What if....

[Snake]

and to circle back to Rodgers...this isn't some prisoner of the moment thing. USC, myself, and others posted in many-a-thread on many-a-night watching Packers games and WTF'ing as we watched Rodgers do things that frankly, no one else can probably do. Maybe Mahomes. In addition to damn near perfect decision making.

There was a point, I think a few years ago, when I had the realization that Rodgers looked like the best athlete on the field despite being a 35-year-old who ran a 4.71 as a 22 year old. He, like Brady, solved the game. The difference is, Aaron is functionally mobile and can generate major velocity with a compact motion, even off platform. Versus Brady who is a long-levered expertly calibrated thrower who is best with settled feet.

[uscbucsfan]

Rodgers is the all-time best in QBR and td/int ratio through all the eras. Odd to point to completion % when Starr's was 57%, but the position has evolved Rodgers throws the football much better than Starr ever could.

Rodgers is absolutely the better QB historically.

I pointed to leading the league in completion percentage, not completion percentage itself. Odd that you failed to read what was said.

If you want to make opinion statements such as Rodgers throws the football much better than Starr ever could feel free. I am not sure I can agree or disagree because the eras were so different. That is why I said looking at stats is almost pointless. You have your opinion. I have mine. I gave you my reasons.

What you seem to fail to understand is that they passed less then and he was more inaccurate. Sure he was above his peers, but Rodgers is historically on a different level throwing the ball, more so than anyone in that generation and his current peers as Snake pointed out. Competition % is an odd stat to get hung up on, too. Without context, it's not overly important.

Picking Starr over him seems trollish. You watched YouTube clips to come up with that? Come on.

[The Outsider]

Rodgers isn't even the best Packers QB of all time. Not sure why this is being discussed.

Bring back the thumbs down please. Posts like this require it.

[Snake]

When comparing players across eras, the instinct is to compare how each player did against their respective peers. Then figure out who was more dominant. It's the only real data we have so I understand it's place in the conversation.

The only "argument" that Starr has is the rings. And the lore that exists for the players of yesteryear. Their legendary toughness and all that.

Starr was not individually dominant enough against his peers to where the rings bridge the gap with Rodgers. Rodgers is just too dominant (4 MVPs and counting), against better competition (superior athletes), and has a ring already (and maybe more to come). The man isn’t slowing down either.

[13F11B]

I pointed to leading the league in completion percentage, not completion percentage itself. Odd that you failed to read what was said.

If you want to make opinion statements such as Rodgers throws the football much better than Starr ever could feel free. I am not sure I can agree or disagree because the eras were so different. That is why I said looking at stats is almost pointless. You have your opinion. I have mine. I gave you my reasons.

What you seem to fail to understand is that they passed less then and he was more inaccurate. Sure he was above his peers, but Rodgers is historically on a different level throwing the ball, more so than anyone in that generation and his current peers as Snake pointed out. Competition % is an odd stat to get hung up on, too. Without context, it's not overly important.

Picking Starr over him seems trollish. You watched YouTube clips to come up with that? Come on.

No, I did not watch Youtube clips to come up with that. I posted them because it is impossible for you and others to travel back in time and watch him play. I am not hung up on completion percentage it was one of the items brought up. Question for you. Is throwing the ball the only component of what makes a good QB for you? If it is, great. If you think some other things are important, great. Why can't people like you acknowledge when a person has a different opinion?

[uscbucsfan]

You posted a rant and argued with 4 or 5 posters about how Rodgers is a POS for the COVID thing and how he didn't deserve MVP and then point to Starr, not Favre, who you didn't even watch and point to completion %. You have a history of bias against Rodgers and it appears to cloud your judgment.

It's a bad hill to die on and it just comes across that you hate Rodgers and are trying to sound cultured in football history.

You haven't provided enough of an argument of with playoff win %, QB rating in the post season or anything intelligent, which actually exist, that would back your claims. It seems like you were caught with your dick in your hand and decided to throw out the first thing you googled with some ad hom attacks and "It's just my opinion" to get the majority to back down.

Edit: Your "not sure why this is even discussed", negates your "we just have a different opinion" defense. It's discussed because a majority thinks Rodgers is a top 3-5 QB if all-time, including other great players and coaches.

