Who is Karim Garcia?Mark Schofield said:I'm just glad Karim Garcia found work. Even if it is breaking down NFL QBs.
Who is Karim Garcia?Mark Schofield said:I'm just glad Karim Garcia found work. Even if it is breaking down NFL QBs.
Seels said:I personally think it's insane to put anyone in the same breath as Peyton and Tom except Rodgers. Honestly I'm not even sure Rodgers belongs there. These are the two greatest ever and aside from some arm strength there is no noticeable difference between them now and them 5 or 10 years ago. Luck isn't remotely close and he's probably #4.
I'm not even sure Rodgers is in the conversation really, passer rating be damned. That dude takes a lot of sacks, has played in the worst division in his conference most of his career, and has a knack for being a bit less than clutch. Rodgers is an outstanding athlete with amazing tools but aside from his MVP season I don't think he's Manning and Brady.
Deathofthebambino said:
This is exactly right. I feel like I'm making a similar argument to the one I made in the "build the best Pats team" thread with respect to AV/Ghost. The argument against Brady and Manning in conversations like this boils down to nothing more than people are tired of them, and people want to believe that the "young guns" are finally surpassing them. It's the same reason that Barry Bonds didn't win every single MVP award, or Lebron, or Sydney Crosby. They are clearly the best players in their respective sports, but people eventually want to change it up. At some point, those folks will be right, but not yet. One of them makes it to the Super Bowl basically ever year, and they are the odds on favorites of getting their teams to the Super Bowl this year.
People can argue that their arm strength is diminishing, and in Manning's case, I would agree, but to my eye, it doesn't appear to be affecting him at all. He puts balls literally in the exact spot that they need to be almost every single time he throws the ball. Whether or not it's getting there a little slower than before means absolutely fucking nothing in a debate about whether or not he's still one of the best QB's in the league. As for Brady, I will argue to my death that if you hooked Tom Brady up to a radar gun right now, you would find out that his arm strength hasn't gone down one bit, and in fact, is stronger now than it was in 2001 or 2002. Jesus Christ, go look at some of the throws he's made the past few weeks and tell me he doesn't have the arm strength he's always had. Againn, who gives a flying fuck if his arm isn't as strong as Rodgers or someone else's. Michael Vick has one of the strongest arm this planet has ever seen, but it doesn't mean he's anywhere near this conversation. It's just a fucking stupid anecdotal argument that people have to make when nothing else will work for them.
And mobility? Since when were Tom Brady or Peyton Manning mobile? I don't want either of them running anything more than a QB sneak as a fan of the NFL. However, I will take their mobility and awareness in the pocket (particularly Brady) and compare it to anyone in this league, whether we are talking about now, or the history of the NFL. That's what makes a great QB. Again, Michael Vick was the greatest running QB the league has ever seen, and Wilson has done some great things with his legs this year, but don't even try to tell me that Chris Simms or anyone else would want one of them starting the Super Bowl for their team this year over Brady or Manning.
When I read a question like "Pick the top 5 QB's in the league," I think to myself "Who would I want to start in the Super Bowl if I could pick anyone in the league right now?" Any answer other than Brady or Manning to that question is just plain irrational. And if that doesn't make them numbers 1 and 2 in whatever order you choose, I don't know what does.
Rodgers is at least as good of a pick as Manning and Brady if you had to win one game today.Deathofthebambino said:This is exactly right. I feel like I'm making a similar argument to the one I made in the "build the best Pats team" thread with respect to AV/Ghost. The argument against Brady and Manning in conversations like this boils down to nothing more than people are tired of them, and people want to believe that the "young guns" are finally surpassing them. It's the same reason that Barry Bonds didn't win every single MVP award, or Lebron, or Sydney Crosby. They are clearly the best players in their respective sports, but people eventually want to change it up. At some point, those folks will be right, but not yet. One of them makes it to the Super Bowl basically ever year, and they are the odds on favorites of getting their teams to the Super Bowl this year.
