ATL: Week 7

[BigDee]

Congrats to Peyton.

[BigDee]

Liking what the Broncos are doing against the 9ers.

[Kerb Hohl]

Keep kicking those field goals, Jim.

[Newz]

Would be really fun to see a Rodgers vs. Manning showdown in the Super Bowl.

[GB_Packers]

Sweet Jesus, Borland just got trucked.

[Balls2TheWalls]

Would be really fun to see a Rodgers vs. Manning showdown in the Super Bowl.

I would be terrified to watch Demarcus Ware and Von Miller rushing Rodgers on every down.

[El Duderino]

And don't start about weapons. Elite QBs get receivers massive contracts. Jennings, Decker, and so on. Tate is the closest thing he had and he was good before Wilson got there. Looking at career statistics now and the 100 passer rating is nice but it quite literally is system. 200 yards a TD or two. He's good but not elite as you touted. Luck has 3000 more yards career than RW

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using RealGM Forums mobile app

Luck right now is better than Wilson, but Luck was the first overall pick and one of the best QB prospects to come out in a long time. Saying Luck is better doesn't have to mean that Wilson isn't a really good QB that will only get better. Speaking of Luck, one thing which has bugged me a bit with him is how often the media has raved about his number of comeback wins, but they fail to mention that one reason he's had to make so many comebacks is the 34 picks he's thrown.

The other thing people need to consider with Wilson is his fabulous mobility. He saves numerous sacks each year with that great mobility and often turns those pressures instead into first downs with his feet. Those can be such back breakers to a defense. He's in many ways a much smarter Kaepernick. He rarely forces ball because he clearly understands the importance of turnovers in wins/losses and when he runs, he usually avoids big hits by getting first downs and then either sliding or getting out of bounds.

Put Wilson in a system where he had to throw the ball more and he had better weapons, i have zero doubt that his rate yardage and TD numbers would be higher. He's on a team though with a power running game and a good defense, so instead he's asked to throw less, but keep the chains moving with both his arm and legs. Don't turn the ball over.

[El Duderino]

Come on Brees.

It's amazing how the Saints and Brees have wet the bed on the road the last few years, especially when playing outdoors. Brees has been a great QB overall, but it has been an advantage to play in a dome for so much of his career. He doesn't have a great arm and i really wonder how he'd have fared playing in a cold weather city instead where he'd not only be playing home games in November/December in often rough weather, but also rough weather division road games.

[Ron Swanson]

I'm sure this is going to sound incredibly contrarian, but I put little to no stock in Peyton's TD record. Raw passing statistics have been so ridiculously inflated by modern NFL rules that it isn't even impressive anymore when someone throws for 30+ TDs and 4500+ yards. And Peyton was arguably the catalyst and chief campaigner on two separate occasions (also see 2004 playoffs vs. NE) for rule changes to inflate passing numbers.

Yeah I'll probably get grief for it, but Peyton's overrated. 1st ballot HoF player? Yes. In discussion for greatest QB of all time? Hell no.

But who am I kidding? That won't stop ESPN and NFL Network from dedicating a week long celebration of all things Peyton.

[Newz]

Not even in the discussion for greatest QB of all time? I disagree with that. He's certainly not the guy I'd take, but Manning is pretty amazing. Guys I'd take above him right now (all-time):

Rodgers
Brady
Young
Favre

I think that Marino and Montana would be close.

I could really see an argument for about ten guys depending on how someone likes to build a team. I personally like mobile QBs who can make plays with their legs and be extremely accurate on the run. With current rules I couldn't imagine taking any QB ever over Rodgers because the guy is built for today's NFL. However, if you set the rules back to 20-30 years ago, Rodgers falls down the list due to durability concerns.

I just view Brady as superior to Manning when it comes to pocket QBs. I view Marino and Manning as very similar... and I wasn't around during Montanas prime, but the guy seemed like he was pretty amazing... seems like he was a better Drew Brees, which is pretty insane.

[Siefer]

I'm not sure Rodgers is in the conversation for me. Not yet, at least. My top 5 is some ordering of:

Favre
Manning
Montana
Marino
Brady

With another 3-4 elite years, Rodgers will start to creep into the discussion.

[Newz]

I'm not sure Rodgers is in the conversation for me. Not yet, at least. My top 5 is some ordering of:

Favre
Manning
Montana
Marino
Brady

With another 3-4 elite years, Rodgers will start to creep into the discussion.

I guess I personally don't get why people are so hung up on bulk stats and a guy like Rodgers needing to prove it for longer than he already has. Isn't Rodgers ranked number one in a majority of efficiency/advanced stats all-time? Isn't he just completely obliterating the field in stats like QB Rating?

I don't get how a guy like that isn't already in the discussion. I can see not having him ranked number one... but it's pretty obvious he's just as good as the guys you listed above. (Just like those guys are just as good as him... once you start talking about guys this good, the gap between them is incredibly small)

[Ron Swanson]

I'm not sure Rodgers is in the conversation for me. Not yet, at least. My top 5 is some ordering of:

Favre
Manning
Montana
Marino
Brady

With another 3-4 elite years, Rodgers will start to creep into the discussion.

I guess I personally don't get why people are so hung up on bulk stats and a guy like Rodgers needing to prove it for longer than he already has. Isn't Rodgers ranked number one in a majority of efficiency/advanced stats all-time? Isn't he just completely obliterating the field in stats like QB Rating?

I don't get how a guy like that isn't already in the discussion. I can see not having him ranked number one... but it's pretty obvious he's just as good as the guys you listed above. (Just like those guys are just as good as him... once you start talking about guys this good, the gap between them is incredibly small)

This is the exact reason why I believe Peyton is incredibly overrated. He's the casual fan's messiah and the fantasy football player's Jordan. But for all his great regular season passing accolades, I don't understand how people can look past his postseason struggles (89.3 QB rating, 24 INT's in 23 games).