[13F11B]

What you seem to fail to understand [snip]

No, you are just making assertions and assumptions about what I said. You are an argumentative prick.

Why not ask a question about what I think regarding the fact that they passed the ball less back then? Here, let me show you.

How do you think the different rules concerning the passing game affected Starr?
How do you think the no contact beyond five yards rule has affected the passing game?
How do you think the defenseless receiver rule has affected the passing game?
How do you feel the passing rules changes of 2008 and 2011 affected the passing game? In particular the ability to attack the middle of the field?
How did the above things impact the QB stats people talk about?

Again, for me, it is near impossible to discuss the players of previous eras to now. I truly hate people who launch idiotic attacks because people have a different opinion than they do. Try to discuss it. Ask a person why. Even if you do not agree you can at least try to understand.

So, I have the top three Green Bay QBs as:
Bart Starr
Aaron Rodgers
Brett Favre

Easier to compare Favre to Rodgers but still they are from different eras when it comes to NFL rules.

[uscbucsfan]

I did ask you why and you had nothing of substance.

So you have Starr first. Is your argument only on championships? If you were picking a Packers all-time team to play, you'd have him at QB over Rodgers or Favre? Why?

It seems you forgot this...

You even questioned how we were discussing whether or not Rodgers was great as if it were a fact he wasn't.

You got caught with a bad take and you a drowning.

Let it die.

[King Bootz]

I did not come away from watching the YouTube clips in awe of Bart Starr. I'm sure he was great for his time. But nothing about those clips gave me the impression that he was some timeless player who could cross generations. The defenders all looked slow and deliberate. Even looking at his numbers this man finished with 14 more TDs than INTs for his career. Rodgers currently has 356 more TDs than he does INTs. Put that in perspective.

[13F11B]

You posted a rant and argued with 4 or 5 posters about how Rodgers is a POS for the COVID thing and how he didn't deserve MVP and then point to Starr, not Favre, who you didn't even watch and point to completion %. You have a history of bias against Rodgers and it appears to cloud your judgment.

I think Brady earned the MVP this season. I stated in that thread, despite someone making the same claim as you are now, that my issues with Rodgers regarding the vaccine have nothing to do with my thoughts on his being the MVP or not.

It's a bad hill to die on and it just comes across that you hate Rodgers and are trying to sound cultured in football history.

Yes, I think Rodgers is a self-centered dick. That does not play a role in his being the MVP or not for me. You may want to imply that it does but that is just because you like to be an argumentative dick.

You haven't provided enough of an argument of with playoff win %, QB rating in the post season or anything intelligent, which actually exist, that would back your claims. It seems like you were caught with your dick in your hand and decided to throw out the first thing you googled with some ad hom attacks and "It's just my opinion" to get the majority to back down.

For which? Rodgers? Starr? I gave reasons for both.

Now, do I think that being a conceited unvaccinated prick should preclude Rodgers from being the MVP? No. Do I think he is the MVP this season? No.

I said that AFTER several posts where I claimed Brady was the MVP over Rodgers this year. Then OTHER people thought I was denying Rodgers an award because of my opinion of him being a prick. Despite my saying that should have nothing to do with it. I still don't think a person's personality should eliminate them from an award. However, this year I think Brady should win the MVP. More TDs, More Yards, More 1st down throws, etc. Brady led more 4th quarter comebacks. Rodgers was slightly more accurate and threw for fewer interceptions. I think it is really close this season. I personally think the shutout versus New Orlean hurt Brady more than it should have. If the weeks of the Packers game had been flipped with the Buccaneers game and the results were the same I think Rodgers would have been impacted more. Green Bay also has a better running game than the Buccaneers. Both QBs carry their teams. This season I think Brady is more of a difference-maker than Rodgers.

[13F11B]

I did not come away from watching the YouTube clips in awe of Bart Starr. I'm sure he was great for his time. But nothing about those clips gave me the impression that he was some timeless player who could cross generations. The defenders all looked slow and deliberate. Even looking at his numbers this man finished with 14 more TDs than INTs for his career. Rodgers currently has 356 more TDs than he does INTs. Put that in perspective.

Other than TDs and Interceptions what stats for a QB matter to you?