People can argue that their arm strength is diminishing, and in Manning's case, I would agree, but to my eye, it doesn't appear to be affecting him at all. He puts balls literally in the exact spot that they need to be almost every single time he throws the ball. Whether or not it's getting there a little slower than before means absolutely fucking nothing in a debate about whether or not he's still one of the best QB's in the league. As for Brady, I will argue to my death that if you hooked Tom Brady up to a radar gun right now, you would find out that his arm strength hasn't gone down one bit, and in fact, is stronger now than it was in 2001 or 2002. Jesus Christ, go look at some of the throws he's made the past few weeks and tell me he doesn't have the arm strength he's always had. Againn, who gives a flying fuck if his arm isn't as strong as Rodgers or someone else's. Michael Vick has one of the strongest arm this planet has ever seen, but it doesn't mean he's anywhere near this conversation. It's just a fucking stupid anecdotal argument that people have to make when nothing else will work for them.
And mobility? Since when were Tom Brady or Peyton Manning mobile? I don't want either of them running anything more than a QB sneak as a fan of the NFL. However, I will take their mobility and awareness in the pocket (particularly Brady) and compare it to anyone in this league, whether we are talking about now, or the history of the NFL. That's what makes a great QB. Again, Michael Vick was the greatest running QB the league has ever seen, and Wilson has done some great things with his legs this year, but don't even try to tell me that Chris Simms or anyone else would want one of them starting the Super Bowl for their team this year over Brady or Manning.
When I read a question like "Pick the top 5 QB's in the league," I think to myself "Who would I want to start in the Super Bowl if I could pick anyone in the league right now?" Any answer other than Brady or Manning to that question is just plain irrational. And if that doesn't make them numbers 1 and 2 in whatever order you choose, I don't know what does.
Simms’s inclusion of Wilson is outright lunacy. The sack rates are significant considering the 26-year-old Seattle quarterback’s calling card is superior mobility (an NFL-best 7.6 yards per carry on QB rushes), yet he hasn’t been able to avoid takedowns for losses on a relative scale. He lags far behind the others in every important statistical category. Wilson was deservedly lauded for leading the Seahawks to a Super Bowl title, but it appears he has become thoroughly overrated by pundits like Simms.
Simms’s inclusion of Wilson is outright lunacy. The sack rates are significant considering the 26-year-old Seattle quarterback’s calling card is superior mobility (an NFL-best 7.6 yards per carry on QB rushes), yet he hasn’t been able to avoid takedowns for losses on a relative scale. He lags far behind the others in every important statistical category. Wilson was deservedly lauded for leading the Seahawks to a Super Bowl title, but it appears he has become thoroughly overrated by pundits like Simms.
Not the point of this discussion, but Gost is so much better than every other kicker it is amazing.RFDA2000 said:Don't know how to link the image from my mobile, but an interesting chart in this article that graphs win % vs expected win % of some of the QBs mentioned here.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/skeptical-football-special-midterm-edition/
Stitch01 said:Rodgers is at least as good of a pick as Manning and Brady if you had to win one game today.
Deathofthebambino said:
As a quarterback and guy who can throw the football. Sure.
As a guy who steps up on the biggest stages, with massive pressure, has the ability to bring his team back from behind, etc. and basically do those things that separate great QB's from all time great QB's? Not so sure. If i was starting a team tomorrow, Rodgers is probably my guy. But, if the Super Bowl was tomorrow and I could pick any of those three guys to lead my team. I'm going Brady, Manning, Rodgers, in that order, and based on their career history (and recent history for that matter), I don't think it's all that close. In four months, Rodgers may well have led the Packers to a Super Bowl win, and at that point, I'll happily switch my order around to Rodgers, Brady, Manning, but he's just not there yet.
coremiller said:
This is a silly argument. Did you forget that Rodgers has already won a Super Bowl, in which he was voted MVP with a line of 24-39/303/3/0? And that Green Bay won three playoff road games to get there? And that his career playoff passer rating is 103.1, the second highest of all time (behind Bart Starr)? Passer rating is an imperfect measure and that doesn't factor in era adjustments, but the idea that Rodgers somehow doesn't get it done when it matters, or hasn't proven he can handle playoff pressure, is laughable.
