He was the best pure passer in an era not protected with "Peyton Rules". I don't want to belabor that discussion but passing in today's NFL is not the same as it was. Simply compiling "Peyton Stats" wouldn't be that difficult if you had an average team around you in today's game (see Philip Rivers for example)

Other QB's:

Johnny Unitas and Bart Starr are personal favorites too, but they were in the last years of their careers when I watched them play, so I have to set them aside for this purpose.

I thought Steve Young was better than Joe Montana, but the whole idea that you could plug in another QB into that system and succeed made me think it was the system and not the man.

Question for Bill, what made you call out Drew Brees as someone who "pads their stats"? I think his numbers are obviously terrific, his defense is historically terrible, running game nothing better than mediocre and his team must pass a lot to win. Sounds like he's playing to the situation. Not many better passers in the game past or present in my opinion. What stood out to you that he's padding any differently than say "Peyton"?

Aaron Rodgers, Brett Favre. Great quarterbacks on a fun team to watch. They are in the discussion as "my" best ever, especially Favre. He led the team with a certain gusto that's unmatched. Packers football history is the NFL. Watch how those GB teams specifically changed from the 60's to the current era and you'll see a good example of the NFL transition. Max McGee to Jordy Nelson, nuff said.

Not much mention above for Tom Brady. Granted, he plays in this passing friendly era and he certainly benefits from the rules (even the bent ones)
He is an all-time great. His records and wins are not flukes. Sometimes you just have to give credit where it's due.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

Scott, I understand that this should be a pretty easy answer, and I promise you I don't go out of my way to complicate things. But it's just not an easy question to me.

If you're removing statistical analysis from the picture, how, then, are you going to consider any quarterbacks that played the game before you were alive? You're asking an all-encompassing question here. "Who is the greatest quarterback ever." Not the greatest quarterback from the last twenty years, or your lifetime.

No, Bill - that is not what I asked. Go re-read the original question and don't miss the word "seen". I have even repeated myself in two other posts, emphasizing the word "seen". In fact, I expected you and others to comment that I was being a smart-ass by repeating myself so many times. Any discussion is fair game in my mind, regardless of the original question, but please don't tell me I asked a question that I did not.

There is a huge difference between 'greatest ever' and 'greatest you have seen'. My focus was on the latter.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by familytoad

Question for Bill, what made you call out Drew Brees as someone who "pads their stats"? I think his numbers are obviously terrific, his defense is historically terrible, running game nothing better than mediocre and his team must pass a lot to win. Sounds like he's playing to the situation. Not many better passers in the game past or present in my opinion. What stood out to you that he's padding any differently than say "Peyton"?

I have always liked Brees because he can do so much with the height disadvantage, but I would put him in a class with Dan Fouts and Jurgensen (out of the ones I've seen). I remember thinking Favre was right up there, but Rodgers made me forget him. You guys are helping me come up with a better list: Montana, Young, Staubach, Rodgers, Marino. Then Manning and Brady. Then Elway and Favre. I have to admit that I also loved Don Meredith, but I was a Cowboys fan and he was the leader when I was a kid.

Very interesting the choices being made. I love that Unitas is the favorite of many who have also seen today's stars. I'm dying to re-watch some old Colts film. I think if you watched Bart Starr play, you'd also be impressed.

GO HAWKS!!!

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Runscott

No, Bill - that is not what I asked. Go re-read the original question and don't miss the word "seen". I have even repeated myself in two other posts, emphasizing the word "seen". In fact, I expected you and others to comment that I was being a smart-ass by repeating myself so many times. Any discussion is fair game in my mind, regardless of the original question, but please don't tell me I asked a question that I did not.

There is a huge difference between 'greatest ever' and 'greatest you have seen'. My focus was on the latter.

Okay then, now I'm on the same page. If your intent was to ask who's the best we've ever seen, and I missed it, then I'm dense, and apologize. That would, of course, change my whole approach to this conversation. If I'm not having to worry about the Ghosts of Quarterbacks Past, I am content to exclude Norm, Otto and the Gang.

I'd still enthusiastically give Rodgers as my ultimate answer, especially after he was awarded his second NFL MVP last evening. But if he were in a horse race with Joe Montana, I must say it would be a photo finish. And Dan Marino would only be a bridle's width behind them both.

Oh, how I am dying to call John Elway "ol' horse face" right now, but I am going to refrain.

[itjclarke]

Originally Posted by steve B

Ok, Ok, I'll keep it simple and pick just one......

Julian Edelman.

