It Needs To Be Said

[Yo Tee]

Since Rodgers become the starting QB, the Green Bay Packers are 6-9 without him.
Since Brady became the starting QB, the New England Patriots are 13-8 without him.

If the answer is better backups, they that goes in favor of Rodgers being more important to the Packers then Brady being more important to the Patriots. When Rodgers goes down, it's as if the whole entire team goes down with him. When Brady goes down, it doesn't seem that way. This isn't a debate on who is the better QB or who is the best QB of all time, the debate is what QB is more important to their team.

Do the Patriots win 5 Super Bowls with another QB? IDK, probably not. They probably win a couple, but probably not 5. But that coaching staff could probably make another decent QB.

Do the Packers win their Super Bowl with another QB? Hell no. Take Rodgers off the roster and you have a shell of a team that has a constant top 10 draft pick.

 

[Moab]

Who said the Bears were even mediocre last year? They sucked. Congrats on beating a horrible team last year.

Still doesn't change the fact that the Packers are mediocre without AR. BTW, I know you and other Packer fans will lose your shit but... The Packers window is closing, fast. Remember last season? Get used to it.

My guess is if we go back to 2002 or so, you were saying the exact same thing about he Packers and Favre. I'm not worried about it one way or the other, just enjoying the ride.

 

[sonnyblack65]

Rodgers and Brady are has beens Mahomes and Fitzpatrick are the guys now

 

[Schmoopy1000]

Believe it was Cave johnson said.
The key here is who is more important (not who is better)

If the Packers lose Rodgers, the fans all know their fucked!

If the Patriots lose Brady the fans still think they can win. Only change is they might not make the superbowl.

Pretty clear even to the fans. Although some might not want to admit. Rodgers is more important to the packers team than Brady is to the Patriots.

 

[nebearsfan70]

My guess is if we go back to 2002 or so, you were saying the exact same thing about he Packers and Favre. I'm not worried about it one way or the other, just enjoying the ride.

Of course I was... [Sarcasm].

Not worried about it? Then why respond to my post?

Yes, enjoy the ride. It's almost over.

 

[nebearsfan70]

Believe it was Cave johnson said.
The key here is who is more important (not who is better)

If the Packers lose Rodgers, the fans all know their fucked!

If the Patriots lose Brady the fans still think they can win. Only change is they might not make the superbowl.

Pretty clear even to the fans. Although some might not want to admit. Rodgers is more important to the packers team than Brady is to the Patriots.

This.

 

[Moab]

If you're not washing Brady's balls with all your posts, I guess you shouldn't post... they're a damn insecure bunch...no doubt about it

 

[Moab]

Of course I was... [Sarcasm].

Not worried about it? Then why respond to my post?

Yes, enjoy the ride. It's almost over.

I'm good with him making the Bears look inept for 4 or 5 more years, are you?

 

[Rockinkuwait]

Yes. Because that doesn't happen when Rodgers goes down.

And that proves that Cassell was a better backup to Brady than Hundley was to Rodgers which I don

Since Rodgers become the starting QB, the Green Bay Packers are 6-9 without him.
Since Brady became the starting QB, the New England Patriots are 13-8 without him.

If the answer is better backups, they that goes in favor of Rodgers being more important to the Packers then Brady being more important to the Patriots. When Rodgers goes down, it's as if the whole entire team goes down with him. When Brady goes down, it doesn't seem that way. This isn't a debate on who is the better QB or who is the best QB of all time, the debate is what QB is more important to their team.

Do the Patriots win 5 Super Bowls with another QB? IDK, probably not. They probably win a couple, but probably not 5. But that coaching staff could probably make another decent QB.

Do the Packers win their Super Bowl with another QB? Hell no. Take Rodgers off the roster and you have a shell of a team that has a constant top 10 draft pick.

Well it also depends on where value is.

Since Rodgers took over the Packers likely without him would be at 12 NFL championships instead of 13.

Since Brady took over the Patriots, when Belichick was losing his way out of NE, the Patriots would likely be at 0 championships instead of 5.

The value of Brady in NE vs. Rodgers in GB you could say is so much higher. Remember, Belichick as a head coach had 5 losing years in his 6 seasons as a head coach, and was off to an 0-2 start after making Bledsoe the highest paid QB in NFL history.

We can say that staff is great, but is it? What are Belichick, McDaniels, Rob Ryan, Mangini, Crennel, Weiss, etc doing without Brady? Are we saying Buffalo is an offensive beast since they have Brian Daboll there? Pioli took the Chiefs to 2-14 as a GM. Jeff Davidson led the worst offense in the league when he got to be Carolina's O-cord.

What about that coaching staff minus Brady years is so impressive?

 

[Yo Tee]

And that proves that Cassell was a better backup to Brady than Hundley was to Rodgers which I don



Well it also depends on where value is.

Since Rodgers took over the Packers likely without him would be at 12 NFL championships instead of 13.