Shelterdog said:
He was pretty damn good in 2010 but has otherwise been less impressive--1-4 record as a stater, one and done three times including two home losses (one as the one seed--and he played like shit in that game).
That Giants team made a lot of QBs look bad. Using W/L record is also very deceptive, especially if it's with the proviso that we're not considering the year he went 4-0. Has Rodgers ever lost a playoff game when he clearly had the better team? That game against the Giants comes closest but I'm not sure his team was actually better in retrospect. He definitely had the worse team against the 49ers both years. And knocking him at all for anything in that Arizona game is ridiculous.Shelterdog said:
He was pretty damn good in 2010 but has otherwise been less impressive--1-4 record as a stater, one and done three times including two home losses (one as the one seed--and he played like shit in that game).
Consensus on good football boards without team affiliations is Manning, Rodgers (gap) Brady.Deathofthebambino said:As a quarterback and guy who can throw the football. Sure.
As a guy who steps up on the biggest stages, with massive pressure, has the ability to bring his team back from behind, etc. and basically do those things that separate great QB's from all time great QB's? Not so sure. If i was starting a team tomorrow, Rodgers is probably my guy. But, if the Super Bowl was tomorrow and I could pick any of those three guys to lead my team. I'm going Brady, Manning, Rodgers, in that order, and based on their career history (and recent history for that matter), I don't think it's all that close. In four months, Rodgers may well have led the Packers to a Super Bowl win, and at that point, I'll happily switch my order around to Rodgers, Brady, Manning, but he's just not there yet.
Morgan's Magic Snowplow said:That Giants team made a lot of QBs look bad. Using W/L record is also very deceptive, especially if it's with the proviso that we're not considering the year he went 4-0. Has Rodgers ever lost a playoff game when he clearly had the better team? That game against the Giants comes closest but I'm not sure his team was actually better in retrospect. He definitely had the worse team against the 49ers both years. And knocking him at all for anything in that Arizona game is ridiculous.
Loved these charts and wish they had a version for just playoff games to put some data behind this playoff performance argument.RFDA2000 said:Don't know how to link the image from my mobile, but an interesting chart in this article that graphs win % vs expected win % of some of the QBs mentioned here.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/skeptical-football-special-midterm-edition/
Yours is an arguable position. I'm not sure I agree with Rodgers over Brady, but this part of it is a real weak link. Terrible, in fact.coremiller said:Rodgers had the advantage of playing at home, but Brady had much better conditions -- the GB-NYG game was played in 20mph winds with a 19 degree wind chill.
Mugsy's Walk-Off Bunt said:Yours is an arguable position. I'm not sure I agree with Rodgers over Brady, but this part of it is a real weak link. Terrible, in fact.
Edit: misspelling
coremiller said:
I don't see your point. All I'm saying is that Rodgers did about the same against that defense as Brady did three weeks later, and while it wasn't Brady's best game no one thinks Brady stunk up the joint in that Super Bowl. This is all within the context of people arguing that that game against the Giants was Rodgers' worst playoff performance. My point is just that, if that's his worst performance, then he's a pretty damn good playoff QB, contrary to the "Rodgers isn't a proven playoff QB" narrative that has suddenly sprung up around here for inexplicable reasons.
Shelterdog said:
No one is saying he sucks or anything like that, the question is whether he's number 1, 2, or 3 on your wish list of playoff QBs.
Deathofthebambino said:
As a quarterback and guy who can throw the football. Sure.
As a guy who steps up on the biggest stages, with massive pressure, has the ability to bring his team back from behind, etc. and basically do those things that separate great QB's from all time great QB's? Not so sure. If i was starting a team tomorrow, Rodgers is probably my guy. But, if the Super Bowl was tomorrow and I could pick any of those three guys to lead my team. I'm going Brady, Manning, Rodgers, in that order, and based on their career history (and recent history for that matter), I don't think it's all that close. In four months, Rodgers may well have led the Packers to a Super Bowl win, and at that point, I'll happily switch my order around to Rodgers, Brady, Manning, but he's just not there yet.