[Snake]

I, too, wouldn’t mind either QB getting the MVP.

[13F11B]

I, too, wouldn’t mind either QB getting the MVP.

I agree. I personally think it is Brady, Burrow, Rodgers this year. Burrow was just amazing this season for the Bengals. The Bengals do not have what the Packers and Buccaneers have and Burrow lifted that team to the playoffs. The difference between the three of them is small enough that I would not be upset with any of the three of them winning.

[13F11B]

Another article about Starr.

https://ftw.usatoday.com/2019/05/bart-s ... ts-packers

His career postseason passer rating of 104.8 ranks as the best in NFL history. And he’s the only quarterback in the top-25 who played before the AFL-NFL merger when passing the football was most difficult. From 1960 to 1967, which covers Starr’s postseason career in its entirety, the league-average passer rating ranged from 64.0 to 66.6. That the Packers legend compiled a rating nearly 40 points over the league average against the best competition the league had to offer is remarkable.

[uscbucsfan]

Another article about Starr.

https://ftw.usatoday.com/2019/05/bart-s ... ts-packers

His career postseason passer rating of 104.8 ranks as the best in NFL history. And he’s the only quarterback in the top-25 who played before the AFL-NFL merger when passing the football was most difficult. From 1960 to 1967, which covers Starr’s postseason career in its entirety, the league-average passer rating ranged from 64.0 to 66.6. That the Packers legend compiled a rating nearly 40 points over the league average against the best competition the league had to offer is remarkable.

I pointed that out in my post above. It was something you didn't apparently know.

That just further proves my point.

[13F11B]

I did ask you why and you had nothing of substance.

So you have Starr first. Is your argument only on championships? If you were picking a Packers all-time team to play, you'd have him at QB over Rodgers or Favre? Why?

It seems you forgot this...

No, I responded to it. Perhaps you just missed it.

[13F11B]

Another article about Starr.

https://ftw.usatoday.com/2019/05/bart-s ... ts-packers

I pointed that out in my post above. It was something you didn't apparently know.

That just further proves my point.

You asked about those stats you did not point them out. I knew them roughly but went and found an article to post so people would not claim I was making shit up. An entire side of my family is all Packers fans. I had Bart Starr stats shoved down my throat, up my ass, and in my ears for years and years while they made fun of me being a Buccaneers fan.

Sure make up a claim about what I know or don't know. Believe it makes your point. Some of you are just assholes when it comes to people who have a different opinion. Fine. This is an Internet forum. Have at it cupcake.

[Snake]

Doing some reading about Starr and the Lombardi era. Learning a few tidbits.

Packers were way better than everyone. Sometimes as many as 8-9 probowlers at a time. This went a long way in a league which only had 14-16 teams and hadn’t built up the talent acquisition apparatus that we enjoy today. Some really bad players on other teams.

[Terry Tate]

Absolutely, I don't think it changes his position much. He is like Marino in the way he just plays the position at a level no one else can. He has like 30+ NFL records and most of them are related to passer rating and efficiency.

He's probably number 3 instead of 2 in his era without a SuperBowl for me, but he's still an all-time legendary talent.

As many put when McCarthy left, GB had a bottom 5 roster and Rodgers holding them together.

Rodgers is an all time great but those records don't mean so much to me. The league he played in is not the same as the one that guys like Marino played in. He scored those records under a different ruleset than most of the other all time great QB's.

[Selmon Rules]

I pointed to leading the league in completion percentage, not completion percentage itself. Odd that you failed to read what was said.

If you want to make opinion statements such as Rodgers throws the football much better than Starr ever could feel free. I am not sure I can agree or disagree because the eras were so different. That is why I said looking at stats is almost pointless. You have your opinion. I have mine. I gave you my reasons.

What you seem to fail to understand is that they passed less then and he was more inaccurate. Sure he was above his peers, but Rodgers is historically on a different level throwing the ball, more so than anyone in that generation and his current peers as Snake pointed out. Competition % is an odd stat to get hung up on, too. Without context, it's not overly important.

Picking Starr over him seems trollish. You watched YouTube clips to come up with that? Come on.

If I had to pick a QB to play the game as it was played back in the 60's, I would take Starr over anyone... In the game as it is played today??? Not a chance in hell