Love this guy! Edelman might be my favorite player in the league right now. I'm a little biased because he went to my HS, but he's just a ball player... QB, WR, DB, return man, he'll do whatever.
His college highlights are pretty electric
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sqr-fAkrcV8
And found his HS champ game highlights.. Wood-SIDE!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmZViAEuAt8t

Love the earlier mention Chad Pennington also. He was never gonna be in any "greatest ever" conversation (except this), but he got absolutely everything out of what he was given. I also loved the press conference when he turned the tables on the a group of reporters, and ended up lecturing them on journalistic integrity, etc. Super smart, super classy guy.

As far as greatest I've ever seen, for me it's gotta be Joe for many of the reasons already mentioned. He was so calm, so cool, and made everything look for effortless that I think it's taken for granted how great an athlete he was (especially when young). I also think his arm strength was often underrated.

Others that were great to watch-
Steve Young- the ultimate dual threat. His running ability was second to none, and I think compares favorably with any of today's dual threat guys (just watch his 49yd game winner against Vikes in 1988). I think he became truly great when he learned to settle down in the pocket, and for a few years from about 1993 on, he was so efficient passing and running.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9O5fXUOAvoY

Brett Favre- IMO he was the most fun QB of that 1990's era to watch. It's fitting that Rodgers followed him because both these guys had absolute lazers, and could throw from any position/angle while on the move. I think Favre probably rubbed off on Rodgers a bit, especially in their willingness to take risks. Favre just got burned a lot more doing so, but his unpredictability, especially when completing passes or TDs on throws he NEVER should have attempted, was always entertaining.

Marino- I always thought his throwing motion was ugly, but he had a lightning quick release and could put it where he wanted. He was 20 years ahead of his time.

Aikman- perfectly proficient, almost a robot. Statistically, he never put up really gaudy passing numbers, but as a Niner fan, I remember his converting many a 3rd and long on those square ins to Irvin and Harper. In the Super Bowl he was lights out.

Kurt Warner- Warner was like a Koufax to football, at his peaks he was amazing. I think he gets short changed a lot because he was surrounded by amazing skill players, but he had a cannon arm and was incredibly decisive (as important as anything). His comeback years with the Cards, after everyone had written him off, were an awesome cap to his career.

Elway- I was never a huge Elway guy, but no one in the era combined his arm (strongest of the era) and athleticism. I do think he legacy is totally different if he doesn't win the SB in his final 2 years.


Current-
Brady and Rodgers- I think these guys are one and two of the modern era. I give Brady the edge because of the rings, and the fact he's helped keep the Pats near the top for 15 years. They've had talented teams, but I think there are several years during that run where they'd have been under .500 without him. His calm and confidence (like a Jeter) is a huge part of winning, since I think it rubs off on anyone he plays with. On the field he's incredibly consistent, play to play, game to game, season to season.. I think he has an underrated arm and THE PERFECT throwing motion, is supremely decisive, and for a slow guy, he moves really well in the pocket. I think the term "functional mobility" was made for Brady.

I'm with Bill on Rodgers, he is virtually the perfect quarterback. He may have the greatest combination of measurable talent (speed, arm), smarts, and intangible traits (leader, calm and full awareness in the pocket and down field). I read an article criticizing him and saying he'd never be truly great because he doesn't take enough chances, using his low INT% to prove this point. IMO this was some of the laziest professional analysis I've seen... just watch the guy! He not only fits the ball into tight windows as well as anyone, he's able to identify windows that will open for a split second. The TD pass to Richard Rogers against the Cowboys is the perfect example. Based on his amazing individual play, and even if he doesn't win another SB, I still put him above the others (except Brady) of this era.

Manning- I love watching Manning, have great respect for him, but I also think he's often been affected the pressure of big games. I also think he's one of the most stat conscious QBs around. I've seen him throw so many TDs inside the 5, or while up 4 TDs. I don't hold it against him, he earned the right to call his own plays from very early in his career, which is a feat in its own right. It does however make it hard for me to use his other worldly stats to place him above guys like Montana or Brady though.

Brees- love Brees, another guy who gets everything out of the body he's been given. He's a very good athlete, moves very well in the pocket, and has enough arm to make the throws. He's also the poster boy for QB footwork. Watch him, getting squared and stepping into nearly every throw, compared with guys like Cutler and Stafford.

Big Ben- I think Big Ben is underrated. He has all the prototypical pocket attributes- size, cannon arm, decisive.. but he separates himself with his strength and elusiveness, and ability to extend plays. I think he's a pure winner (on the field that is).