Seels said:I personally think it's insane to put anyone in the same breath as Peyton and Tom except Rodgers. Honestly I'm not even sure Rodgers belongs there. These are the two greatest ever and aside from some arm strength there is no noticeable difference between them now and them 5 or 10 years ago. Luck isn't remotely close and he's probably #4.
I'm not even sure Rodgers is in the conversation really, passer rating be damned. That dude takes a lot of sacks, has played in the worst division in his conference most of his career, and has a knack for being a bit less than clutch. Rodgers is an outstanding athlete with amazing tools but aside from his MVP season I don't think he's Manning and Brady.
rodderick said:
Right now Rodgers is the best passer in the league hands down, but If I'm down 7 with 5 minutes to go in a big game I'll take Brady over him. So my answer is "no", but I don't think the diffeence is big between him and the top guy.
rodderick said:
I believe he never won a game when trailing by 9 points or more in the second half. That's pretty bad for a quarterback of his level. Obviously, it doesn't fall solely on his shoulders, but watching him play I feel like he lacks the "fuck it, gotta make a play at any cost now" mentality that guys like Manning or Brady have when push comes to shove. I mean, does any fanbase in football feel safe going into the second half up 9 against Brady/Manning or even Luck?
My point was, and is, that it's really silly to cap off your otherwise arguable-ish post with, "I mean, sure, Rodgers WAS PLAYING AT HOME AND ALL, but..." 'cause you're glossing over it like HFA is some minor factor, just because Brady played in better conditions.coremiller said:I don't see your point. All I'm saying is that Rodgers did about the same against that defense as Brady did three weeks later, and while it wasn't Brady's best game no one thinks Brady stunk up the joint in that Super Bowl. This is all within the context of people arguing that that game against the Giants was Rodgers' worst playoff performance. My point is just that, if that's his worst performance, then he's a pretty damn good playoff QB, contrary to the "Rodgers isn't a proven playoff QB" narrative that has suddenly sprung up around here for inexplicable reasons.
Ralphwiggum said:This is one of the worst BBTL threads in years
It's really just 2013. This year Brady is putting up numbers that basically match up with anybody. In 2012, he threw for 4827 yards, 34 TDs / 8 INTs (leading the NFL in EPA) and the Patriots led the NFL in scoring and yardage. I don't have a problem with someone preferring Rodgers or Manning over Brady, but if you're leaving #12 out of the conversation you're putting too much weight on one season, IMO - and one where there were tons of extenuating circumstances and the Patriots still finished 3rd in points, 7th in yards, and went 12-4.Stitch01 said:Consensus on good football boards without team affiliations is Manning, Rodgers (gap) Brady.
I probably flip between Manning and Rodgers. Brady is great but hard for me to argue for him to start over Manning or Rodgers given his performance in the regular season over the last several years has been weaker and all have had their share of playoff hits and misses.
His numbers still trail both players this year, but could change obviously based on current trends. Its not a huge gap but its there.Super Nomario said:It's really just 2013. This year Brady is putting up numbers that basically match up with anybody. In 2012, he threw for 4827 yards, 34 TDs / 8 INTs (leading the NFL in EPA) and the Patriots led the NFL in scoring and yardage. I don't have a problem with someone preferring Rodgers or Manning over Brady, but if you're leaving #12 out of the conversation you're putting too much weight on one season, IMO - and one where there were tons of extenuating circumstances and the Patriots still finished 3rd in points, 7th in yards, and went 12-4.
coremiller said:
Well, people are claiming that he's not "clutch", and arguing that Brady and Manning are better because they are more "clutch". This is dumb.
Ralphwiggum said:This is one of the worst BBTL threads in years
I think this came up in a different thread:riboflav said:
Let me help you:
1. Luck (ignore the interception per game)
2. Rodgers
3. Manning (Peyton not Eli)
4. Big Ben
5. Brees
6. Flacco
7. Wilson
8. Rivers
9. Stafford
10. Hoyer
11. Tanny
12. Brady (in a tie with...)
12. Colin
EDIT: Forgot Rivers
Double EDIT: Shit, forgot Stafford