Clemente: Inner circle of the elite, or on his way?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

There is more to being an all time great than stats alone. A big part of it is post season play and coming up with clutch hits or shots in big moments. Being the best player on the best team for 2 decades doesnt hurt either. They could come up with some new stat that puts Mantle, or anyone else in the top 5, or out of the top 50, and it wouldn't change my opinion.

Since you're way too young to have seen him, what are you going on other than stats? Folklore?

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Since you're way too young to have seen him, what are you going on other than stats? Folklore?

That, and the 7 rings. I remember reading and hearing about him as a kid from others who said he was the greatest they'd seen. Guys like Jordan and Tom Brady aren't considered the greatest because of their regular season stats, although those are impressive. Championships are what count the most in my opinion.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Put Mantle on the Kansas City A's and he has no championships. Does that make him a worse player? In Football and baseball one player can't win a title. In Basketball it might be barely possible, but even in that sport most championship teams have at least 2 all-stars (or 40% of a starting lineup!)

[tschock]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

Put Mantle on the Kansas City A's and he has no championships. Does that make him a worse player? In Football and baseball one player can't win a title. In Basketball it might be barely possible, but even in that sport most championship teams have at least 2 all-stars (or 40% of a starting lineup!)

No, but it may lessen his stats without all those other great players batting around him.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

That, and the 7 rings. I remember reading and hearing about him as a kid from others who said he was the greatest they'd seen. Guys like Jordan and Tom Brady aren't considered the greatest because of their regular season stats, although those are impressive. Championships are what count the most in my opinion.

Berra and DiMaggio and Gehrig had more titles than Mantle. Russell had way more than Jordan.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

That, and the 7 rings. I remember reading and hearing about him as a kid from others who said he was the greatest they'd seen. Guys like Jordan and Tom Brady aren't considered the greatest because of their regular season stats, although those are impressive. Championships are what count the most in my opinion.

Brady is absolutely one of the greatest, but you'll never convince me he's the greatest. Not because of his rings. That's a foolish argument to make. The best passer I've ever seen was Dan Marino, and he lost the only Super Bowl he ever played in.

Winning five Super Bowls is a hell of a lot easier when you have a spectacular defense. The Pats, in their five Super Bowl wins, finished 6th, 1st, 2nd, 8th and 1st in the NFL in scoring defense. In 37 post season starts, the Pats only gave up 30 or more points in three games, and never 40 + until the Super Bowl loss to the Eagles.

Compare Brady's backing to that of an Aaron Rodgers. Rodgers is better in every individual metric there is, in both the regular season and post season, from a career standpoint, and from just 2008 forward, when Rodgers became the starter. The Packers under Rodgers have scored more points per game in the post season than the Pats have under Brady. The difference is the defense both have played with. Rodgers hasn't had a top ten defense since 2010, when the Packers won the Super Bowl (beating the NFL's top defense, Pittsburgh, in the process). He's only had a top ten defense twice-the first time was in 2009; the Packers lost Rodgers first playoff game, even though Rodgers threw for over 400 yards and 4 TD (and ran in another) because the Packer defense gave up 45 points to Kurt Warner and the Cardinals.

Much is made of Rodgers "only" having a 9-7 record in the playoffs. Well, when his defense is getting the crap kicked out of it, what can he do? His first three playoff losses, the Packer defense gave up 45 to Arizona, 37 to the New York Giants, and 45 to San Francisco. The Packers scored 96 points in those games-if you put up 32 points in a playoff game, you should win. But when the defense gives up an average of 42 +, not much you can do.

In his 16 playoff starts, the Packers have given up 40 + points three times, and 30 + five times. 31% of his starts, the Packers give up 30 +. For Brady? Four games of 30 + points given up in 37 starts, or 10.8%. Think Brady would have as many rings with that defense behind him, if the Pats gave up 30 + points an additional 20% of the time?

In Rodgers' seven playoff losses, opponents have scored 248 points. 35 points a game. Pretty tough to win when the D gives up five touchdowns. The Packer offense has scored 179 points in those 7 losses. 25.6 PPG.

Here's the career post season breakdown for ppg by the Pats under Brady, and the Packers under Rodgers:

The Patriots with Brady (37 games):
1002 points scored 27.08 ppg
763 points allowed 20.62 ppg

The Packers with Rodgers (16 games):
457 points scored 28.56 ppg
417 points allowed 26.06

The Packers with Rodgers score about 1.5 more ppg than the Brady-led Patriots. But the Patriot defense gives up almost 5.5 fewer points per game (5.44 ppg) than the Packers defense behind Packers.

There's your difference. That's why Brady has five rings, and Rodgers only one, even though Aaron Rodgers has a 99.4 career playoff passer rating (5th best all-time), and Tom Brady has a 90.9 career playoff passer rating (13th best all-time).

[Peter_Spaeth]

I'd take Manning by a slight margin over Marino in the pure passer category. Subjectively/anecdotally of course, I think he was better at finding the open receiver.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

Brady is absolutely one of the greatest, but you'll never convince me he's the greatest. Not because of his rings. That's a foolish argument to make. The best passer I've ever seen was Dan Marino, and he lost the only Super Bowl he ever played in.

Winning five Super Bowls is a hell of a lot easier when you have a spectacular defense. The Pats, in their five Super Bowl wins, finished 6th, 1st, 2nd, 8th and 1st in the NFL in scoring defense. In 37 post season starts, the Pats only gave up 30 or more points in three games, and never 40 + until the Super Bowl loss to the Eagles.