Since Brady took over the Patriots, when Belichick was losing his way out of NE, the Patriots would likely be at 0 championships instead of 5.

The value of Brady in NE vs. Rodgers in GB you could say is so much higher. Remember, Belichick as a head coach had 5 losing years in his 6 seasons as a head coach, and was off to an 0-2 start after making Bledsoe the highest paid QB in NFL history.

We can say that staff is great, but is it? What are Belichick, McDaniels, Rob Ryan, Mangini, Crennel, Weiss, etc doing without Brady? Are we saying Buffalo is an offensive beast since they have Brian Daboll there? Pioli took the Chiefs to 2-14 as a GM. Jeff Davidson led the worst offense in the league when he got to be Carolina's O-cord.

What about that coaching staff minus Brady years is so impressive?

1996, the final year of Parcells, the Patriots won their division and made it to the Super Bowl but lost the Super Bowl

1997, the first year of Pete Carroll, they won their division but lost in the divisional round

1998, they lost in the first round of the playoffs

99 and 2000, they missed the playoffs.

2001, Brady comes around and the rest is history.

But don't act like the Patriots JUST became good because of Brady. The Patriots made the playoffs 4 out of the 7 years prior to Brady becoming the starter. Brady has made the Patriots a much better franchise, but it's not like the Patriots were the Cleveland Browns of the 90's before Brady.

Lets also not forget that Belichick took the Browns to the playoffs in 1994. He took a Browns team that was 6-10 and turned them into an 11-5 team in 4 years and he got his first playoff win in 1994 against Parcells and the Patriots. So Belichick wasn't just some bum that they put in that position.

 

[Dude]

If you're not washing Brady's balls with all your posts, I guess you shouldn't post... they're a damn insecure bunch...no doubt about it

This is a funny post as it happens both ways. It seems like Packer fans, with few exceptions, are doing the same thing with Rodgers.

 

[Dude]

Since Rodgers become the starting QB, the Green Bay Packers are 6-9 without him.
Since Brady became the starting QB, the New England Patriots are 13-8 without him.

If the answer is better backups, they that goes in favor of Rodgers being more important to the Packers then Brady being more important to the Patriots. When Rodgers goes down, it's as if the whole entire team goes down with him. When Brady goes down, it doesn't seem that way. This isn't a debate on who is the better QB or who is the best QB of all time, the debate is what QB is more important to their team.

There are many angles and spins you can put on it, but frankly, it's not about which QB is more important to the team, but how good the team is without their star QB. Without a doubt, the Pats are more concerned with building a good team, beyond the QB position.

 

[Rockinkuwait]

1996, the final year of Parcells, the Patriots won their division and made it to the Super Bowl but lost the Super Bowl

1997, the first year of Pete Carroll, they won their division but lost in the divisional round

1998, they lost in the first round of the playoffs

99 and 2000, they missed the playoffs.

2001, Brady comes around and the rest is history.

But don't act like the Patriots JUST became good because of Brady. The Patriots made the playoffs 4 out of the 7 years prior to Brady becoming the starter. Brady has made the Patriots a much better franchise, but it's not like the Patriots were the Cleveland Browns of the 90's before Brady.

Lets also not forget that Belichick took the Browns to the playoffs in 1994. He took a Browns team that was 6-10 and turned them into an 11-5 team in 4 years and he got his first playoff win in 1994 against Parcells and the Patriots. So Belichick wasn't just some bum that they put in that position.

Ahhh yes.. .That 7-16 record in their previous 23 games was so good in NE. But if we are going off that, Rodgers took over a team that was an OT play away from beating the eventual SB champs in the NFC championship game.




Belichick was on his way to his 6th losing season in 7 years before Brady. Lets not pretend this is good. 41-57 HC record, 1 post-season in 6 full years.

That's between Dennis Erickson and Dick Jauron in win rate up till he started Brady. It's almost identical to Eric Mangini's coaching record as a head coach.

In 6 seasons with the Browns he won 4 more games than Crennel was on pace for with them over 6 years.

2 more games than Butch Davis was on pace for over 6 years. Butch Davis took half as long as Belichick to get the Browns to the post-season. And came within a play of knocking off the Steelers with their backup QB.

Being 1/3 a win a year better than Butch Davis with the Browns doesn't excite me.

I'm sorry but Belichick as a head coach pre-brady was not good. He had never coached a top ten offense... until 2001. What happened that year to change his career so drastically?

 

[Dude]

Believe it was Cave johnson said.
The key here is who is more important (not who is better)

If the Packers lose Rodgers, the fans all know their fucked!

If the Patriots lose Brady the fans still think they can win. Only change is they might not make the superbowl.

Pretty clear even to the fans. Although some might not want to admit. Rodgers is more important to the packers team than Brady is to the Patriots.

Because the Pats know how to build a better team and do not bet eveything on their QB.