Russell Wilson- Wilson seems like he's a bit polarizing, with a lot of people saying he overrated, being the beneficiary of a good system. He does play for a team with a great D, and does have a great running back... but even when they run, he's often not just handing off. He's often making a split second read whether to hand off or keep. Those plays often succeed because of his decisiveness, and the Seahawks seem to be the most effective team running zone read plays, after Cam, Kaep and RGIII took the league by storm a few years ago. I also think Wilson can be really decisive in the pocket, especially on 3rd downs, where he keeps lots of drives alive with his arm (loves those slants)... and then his ability to improvise and make plays outside the pocket is obvious. I think he's the single most elusive QB I've ever seen, and this includes great running QBs like Young and Kaep. Wilson seems fully aware in the pocket (of rushers) at all times, while also maintaining awareness down field. His pocket movement is so quick, he can wait just a split second longer, making it tougher for defensive players to adjust their angles whenever he spins, ducks, or shuffles... this is very different than a guy like Kaep, who just runs away, and often seems to lose down field awareness when the sh*t hits the fan right in front of him.

Luck- he's got a long way to go, but he's a closest thing to Rodgers' total QB package- smarts, leadership, speed/elusiveness, and though he may not fully have Rodgers' arm strength, the makes up for it with the ability to run like a full back. I can't wait to see him develop even more over the next 5-10 years.

It's amazing how much football changes every 10-20 years, and with each shift, stats become almost useless when comparing each era's greats. I'm with Scott in that you almost have to do this with your eyes. Good thing the NFL is as well film documented as it is.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by familytoad

Question for Bill, what made you call out Drew Brees as someone who "pads their stats"? I think his numbers are obviously terrific, his defense is historically terrible, running game nothing better than mediocre and his team must pass a lot to win. Sounds like he's playing to the situation. Not many better passers in the game past or present in my opinion. What stood out to you that he's padding any differently than say "Peyton"?

Brian, I'd have to go back and look for other examples, and there have been many. But the one that stands out the most was the final game of the 2011 season. Rodgers sat out the final game of the season, ending with 45 TD passes. He was leading the NFL. Well, Drew Brees had 41 TD passes, and in a completely meaningless game (the Saints came in at 12-3), and against an opponent with nothing to play for (the 6-9 Panthers), Brees came out airing it out because he wanted to set the all-time single season passing yards mark, AND he wanted to lead the NFL in touchdown passes. He threw 35 passes, and many of them 30-40-50 yards downfield, trying to pad his stats, and late in the game, after the game had already been won. With his team up by 2 touchdowns, and the Panthers showing no signs of life, Brees was still in there throwing bombs. He had three touchdown passes, but was still behind Rodgers. So, after a couple deep passes, he moves the Saints down the field to the 1 yard line, and gets a dinky little pass for #45 to tie Rodgers. Now they're up 21 points. Instead of getting the backup some work, with the Saints securing a 13-3 record, and the #2 seed, the highest they could get, as the Packers came in to the day at 14-1, out came Drew Brees, wanting that TD pass #46. And he's throwing the ball all over the field, and my friend, Chris, a huge Saints fan, is sitting there saying "why is he still out there?" And I told him "he wants to lead the NFL by himself. It's not enough to tie for the NFL lead in TD passes. He has to lead by himself." Sure enough, down in the red zone, they set up a little dink pass to Sproles, and he scoots in. And afterwords, Drew Brees is mugging for the camera, saying "but it's all about my teammates. I didn't care for the records." LOL, what a bunch of bullshit.

Here are some other posts on other forums, people doing a better job than I can:

Drew Brees' history as a stat padder during his tenure as a Saint

Just Google it. Funny the things you find. SOme other guys in the league obviously don't like Drew.



"Hey Drew, go ask the league if Sean Payon can get a night off from his season-long suspension to watch you break a record NOW!"

I don't know if Peyton is worse than Brees. I've seen him do it, too. But Brees has never seen a pass he didn't like. The guy will throw 700 times in a season, if they let him. Then he'll blow wind up everybody's ass about how "it's all about the team."

Yeah, right.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by itjclarke

I'm with Bill on Rodgers, he is virtually the perfect quarterback. He may have the greatest combination of measurable talent (speed, arm), smarts, and intangible traits (leader, calm and full awareness in the pocket and down field). I read an article criticizing him and saying he'd never be truly great because he doesn't take enough chances, using his low INT% to prove this point. IMO this was some of the laziest professional analysis I've seen... just watch the guy! He not only fits the ball into tight windows as well as anyone, he's able to identify windows that will open for a split second.

Hey Ian,

It is very lazy analysis. He doesn't take enough chances? LOL, Aaron Rodgers pushes the ball down the field more than any quarterback in the NFL:

Adjusted net yards per pass attempt 2014

1. Rodgers, GB 8.65
2. Romo, Dal 8.11
3. Roethlisberger, Pitt 7.82
4. Manning, Den 7.68
5. Luck, Ind 7.28

Rodgers gets, on average, a half more yard per pass attempt than any other quarterback in the NFL. He gets more than a yard more per pass attempt than every quarterback in the NFL, save for Romo, Roethlisberger and Manning. Yet he also....has the lowest interception rate in the NFL. He throws the longest passes, but gets intercepted the least.