Compare Brady's backing to that of an Aaron Rodgers. Rodgers is better in every individual metric there is, in both the regular season and post season, from a career standpoint, and from just 2008 forward, when Rodgers became the starter. The Packers under Rodgers have scored more points per game in the post season than the Pats have under Brady. The difference is the defense both have played with. Rodgers hasn't had a top ten defense since 2010, when the Packers won the Super Bowl (beating the NFL's top defense, Pittsburgh, in the process). He's only had a top ten defense twice-the first time was in 2009; the Packers lost Rodgers first playoff game, even though Rodgers threw for over 400 yards and 4 TD (and ran in another) because the Packer defense gave up 45 points to Kurt Warner and the Cardinals.

Much is made of Rodgers "only" having a 9-7 record in the playoffs. Well, when his defense is getting the crap kicked out of it, what can he do? His first three playoff losses, the Packer defense gave up 45 to Arizona, 37 to the New York Giants, and 45 to San Francisco. The Packers scored 96 points in those games-if you put up 32 points in a playoff game, you should win. But when the defense gives up an average of 42 +, not much you can do.

In his 16 playoff starts, the Packers have given up 40 + points three times, and 30 + five times. 31% of his starts, the Packers give up 30 +. For Brady? Four games of 30 + points given up in 37 starts, or 10.8%. Think Brady would have as many rings with that defense behind him, if the Pats gave up 30 + points an additional 20% of the time?

In Rodgers' seven playoff losses, opponents have scored 248 points. 35 points a game. Pretty tough to win when the D gives up five touchdowns. The Packer offense has scored 179 points in those 7 losses. 25.6 PPG.

Here's the career post season breakdown for ppg by the Pats under Brady, and the Packers under Rodgers:

The Patriots with Brady (37 games):
1002 points scored 27.08 ppg
763 points allowed 20.62 ppg

The Packers with Rodgers (16 games):
457 points scored 28.56 ppg
417 points allowed 26.06

The Packers with Rodgers score about 1.5 more ppg than the Brady-led Patriots. But the Patriot defense gives up almost 5.5 fewer points per game (5.44 ppg) than the Packers defense behind Packers.

There's your difference. That's why Brady has five rings, and Rodgers only one, even though Aaron Rodgers has a 99.4 career playoff passer rating (5th best all-time), and Tom Brady has a 90.9 career playoff passer rating (13th best all-time).

Agree with this. Aaron Rodgers is very underrated. I think the issue is Patriots fans are louder than anyone else. When Rodgers is done, maybe people will look back and realize how great he was.

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

Brady is absolutely one of the greatest, but you'll never convince me he's the greatest. Not because of his rings. That's a foolish argument to make. The best passer I've ever seen was Dan Marino, and he lost the only Super Bowl he ever played in.

Winning five Super Bowls is a hell of a lot easier when you have a spectacular defense. The Pats, in their five Super Bowl wins, finished 6th, 1st, 2nd, 8th and 1st in the NFL in scoring defense. In 37 post season starts, the Pats only gave up 30 or more points in three games, and never 40 + until the Super Bowl loss to the Eagles.

Compare Brady's backing to that of an Aaron Rodgers. Rodgers is better in every individual metric there is, in both the regular season and post season, from a career standpoint, and from just 2008 forward, when Rodgers became the starter. The Packers under Rodgers have scored more points per game in the post season than the Pats have under Brady. The difference is the defense both have played with. Rodgers hasn't had a top ten defense since 2010, when the Packers won the Super Bowl (beating the NFL's top defense, Pittsburgh, in the process). He's only had a top ten defense twice-the first time was in 2009; the Packers lost Rodgers first playoff game, even though Rodgers threw for over 400 yards and 4 TD (and ran in another) because the Packer defense gave up 45 points to Kurt Warner and the Cardinals.

Much is made of Rodgers "only" having a 9-7 record in the playoffs. Well, when his defense is getting the crap kicked out of it, what can he do? His first three playoff losses, the Packer defense gave up 45 to Arizona, 37 to the New York Giants, and 45 to San Francisco. The Packers scored 96 points in those games-if you put up 32 points in a playoff game, you should win. But when the defense gives up an average of 42 +, not much you can do.

In his 16 playoff starts, the Packers have given up 40 + points three times, and 30 + five times. 31% of his starts, the Packers give up 30 +. For Brady? Four games of 30 + points given up in 37 starts, or 10.8%. Think Brady would have as many rings with that defense behind him, if the Pats gave up 30 + points an additional 20% of the time?

In Rodgers' seven playoff losses, opponents have scored 248 points. 35 points a game. Pretty tough to win when the D gives up five touchdowns. The Packer offense has scored 179 points in those 7 losses. 25.6 PPG.

Here's the career post season breakdown for ppg by the Pats under Brady, and the Packers under Rodgers:

The Patriots with Brady (37 games):
1002 points scored 27.08 ppg
763 points allowed 20.62 ppg

The Packers with Rodgers (16 games):
457 points scored 28.56 ppg
417 points allowed 26.06

The Packers with Rodgers score about 1.5 more ppg than the Brady-led Patriots. But the Patriot defense gives up almost 5.5 fewer points per game (5.44 ppg) than the Packers defense behind Packers.

There's your difference. That's why Brady has five rings, and Rodgers only one, even though Aaron Rodgers has a 99.4 career playoff passer rating (5th best all-time), and Tom Brady has a 90.9 career playoff passer rating (13th best all-time).

As a Packer fan I agree, Rodgers is the best and most talented quarterback I've ever seen play. But if you were to poll most fans, experts, analysts, etc the argument for greatest of all time would be between Brady and Montana. People remember championships and the big plays that were made to win them. That's what turns a great player into a legend, or an all time great. Rodgers needs another ring or two to put his name in that discussion.