I'm not too big on the "clutch" cliche but to me, a QB who has proven time and again to drastically regress in the most important games of the year is forever disqualified from the "greatest of all time" argument. His legacy is similar to Marino's (they have almost identical postseason numbers). But Marino garnered all his stats in an era where you could hit the QB and were actually allowed to cover receivers.

Just look at the stats when Peyton won his only ring. It was because of a defense that got hot at the right time with a healthy DPOTY Bob Sanders that was the main difference maker. Peyton threw more interceptions than TD's that postseason.

Montana, Aikman, Unitas, Favre, Marino and Young are all QBs I'd take rather easily over Peyton. And that's not even counting guys still playing now (Brady & Rodgers). Highest I put him on the list is 8 or 9. I don't think that's necessarily a criticism. Being called a top 10 QB of all time is no slight, I just think there were 7-8 guys who did it better.

[Siefer]

I'm not sure Rodgers is in the conversation for me. Not yet, at least. My top 5 is some ordering of:

Favre
Manning
Montana
Marino
Brady

With another 3-4 elite years, Rodgers will start to creep into the discussion.

I guess I personally don't get why people are so hung up on bulk stats and a guy like Rodgers needing to prove it for longer than he already has. Isn't Rodgers ranked number one in a majority of efficiency/advanced stats all-time? Isn't he just completely obliterating the field in stats like QB Rating?

I don't get how a guy like that isn't already in the discussion. I can see not having him ranked number one... but it's pretty obvious he's just as good as the guys you listed above. (Just like those guys are just as good as him... once you start talking about guys this good, the gap between them is incredibly small)

It's not about bulk stats, it's about longevity and consistency. It's notable how good Manning has been, for as long as he's been that good. Rodgers' peak is as good as any of these guys, if not the best, but I'm putting a significant weight on the overall career. Now, if you asking who I'd pick to start a franchise (assuming the prime version of each player), Rodgers is on my short list.

[Newz]

It's not about bulk stats, it's about longevity and consistency. It's notable how good Manning has been, for as long as he's been that good. Rodgers' peak is as good as any of these guys, if not the best, but I'm putting a significant weight on the overall career. Now, if you asking who I'd pick to start a franchise (assuming the prime version of each player), Rodgers is on my short list.

I guess I consider the best player... the best player. Obviously they have to do it for a number of years, but how long does Rodgers have to do it before he is in the discussion?

If Rodgers goes out and gets hurt the next game, then can never play again... he's still right in the discussion for the best ever, IMO. In my opinion if I am taking a QB for the rules right now in the NFL, I think I take Rodgers over any other QB in the history of the league. If we set the rules back to 20, 30, 40 years ago? I probably take a guy like Favre, Brady or Manning because they are a little bigger and sturdier... I'd probably trust those guys to handle the punishment better than a smaller framed guy like Rodgers.

[Ayt]

Would be really fun to see a Rodgers vs. Manning showdown in the Super Bowl.

I would be terrified to watch Demarcus Ware and Von Miller rushing Rodgers on every down.

[Siefer]

It's not about bulk stats, it's about longevity and consistency. It's notable how good Manning has been, for as long as he's been that good. Rodgers' peak is as good as any of these guys, if not the best, but I'm putting a significant weight on the overall career. Now, if you asking who I'd pick to start a franchise (assuming the prime version of each player), Rodgers is on my short list.

I guess I consider the best player... the best player. Obviously they have to do it for a number of years, but how long does Rodgers have to do it before he is in the discussion?

If Rodgers goes out and gets hurt the next game, then can never play again... he's still right in the discussion for the best ever, IMO. In my opinion if I am taking a QB for the rules right now in the NFL, I think I take Rodgers over any other QB in the history of the league. If we set the rules back to 20, 30, 40 years ago? I probably take a guy like Favre, Brady or Manning because they are a little bigger and sturdier... I'd probably trust those guys to handle the punishment better than a smaller framed guy like Rodgers.

It just depends on the what we're actually talking about. Best career? I don't have Rodgers up there yet. Eight seasons just isn't enough for me to have him over guys who did it for twelve-plus when we're talking overall careers. Best at their peak? Yeah he's in the discussion. The player I'd take if I wanted to win an Owl? Again, Rodgers is right up there for me.

[Profound23]

When Favre's excuse of being the all-time INT leader was he was also the all-time TD leader.

Manning had eclipsed Favre's TD record while throwing 2/3rds the amount of INTs. I am sorry guys, I am a huge Favre fan but Manning is better and not just because of those stats.

[raysbookclub]

It's possible that only one NFC West team makes the playoffs. Right now it's Phi and Dallas both with one loss in the East, and whichever team finishes second may be 12-4 or better. In the North, it's GB and Det both with two losses, and same thing, the second place team could be 12-4 or 11-5.

In the West, Ari has one loss and Sea and SF both have three losses. Ariz and Sea still play each other twice, Sea and SF play each other twice, and Ari and SF have one game @SF. Seattle also has @KC and @Phi left, while SF also has SD, and Ari also has Phi, @Dal, and Det. Good chance the second place team has 5 or 6 losses.

It could look like:
1. Dal
2. GB
3. Ari vs wild card Det
4. Car vs wild card Phi

[Ron Swanson]

It would be so sweet to see all the media types back-pedal if the Seahawks miss out on the playoffs altogether this year (a real possibility given their schedule).

Dynasty huh? Best defense since '85 Bears huh?