 

[Rockinkuwait]

1996, the final year of Parcells, the Patriots won their division and made it to the Super Bowl but lost the Super Bowl

1997, the first year of Pete Carroll, they won their division but lost in the divisional round

1998, they lost in the first round of the playoffs

99 and 2000, they missed the playoffs.

2001, Brady comes around and the rest is history.

But don't act like the Patriots JUST became good because of Brady. The Patriots made the playoffs 4 out of the 7 years prior to Brady becoming the starter. Brady has made the Patriots a much better franchise, but it's not like the Patriots were the Cleveland Browns of the 90's before Brady.

Lets also not forget that Belichick took the Browns to the playoffs in 1994. He took a Browns team that was 6-10 and turned them into an 11-5 team in 4 years and he got his first playoff win in 1994 against Parcells and the Patriots. So Belichick wasn't just some bum that they put in that position.

But please, don't tell me a team going from 11 wins, to 10 wins, to 9 wins, to 8 wins, to 5 wins, to an 0-2 start is "becoming good" and Brady was just there for the ride when they go 14-3 the rest of the way that year.

 

[Schmoopy1000]

Because the Pats know how to build a better team and do not bet eveything on their QB.

& I wouldnt argue that

 

[Yo Tee]

But please, don't tell me a team going from 11 wins, to 10 wins, to 9 wins, to 8 wins, to 5 wins, to an 0-2 start is "becoming good" and Brady was just there for the ride when they go 14-3 the rest of the way that year.

All I'm sayin is the Green Bay Packers are a shell of themselves when one guy leaves the field. The Patriots were fine without Brady for those 4 games he was suspended a few years ago. Green Bay lost Jordy Nelson one year and were practically fine without him. They lose Rodgers and they fall the fuck apart on both sides of the ball.

 

[Rex Racer]

Folks, Let's be honest, there is no way to compare Brady vs. Rodgers with an equal supporting cast of offensive players.

For the most part Brady has been protected by a good offensive line and Rodgers has not had this luxury. We will never know what Rodgers stats might be if he had been the PATS QB during the Brady years. We will never know what Brady's stats might be if he had been the Packers QB during this same period of time so we are debating nonsense here. All I can say is that I have seen both of these QBs make many fabulous plays.

Offensive line pass protection looks a LOT different depending on the QB here.

Take Pats in 07-09. Same starters on that line. Light, Koppen, Mankins, Neal, Kaczur.

07 Brady 21 sacks to 578 pass attempts
08 Cassel 47 sacks to 516 pass attempts
09 Brady 16 sacks to 565 pass attempts

Same a couple years ago when Brady was suspended for 4 games
Pats w/o Brady gave up 9 sacks in 4 games without Brady, and 15 in the 12 games with him.

QB's not trying to extend plays make it easier on their lines (only block a spot 5 yards behind center for 3 seconds) than ones looking to evade the rush and extend the play. Its a risk that comes with the reward of more athletic QB's.

Both are elite QB's though.

There you have it. One guy (Brady) knows hows to read defense and is very adept at getting the ball to right place in quick fashion. Rodgers doesn't have that skill, he needs several seconds more to figure out what the hell is going on and by then the O-line protection has already broken down.

 

[Yo Tee]

There you have it. One guy (Brady) knows hows to read defense and is very adept at getting the ball to right place in quick fashion. Rodgers doesn't have that skill, he needs several seconds more to figure out what the hell is going on and by then the O-line protection has already broken down.

Tom Brady is the greatest QB of our time and he is rivaling Joe Montana as the greatest quarterback of all time. Noone is debating that. The debate is who is more important to their team and if a team can muster up a 10+ win season or a winning record with a backup QB, you aren't as important to your team as a guy who, when he's not on the field, his team shits the bed and has a losing record.

 

[Rockinkuwait]

There you have it. One guy (Brady) knows hows to read defense and is very adept at getting the ball to right place in quick fashion. Rodgers doesn't have that skill, he needs several seconds more to figure out what the hell is going on and by then the O-line protection has already broken down.

Not what I said. Rodgers gets the ball out quick, especially more the past few years. But when the play starts to break down, Brady will dump and take the 2 yard checkdown or toss it away. Rodgers will try and extend the play to pick up the 30 yard breakdown play. With that chance of the big play, comes the larger chance of a sack.

Just because Steve Young, Russell Wilson, or Alex Smith have higher sack rates than pocket guys like Eli Manning, Derek Andersen, or Derek Carr, doesn't mean they aren't as skilled throwing the ball or reading defenses.

Take last year. Rodgers had 51.3% of his pass attempts thrown within 2.5 seconds. Brady only 49%. Rodgers got the ball out quicker more often right? But look at time to sack... Rodgers was only behind Wilson, Cam, Brissett, Tyrod Taylor. Sacks taken not by pass rush just beating the lineman, but him attempting to extend play.

Hope that makes sense.