Interception rate 2014

1. Rodgers, GB 1.0
2. Smith, KC 1.3
3. Palmer, Cinn 1.3
4. Roethlisberger, Pitt 1.5
5. Brady, NE 1.5%
6. Wilson, Sea 1.5%
7. Stafford, Det 2.0%
8. Carr, Oak 2.0%
9. Tannehill, Mia 2.0%
10. Romo, Dal 2.1%

What wide receiver has the most 60 + yard receptions since the start of the 2011 season?

Jordy Nelson has 12 of them to lead the NFL. 9 for touchdowns.
Victor Cruz is second with 10.
Only Cruz and DeSean Jackson (8) even have half as many as Nelson over that span.

Not surprisingly, since 2011, Rodgers leads the NFL with 20 passes of 60 + yards.

But yeah, he doesn't take chances. Methinks that writer is a moron. Or he doesn't watch Green Bay play. Or both. I can't tell you how many times I've seen Rodgers chuck it downfield 40 yards on 3rd and 3. And he makes a lot of them. But it sometimes makes me nuts.

"What the hell are you DOING, Aar....oh, never mind. Touchdown, Packers. What a great throw!"

I've said that at least three times in the last year. That's why he gets the big bucks/MVPs/Olivia Munn.

The Packers need a new defensive coordinator. They need to resign Randall Cobb and Bryan Bulaga, and add two new middle linebackers-one via the draft, one via free agency. If they do that, I guarantee they win the Super Bowl again within two years.

The middle linebacking unit, which is the key to the 3-4 defense, is the weakest position on the Packers by far. And they keep burning the Packers.

Brad Jones doesn't need to be anywhere near Green Bay next year. He's the guy that blew it on the fake field goal touchdown. I was yelling at my tv. Apparently he's too dumb to see what was going on.

And A.J. Hawk, God love him, he just doesn't have it anymore. He's taken pay cut after pay cut to stay in Green Bay, and I'll always love his loyalty to the team. But he can't start anymore, and he really doesn't offer much from a rotational standpoint, either. These guys can't wrap up on anybody. And they don't have the speed to close gaps. You're constantly seeing our safeties having to run up because our linebackers lose contain, and running backs shoot up through the gap, and right by them. We were much better in the second half when we folded Clay into the middle linebacking rotation, but it wore him down.

Chase the quarterback. Shoot the gap. Chase the quarterback. Shoot the gap.

Is it any wonder he was gassed at the end of the 4th quarter?

[itjclarke]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

It is very lazy analysis. He doesn't take enough chances? LOL, Aaron Rodgers pushes the ball down the field more than any quarterback in the NFL:

That's why he gets the big bucks/MVPs/Olivia Munn.

He's with Olivia Munn?? Had no idea, but great score. My wife is in love with her character on HBO's Newsroom. We're down to our last episode.

You guys are so lucky he wore his hat backwards (allegedly) to his interview with the Niners in 2005. This, and Rodgers' overwhelming self assuredness, supposedly turned Mike McCarthy off so much, they took Alex at #1. By the next year you had both guys!! (though I think McCarthy is the interchangeable of the two)

He is such a beast of a player. I went to Lambeau for the first time this year, and watched him play the Bears on Sunday night. He was throwing darts all night, and the 40+ yard throw, while running hard to his right, was so typically Rodgers. He's athletic enough to escape the pressure, and can still square up enough to get that ball off and downfield with velocity, and he put it into the only spot it could go.

To the point of stat padding, Rodgers threw 6 TDs in the first half!! I can assure Manning finishes with 8 and a new NFL record... or at least dies trying. There's a great clip of his back up (Osweiler) getting pissed when Manning trots back on the field up 3-4 TDs toward the end of a game. Rodgers took one shot at the end zone in the 3rd quarter, on a 3rd down, then never took another. If guys wanna pad stats, so be it, it gets them paid, but it was impressive to see the Pack's restraint in this game. He played nearly 2 full quarters, one TD short of the NFL record. All his stats were fully in the context of the game, none coming via the late game hard play action fake on the 1 yard line while up 28.

Glad you agree with my take on the writer. I'll ask my friend to re-send the link, and forward to you. OT, my friend reads everything and is one who seems to form many/most of his opinions based what is written. It is amazing to me though how many people writing have no business writing! and as result how many opinions they affect. I mentioned in another thread, I once lived with a sports radio talk show host (some time nationally syndicated), who really knew very very little about anything he talked about, especially football... he mostly prepped by listening to the other talking heads.